After rooting through several blogs, i found a brilliant post on the UN report which says that 300,000 deaths are caused by Jolobial Warmin’ every year.
Oh, one other thing, every time you think about free speach, a leftie dies.
After rooting through several blogs, i found a brilliant post on the UN report which says that 300,000 deaths are caused by Jolobial Warmin’ every year.
Oh, one other thing, every time you think about free speach, a leftie dies.
He claimed £5 for money he put in a Church Collection. Has to be Labour of course. Even the Tories would not do that.
Frank Cook. Hmmmm. Does not think people should have guns…unsound a priori.
This is a sort of roundup…
…I wonder what other countries think of us these days.
But it will get lost, in the media-furore against the Tory claimers….true that their claims have been bizarre and astonishingly ill-judged against the possibility that they might all come out, but I think the general principle holds still, that GramscoMarxiaNazis still have their hands more firmly rooted inside the back recesses of the till than Tories do, or have done. Tory MP-scammism was, rightly and originally, about getting lovely sex with younger women, who posed as “parliamentary secretaries”, since young Tories all wore pinstriped suits, Bengal Shirts and silk ties all the time, and were estate agents and could not therefore pull girls. But in default of being able to do that, what was needed could be called in anyway just over the phone if you were an MP: I don’t know why they could not have stuck to the model (in a manner of speaking.)
No averagely-pretty young woman would, I feel sure, agree to be shagged by a socialist in any case, and assuredly not even for ready money or expenses. the current appearance of “Blair Babes” corroborates this hypothesis.
I can’t think people like Keeley Hazell and all her clones would be so base.
Woz it really that Reynhard Heydrich fellow in the audience? I thought he’d been wasted by those Czechoslovak chaps.
MP’s expences can now be seen from space. They realy can’t hide from the taxpayers any more.
When Frankie uttered these famous words it was a cue. A hint that even though he appeared to be discussing/taking something very, very seriously, it was expected that you, the punter, should look a little deeper, chuckle at the humour that was thrown your way and wait patiently for the punchline. His true art was to play with words. He could turn an innocent statement into a comedy classic with out blinking.
Today the Squids and I went to an open day at a local Marine Barracks. Doing assault courses. Watching loonies in full Marine kit drop to the ground (via a 200ft long rope) from a helicopter. Climbing all over tanks and vast quantities of sunshine, sea air, fizzy pop, ice cream and face painting made for a fantastic day out – not sure what the Squids got up to but I’m sure they enjoyed it too.
When we got home, in the post, I had received a flyer. It contained a ‘personal letter’. In the interests of (attempted) accuracy, I have included all CAPITALS and bold highlighting. I have changed the (Labour Candidates) name to protect the innocent. As for the other (do-nothing) guy, the flyer doesn’t actually mention his name.
The flyer was titled
COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTION SPECIAL.
Thursday June 4th Time To Choose Between JOE BLOGGS OUR ALL YEAR ROUND HARD WORKING COUNCILLOR or the stay-at-home do-nothing Tory.
Local Mummy’s Town resident Joe Bloggs is the Labour Candidate at this election.
This is followed by Joe Bloggs’s CV guff. Then it says,
JOE BLOGGS believes in:-
Lots of Nu Labour guff such as cleaner greener, by-passes, glass recycling, tough policing, economic development,young people and of course value for money.
Then it says :-
Do you realise that at many Council Meetings many Councillors NEVER speak and sometimes NEVER even bother to turn up?-You can rest assured that JOE is always there speaking up for our local residents.
Then it says:-
4 THINGS TO REMEMBER AT THIS ELECTION……………………….
1. Joe Bloggs is the only only candidate at this election with a proven track record of service and action. Joe is respected for not indulging in the lies, smears and innuendos so common in local politics.
2. Joe LIVES IN MUMMY’S TOWN and is aware of local issues that affect you.
3. Everyone knows that Joe Bloggs works hard all the year round NOT JUST WHEN HE WANTS YOUR VOTE.
4. Joe Bloggs is the Candidate with the MOST EXPERIENCE STANDING IN THIS ELECTION
So that’s the front page – same old, same old. The back is filled with 4 or 5 sections highlighting important things going on in Mummy’s Town that have pissed all the residents off (big stylee) and what good old Joe would do about them.
So is this worth a titter – well a little. There are a couple of quirky bits, like well, being him being a Labour Candidate, plus his statement Joe is respected for not indulging in the lies, smears and innuendos so common in local politics - having just slagged off the local Tory Candidate and stating that most Councillors were lazy bags of shite. Joe you is Red, through and through.
How ever. Inside this flyer was the personal (see standard computer print out) letter. It was in an envelope and everything. The letter was filled with pretty much the same guff as the flyer but with one extra special bit. Like all classic comedians Joe Bloggs saved his punchline till the very end. It was classy, to the point but very understated. Right now, I am having visions of Frankie, Eric Morecambe and Les Dawson giving this guy a spiritual standing ovation.
Right down the bottom it says:-
Please remember you are not voting for the Government today. You are voting for someone to speak up for you on the County Council.
Now it may be the sun, it may be the fizzy pop, it may even be close proximity to a bunch of sweaty Marines, but I found this simple statement that funniest fucking thing I have read in ages.
Yes this is a double post – again – I’m sorry.
What is the Ruling Class?
By Sean Gabb
A Paper Given on Sunday the 24th May 2009
to the Fourth Annual Conference
of the Property and Freedom Society
in the Hotel Karia Princess in Bodrum, Turkey
In giving this paper, I make no pretence to originality of thought. Everything I am saying today has been said already – usually better, and always in greater detail – by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, by Roderick Long, by Kevin Carson, by Christian Michel, and by many others. If I can contribute anything to the libertarian analysis of class, it is brevity alone.
Libertarians often define a ruling class as that group of politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, businessmen, therapists, educators and media people who derive income and position from the State. By definition, so far as such people operate as members of a ruling class, they are parasitic on the efforts of ordinary people. Their position comes from forcing others to act as they would not freely choose, or by excluding them from activities they might freely choose. Their income is based on forced transfers of wealth.
The size and activities of a ruling class will be determined by the physical resources it can extract from the people, by the amount of force it can use against them, and by the nature and acceptance of the ideology that legitimises its existence. None of these determinants by itself will be decisive, but each is a necessary factor. Change any one, and the working of the other two will be limited or wholly checked.
Of these determinants, the ideological are the most open to control and change. In the short term, resources are fixed in quantity. At any time, the amount of force available will be limited. What will always interest ruling classes, therefore, is the nature and acceptance of its legitimising ideology. This will vary according to circumstances that are not fully within the control of any ruling class. It may involve averting the Divine Wrath, or promoting acceptance of the True Faith, or protecting the nation from external or external enemies, or raising the condition of the poor, or making us healthier, or saving the planet from us. The claims of the ideology may, in other times and places, seem unfounded or insane. What they generally have in common is the need for an active state directed by the right sort of people.
Since the function of these ideologies is to justify theft or murder or both, they need to be promoted by endless repetition – which is a valid form of argument if truth is less important than winning – and by at least the discouragement of dissent. Efficient promotion will produce a discourse – this being the acceptance of a language and of habits of thought in which dissent cannot be expressed without also conceding its immorality. Efficient promotion will also produce a state of almost universal false consciousness – in which ordinary people are brought to accept ideological claims as true that are opposed to their own interests as these might be reasonably considered.
Now, to speak of ruling classes, and in these terms, will often produce a strongly hostile reaction from libertarians and from conservatives. In the first place, it sounds like Marxism. Indeed, in summarising my own beliefs about a ruling class, I have deliberately borrowed terms from the Marxist theory of class – “discourse”, “false consciousness”, “class consciousness”. This is sure to disturb many – and perhaps many in this room. For at least three generations, our movement was at ideological war with Marxism. We did all we could to refute its claims and to spread the truth about its consequences wherever it was tried. To use its language to express broadly similar concepts will appear to be making concessions that amount to intellectual surrender.
In the second place, many libertarians deny that the concept of a ruling class has any meaning in our own world. In 1605, for example, Guy Fawks and his fellow conspirators tried to blow up Parliament while it was being opened by the King. If they had succeeded, they would have killed the King and the whole of the senior aristocracy and the leaders of the Established Church and – give or take a few nominees – the leading men of every shire and town in England. At one stroke, they would have killed around seven hundred men, and this would have snuffed out the whole of the English ruling class.
And this was a ruling class. Its members were largely there by virtue of birth. They were often related to each other. They shared a common education. They dressed differently and spoke differently from those over whom they ruled. Generally, they were cleaner. They were committed to the Protestant faith and to the land settlement of Henry VIII. Their class consciousness was expressed in countless ways, and was reflected in their language. They spoke of “persons of quality” or “persons of gentle birth” or of “gentlemen”.
In England or America today, whatever I call the ruling class is far larger and has far less apparent unity. I have defined it as a group of politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, businessmen, therapists, educators and media and business people. Perhaps I should just call these a gathering of groups, united only in their competition for power and income via the State, and each with a different legitimising ideology. Perhaps they are best compared not to the undoubted ruling class of Jacobean England, but to the members of a French bus queue. The common defining characteristic of these latter is that they all want to get on the bus. But it plainly serves no analytical or propagandistic purpose to define them on these grounds as a class.
Then there is the problem of collective action. Members of a supposed ruling class, for example – just as of a cartel – have personal interests as well as group interests. The former will often be more pressing than the latter; and the tendency over time will be for the rich and powerful to preach class solidarity while undermining it in their behaviour.
I will deal with the second of these objections in a moment. The first is easily answered. There is nothing specifically Marxist about the analysis of class and of class conflict. The Wealth of Nations is largely an exercise in class analysis. In France, J.B. Say was the father of a whole school of classical liberal class theory that was developed by, among others, Charles Compte, Charles Dunoyer and Augustin Thierry. In England, Cobden and Bright conceived their struggles against the corn laws and against war in terms of a class struggle. Marxian class theory, when it emerged in the middle of the nineteenth century, was one theory among many, and not at all the most prominent or most widely accepted.
This being said, Marxian class theory has, since then, received by far the most attention, and has been most fully developed. It is natural for many of us to feel uncomfortable about accepting any parts of this theory. But, if understandable, this is to be regretted. Marxism is false as a theory of human behaviour. But it has been developed by men of sometimes considerable talent and insight. To reject the incidental truths found by these men is rather like denouncing motorways because the first person to build them was Hitler. Astrology and alchemy were false sciences. Their claims about prediction and transformation were long ago falsified. Even so, the real sciences of astronomy and chemistry owe many incidental debts that no chemist or astronomer is ashamed to admit.
It should be the same with libertarians and conservatives in their view of Marxian class theory. Marx himself, together with Marxists like Antonio Gramsci and Louis Althusser and even Michel Foucoult, have much to tell us, and I am not ashamed to use Marxist terminology when I think it suits the needs of a libertarian class theory.
The main difference between Marxist and libertarian theories of class is in where each side locates the source of class power. For the Marxists, class power derives from ownership of the means of production. Standing in the tradition of Rousseau, Marx and his followers believe that mankind lived at first in a state of primitive communism, in which the means of production were held in common. This ended with the rise of a class that was able to take the means of production into its own possession. This class then set up the State as an executive committee to assist in its domination of everyone else. Since then, there have been successive revolutions as changes in the means of production have raised other classes to wealth, and these classes have then consolidated their own leading position by taking over the State.
According to this theory, therefore, the source of class power lies in wealth, and political power follows from wealth. This explains the Marxist belief that a communist revolution, by abolishing class domination, will rid the State of its oppressive nature. The State may then be dispensed from the liberal requirements of limitation and due process, and can be safely used as an instrument for ending such class power as remained. It will then, of itself, wither away.
This theory is manifestly false. Even without the thirty or fifty million corpses piled up by Marxist tyrannies in the twentieth century, it shows a terrible ignorance of human nature. Whether we dismiss the Marxists, in their main theory, as idiots or as villains depends on who is being discussed. But this is not to deny the incidental truths uncovered by Marx and his followers.
And these can be fitted into a libertarian class theory that locates the source of ruling class power in the State. For us, the State is not something created by the already powerful. It is, instead, something captured by those who want to become powerful – and who cannot become powerful by any other means. Without a state, there can be no exploitation. Without a state, the only transactions would be exchanges of value between free individuals from which all parties benefit according to their own conceptions of their interests. It is the State that can steal and kill. It is the State that raises up or calls into being groups that hope to benefit from the use of these powers, and that then constitute a ruling class. Abolish the State – or severely limit its size and power – and class domination will fall to the ground. The groups that comprise the ruling class will either die like tapeworms in a dead rat, or will be forced to offer their services on terms attractive to willing buyers.
I will now deal with the second libertarian objection to the concept of a ruling class. I accept that there is a problem of collective action. But this does not make an absolute refutation. For some purposes, group solidarity may be weaker than the pursuit of individual interests – but not always. Anyone who doubts this has only to look at the large number of young men in every generation who allow themselves – or volunteer – to be put into uniform and sent out to die for their country. Cartels are generally accepted to be conspiracies against the public interest. Class solidarity – so long as based on a legitimising ideology that is as firmly accepted by rulers as by ruled – can generally underpin collective action for many purposes and over long periods. Indeed, one of the sure signs that a ruling class has lost its will to rule is when significant numbers of those within it make fun of their legitimising ideology, or merely cease in private to believe in its truth. It is then that class solidarity becomes a sham, and the rulers begin to act like members of a cartel.
I also accept that ruling classes are, in our societies, much larger and more diverse than in the past. But accepting its size and diversity does not refute the claim that there is a ruling class. It is not necessary for the various groups I have mentioned to agree with each other in all respects. There is no reason for the ruling class to be monolithic. The medical establishment and tax gathering bureaucrats do not agree about state policy on smoking. Big business may disagree with the education establishment about what and how children are taught. Just a few years ago in England, the Government and the state-owned BBC fell out very bitterly over the Iraq War. During such disputes, different groups within the ruling class may even turn for physical or moral support to groups far outside the ruling class. They may even, from time to time, recast themselves – by accepting newly attractive groups, or expelling groups that no longer contribute to the class as a whole, or that endanger the continued existence of the class as a whole.
Even so, there is a general solidarity of interest that holds an effective ruling class together. No matter how they argue over the details of what the State is to do, its constituent groups will extend each other a mutual recognition of legitimacy. They agree that the State is a force for good, and that they are the right people to direct it. Their disputes will not be carried to the point where they knowingly undermine their overall legitimacy as a class – or the legitimacy of any of the constituent groups. Roderick Long has likened modern ruling classes to Church and State in old Europe. For the better part of a millennium, these institutions fought – and often bitterly – over which should be the predominant force in their societies. They hardly ever lost sight of the fact that they had a common interest in keeping the rest of the population subject to authority.
Sot it is now. Anyone who has ever taken money from big business will surely have noticed how his paymasters have been willing to use weakened forms of libertarian ideology to make specific points – but have never shown interest in promoting libertarianism as a full agenda of attack. In all cases, libertarian defenders are brought in to argue for concessions from the taxing and regulatory groups of the ruling class. They are never permitted to argue against the general legitimacy of taxes or regulations. That would risk undermining the system from which all groups –even if they might lose out in the short term – derive income and position in the long term.
This may be the common defining characteristic of a modern ruling class – a belief in the State and in the right and fitness of the groups I have described to direct it, and to gain income and status from their positions within the State. And, as in the past, class consciousness is reinforced by more than commonality of interest. I grant that, in America and to a lesser but similar extent in England, individual position is no longer rigidly fixed by birth, and it is common for people, wherever they start in life, to rise or sink according to their abilities. Nevertheless, we can still see families and networks of families that, in generation after generation, turn out individuals who occupy positions within the ruling class. Remember names like Toynbee and Gore and Kennedy and Cecil.
Otherwise, members of the British and American ruling classes share a common outlook on the world that is gained by attending the same schools and universities, and that is maintained by small but significant movements from one group to another that comprise the ruling class. In England, for example, it is common for politicians to begin or to end their careers in the more privileged big business corporations or in other agencies that look for their existence to the State. And it is fairly common for people from these groups to be recruited into senior political or administrative positions. There may be cultural differences between these groups. But these are not so great as to endanger close cooperation between them in the common project of exploiting ordinary people.
I agree that this is not an entirely satisfactory account of the ruling class. If I were a Marxist, it would be much easier. A member of the ruling class is someone who owns the means of production. I cannot supply an equally clear common defining characteristic. I cannot even put too much emphasis on the parasitic nature of a ruling class. The groups comprising a modern ruling class are parasites so far as they act as a ruling class. But they will often act both as members of a ruling class and as members of the productive class.
Companies like Wallmart and Tesco, for example, are privileged organisations. They benefit from incorporation laws that let them exist in the first place, from transport subsidies that externalise their diseconomies of scale, from taxes and regulations that disproportionately harm their smaller competitors, and in many other ways. At the same time, they provide cheaper and better food than their customers might once have thought possible. The media may be a producer or and conduit for propaganda. At the same time, it provides entertainment that people appear to enjoy. The medical establishment wants to coerce us into giving up probably harmful things like tobacco and probably beneficial things like vitamin pills, and procures laws that limit patient choice. At the same time, it does appear to be encouraging rapid medical progress in at least some areas.
Western ruling classes are not like the Soviet Nomenklatura. Many of the groups within these ruling classes have double functions inside and outside reasonably functioning market systems. Their activities are illegitimate only so far as they take place outside the market.
And so, while I do believe that the concept of a ruling class has meaning in our societies, I cannot dispute that it has problems. Nevertheless, in spite of all reservations, I do believe that the concept of a ruling class is not wholly useless, and I do suggest that those of us who have so far paid it little attention might do well to give it some thought.
NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3
If all these trough-piggers are “going to stand down” at the next election, then that could be a year away, or even never if Gordon Brown got his way. So why not now?
If they wozz fascist nazi Tories (CUTS!!!!! Schooools -n-hospitals!!!) it would be now. So why not for these people?
But they are not Tories … they are GramscoFabiaNazis. So it’s all right to stay on then. Follow the money.
Or does not Gordon Brown want 600 by-elections right now, then?