Thursday 29 September 2016

socialism part 2

I have been writing how the neoliberals have cleverly manipulated their propaganda to poison people's minds against concepts that threaten to limit their criminal accumulation of the world's wealth and to remove potential barriers to their legalised gangsterism. One of the ways they have achieved this is to equate many measures that civilised society has erected for the care of our fellow human beings with what they label as socialism. Thus, if they can successfully demonise the concept of socialism they will successfully destroy any impetus that seeks to redistribute wealth and opportunity and thus diminish their ability to amass obscene and unearned wealth. Examples I gave were universal tax funded health systems and nationalisation. There are many others. What I wish to stress is that such systems are popular with people who call themselves socialist, but are in reality simply common sense and issues of decency that denote a civilised society and not a monopoly feature of what people understand as socialism. In 2013 I had a book published called Human Rights in a Big Yellow Taxi. This is not an advert for the book, but I am going to reproduce some of what I said to illustrate what I mean, to try to get people to realise that just because you support an idea that is claimed to be socialist, does not mean that you are a socialist, or that the idea is therefore a bad one. I wrote

"Human rights are rights we have achieved by the fact of being human. They may be formalised by other humans in legal documents or constitutions, but they are not grants, or the gifts of enlightened rulers, nor are they bestowed by a deity and enshrined in religious writings. They stem from the obvious empirical fact that all human beings are born equal. All humans enter the world the same way and by the same method; there are no social distinctions, no rank nor privilege in the birth process. Once in the world, all human beings are in the same state of helplessness and totally dependent on other human beings for their survival. Without that support no human would last more than a few hours. That is an obvious and incontestable fact; it is almost the only fact that I would venture to call a truth"...... (As a result), "equal rights belong to everyone who has ever lived or ever will live. With rights come responsibilities, and our greatest responsibility is to recognise and respect the rights of each other. We develop, through experience, the capacity to formulate and understand general principles that enable us to live and flourish in a communal manner because we understand the social nature of human existence. Each of us possesses such rights simply by our existence as a human being, and we have a duty to recognise and respect the rights of all others because they exist on the same equal basis that we do. From this beginning, other rights follow, such as the right to freedom and liberty, because without freedom and liberty the concept of rights becomes meaningless. Life must be meaningful, because if it is meaningless then it has no purpose. If we respect the right to life, but refuse the rights of freedom and liberty, refuse to give that life any meaning, then life will speedily descend into mere existence. A slave doesn’t live; he or she simply exists – for the benefit of other people... Each of us has the human right to provide for ourselves, and to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves and our dependants. Should any human institution, such as a social class or a government, so order society as to prevent us exercising those rights, then they must make other provision. Political and civil rights are therefore a reflection and extension of our human rights, and, in the modern world, this has profound implications for welfare and the distribution of wealth.

Modern Britain is the result of a historical process that began with the Norman Conquest. Through this process we have reached an empirical reality whereby one per cent of the UK population own seventy per cent of the land. This development is also the reason for the class structure of the UK whereby much of that land is owned by the monarchy, the church and an aristocratic elite. If the system of ownership and control denies people access to land that can sustain them and provide for their food, and a legal system upholds the heredity basis of legalised theft, creating a modern economy entirely dependent on money where the vast majority rely on an employer for a money wage, and then significant sections of the population can’t find work and don’t have enough money to live on as determined by the norm for that society, which also progressively denies them a sufficient level of benefits that are the only other method whereby they can enjoy a basic standard of living, then significant numbers of people will acquire the money necessary to them by other means. That normally means that they will acquire it by methods that the dominant value system labels as criminal. Such people would be quite right to do so!

Why? Because, in a modern society like the UK, operating under a capitalist economic system that entrenches politically, legally, and socially, the rights of private property but refuses to admit that people have a right to employment, then the state must provide the unemployed with alternative funds to sustain a reasonable standard of living. The system of ownership has its genesis in military conquest and has been sustained by legalised theft and systematic fraud, which has evolved into so-called property rights. However, with rights come obligations, and, if your rights have been gained by denying your fellow human beings the fundamental means to sustain their life, then you are obliged to provide an alternative. As a result, if the capitalist class of property owners and employers cannot, or will not, provide sufficient means of employment and money wages to the population, then the state must do so, as it is this state that is upholding and supporting that economic system. Should both the employer class and the state fail to do so, then people have the right to take from that class and the state whatever they require to sustain their lives and their welfare, as long as by doing so they do not endanger anyone else’s life, and, if the ruling class and the state seek to prevent them by force, then they are perfectly entitled to reciprocate. In such a circumstance, government and the state are exceeding their authority, which is the protection and welfare of the people, and, if they proceed to wage war against the populace on behalf of a minority interest that is refusing people their fundamental rights, then they no longer have any authority and the people have the right to overthrow them, along with the elite class directing such war against the mass of the population."

The same could be argued for any country in the modern industrial world because these are universal principles and not unique to Britain. No-one, for example should ever be allowed to profit from water, there is simply no argument here. The privatisation of water is a gross obscenity and anyone who argues for such a measure is vile and should be disbarred from public office for ever. So, please do not fall into the trap set by the lowest elements in society and castigate measures for being socialist simply because they entail public spending and local/central government control. To repeat, the human individual is a collective being and the whole philosophical concept of the individual is both a lie and a fraud. You have been warned

Your Servant
Doktor Kommirat





 
  

No comments:

Post a Comment