The world and communism

Some of my critics (on here and elsewhere) have suggested, often bluntly, that I am sympathetic to communism.

As I do not embrace the ultraconservative neo-liberal capitalism which has been in vogue for the past 30+ years and because I have an intense dislike of nationalism and nationalist thinking (and note the UKIP/EXP in the UK embraces all of the above), that automatically makes me a "communist".

On the not one then automatically the other principle which I have also roundly condemned as illogical thinking elsewhere on this blog ....

Wahnsinn!

Anyway this reminded me of a silly debate that I ran into in the time when I used to write on Helium.com. Essentially "Capitalism or communism, which do you prefer?". Maybe the word "socialism" was used rather than "communism", I cannot remember. If it were, it embraces a wide variety of sins! I have never met two "socialists" yet who agree with each other - it has more varieties than the ("capitalist"!) Heinz company.

The best answer to that choice is "neither"! And don't tell me that is not an option. It is like offering someone the choice of cholera or typhus - in which case prepare to be seriously and possibly fatally ill no matter what!

There must be a better alternative. As we are rapidly descending into some form of economic feudalism where democratic principles and the will of the people are increasingly subservient to the rich and powerful (and all the usual nonsense about "anyone can make it in this world" and "it is all down to hard work" (like Hell it is!)), we had better find one and quickly. It won't be called communism (or anarchy for that matter) though!

Anyway there follows a piece that I wrote on Helium.com on communism. As Helium is closing later this year, I have taken a copy of the item, and I may update the link at a later date.

http://www.lifepaths360.com/index.php/the-world-and-communism-5413/

And note - I am aware of the error in the piece where "country's" should read "countries". Editing on Helium was never that easy.

Postscript (January 3rd, 2022). Unfortunately that link is now defunct. I have a copy of the item and will update it at a later date.

Innocent until proven guilty, and living with your past

OK - your challenge for the day.

You live in the UK. You get a letter informing you that you are required to attend for jury duty. As opting out is difficult, you turn up accordingly.

You get there, lo and behold you are under consideration for the trial where they will decide whether Paul Gadd (also known as Paul Raven, also known as Gary Glitter) was guilty or not of sexually assaulting two girls aged 12 and 14 between 1977 and 1980.

You are still willing to sit on this jury? Which means essentially you have no preconception one way or the other about the guilt of the accused and are prepared to listen to the evidence and decide accordingly.

This despite the fact that the aforementioned Gadd/Raven/Glitter has previously been convicted of having child pornography on his computer.

This despite the fact that the aforementioned Gadd/Raven/Glitter managed to get kicked out of Cambodia (a country which just about tops the list of countries in the world known for child prostitution).

This despite the fact that the aforementioned Gadd/Raven/Glitter was also convicted in Vietnam of sexually assaulting two girls (I believe aged 11) .....

Good luck. I couldn't do it. I personally think that there is no smoke without fire, and the only problem with the evidence is that there isn't enough of it and it is a very long time ago. As they recently convicted the publicist, Max Clifford, on eight counts of sexual assault between 1977 and 1984 (only one of the victims was younger than 16, but the point about the age and volume of the evidence is relevant), that may not be a problem, although it is better to have eight witnesses than two to give the evidence more weight. Guilty people do get off occasionally - John Gotti managed it twice, and there are dozens of people in the US in particular who are absolutely sure that Casey Anthony was in no way innocent!

Before he was arrested on his own account, Clifford informed the media that a number of his clients had rung him and stated a concern that they had slept with "groupies" way back when, and "nobody ever asked for birth certificates" (i.e. a 14-year-old may well have looked and acted 18 - in passing from my own teaching years I can remember during my teaching days in the 1970s girls skipping school to hang round hotels where some idols of the day were staying. I cannot imagine a 14-year-old looking anything much more than 15!).

Interesting how the past can come back to haunt you. Whether the "groupie" phenomenon is still happening now, I have, incidentally, no idea. But the advice is to be cautious. I will leave the still extant "groupies" to decide whether they should come armed with their birth certificates .....

And then there was the recent story about Rod Stewart. Having swallowed so much sperm that he had to go to hospital to have his stomach pumped.

He, of course, denied it, and it did seem unlikely (I have heard the same story about the British singer, Marc Almond, in the 1980s - as he was/is Gay, it may have been possible, but I still wouldn't give it too much credence).

What intrigued me was during his interview with the American television interviewer, Katie Couric, Stewart implied that his concern was what his children, who are now in school, might think ....

A quick flick back with relevance to the above-mentioned Max Clifford. Whether this was strictly publicity I do not know, but there was the famous interchange with an interviewer some years ago when Rod Stewart was asked how many women he had slept with, to which he answered (I cannot remember which) either "Hundreds" or "Thousands".

This could have been braggadocio, boasting, publicity, it all goes with the pop star image (well they were all sleeping round in those days) usw. Then again (and personally I tend to believe the "then again" - that was his reputation throughout the 1970s, true or otherwise) ....

Given that this comment was accurate one wonders what he might have to tell his children (at least the ones who are still in school) one day about his past. And for that matter did he check (or need to check) the birth certificates? In favour of the argument that it was all image and publicity (and hence to be taken with a pinch of salt) is the fact that few if any people have come forward years later with stories about "my night with Rod Stewart", or maybe that article/book is still due to appear ....  

So Germany really started the First World War, didn't they?

I am afraid that I do not have the article to hand, but three or four weeks ago I was walking past an international news stand in Frankfurt when a headline from a British quality newspaper stared out at me.

The exact wording escapes me now (and I hate hearsay, so please forgive the memory lapse). Anyway it ran along the lines that "Everyone knows that Germany started the First World War", and "but the Left is denying it".

Beware conservative newspapers tossing this nonsense phrase "the Left" around as if it means anything. It is a nonsensical term (as is the balancing term "the right"), usually used as an all-purpose slogan to insult anyone with whom it does not agree.

The problem here is dealing not with slogans, but with facts.

So start with this potted summary from the "World Book" (an American outlet, and, as far as I am aware, one not known for radical "Leftist" opinions"):

http://blog.worldbook.com/2013/07/22/this-week-in-history-austria-hungary-declared-war-on-serbia-in-1914-beginning-world-war-i/

Update: 29/10/2023. This link is now dead (quite why would be interesting). It is advisable also to recognise that my Anti-virus has a warning to avoid this page. 

And if you want some more details, try this:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/firstworldwar/index-1914.html

And if you want an exceptionally complete resource:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/

The German Empire did not exactly behave like a diplomatic giant, the German war machine (along with its top commanders) was primed and extremely ready to go, and there is no doubt that public enthusiasm for the war (at least at the outset) was high when it was declared (see the famous picture of the crowd cheering in Munich with Adolf Hitler standing there among them). But it is extremely convenient logic to say that Germany actually started it.

That Germany invaded neutral Belgium (in order to get at the French more quickly than it could through the fortified French defences along the German border) and that Britain (who might otherwise have remained neutral) felt obliged under the Treaty of London of 1839 to protect Belgian neutrality - there is no question. That the German High Command (under von Moltke (the younger) with his reinterpretation of the von Schlieffen plan), the German government (check out the response of  Bethmann Hollweg, the German Chancellor, who dismissed this treaty as some silly document not to be taken seriously), and the German diplomatic corps did not see the need to avoid this action .... Yes, a grotesque error all round, and all should be held responsible.

So Germany was responsible for Britain being involved in the Great War. But that is not the same thing as saying that they actually were responsible for starting the whole dreadful business. Ignoring the events in the Balkans and the connecting series of conflicting alliances and commitments is, again, a very convenient and not totally accurate reinterpretation of history.

Quote of the day - on atheism

What, indeed, is an atheist? He is one who destroys delusions which are harmful to humanity in order to lead men back to nature, to reality, to reason.

He is a thinker who, having reflected upon the nature of matter, its energy, properties and ways of acting, has no need for idealised powers or imaginary intelligences to explain the phenomena of the universe and the operations of nature.

(Translated from the original French - not by me personally, I would add!).

Baron d'Holbach - 1770

Update - 29/10/23. Ask yourself whether the recent atrocities by Hamas in Israel would have occurred if they had followed the above logic. And ask yourself if the equally vicious, brutal response by the Israeli armed forces (on the principle that "If you kill our children, it is an atrocity, but if we kill yours in return that is only collateral damage" - yes, that argument stinks 100%!) if they had followed that logic in return. 

There would still be problems (continued illegal seizure of land by Israel and the potential violent response by the Palestinian people), but I can see no solution to this until both sides agree to talk and discuss the establishment of a two SECULAR state solution.

 

There is as much chance of that happening as there is of me becoming a billionaire!

It certainly won't happen in my lifetime!

Meanwhile I have been listening to the following song on YouTube twice a day for the past week. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsfv3dy5VdA and there is a good English translation available if you look for it.

Recommended listening for some who want more depth about the long-term problem than the Western media are giving us.

I remain neutral. 

Also to remember:

ISIS is not Hamas (go check the recent Syrian War where, among other things, ISIS attacked a Palestinian refugee camp!) - go and read (of all strange sources), the Israeli publication, Haaretz, which destroyed the argument without much difficulty.

Hamas is also not the Palestinian people, just a significant political force within Palestine which claims to be supporting those people (and is actually doing them far more harm than good!). Palestine would do well to be rid of them (peacefully!), but as the Israeli state cannot (or doesn't want to) discriminate between Hamas and innocent Palestinians, they shouldn't be the ones responsible for getting rid of them.

And finally. Zionism is not Judaism. I don't accept any religion as "true", but if people must follow any of these antiquated superstitions, that has to be their choice in a democracy - provided that they keep it to themselves and practise in private. 

Zionism (as practised by the state of Israel) is a political movement, not a religious belief. It is in its most extreme form (as we are seeing at the moment) every bit as dangerous as the nonsense promulgated by Hamas's political wing!

 

The latest exercise in chronic nationalism, or a statue for a terrorist?

In the words of the song from the musical "Gigi" sung by Maurice Chevalier (a Frenchman who was very popular in the US - an interesting example in itself) "I'm glad I'm not young any more".

We have economic problems in Europe which threaten to throttle an entire generation, and all we seem to get are chronic nationalistic solutions (see the UK, France, Hungary usw) ..... and historical revisionism.

So let us throw out the name "Gavrilo Princip".

You don't know the name?

You ought to. His action, on behalf of the "Black Hand" - the movement which he supported - set in motion the train of events which led, several weeks later, to the start of World War I (also known as the Great War).

Rather than presenting my own limited summary of events, let me offer you the following link for a clear analysis of everything involved with Princip and the Black hand movement:

http://spartacus-educational.com/FWWprincip.htm

Essentially a small-town nobody who supported a fanatical cause which generated a sequence of events which led to millions being killed and changed the face of Europe forever ..... 

From small acorns .....

Note the comment about Princip and his collaborators in the mission: 

Princip, Nedjelko Cabrinovic and Trifko Grabez were suffering from tuberculosis and knew they would not live long. They were therefore willing to give their life for what they believed was a great cause .....

A sort of precursor of the suicide bomber. The cause is greater than I am, and as I am going to die anyway ....

Wahnsinn!

In 3 weeks time there will be the 100th anniversary of this event. I would not have thought that there was much reason to celebrate the Great War and everything that was involved. The mass slaughter on a grand scale, the diplomatic intransigence, the military insistence upon victory no matter what the cost, and the cost in the short and long-term!

Well apparently some people in Serbia (and the Serb enclave in Bosnia) think otherwise. Apparently statues in his honour are to be built in both Belgrade and the Serb part of Sarajevo. See:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/06/gavrilo-princip-hero-villain-first-world-war-balkan-history

About the one thing that we learn from history is that apparently we learn nothing. Wharrever you think of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (100 years later), European monarchies in general (and remember I am a committed democratic republican who wants to see the (peaceful) end of inherited rule of any kind) usw, turning the likes of Princip into a hero and freedom fighter is definitely "convenient history" at its best. 

Unfortunately it is a common trait among fanatics (be they nationalists, religious fanatics, radical communist movements usw). 

You would think in these difficult economic times that there were better things to do than build statues for the political assassins of 100 years ago, wharrever the cause they supported.

To note: in the next couple of weeks I will be writing a piece on who was responsible for starting the First World War - seen as a response to a British "quality" newspaper which should be capable of making a thorough analysis and not merely producing a knee-jerk repetition of 100-year-old propaganda.

Burying your head in the sand - and the consequences

The blog reawakens, briefly at least.

I have been awake all the time. As I am now in receipt of pension rights from at least four countries (Germany, the UK, the Netherlands and Switzerland), my financial situation is not so grim as it was, but is not exactly robust either. Survival without fear of eviction though is now possible.

I have been awake throughout the period to events and the like, but generally the overall picture hadn't changed much and when you think that you have said it all ....

You know, like the neighbour who is always moaning, you switch off.

So anyway if I had been asleep last week, what happened (almost inevitably) in the European Parliament elections should have woken me up. As it is, it just led to a violent series of head shaking, comments along the line of "taking aim at the wrong target", and speeding up of my long-term plans to take out German nationality, if only to protect my own interests (as limited as the latter might be).

To be said, the European Parliament seems to be a pretty powerless organisation with all the bite of a toothless pussy cat (how many people know exactly what it does? Apart from being an expensive talking shop for many of Europe's loony fringe?).

Anyway if you live in Germany, better still if you are a politician in Germany, you may not know that there is much to worry about out there. You have an election several months after the national parliament elections, you get pretty much the same result.

The anti-EU AfD (the German equivalent of the UKIP/EXP) have been complaining ever since they first emerged that Germany was wasting tons of money bailing out Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and the like (note how many different politicians in Europe had it in for Romania last week - the new European whipping boys? More on them later). And Germany should get back to being Germany and stop worrying about other countries and look after Germany usw.

They increased their vote to 7%. In a meaningless election a protest vote has to come from somewhere. They are economically a clone of the ultra-"free market" FDP without the European commitment. Merkel has dismissed them as simply another neo-Fascist nationalist party (the NPD in pin-stripe suits) and will not deal with them. They have denied that they are owt of the sort (see also the UKIP/EXP). For those taking note of German politics incidentally, after their mediocre performance in the last German national government, the FDP have lost most of their (fleeting) support. Down to a hardcore 3.4% of the vote last week.

Anyway from here everything seems normal, so we can sail along a sea that has one or two eddies, but little turbulence ....

Maybe they didn't notice the near flood conditions elsewhere in Europe. And the tides that accompanied them?

And yesterday was a remarkably good day for those who think that the European Commission is simply a tool of the "new German Empire". There was the snippet that I picked up from a spokesman for the European Commission on a German news bulletin yesterday. Namely that the "Sparkurs" would continue. I cannot, as a translator, find a good translation for the word "Sparkurs" (literally "savings course"), but on www.linguee.de this morning I found the suggestion "Austerity policy". The European Commission (who have plenty of professional translators available) would probably offer an alternative translation, but the phrase rather sums it up.

Most of Europe: we are drowning, help us!
The European Commission: (yawn), huh, what? Never mind, let's go back to sleep.
Some parts of Europe (France, the UK, Hungary - notably): Stuff you, then, We will do without you!

Digression at this point. As you probably know I am decisively pro-EU, decisively pro-Euro. And my opinions on the economic (and worse in some cases) thinking of the UKIP/EXP and Front National are well known. And for those who want to throw the word "independent" around as if it means summat try this - my definition of "independence" requires me to be free of the influence of the gamblers on the "financial markets". Free of people deciding what my little money is worth. Free of the fear of losing your job (and the dignity and self-respect that it involves) if some gamblers lose billions on worthless derivatives (see the "Wizard of Id" cartoons for May 21st and 22nd while we are here).

And free of the robbery involved whenever I cross "a national border" (why should I offer at least of 10% of any money I need there, which I worked hard to earn, and never had much of, as a free gift to already wealthy banks? On the buying and selling principle and "exchange costs"? Taxation (and fraudulent taxation - I have no say in the matter!) essentially. How does that benefit me, and how does it make me independent???? In other words "independence" here is circumstance-specific, it is not generic!

End of digression.

The point here though is that the policies and thinking of the EU need to change. To meet the needs of the people. To provide full employment, to improve living standards. Which does not, Mr Farage and Herr Lucke, mean quitting the EU and giving carte blanche to the international banks and finance houses so that they can gamble us into another 2008. Responsible long-term investment not irresponsible speculation - certainly!

For that we need growth, not austerity. For that we need to stop believing that we are heading down the road to prosperity the way we are going, and come up with policies (similar to those in place in many European countries in the 1950s and 1960s) which will raise living standards and give people hope.

And for the people who love scaremongering about the EU clause which allows freedom of movement of people within the EU (Mme Le Pen principally, but also a substantial number of supporters of the UKIP/EXP) - the stories spreading about millions of immigrants from Romania descending upon Western Europe in the wake of the near-collapse of the Romanian economy are mean-spirited and essentially based, incorrectly, upon hearsay anyway - but they are intentionally being used as a method to garner votes, particularly in constituencies in countries where living standards are already low and unemployment is high - see the British former industrial heartlands if you want examples.

For the record that clause (in previous treaties) was what allowed me, a British national, to move to find better opportunities in the Netherlands and Germany when the North of England was ravaged by the scourge of Thatcherism. It provided me with opportunities which I would not deny anyone else. The problem is not the migration, the problem is the unemployment (and the high levels thereof!).

I asked myself last week why so many European companies (notably from France and the UK, but the Netherlands comes to mind as well) invest in the manufacture of goods in near-slave-labour China. Perhaps if they invested instead in now democratic Romania and Bulgaria, shop shelves would be filled with goods made in Europe, there would be less unemployment in those countries, and less need for emigration.

Just a thought (though in my opinion also the "road to go").

One of the few bits of good news to emerge from Europe in recent months (and the European Parliament elections) has been the emergence of Matteo Renzi as Prime Minister of Italy. He is young, charasmatic, committed, wants to see growth in Europe, wants to see reforms both in Europe and in Italy. He is not on either political extreme, in many ways he is an out-and-out centrist. But he also thinks that the old guard have had their day, need showing the door, and it is (definitely, and I would agree totally!) time for new thinking.

Will he succeed? No idea. But I seriously hope so. And "hope" is the magic word here. Europe is badly in need of it (and not in the form of the phoney laissez-faire market solutions and closing off of all national borders promulgated by the UKIP/EXP and FN!).

Recommended reading - an article on Matteo Renzi (for those of you who can speak German):

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/matteo-renzi-nach-der-europawahl-wir-sehen-deutschland-nicht-als-gegner-sondern-als-vorbild-1.1980897