The Communist party Manifesto

 

 In 1848 the slim volume entitled “Manifesto of the Communist party” was produced for a revolutionary Europe. It contained the by now familiar distorted view of history that it was a  prolonged class struggle which would end with the triumph of the proletariat. More importantly, it proposed ten major policies or Big Ideas  which have held considerable sway in Europe ever since.

           1. Abolition of all private property and the application of rents for public purposes.  This  helped inspire Development Land Tax, Section 106 agreements, the accumulation of large areas of public property and a range of other Labour measures and taxes to try to capture  wealth from property.

2.A heavy progressive or graduated Income Tax. Labour got its marginal rate up to 83% for earned income and 98% for unearned income in the 1970s, rates Marx would have approved. They resiled from these 1997-2009, but started to hike rates again at the end.

3. The abolition of all right of inheritance.  This has fathered Inheritance taxes,  the Republicanism of some Labour supporters, the end of hereditary principle for the Lords – though political succession is a feature of some of the great Labour families.  

4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Never caught on in the UK, though popular in some autocratic regimes abroad.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, through a monopoly nationalised bank. This is now done through a monopoly Central Bank with extensive regulation of the commercial banks. Labour got furthest with this during the crisis of 2007-8 when they bought shares in banks instead of putting them into controlled administration or some other private sector solution. As a result more than half the UK’s banking system was in public hands or under strong public influence.

6.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. Labour reached the point where the UK had a nationalised airline, railway, road freight, postal and telecommunications service.

7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state (plus planned agriculture).  Labour did assemble substantial nationalised manufacturing interests, (aerospace, car manufacturing, computers etc) and the EU has taken to substantial planning and direction of agriculture.

8.Equal requirement of all to labour and the establishment of industrial armies. Public sector employment has risen substantially, but there has not been enforced direction of labour.

9.A gradual erosion of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population – this has increasingly happened as a result of economic growth anyway.

10. Free education for all children in public schools . Abolition of child labour.(Good ideas) This I am pleased to say has happened.

  One of the main reasons Mr Blair wanted to make such an issue of abolishing Clause IV in the Labour party constitution was to renounce the Marxist influence over Labour’s past. Is this to remain Labour’s position, or are they moving back to the Marxist influences? They seem now to favour more public sector control of energy industries, are against employee and citizen ownership of the Royal Mail, and moving towards more general price controls.

The fact that policies in this little book are still actively promoted today, including damaging ones, means we need to keep a look out in debate for those who are influenced by it.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

131 Comments

  1. livelogic
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    Indeed, in short the destruction of all incentives for individuals to anything much all. Except perhaps get a good job working for the state, escaping over the wall, drink black market vodka or work in the black market. One wonders how anyone, with any understanding of human nature at all, could ever imagine it could work. What incentive is there to invest if Dennis Healey types take 98% of your return and to waste it, and that was in the UK too.

    Just half the size of the state sector in the UK, it is quite easy to do. Half do nothing much of any use anyway, many do positive harm, the rest work hugely inefficiently. A lot just hand out money to incubate the numbers of feckless at every turn.

    But Cameron is simply not a Tory and refuses to act. This is not assisted by his having thrown the last election away with his ratting and giving Clegg TV billing. How anyone can think he might win the next without some huge change & a UKIP deal I do not know.

    We need to cut the state sector workforce, move to cheap energy, cut taxes, cut payments to the feckless, get out of the EU, cancel daft projects like HS2 and control who are permitted to immigrate.

    One wonders what discussions were like over meals in the Ralph Miliband Household? Or indeed the Denis Healey one.

  2. Mike Stallard
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    Me, I see Marx not as a reformer: he was much too scholarly for any sort of involvement. No, this great man was a prophet of things that were bound to come to pass.
    All the above have happened – and more.
    4. What about offshore accounts? What about globalised firms not “paying their fair share?” And perhaps even the anti terrorist laws of Tony Blair? Gradually the idea that the State can control private things – money, health, family, internet – is growing fast. And this, I think, is what Marx was getting at.
    8. The Work for your Dole ideas of the Conservatives come towards this though. Work is seen as something well within the government purview.
    10. Yes indeed. But it also means that no paper boys can be found, no fruit picking by students, no holiday jobs very much for students of all ages as work is too highly regulated. In many ways, the boys leaving school at 14 and going straight into work was not such a bad idea. Now they have to stay kicking their heels learning ridiculous subjects like French and Citizenship until they are 18.

    And, please, let’s have the bit about marriage being abolished (shock horror!) which has come to pass.
    As has the taking over of the country by the proletarians against the middle class.
    The end of nationalism too is here with the coming of the regional EU which openly hates nations.
    The dear old CoE and the Methodists are in their death throes. Philosophy has sort of evaporated into the Unis. Do watch Jeremy Kyle to appreciate the shift in moral values.

    I reckon that the dear old Prophet has got it pretty right myself – and he published this excellent booklet in 1848!

    (PS – I didn’t read the rest of “Documents of Modern Political Thought” about Marxism either at Cambridge: far too difficult except for Joe Stalin who wrote rather well, I thought!)

    • Edward2
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

      Excellent stuff as always Mike.

  3. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    Looking at the manifesto yesterday, I was struck again by its honest approach to the problems of class. The bourgeoisie classified by their contempt for humanity (corresponding to how I feel about the money makers) and the perception that they are solely interested in keeping the workers down… yes that tallies with today . The proletariat on the other hand continually being abused and abused by private institutions. Yes this also corresponds . The magnificent state ..Yes post war it was , before that was also abused by the bourgeoisie, however I will read further and refer to commenters views today to be more in line with modern day thought on this.

    • libertarian
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

      Dear Margaret

      Why post such utter drivel? keeping the workers down? Really? Have you ever met anyone who owns/runs a business. Seriously where do you people make these things up.

      • margaret brandreth-j
        Posted October 6, 2013 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

        I work for such an institution, You may not live under the same circumstances as myself , but your ignorance of my position does not give you the right to assume it is drivel.

        • libertarian
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:33 am | Permalink

          Margaret

          Your personal circumstances are irrelevant. You maligned 4.6 million small business owners as having contempt for humanity and keeping workers down. That is drivel of the highest order. I suggest you detach yourself from your lazy, outdated, indoctrinated class war and go meet some real people.

          • uanime5
            Posted October 7, 2013 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

            Nothing she posted criticised small business owners as it was directed at all companies. I suspect you brought up small business owners because you lack a real argument.

          • libertarian
            Posted October 9, 2013 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

            Uanime5

            Oh dear, how ignorant are you? Margaret like you keeps peddling a myth that The bourgeoisie, company owners and employers lack humanity and seek to do down workers. That IS 4.6 million people that you and Margaret have lumped into that gross generalization. You are both wrong. As in every other field of human activity there are a range of behaviours. I personally know more than 1,000 business owners and I can honestly say that they display high levels of human kindness, willingness to help their fellow citizen and care and concern for their workers .

            I suggest the pair of you grow up a bit, learn to stop generalising everything and take a look at the real world rather than your fantasy world inhabited by super market shelf stackers and NHS workers only

      • margaret brandreth-j
        Posted October 6, 2013 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

        Oh and bye the way that cue can be traced back to the time when I was a director of an insurance brokers , and was swallowed up by illegal means and bigger fish and kept down as a worker. Keep your hot headed comments to yourself and do not be so unkind. My life has been ruined by such.

        • libertarian
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:35 am | Permalink

          Margaret

          You obviously cant see the irony in your posts that you were rude, insensitive and wrong about 4.6 million hard working people. OK

        • libertarian
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 11:09 am | Permalink

          Margaret

          Stop being so abusive. You have obviously been treated badly by someone. To then take that personal experience and charge millions of people with acting the same is the height of ignorance. As you are a director of an insurance business I assume you are highly experienced in that field, so why you stick working for such an awful employer I’ve no idea its not as if there’s a shortage of work in that field

      • Bazman
        Posted October 7, 2013 at 5:34 am | Permalink

        You are laughably telling us that no such abuse by employers, landlords and businesses such as loan companies takes place?

        • libertarian
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:37 am | Permalink

          Dear Baz

          I know you struggle with reading and understanding. No i didn’t say that.

          Yes SOME people do not act well. By the same token some people in the public sector and public sector organisations are just as bad. That does NOT mean as both you and Margaret have stated that ALL businesses treat their employees like that, nor does it mean that business seeks to pay the least amount of money possible to workers

          • uanime5
            Posted October 7, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

            Any company that wants the minimum wage to be lower or tries to circumvent it using zero hours contracts wants to pay their staff as little as possible.

          • libertarian
            Posted October 9, 2013 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

            Uanime5

            Drivel. Zero hour contracts is a modern term for something that has existed for many years and benefits many people. My own kids have worked “zero hour contracts” quite successfully. Its holiday work, peace work, pin money and holiday jobs. If you don’t want to work a zero hour contract then don’t its as simple as that.

            As for minimum wage, that has been a disaster for workers. Please provide a list of companies demanding to lower the NMW

          • Bazman
            Posted October 9, 2013 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

            Your libtard views on the minimum wage were challenged in John’s cost of living post
            http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/10/01/the-cost-of-living/#comments
            With no reply. Any reason for repeating them without explanation of how without a minimum this group of people in the UK would have been not only competing with those willing to live five to a room/car, but also with those who, maybe are the same, or maybe just willing to work for next to nothing, because they can?bDo get back to us this time on this and who will fund the shortfall in the amount required to live on. Ram it.

          • libertarian
            Posted October 10, 2013 at 10:21 am | Permalink

            Baz

            As always you ASSUME you know what my views are and as ALWAYS you are wrong because you lack the ability to engage.

            I feel that the NMW is TOO LOW, I refuse to let my kids work for that level of pay in the South East .

            I also believe that the starting point for income tax should be ABOVE the NMW at £12k.

            Let me tell you how the NMW has let down the workers, it really is simple.

            Its NATIONAL yet living standards and costs fluctuate wildly across the UK.

            It set a bench mark that some lazy employers have accepted, so a lot of unskilled, uninteresting, repetitive jobs are now paid at the NMW. HOWEVER if the NMW didn’t exist then employers would have to compete and would drive UP wages in a lot of organisations and those that didn’t respond would struggle to recruit workers.

            I always respond to your socialist drivel with explanation and links to evidence.

            Currently less than 3% of the UK workforce are on NMW which means for the hard of thinking such as yourself that 97% are paid above that rate.

            As for competing with workers prepared to live in a car. I think you will find comrade that it was the brothers, the workers party, socialist Labour who by their own admission let in 3 million overseas workers in order to and I quote “Drive down wage costs of unskilled workers and to rub the noses of tories in diversity”

            So Bazman RAM it indeed

          • Bazman
            Posted October 10, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

            If the NMW did not exist employers could compete and drive it up? It is a minimum so there is nothing to stop them from paying more, but some take it to be a maximum I take is your point? Employers have decided this, not the government so what does that tell you? They do not want to pay more do they if there is a surplus of workers in that areas and field of work and if they could would pay less. How can it be any other way?
            As for living costs ‘widely fluctuating across the country’ tell us what is more expense in the south than in the north other than rent/property prices in general? Food? Fuel? Utilities, clothes cars. Not by much, and some things are cheaper in the south. What widely fluctuates? No job in the north makes everything expensive especially houses. SHOUT! your way out of that and ram it.

  4. The PrangWizard
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    A timely reminder. The Manifesto and its adherents, of which there are many and secretive as indicated, are becoming more of a physical danger. We now find violence creeping much more into the equation which is of course part of the revolutionary tactic; the Left has an army of thugs, they will become increasingly used, intimidation is common against those defending our freedoms and freedom of expression. The Left can sense a significant victory ahead and are becoming more blatant, they see the people are unlikely to oppose them. (Allegation re police removed ed) It starts with the shouting down of opponents. And let’s not forget that the BBC does nothing to redress the balance, just look back to Question Time last week, their bias becomes more blatant the more they are criticized. And when do they attack the subversive Hard Left group Hope Not Hate for example?

  5. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    “The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
    ― Mikhail Gorbachev

    • lifelogic
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 10:00 am | Permalink

      Indeed

  6. alan jutson
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    No mention of Gordon Browns policy of the State rewarding people directly, and thus making them increasingly reliant upon the State, with the introduction of a huge range of Benefits, working tax credits and the like, so that retention of power by that type of Government is more likely.

    • uanime5
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

      Well if companies created 2 million more jobs that paid a living wage people wouldn’t need most benefits or tax credits.

      • Edward2
        Posted October 6, 2013 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

        Uni
        Well if an over large, over taxing, over regulating, over legislating State and EU didn’t do its very best to stifle the ability of small businesses to start up, develop and employ people there might be a chance they would.
        Why don’t you give it a go.
        Think of some service you could offer or some product you could make or buy and sell and do what many of us do and employ others.
        No?
        Thought not.

        • lifelogic
          Posted October 6, 2013 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

          Exactly.

        • APL
          Posted October 6, 2013 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

          Edward2: “Think of some service you (uanime5) could offer .. ”

          Masterclass in talking nonsense?

        • Bazman
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 5:41 am | Permalink

          You assume that large companies pay market wages when in fact they set the wages and let the state subsidise the worker whilst telling us of the importance of a free market often whilst avoiding tax too.
          This idea that the market would would just expand and take up the slack if all regulations and taxes where abolished. It is just not possible to open up another Tesco. Your idea of everyone being self employed or running a business is just fantasy. There has to be a gap in the market and in a modern economy there is not enough. Much of what peole want is already catered for.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 7, 2013 at 7:21 am | Permalink

            You keep coming up with this nonsense argument Baz
            Who is this big business that controls wages and conditions?
            Companies like Tescos for example may be large but they compete for staff against many other major employers nearby.
            But in your fantasy world you probably think they all meet after midnight and conspire against the workers.

          • libertarian
            Posted October 7, 2013 at 11:18 am | Permalink

            Bazman

            I’ve never read such a load of detached codswallop in all my life. Large companies pay market rates. You seem unaware that the bulk of workers in these large companies are paid very handsomely. You’re complete lack of business and economic awareness is I suppose why you are a socialist. In order to expand the economy its not necessary to open another Tesco. You seem to think that the entire job market and economy revolves around supermarkets and shelf stackers. Well thats less than 5% of business in the UK.

            Much of what people want is already catered for…… ha ha ha ha that is so funny. Socialists dont you love ’em the most uncreative, unimaginative, lazy people on the planet.

            The whole issue is supply side reforms. You see any business person worth their salt knows that you can create new businesses to satisfy customer demands in all kinds of ways. For instance the advent of digital technology has opened up a whole raft of new business opportunities.

            You obviously don’t know any self employed people

          • libertarian
            Posted October 7, 2013 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

            Bazzy

            “Your idea of everyone being self employed or running a business is just fantasy”

            There are 4.8 million businesses in the UK, most of them SME’s

            There are currently 4.2 million self employed people

            Why is it a fantasy ( apart from a few obvious drawbacks with people such as yourself who lack the ability ) ?

          • libertarian
            Posted October 7, 2013 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

            Baz

            By the way do you know that the average wage in the Uk is £26500 yet the average wage for self employed is £31,300 oh and just to show how badly treated workers are in this country the average wage of self employed people in IT industries is a paltry £50,820

            Blimey free markets are rubbish aren’t they just image in a socialist utopia all these workers could have a uniform minimum wage and a free state turnip once a fortnight.

            14% of UK workforce are now self employed and that is growing fast.

          • Bazman
            Posted October 7, 2013 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

            Tesco do not ‘compete’ for staff they the applications are many time the number of jobs avalible. Many bank workers at the height of the boom where claiming benefits as their wages were not high enough to live on and this is the case in many large companies massive profits that are not reflected in the levels of pay to staff making the government in effect subsidise them.
            It has been pointed out to you that 26k is an average and averages are pushed up by very large numbers. How many shop workers, gardeners, admin workers and in some many cases tradesman earn 26 k a year? If this was the case the benefits for working people would not be as high as it is. The economy has expanded over the years, but this expansion has not been reflected in higher wages for the majority of people and an elite few have made fortunes. I have never said that self employment is a bad thing, but no way could this be viable as way to end mass unemployment. It’s interesting to note too that most of my work as a sub contractor for private companies has seen the beer in my glass in may local pub put there by the government. Car scrapage scheme, Olympics, London councils, government funded scientific institute, London Gate and a few more all related to the building industry funded by the state. So much for private money funding my lifestyle! Long may the government continue to fund private industry. Is that socialism? Cheers! and Ram it.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 7, 2013 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

            Baz
            Your words:-“Much of what people want is already catered for.”
            Utter nonsense.
            Most of the biggest well known Companies in the world are under 30 years old
            Some examples, Apple, Sony Tom Tom, Nokia, Samsung, Dyson, Dell, McLaren, Cosworth, JCB, the list goes on and on.
            Products we never thought we needed before some bright person invented them and now the world queues for their latest offering.

          • uanime5
            Posted October 7, 2013 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

            @Edward2

            All big business pay most of their staff as little as possible to maximise their profits. They also don’t compete for staff as most of their roles require no skills.

            @libertarian
            Your inability to understand basic statistics is showing. You failed to provide any evidence explaining why you think everyone can run a business. Given that most people aren’t directors or self-employed it seems that the majority of people cannot run their own business.

            Those who are self-employed get higher wages because they don’t get holiday or sick pay. They also have to provide their own equipment.

            The number of self-employed people is rising because employers aren’t providing enough jobs, not because people enjoy being self-employed.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

            Of all the ridiculous statements you come out with Uni, this one tops the lot.
            “They also don’t compete for staff as most of their roles require no skills.”
            Utter nonsense which shows just how completely out of touch you are with modern business and the complex skills people now have to have at many differing jobs and in many different sectors.

          • Bazman
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

            Bill Gates apologist nonsense. Bill gates was inventing operating systems for computers in his garage when most of the world did not even know what a computer was. You think many people can do this and he should be defended at the cost of all others in being able to do this in the hope that we might have more? Even to the point of restricting the market and gtax system in his favour, to help others see how they can keep their market share and wealth if they do? How many Microsoft’s or Honda’s has Britain created? Branson is not even in the same league. Middle class fantasy of owning a wine or antique shop is all your ranting is. Marvellous! So ram it.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

            Another rambling and incoherent response Baz, that doesn’t address any of the points raised.

            What on earth has Bill Gates got to do with it!

          • Bazman
            Posted October 9, 2013 at 5:40 am | Permalink

            For years the companies spent nothing on training and then as predicted at least in the metal trades there was a skills shortage that was filled with cheap labour from Europe and a lowering of standards with the quality of work inspected in. Spanish and Italians put on old barges as their wages could not cover British living costs. Not a skills shortage as if they had offered to pay high wages they would have had to many tradesman. A shortage of money.

          • libertarian
            Posted October 9, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

            Baz

            Just repeatedly typing drivel isn’t much use.

            Tesco’s compete for staff at ALL levels.

            Bank workers on benefits……ha ha ha you’re a parody socialist…Are you Dave Spart ?

            Here’s a current list of average salary by occupation type.

            Try and read it and then take it on board and find a better reason to spout your socialist claptrap as its got nowt to do with jobs or earning or benefits for workers

            http://www.reed.co.uk/average-salary

            I’ve told you many times I’m an expert in the employment market, its what I do for a living.

            You on the other hand just make it up as you go along.

            Currently there are millions of vacancies in all areas

          • Bazman
            Posted October 9, 2013 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

            Libtard. If you are such an expert you know that no experience means no job. Bank tellers on 15k are entitled to benefits like those in the fast food industry. No ‘average’ bank salary for them or the taxpayer subsidising their wages via the benefits system.

          • Bazman
            Posted October 10, 2013 at 6:01 am | Permalink

            You can also explain how single binman job paying 13k a year attract hundreds of applications in your dreamworld of full employment. Recently one in Wrexham got 130 applications and historical stories in The Mail and Telegraph show some got hundreds. Who is competing with who again?

          • libertarian
            Posted October 10, 2013 at 10:35 am | Permalink

            Oh dear Bazman

            Once again you don’t read the links to evidence I put, you make stuff up and you have no idea how to operate in the real world.

            Yes I’m an expert in the world of work. Yes I know how to get people jobs. I’m also an unpaid Director of a charity that helps adults with learning disabilities get work. I found good well paying work for 5 more of the guys this month.

            I can show anyone with no experience how to gain experience and get on the job ladder. You may also be familiar with the term APPRENTICESHIPS.

            As for job applicant numbers, because you ( like many others in fact) fail to understand how the modern day job market works, you mistake the number of applicants as indicative of shortages when in fact its just indicative of the ease of multiple applications.

            I have jobs advertised in very very low unemployment areas that still attract 400 applicants, it doesn’t mean anything.

            You also answered your own rant.

            The STARTING salary for an unskilled inexperienced bank clerk is £15k, The pay scale goes up to £26k with experience. So you answered your own question if you bothered to think about it, which obviously you wouldn’t.

            By the way I love the fact that you’ve started calling me a Libtard now rather than a right wing nut job . Ha ha try finding out what a Libtard describes. Buffoon

          • libertarian
            Posted October 10, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

            Uanime5

            Oh boy its really hard dealing with people who don’t read or understand posts.

            1) Statistics has nothing to do with the debate, so my ability or otherwise to understand is irrelevant

            2) I specifically said not everyone is capable of runnning a business or being self employed

            3) You are just plain wrong almost everyone who chose to be self employed chose that because the lifestyle and earnings are better and they didn’t want to be a wage slave like you.

            4) The numbers of graduates leaving University who want to be self employed or to start their own business is at an all time high

            Try joining the 21st century

          • Bazman
            Posted October 10, 2013 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

            A large number of job application are just due to multiple applications? How about the queues around the block in some towns? Are these the same person too or maybe it is their relatives all going for one job? Graduates trying to start a business or become self employed is clear evidence of a lack of jobs. It is not? Yes it is. End of.
            Usual story of claiming there is no poor as there is no poverty in the UK. As if..

      • alan jutson
        Posted October 6, 2013 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

        uni5

        “well if Companies….. ”

        Agree absolutely, so perhaps with a few more cuts to business taxes, a further rise in the tax free personal allowance, and it should improve, after all over a million jobs created so far in 3 years.

        Then all we have to do is start to control immigration and we will be making good progress, with even more job choices for those who are already resident here.

        • A different Simon
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

          Alan ,

          That’s all well and good but it’s not enough .

          As soon as people have an extra quid in their pockets the price of essentials will rise so that the gains are appropriated by the people at the top .

          This is never clearer than with houseprices which will rise to ensure that mortgage holders pay a larger share of the fruits of their labour to banks in terms of the margin on mortgage interest .

          Ricardo’s law of rents is just as true today as it ever was .

          People are being farmed by the banks , hedgefunds and private equity and now that there is nothing left for them to harvest and people can go no further into debt they want ownership of all the remaining utilities such as healthcare and education .

          Of course the demand caused by mass immigration and restrictions preventing increased supply don’t help but even without these factors big players can corner the market in accommodation , food , supply of credit , other essentials .

        • uanime5
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

          The rate of corporation tax has been cut repeatedly yet there’s been little increase in the rate jobs are created. It seems that businesses are unwilling to hire while there’s still doubt about the economy.

          An increased personal allowance will only benefit those who earn more than the current personal allowance. For many people working part time it won’t offer any improvements.

          While there’s little that can be done to control EU immigration (other than improving eastern European countries so their people no longer want to come here) but non-EU immigration can be cut more easily.

          • libertarian
            Posted October 10, 2013 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

            Well Uanime5 at least you are consistent , WRONG but consistent.

            Since the rate of CT was reduced more than 1 Million new jobs have been created in the private sector.

            Sorry your personal allowance post shows a complete lack of understanding of the tax system, which I guess doesn’t surprise me.

            I’d love to know what job you do

          • Bazman
            Posted October 11, 2013 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

            if you believe Cameron’s claim on this you will believe anything and you clearly believe anything.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 6, 2013 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

        Well if Gordon Brown hadn’t pursued policies which trebled house prices in nominal terms and doubled them in real terms then people wouldn’t need so much money to live on, would they?

        • Bazman
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 5:42 am | Permalink

          Or priced for everything else had not at least doubled too?

      • libertarian
        Posted October 6, 2013 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

        Dear Uanime5

        Well the private sector HAS created a million new jobs, 80% of them WAY about a ‘living wage”. If government stopped taxing everything that moved and then wasting the money we could easily create a few million more.

        But thats socialism for you.

        • uanime5
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

          Firstly the loss of 600,000 jobs in the public sector means that overall less than 1 million jobs have been created in 3 years.

          Secondly many of these jobs were temporary jobs, such as all the people who were employed to work at the Olympics. That’s why the number of people who are unemployed hasn’t gone down, while the number of under 25s who are unemployed and the number of long term unemployed has gone up.

          Thirdly either produce figures showing that 80% of these jobs pay more than a living wage or admit you just made this up.

          Fourthly your claim that lower taxes would have created more jobs is little more than wishful thinking. Reducing corporation tax had little effect on the rate at which jobs were created.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

            Uni
            Be decent enough to admit that not so long ago on this site you were ranting on how the coalition would have huge unemployment levels as the private sector would not create any new jobs.
            Now you are being grudging about the one million they have created.
            And moaning that the millions of new jobs are not perfect jobs as defined by you.
            How many perfect jobs have you created Uni in the last few years?
            You seem to be a bright person… why not become the perfect employer?

  7. matthu
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    The parallels with communism are more far reaching than described above.

    For example, we had Vaclav Klaus, past President of Czechoslovakia, saying ““Twenty years ago we still felt threatened by the remnants of communism. This is really over,” Klaus said.

    “I feel threatened now, not by global warming — I don’t see any — (but) by the global warming doctrine, which I consider a new dangerous attempt to control and mastermind my life and our lives, in the name of controlling the climate or temperature.”

    The CP supports this, as it also does stealthy redistribution of wealth, state regulation of the media and wherever possible having unpopular regulations and controls being introduced by an unaccountable government in the form of the EU.

    Huge parallels with communism here.

    • Bob
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

      @matthu
      “CP supports this, as it also does stealthy redistribution of wealth, state regulation of the media”

      CP?
      Common Purpose?

  8. Richard1
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    A succinct summary. Since 1848 we have had a long experiment with socialism both full-blown in the Soviet Union, under Mao in China and other places such as North Korea, and partial as in the UK in the 60s and 70s. We see 2 things: 1) socialism is grossly inferior to capitalism as a means of allocating economic resources and achieving development and growth; and 2) Socialism can only work with increasing political repression. Many socialists do not want to see their opponents imprisoned, abused or killed, but the logical consequence of the abolition of markets in capital, goods and services is the abolition of markets and choice in political systems.

    What is very extraordinary is that intelligent, educated and apparently civilized people such as Ralph Miliband remained Marxists long after its terrible failures and horrific repression were apparent. For this reason, since Ed Miliband cites his father as an inspiration, the Daily Mail has done us a service by drawing attention to it.

    • Edward2
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 10:21 am | Permalink

      Richard, I agree with all you say in in response to another suberb article by Mr Redwood.

    • Ludgate Man
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 11:12 am | Permalink

      Richard1, I believe that some intelligent and educated people remained Marxists long after its terrible failures and horrific repression become apparent, because they simply desire and support any system that destroys what they see as the enemy i.e. successful, hard-working, rich capitalists. They care little or nothing about the consequences of their acts upon ordinary citizens.

      • Richard1
        Posted October 7, 2013 at 7:04 am | Permalink

        Yes that is true. Many leftists are driven more by hatred of those they see as political and class enemies than by rationale conclusions.

    • Bob
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      What puzzles me is that Ed is proposing the lowering of the voting age to sixteen while saying that we should ignore the diary entries of seventeen year olds.

      He can’t have it both ways, surely?

      • alan jutson
        Posted October 6, 2013 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

        Bob

        “What puzzles me…..”

        He knows exactly what he is doing, as most 16 -17 year olds would probably vote Socialist.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 6, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

        Nice point.

    • uanime5
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

      You seem to have ignored that socialism has worked without any problems in Germany, Sweden, and Scandinavia. I suspect you did this because it would undermine all your claims.

      • Edward2
        Posted October 6, 2013 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

        They would laugh at you Uni if they saw you describe these nations as socialist.

        PS What nation is Scandanavia?

        • uanime5
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

          These countries are far more socialist than the UK yet aren’t experiencing any of the problems Richard1 listed.

          Also I misspelled Switzerland as Scandinavia.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

            Yes I regularly misspell these two almost identical words all the time too Uni.
            Switzerland socialist…hilarious!

      • libertarian
        Posted October 6, 2013 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

        Uanime5

        That would be the Germany that has just scrapped a raft of “employee protection” regulations and that would be the same Norway, Sweden and Denmark that have ALL reduced corporate taxes and the top rates of income tax.

        Do you and your mate Baz never check anything before you write it?

        • Bazman
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

          More often than you think it? Trickle down of something, but not intelligent thought in your case.

        • uanime5
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

          All these countries are still more socialist than the UK, yet haven’t experience any of the problems Richard1 claimed they’d have. They also have tax levels that are higher than the UK’s tax levels.

          Also what employee protection regulations in Germany are you referring to?

      • Richard1
        Posted October 7, 2013 at 7:08 am | Permalink

        As discussed before it is apparent that you have no knowledge either of Germany or Scandinavia. What has worked very well in both cases is market based reforms, labour reforms, tax reforms and spending controls. Sweden by the late 1980s had plummeted from 1st in global GDP / head rankings to c. 20th. Accordingly free market reforms were implemented. The big threat to Germany today is the left-driven green energy policy.

        It is interesting that you are not able to cite any examples of real socialist societies which were either successful or even civilized.

        • uanime5
          Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

          Germany and the Scandinavian countries are more socialist that the UK yet aren’t experiencing the problems and political repression you claimed they’d have. So it’s clear that your claims are wrong.

          Also your attempts to claim that countries which are more socialist that then UK aren’t “real socialist societies” just shows you lack a real argument.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 8, 2013 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

            Uni
            Uni
            You are really just being very silly trying to claim these countries are socialist just because they have a reasonably successful mixed economy.
            You will be claiming the USA is socialist next
            Just try the Clause 4 test on these nations and see how you get on.

  9. colliemum
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    It is very interesting to draw the line from the Communist Manifesto to the politics of the Left/Labour in the now 160+ years since its publication.
    The point about inheritance is especially interesting. You rightly point out: “[….] though political succession is a feature of some of the great Labour families.”This points to something not often discussed, and that is the establishment of a Nomenklatura. Generally, we use that expression in relation to toe old soviet Union, but the ‘political succession’ can be found in many european socialist/social democrat parties as well.
    It is to do with the assumption that the Party members are the spear point of the revolution and have to lead the ignorant masses (us!) to the communist paradise. The longer they are in the party, the better they will be able to lead, so that the children of the prominence ‘inherit’ this ‘wisdom’ …

    One other observation can be made in regard to your point 6 – centralisation of communication. This no longer needs to be done through actual organisational structures. It works equally well when the minds, mental attitudes, knowledge of the ‘communicators’, the journalists, have been formed from youth to a world view in accordance with the Communist Manifesto – in modern guise.
    We don’t need to look further than the alliance of Guardian and BBC. The recent kerfuffle about Mr Miliband’s father is a case in point.
    While it surely is right to look after people’s welfare, and to make laws preventing their exploitation, the one malevolent influence the Communist Manifesto still exerts is that it needs an overmighty party, an overmighty government from which every ‘good’ flows, so that people no longer have to bear any responsibility for their own fate, don’t need to make any great effort to better themselves or their children – because state/party in their wisdom will give them ‘free stuff’ forever.

  10. oldtimer
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    Re 8: there was enforced direction of labour (if only for certain occupations) during WW2. That was certainly applied to engineers working on the war effort in the aircraft and related industries. You were directed to which company you had to work for and were not free to change jobs at will..

    The influence of this Manifesto succeeded in undermining, often to the point of destruction, many industries in the UK. Its influence peaked in the industrial anarchy of the 1970s. It is, in my opinion, an important reason why the UK does not possess the German equivalent of the Mittelstand, which developed and prospered as a consequence of the Erhard policies in post war Germany. His free market policies were diametrically opposed to the Communist ethos.

    Its influence has been and is extended through skilful use of and control of the media. Which its advocates now seek to extend.

  11. Bert Young
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    Focussing on extreme left-wing issues at the time of the Autumn conferences is one way of helping David Cameron who needs all the props he can get . Promoting the Labour Party and reminding everyone of the economic mess both Blair and Brown got this country into , is something we should all applause you for ; no-one in their right senses would want that again . Voting for UKIP presently has the stain of putting Labour back at the helm and many of us who have discussed this , lament the fact that both Farage and Cameron have drawn swords ( egos are to blame ). What I would like you to do is to gather around you all your “right” (forgive the pun) thinking colleagues and force Cameron out of the way. Putting the country first at this moment is the only priority . This should not be a forlorn hope .

    Reply Who would you rather have as Leader? The Parliamentary party does not think there is an obvious better candidate, and backs Mr Cameron.

    • Bert Young
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink

      You .

    • David Price
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

      “Who would you rather have as Leader? The Parliamentary party does not think there is an obvious better candidate, and backs Mr Cameron. “

      Find one.

      The current crop of party leaders, including Farage, are an unmitigated disaster. Preferably get somone who has contributed to our economy tangibly for an appreciable time with brains and skills rather than relying on Daddy or contacts via the Oxford PPE or LSE tribes.

      • Bob
        Posted October 6, 2013 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

        @David Price

        On the contrary, Nigel Farage has been very successful.

    • stred
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 11:46 am | Permalink

      Eric Pickles, in slimmed down form. His conference speech appealed to ex conservative voters. Cameron and Osborne spoke with forked tongue.

    • stred
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 11:52 am | Permalink

      Unfortunately, you are too logical and cool headed to appeal to the masses. The jibe about your extra-terrestrial origins has stuck. No 11 a natural home though.

  12. Normandee
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    So Adam Afriyie has broken from the pack and started to disperse the smoke around James Wharton’s bill to reveal the cynical exercise that it really is. I look forward to watching you and your like minded friends rushing to do nothing, to hear the click clunk of safety belts being applied to the comfy seats, and an eery silence settle around the Redwood, Carswell, Hannan, clique.
    This is the point at which you come back with various comments on the validity of his believes and motives, which in fact only question yours.

    Reply The danger with Mr Afriyie’s approach is it may simply delay or sink the Wharton Bill depending on what Miliband does. I want a referendum, voted for one in 2011 and will vote for the Wharton Bill. The Bill allows an earlier referendum than 2017. Anyone sensible who wants a referendum would agree with me that the issue is “Is there a majority in the present Commons for any EU referendum at any future date?” and will back anything that might bring one about.

    • miami.mode
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

      Mr Afriyie is correct when he indicates that David Cameron has a credibility problem with the general public especially following the Lisbon Treaty fiasco where it was obvious that it had already been signed by Gordon Brown and nothing could be done to change it. Mr Cameron should have made it quite plain before the election that it was a done deal and thus a referendum would not be forthcoming.

      Mr Cameron has already indicated that he wants to remain in the EU and the suspicion is that he will successfully negotiate for repatriation of a few meaningless powers and will then declare that a referendum is not necessary.

      The default position for politicians at his level is to use language that can be interpreted in 2 or more ways and this is what he seems to be doing on this issue.

      Mr Afriyie has been a businessman where straight yes or no answers are required but these words all too often seem to be missing from a politician’s
      lexicon and this is the reason that Nigel Farage is popular. His party may be a bit of a joke but he talks straight and people can understand exactly what he says.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 6, 2013 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

        “Mr Cameron should have made it quite plain before the election that it was a done deal and thus a referendum would not be forthcoming.”

        He did, on November 4th 2009 when he announced that after two years of blustering about “we would not let matters rest there” he would do exactly that, swallowing the treaty whole.

        Despite many and repeated pledges to the contrary, including this in the Tory manifesto for the EU Parliament elections in June 2009:

        http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Euro%20Election%202009/euro-manifesto.ashx

        “We pledge that if the Lisbon Treaty is not in force in the event of the election of a Conservative Government this year or next, we will hold a
        referendum on it, urge its rejection, and – if successful – reverse Britain’s ratification. And if the Constitution is already in force by then, we have made clear that in our view political integration in the EU would have gone too far, the Treaty would lack democratic legitimacy, and we would not let matters rest there.”

        So by his own words since December 1st 2009 we have had a treaty in force which lacks democratic legitimacy and takes political integration too far, but he decided not to do anything about that even though he could.

        Reply I am glad you quote it in full as it makes quite clear there would no referendum is Lisbon had been ratified. If we have a majority Conservative government we would have now renegotiated our relationship, but the Lib Dems would not sign up to that.

        • lifelogic
          Posted October 6, 2013 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

          The fact that is was ratified clearly meant that a referendum was needed even more! The pledge he gave to millions of voters and was hugely publicised did not have this absurd caveat in it. It was a deliberate and carefully designed deception of the electorate.

          I like most people had never even heard of this small print until he had ratted on the promise made to the nation using this small print. When was this caveat make public to voters? When did he say it and did it have equal prominence?

          The fig leave that a treaty is some how no longer a treaty after ratification is pathetic and dishonest. Rather like the constitution becoming Lisbon after it was rejected. Indeed before ratification it is only a proposed treaty only after is it actually treaty.

          The man has zero credibility a promise from him is totally worthless especially after he will clearly have left power.

          He offered a “cast iron guarantee” to put any treaty that emerges in front of the voters. This is what all the voters heard and wanted. His pre-election ratting is why they lost the election, that and the giving equal TV billing for Clegg.

          It will also be why they lose the next one, two, three or even more.

          Reply Most other people knew the score – there was a row when Lisbon was ratified before the General Election and Cameron made it clear that meant no referendum promise in the Manifesto.

          • lifelogic
            Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:37 am | Permalink

            “Most knew the score” not at the time he gave the promise that he ratted on – perhaps most knew pre-election and after the ratification.

            Indeed that is mainly why he lost the election that an Clegg’s TV billing gift from Cameron.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted October 7, 2013 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

            JR, what do you think the average voter would understand by the oft-repeated words “we would not let matters rest there”? Do you think that would normally be construed as “we would do nothing at all about it, not a referendum or anything else, we would just swallow the whole treaty as a fait accompli”?

            Reply It has led to the demand for a new relationship and the promise of a renegotiation by a new Conservative government. It would all have been done by now if we had elected a Conservative majority government.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted October 7, 2013 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

            Oh, so it has led to a demand and a promise …

  13. Leslie Singleton
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    One reads of a move to try and force an early Referendum. Good, and if it were to force Cameron out personally, better still. A Referendum in the hand is worth half a dozen in the bush. Useless of Tories to go on about their plan for 2017 when on any basis you like or even do not like there is no certainty, rather the opposite, that the Tories will be in control after next General Election.

    Reply: The danger is Mr Afriyie’s amendment will scupper the Bill – it now depends to a considerable extent on whether Labour switch sides to support a referendum or not, as the Lib Dems will remain resolutely against one.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 11:48 am | Permalink

      Reply to Reply–Surely the Bill is only necessary because people do not trust Cameron and it is felt he is more likely to be held to his word if there is a Bill like this in place–load of nonsense really for there is no substantive reason why the Bill should not be brought in early in the next Parliament, as per Manifesto, which could be done routinely enough if the Tories win outright which is a necessary condition anyway. The Tory High Command’s game plan in their dreams of blackmailing the populace in to voting them in else no Referendum is crazy enough in itself. What they should be doing is seeing how Labour and the Liberals like a Referendum up ’em right now–the Question at this stage not needing by any means to be final or binding. Action this day instead of the present farce. Funny indeed how Cameron blows hot and cold on whether votes in Parliament have importance–actually maybe not so funny given it’s him.

    • lifelogic
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

      Well indeed Cameron will surely bury the bill rather than allow a referendum.
      So once again we will see Cameron in his true heart and soul, ratting, colours.

      A promise of a referendum from this ratter, two years after he has left office (and he will not even tell us what powers he seeks back) is as much use as a chocolate tea pot.

  14. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    During much of the period when Ed Miliband’s father was (allegedly) propagating these extreme principles at an academic level my own father occasionally articulated elements of his own down to earth and common sense critique of communism from the point of view of a semi-skilled worker.

    Such as:

    “Even if everything was divided up equally that wouldn’t last long … it’s just human nature that some people are hard-working and want to get on and some people are lazy, I see that every day at work … it would soon go back to some people being richer and some poorer … and why is the bloody government taking six and eight from what I earn and giving it to those who can’t be bothered to work? …. I don’t mean those who really can’t help themselves, that’s different, I mean those who won’t help themselves … there’s a old saying that the Lord helps those who help themselves, but some people want it all handed to them on a plate … like those up on Windsor Drive, I’ve worked bloody hard to buy this house, why should I have to pay for them to live in council houses which are better than mine? … mind you, I’ve nothing against Jack Doolan, he was in Burma during the war and he still gets the malaria coming back, but he’s a hard worker, I don’t mind him living in a council house … ”

    And so forth, but at the end of it usually voting Labour anyway, as far as I know.

    Thank God for the common sense of the British working man, eh, the salt of the earth?

    • lifelogic
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 10:09 am | Permalink

      Indeed one just need to observe human nature.

  15. Cheshire Girl
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    ‘Who would you rather have as a Leader’? I would rather have (and this is not a joke or a flippant remark) John Redwood – the voice of reason and common sense!

    • lifelogic
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

      Leadership need a good compass plus some one to inspire and motivate the troops. Cameron just has a compass that is 180 degrees out on nearly all issues. It is too late the change the man alas. But perhaps he can still be made to see sense.

  16. Neil Craig
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    #8 – the unemployed having to do public service, is now Tory policy to which Labour have a knee jerk opposition. 😉

    What I find interesting is not the degree to which these were accepted but the degree to which, after being accepted (like very high income tax) they have been rolled back and even Labour, nominally, oppose them.

  17. lifelogic
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Free education for all children in public schools a good thing?

    Well perhaps but food and water are good things and they are not free. We just provide money to those who need it to enable them to buy it.

    The problem with free state schools is that they are unfair competition for private schools and this kill most competition and thus quality. Vouchers or at least tax reliefs for private schools are needed.

    The other problem is the political control of state schools (and private) means they teach a lot of silly drivel, quack global warming science and other religions and lefty politics. Too much “BBC think” enforced equality nonsense everywhere and not enough real science or real economics.

    • boffin
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

      Well said, but I’d go further:

      – the UK education industry has become a job-creation scheme for academics, essentially a cartel serving its own hierarchy handsomely and the needs of youngsters ever more badly (and pity the PBI in the front line, as in the NHS).

      – a most valuable and welcome reform would be to permit school-leaving at an age lower than 16, conditional upon attainment of adequate literacy and numeracy standards, and perhaps some achievement in subjects leading to further vocational training such as apprenticeship.

      Here is quite an eye-opening short report on the woeful progression of higher education in the USA; I fear that the UK is on a similar slippery slope.

  18. Gary
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    The Labour Theory of Value did it for me. If I take two years , lovingly hand crafting a buggy whip it must have a lot of value, even if nobody wants it ?!

    The way to crush the bourgeoisie is
    to grind them between the
    millstones of taxation and inflation.
    — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

    I often wonder if what we have in govt, red or blue, is not carrying out this mission ? Watch what they do not what they say. They are all statists manipulating the money supply and taxing us until the pips squeak. What we need is a permanent govt shutdown.

    • Gary
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 10:58 am | Permalink

      BTW lest people are fooled, HTB is a whopping £130bn tax in the prudent. It is a banker bailout by subterfuge and an election bribe. The blue party talk a good game, but they are scoundrels, just as are the red party .

    • lifelogic
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

      to grind them between the
      millstones of taxation and inflation

      Sounds like the coalition.

  19. libertarian
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    The main problem with the Communist Manifesto is that its central plank “That the proletariat should own the means of production” was actually achieved 40 + years ago by the free market. You see unlike the 19th century the means of production no longer require access to large amounts of land or indeed capital. The means of production now lie almost entirely in the minds and talents of the ordinary person. Anyone and I mean absolutely anyone can start a business in the UK for under £100, that person or persons can create a global enterprise should they so wish with very little capital and even less physical space. That’s why our left wing friends get so nasty, vindictive and jealous of anyone who has the temerity to earn more than the minimum wage. You see communism and its little brother socialism are about enslaving the workers and keeping them in their place. The free market is about giving everyone the opportunity to succeed if they wish.

  20. John B
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    ”Free education for all children in public schools.”

    And you are ‘pleased’ to see this… as a Conservative?

    Give me the mind of a child before the age of seven….

    The State abuse of education and finance to build indoctrination camps to produced socially engineered, politically and ideologically correct drones and workbots all with qualifications but no education, to do as the State says and hand over their cash.

    A Conservative?

    • lifelogic
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

      Indeed we need to teach them to think not just to regurgitate government drivel on human rights, enforced equality, the benefits of the undemocratic EU, quack renewable energy and the rest of the government agenda.

  21. uanime5
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    2.A heavy progressive or graduated Income Tax. Labour got its marginal rate up to 83% for earned income and 98% for unearned income in the 1970s, rates Marx would have approved. They resiled from these 1997-2009, but started to hike rates again at the end.

    So those with the broadest shoulders have to bear the greatest tax burden, rather than the poor.

    Labour had good growth during the 1970’s, while the USA had good growth between 1930-1980 when they had very high tax rates. I guess high tax rates don’t negatively affect growth and may even improve it.

    3. The abolition of all right of inheritance This has fathered Inheritance taxes, the Republicanism of some Labour supporters, the end of hereditary principle for the Lords – though political succession is a feature of some of the great Labour families.

    Inheritance taxes prevent the wealthy from maintaining their privileges without working for them. In the past the wealthy didn’t need to work because they could live off the interest from their family’s wealth, now they have to work for their money.

    Hereditary Lords are an affront to democracy. Members of the upper house should be chosen through elections or for their contributions to society, not because their family received a title centuries ago.

    4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Never caught on in the UK, though popular in some autocratic regimes abroad.

    In the UK criminals are required to pay for the damage they’ve caused, which often results in their property being confiscated.

    5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, through a monopoly nationalised bank.

    Is giving control of this to the private sector a good idea? Won’t this just result in private sector banks creating as much money as they want, even when they have no way to pay this money back?

    6.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. Labour reached the point where the UK had a nationalised airline, railway, road freight, postal and telecommunications service.

    Given how privatisation made railways worse and more expensive I wouldn’t say that privatisation is automatically better than state ownership.

    I’m guessing they didn’t mention energy or water companies because in 1848 only a few people would have access to running water or electricity. Though privatising both hasn’t helped the UK reduce the cost of either.

    Also the lobbying bill is still being criticised by charities and other voluntary groups because it seems designed to stop them from raising issues in the UK, rather than stopping corporate lobbying.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrew-lansleys-lobbying-bill-is-still-a-dogs-breakfast-8861358.html

    Reply Good you have confirmed your support for most of the Communist party Manifesto – we now know for sure where you are coming from.
    The 1970s were a lamentable period for the economy under Labour, with a major recession, the visit to the IMF and poor growth for the rest of the time.

    • libertarian
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

      Uanime5

      During the 1970’s under first Heath and then for most of it Labour. We had a 3 day week, energy rationing, most of the coal mines and shipyards were closed down for good and the British car industry went bust. There was rampant inflation ( my mortgage rate went from 8% to 17% in the space of 7 months) I lost my factory job due to the miners striking demanding a 43% wage rise meanwhile the pound was devalued the IMF were called in and the top rate of marginal tax was 98%.

      From 1970 the average rate of inflation hit about 6%, topping out at 13.3% by 1979. This period is also known for “stagflation”, a phenomenon in which inflation and unemployment steadily increased, therefore leading to double-digit interest rates that rose to unprecedented levels (above 12% per year). The prime rate hit 21.5 in December 1980,

      You live in fairy land Uanime5 . Have you left school yet? You ought to work harder at history lessons

      • oldtimer
        Posted October 7, 2013 at 7:39 am | Permalink

        Spot on! The 1970s were a decade of anarchy.

    • sjb
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:13 am | Permalink

      @JR
      With respect, please ask someone you trust for their opinion on whether the first sentence of your reply to unanime5’s comments is reasonable.

      Six months ago, you told us that you were struggling to cope with the number of contributions.[1] I wonder if you would not be better served by delegating the moderation to someone who could then filter out the repetitious & abusive posts plus flag up posts to which you may wish to respond.

      [1] http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/05/28/contributions-to-this-blog/

      • uanime5
        Posted October 7, 2013 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

        I wonder if you would not be better served by delegating the moderation to someone who could then filter out the repetitious & abusive posts plus flag up posts to which you may wish to respond.

        Since when has disagreeing with someone been considered abusive and when has commenting on today’s topic been considered repetitious?

        I doubt that censoring dissent is really something anyone should be proud of.

        ReplyAnd who would pay the salary of such a person as this is a free site.

        • sjb
          Posted October 8, 2013 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

          @uanime5
          What prompted my intervention was that I could not see how any reasonable observer could conclude the line-by-line points you made amounted to “support for most of the Communist party Manifesto.” I put JR’s comment down to tiredness perhaps from having to plough through 100+ contributions each day, a significant number of which require editing. I then remembered JR’s appeal earlier in the year in which he referred to the problem of repetitious & abusive posts. If you thought I was accusing you of this then I apologise.

          @JR
          I am sure you would have no shortage of volunteers. The tricky bit is to select the right ones.

  22. Mark B
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Can we please stop talking about New Labour under Mr. E. Miliband. He really is not that interesting – unlike his Dad.

    • Richard1
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 7:11 am | Permalink

      Unfortunately due to the Liberal Democrats’ contempt for democracy Miliband needs far fewer votes than Cameron to be Prime Minister. It is therefore important to look at his views. The fact that he draws inspiration from the failed and repellent doctrine of Marxism is a great concern.

  23. Antisthenes
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    If the left were capable of learning lessons from the past they would have ditched socialism years ago. They would be concentrating on making free market capitalism work well and using the surpluses that system generates for the common good. Certainly they are happy to do the latter if somewhat over zealously but then want to destroy the former and we all know what happens when you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

  24. Mark B
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    “6.Centralisation of the means of communication . . . . ”

    Ah, that will be the BBC then.

    They always start with well meaning intentions. Hilter’s intentions to unite the German peoples of the Sudetenland, Danzig and Austria had popular support. So too did the Bolsheviks rallying cry of, “Bread, Peace and Land.” Didn’t quite workout for all those involved now did it.

  25. Bazman
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    Difficult to see how western Europe is going to become less socialist or even communist in the long term. As technology advances there will be less and less need for unskilled work. The driverless car looks like becoming a reality at least in this generation leading to the loss of millions of driving jobs a job that anyone with a licence and a measure of sobriety can do. Shop work replaces by robotic warehouses and so on. Now I am no Luddite, armies of woman assembling washing machines has already been replaced by robots. Plastic windows and signs have wiped out the painting/ decorating/sign writing trade Automation and advances in materials in some trades will never replace the human, semi automatic, automatic and robotic welding has been around for years and should hold no fear, the terminator type robot of the film by the same name is some way off and adhesive technology for metals hazy.
    However if you have a state where the lower classes get no education or training for this brave new world then the ones who are unable to get work or are unemployable are going to have to do something or be placated. It’s no use blaming th4m for their own fecklessness and unemployability as this will only get you so far. Have nothing and be happy with it. The rich work for their money and so must you. Only the rich do not and this is as clear as the light of day. They grow ever idle and live for pleasure and as long as they support the ruling elite are allowed to do so. This whole army of unemployed is to become self employed or peasants living off the land. Ain’t happening and you know it. The answer will be to pay them to do nothing or have their small part time jobs subsidised by the state as happens now. Failure to do this would require a much larger police force and ultimately have them placed in certain economic areas where they can live and have the more wealthy areas only available to them for work. Economic apartheid. Now I for one would not accept anyone telling me I cannot get training as I have no money to pay for it and do not qualify for state aid as I am from a poor area with little schooling as the government thought it a waste of money. So no job no money. Sorry… Millions of males in this position would be a real headache for the ruling elite and their servants, so etc etc

  26. John Wrake
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Redwood,

    In your reply to Bert Young at 8.38 you wrote: Who would you rather have as Leader? The Parliamentary party does not think there is an obvious better candidate, and backs Mr Cameron.

    This is sadly not a comment on the availability of potential leaders in the House of Commons, but rather on the quality of Conservative M.P.s.

    It is necessary to ask why the majority back Cameron. Do they back his policies because they believe he is right to change the definition of marriage or the law on Succession; do they agree with his position on membership of the E.U. and his intention to fight to keep this country a member; do they believe that his pledge to re-negotiate the terms will gain unanimity amongst the nations of Europe who consistently repudiate it; do they think that the increasing numbers of voters opposed to that view do not matter?

    Or is it rather that they lay down in surrender before threats from the Whips, leave the thinking to those who claim to know all, cherish their appointments for the personal benefits which accrue, and don’t want to rock the boat in case it provides comfort for other political parties?

    We do not elect Members to enable them to perpetuate their security in their seats. They are elected to represent electors views and to serve as guardians of the law-abiding citizens of the nation.

    It is manifestly clear that the current government under Mr. Cameron’s leadership has failed and continues to fail on both counts. It is loyalty to the nation, rather than loyalty to Mr. Cameron which is required, and I am happy to suggest suitable candidates for the post of Leader if current M.P.s have no suggestions of their own.

    John Wrake

    • lifelogic
      Posted October 6, 2013 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

      To late now alas. Cameron is the only real candidate, until he takes them all over the cliff in 2015 Major style.

      Who will replace him then?

  27. forthurst
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    There would have been every reason to suppose that the ideas in the Communist Manifesto would largely fail in practice, since they were firstly, mostly untried, and second, the creation of mediocrity; that of course has not prevented fanatics, for reasons other than altruism, most notably the Bolsheviks, from applying them by coercion backed up the apparatus of a police state.

    The truth is that private enterprise as a means of creating wealth through innovation and enterprise has been overwhelming successful through not only introducing new methods that are superior, but also in the elimination of failure and obsolescence. The failures of the private enterprise system have been wrought by the failure of politicians to block de facto monopolies where competition should exist and in the regulation of utilities where competition is impractical.

    The failure of communism, as with the failure of most of our post war governments, is in the failure of solutions arising from the false analysis of problems or of those radical and doctrinaire solutions applied to what were not actually problems at all.

  28. Max Dunbar
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    At present there is a council by-election taking place in Glasgow Govan. All the main parties are taking part.
    Out on the street and in the main hub of the ward the Communist Party is well represented. They have a stall with large flags flying from it and make use of a loud-hailer. They also use a fleet of 4 ‘Zils’ to roar around the constituency with, again, large flags flying from the cars. The Labour Party are well represented, as are the SNP. They all engage with the local shoppers and general public.
    Where is the Conservative Party? Where is UKIP? Both of these parties have candidates standing in this election.
    If Right Wing parties do not actively canvass or engage with the voters then they have only themselves to blame if people regard them with disdain and do not vote for them. The Socialists are hungry, aggressive and assertive. Fire must be met with fire (metaphorically of course).

    Reply Yes, of course they need to engage. To do so they need local volunteers prepared to spend their time out on the streets engaging. Your question is best directed to the residents of Glasgow Govan.

    • stred
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

      Any right winger engaging in Govan would need a gum shield and armoured car. Farage was nearly duffed in Edinburgh. Why don’t you move to Perth or apply for asylum in England.

      • Max Dunbar
        Posted October 7, 2013 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

        Too easily frightened and where is the challenge?
        Farage got a nasty shock but one gets used to it. You don’t need a gum shield or an armoured car in Govan. The natives are friendly. As for the Communists it’s all Big Show. Labour are also keen wavers of the red flag I have noticed.

      • Wisnton Smith
        Posted October 8, 2013 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

        The Edinburgh ambush was by middle-class students and left-wing extremists from Unite.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply: I think that the question needs to be asked of your candidate in Govan. All he needs is one volunteer to accompany him.
      The people of Govan have only one Tory on show at the moment – a statue of Sir William Pearce who was a shipbuilder and benefactor at the end of the 19th century. He was Conservative MP for the burgh of Govan.

  29. bluedog
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    One of the most brilliant inventions of the Frankfurt School is the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.

    Established in the 1990’s in response to the Rio Conventions, ICLEI is the vehicle for the implementation of Agenda 21. If there is any code of practice that synthesises and enables implementation of the Marxist manifesto following the fall of Marxist regimes in eastern Europe, it is Agenda 21. The genius of Agenda 21 is that its measures are implemented at the local government level. As most central governments have signed up to the Rio conventions, implementation is legitimised for the next step; the use of local government to implement Agenda 21.

    What is Agenda 21? The use of the canons of environmentalism to re-order society on a centrally planned basis with the progressive elimination of private property rights. When Ed Miliband spoke of confiscating unused development land he was simply singing from the Agenda 21 hymn sheet.

    • A different Simon
      Posted October 8, 2013 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

      Bluedog ,

      I am aware of Agenda 21 and it’s infamous “precautionary principle” .

      However , Ed Miliband’s pronouncements on unused development land were nothing to do with Agenda 21 .

      Ed Miliband was proposing the wrong tool for the job . A location value tax as supported by true capitalists like Winston Churchill would be a better way of ensuring efficient use of land and capturing the rental value of the land for the benefit of society as a whole and keeping accommodation affordable .

      No surprise the landowners chose to retain income tax introduced to fund the Napoleonic wars and implement it in America in 1913 , same year as the federal reserve act .

      Agenda 21 is far worse .

      The key (supra?) legal feature of the precautionary principle of Agenda 21 is that authorities only have to claim a risk exists , they don’t have to actually prove a risk exists .

      Eg they can force you to move merely by claiming that endangered wildlife live in your garden . Same with global warming alarmism .

      This gives them free license to do anything they want for whatever reason they want .

      More open to abuse than declaring a permanent state of emergency .

      Who is behind it though ? The same Elites who are behind the Federal Reserve and the E.U. and who run the shadow banking system , who anoint future leaders like Obama , Bush and Cameron .

      Their objective is undoubtedly population reduction and the half whits in green movement will unwittingly make it easy for them .

  30. Anonymous
    Posted October 6, 2013 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    The first person to make communism work will become a millionaire.

    • Bazman
      Posted October 7, 2013 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

      Bankers already have and already are! LOL!

  31. Martin
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    Item 4 – You could argue that the stamp duty the Oligarchs have to pay on their flats in Zone 1 is covered by this!

    Item 3 – Inheritance taxes have turned a nation of small businesses into a few big ones as corporations don’t pay this tax!

    Incidentally I was watching the World At War series ITV did some time ago and Michael Foote reckoned that Britain was close to a socialist paradise then!

  32. Roy Grainger
    Posted October 7, 2013 at 6:54 am | Permalink

    On 10., it is illogical that Labour do not have as a policy the abolition of all independent fee-paying schools, or at least the immediate removal of their charitable status – this would fit entirely with their philosophy. When you ask them why they don’t put it in their manifesto all you get is a feeble “there are other things we need to do which take priority”. I suspect the real reason is because so many of them and their offspring are educated in the independent sector.

    Reply Indeed – it is worse than that. Labour opposes Grammar schools which offer the bright but poor the chance of advancement but defend the public schools which offer the children of the rich the prospect of advancement!

  33. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted October 11, 2013 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    The only antidote needed to this manifesto is a straight jacket and a padded cell.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page