Friday, 11 December 2015


Mao Zedong portrait.jpg

 Mao Zedong portrait" by Zhang Zhenshi (1914–1992)

Hats off to The Times writer who penned the title Maomentum to the Editorial pages this morning. It certainly brought a smile to this grumpy blogger! Addressing the drift of Labour away from mainstream politics our anonymous writer laments:

Free peoples need safeguards against the destructive powers of factions. From two and a half centuries this has been a basic justification for representative democracy as opposed to giving a say to those with the loudest voices.

Sadly this observation is an accurate reflection of the crisis now enveloping the Labour Party in the age of social media. Balance and reflection is replaced by shrill series of "traitor" and "Tory lite" to anyone who dares to disagree with Momentum's little red book-like followers.

Strictly speaking of course there aren't any Maoists involved in the Momentum Tendency (as far as I know) despite John McDonell's foolish quotations or Corbyn's references to Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha (pronounced to rhyme with "todger").

Most of these people are either Trotskyists, Stalinists or at least influenced by these ideological traditions and their mode of operations.

Dissent will not be tolerated.

No safe spaces for those that dare to disagree.

Having operated in a left wing dominated union the antics of the far-left are both obvious and subliminal at the same time. Hegemony once established cannot be challenged.

It's in the nature of the Marxist totalitarian beast.

Despite their noise the half-a-per-cent that make up the far-left in this country, the majority of ordinary and especially working class voters are not ideologically minded. Not part of the British culture really. What people want is fair treatment, help for those who cannot look after themselves and for those that have the ability to pay their fair share of taxes both individually and corporately to maintain a civilised society.

Communism especially now long exposed for the tyranny that it is does not appeal. Call it what you will "socialism" "Trotskyism" or try and pretend it is a "progressive" movement does not wash.

There is a strong tradition of both individual and economic liberalism is this country that both the left and the current Tory ideologues have long forgotten, deliberate or otherwise.

The need to return to rational, non-ideologically driven politics is urgent.

Political (and religious) extremism is tearing not just this country but Europe apart as we see the rise of the National Front in France, Jobbik in Hungary and Corbynism in the UK amongst others.

The line between the extremists has always been thin and at times as the lunatics of the Stop the War Coalition have shown us is easily crossed.

Far too easily.


  1. Where to even begin with this?

    Firstly, 'rational, non ideological politics' does not exist. Liberalism is ideological, as is liberal democracy (two concepts that have always made uncomfortable bedfellows, many later liberals such as Hayek and Nozick felt dermocracy could undermine individual liberty). As for rationality, well, a 'rational' analysis of our rail system is likely to conclude that it would be better renationalised like in much of Europe. Of course, this is part of Corbyn's 'extreme' (another contested term which I would argue applies far more to cheerleaders of the present system) programme for Britain.

    Anyone who listens and reads Corbyn's ideas can realise that what he believes in is essentially Left-Keynesianism, a mixed economy, accepting capital accumulation while setting some limits on it.

    And as a final point, struggles for democracy in this country have often had a certain social content, wanting to extend the franchise so that they could ensure better conditions for everyone. Very little to do with liberalism.

  2. Oh, and as an aside, perhaps look at some of the disgusting comments made routinely about Corbyn and his supporters before you bleat on about how we're the intolerant ones.

  3. In one paragraph you hail economic liberalism, in the very next, you call for non-ideological politics. Sorry, Howie, you are one confused guy. Economic liberalism is one of the most pernicious ideologies of our time.

    1. Not confused at all Dave. You confuse or deliberately conflate a "liberal" society with a mixed economy to what you Marxists refer to as Neo-Liberalism.

    2. Ok Howie, so do you advocate a liberal society with a mixed econony? Given you've correctly highlighted the failures of privatisation before, I would assume so. And this comment:

      'What people want is fair treatment, help for those who cannot look after themselves and for those that have the ability to pay their fair share of taxes both individually and corporately to maintain a civilised society.'

      Quite frankly is what Corbyn is advocating isn't it? Crackdown on tax evasion, a return to the 50p rate, as well as a return to public ownership in some industries. There is nothing in this that can be considered extreme. What IS in my view extreme and contrary to the rule of/equality before the law (which is classic liberalism and what you also seemed to believe in) is literally allowing tax loopholes and evasion on an industrial scale, with the refrain of 'but they'll just leave the UK if we do anything' (there's no real evidence to suggest that, after all, Russia has a top rate of 13% but the oligarchs flock here, not the other way around!)