In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

I think that is why people just say the last bit …more catchy easier to grasp.

launching an undeclared ideological class war on the British people

You HAVE to admit that you are second-guessing their motives based on your previously formed opinions of the people involved. Most of the rest of that post is conjeecture, based on your own political bias, isn’t it?

I don’t think politics or politicians (aka people) work along those lines.

You HAVE to admit that you are second-guessing their motives based on your previously formed opinions

I’m not sure there is much “guessing” going on and it is not based simply on my previously formed opinions – although they clearly play a very important part.

Much of it is based on what other people are saying, such as Professor David Blanchflower with his comment : “There’s no example in history where such a thing as this has ever worked. The only examples in history is where you’ve done this and it’s failed” It is clear that failure is pretty much a foregone conclusion – raising unemployment, lack of demand, lack of growth etc. But Osborne seems hugely unbothered – and don’t forget that he completely failed to predict the global crises/recession. “Success” doesn’t seem to be the overriding consideration, so there must be another motive. Is there any doubt that the Tories have a long history of attacking the welfare state and wanting to reduce the public sector and wages ? Clearly the present situation has provided them with a golden opportunity. And only a fool would believe that they are doing all this simply for the benefit of ordinary working people. They are in it for themselves. And they will grab everything they can – why wouldn’t they ?

Junkyard – actually that isn’t the quote I was referring to. In fact I now realise that I was referring to Lenin’s principle of socialism (first phase communism) within Marxist theory : from each according to their ability, to each according to their work. Leading to a more advanced society based on, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. It’s often forgotten that Marx argued for the establishment of socialism, before there was any possibility of further advancement. Something which many of the socialist countries also chose to forget, with their scant regard for : to each according to their contribution/work.

I only googled for the quote ernie but cheers my knowledge of Marx is not that great but I have read some of his stuff many years ago ..complicated is my main memory of it.

Something which many of the socialist countries also chose to forget

Indeed they did and harmed the [global]cause no end

I am not saying the cuts are a good idea – it’s clearly risky as hell for the reasons obvious to most.

However I really don’t think that George and Dave are sitting in an oak panelled office saying ‘this is a great chance to kick the scum back down to where they belong!’

I think Thatcher was much more ideologically motivated. Dave and Nick are just being thoughtless and impulsive I think.

my knowledge of Marx is not that great but I have read some of his stuff many years ago ..complicated is my main memory of it.

My knowledge of Marx is very far from great (I’m sure many on here have a much better knowledge). Complicated ? The intellectual tw4t was incapable of writing anything which a working class person with basic education like me can easily understand. The only exception is the Communist Manifesto, but that’s probably because Engels said to him “‘ere mate, let me help you with this one”. That’s why I rely so much on Lenin (plus of course Lenin had a more contemporary and practical take on things) I don’t think your second point is quite as straight forward as that – but that’s a whole different argument.

I really don’t think that George and Dave are sitting in an oak panelled office saying ‘this is a great chance to kick the scum back down to where they belong!’

I’m not sure they need to sit down and think about it as such, it’s all pretty natural for a Bullingdon Boy. A bit like joining the Tory Party ….it’s the natural order of things. As is grabbing opportunities when they present themselves. And I wouldn’t underestimate Osborne – I reckon he’s probably far more shrewd and clever than you might imagine. More so than Cameron I reckon.

I’m just reading Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine – which makes interesting reading in the current circumstances. Makes you realise that NeoCons wait for a good crisis and then rather than having to develop a plan, they can reach onto the shelf and dust off ‘The Big Boy’s Book of Milton Friedman’ and set about dismantling the public sector and privatising it. If you think about the language being used it’s clear that the current crisis is allowing them to go far further in this tgN they would be able to otherwise.

Oh and as noted above – it’s unlikely to work but no one seems to worry about that.

Makes you realise that NeoCons wait for a good crisis…….

And then exaggerate it into the realms of absurdity.

Christopher Pissarides is a Greek Cypriot born Professor who holds the Norman Sosnow Chair in Economics at the Economics Department and is Director of the Research Programme on Macroeconomics at the Centre for Economic Performance, both at the London School of Economics. He speaks fluent Greek and is world renowned – last monday he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Last week Prof Pissarides accused George Osborne of having “exaggerated” the risk of a Greek-style debt crisis.He said :

“It is important to avoid this ‘sovereign risk’. But in my view Britain is a long way from such a threat, and the Chancellor has exaggerated the sovereign risks that are threatening the country,

These risks were not necessary at this point. He could have outlined a clear deficit-reduction plan over the next five years, postponing more of the cuts, until recovery became less fragile. The ‘sovereign risk’ would have been minimal.

Unemployment is high and job vacancies few. By taking the action that the Chancellor outlined in his statement, this situation might well become worse,

Overall, the Chancellor is putting the economy through some unnecessary risks because of his fear of sovereign risk, which does not appear justified”

.

And whilst on the subject of Nobel Prize winning economists, this is what Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, has had to say about Osborne’s Plan :

Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state. But the official rationale is that there is no alternative.

Indeed, there has been a noticeable change in the rhetoric of the government of Prime Minister David Cameron over the past few weeks — a shift from hope to fear. In his speech announcing the budget plan, George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to have given up on the confidence fairy — that is, on claims that the plan would have positive effects on employment and growth.

And, what’s likely to result:

What happens now? Maybe Britain will get lucky, and something will come along to rescue the economy. But the best guess is that Britain in 2011 will look like Britain in 1931, or the United States in 1937, or Japan in 1997. That is, premature fiscal austerity will lead to a renewed economic slump. As always, those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.”

Are you paying attention aracer ? ……a Nobel Prize winning professor of economics is saying that Bullingdon Boys motivation are ideological considerations, rather than economic ones.

So it’s not just a leftie building worker who’s making those ridiculous claims then.

I’m not sure they need to sit down and think about it as such, it’s all pretty natural for a Bullingdon Boy.

How do you know all this? Seriously – do you know any of these Bullingdon boys, or have you spoken to one at length?

I’m sceptical of your entrenched view of things to be honest.

You are living in a fantasy land molgrips, if you think these guys enter politics and then operate with an open mind.

Do you honestly think that public school educated sons of aristocrats who go to school in fancy dress, and then join exclusive fancy dress clubs at Oxford with others who were born to rule, are not brought up to have an unshatterable ideological commitment ?

Do you honestly think that the likes of Cameron and Osborne go to their their fathers and say “please darling papa, I’m thinking of pursuing a career in politics but can’t quite decide how I can best serve the interests of ordinary British people – Conservative or Labour, what do you think?”

How many Bullingdon Boys go on to join the Labour Party ffs ?

Joining the Conservative Party in a foregone conclusion which requires absolutely no discussion at all.
Exactly the same as the economic policies which they then go on to pursue.

The economic policies which Cameron and Osborne are pursuing today was decided the day they were born. It has nothing to do with anything other than that. They are every bit as ideologically committed as I am, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise.

you are such a gentle troll molgrips

How do you know all this? Seriously – do you know any of these Bullingdon boys, or have you spoken to one at length?

They stood for election, published a manifesto then did things to the country. Is that sufficient to form an opinionon on them or do we need to dine together in a private male only club first?
I guess I should reserve judgement on Hitler, Pol pot, mandela and Ghandi. It is not like thier actions, speeches or beliefs allow me to form opinions of them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4502656.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron

Enough here for anyone to form an opinion on him
You see to be forming views on ernie but I suspect you have yet to do lunch

come the revolution I shall be selling matches.

come the revolution I shall be selling matches.

Ah I see ……. an opportunist who wants to monopolise a niche in the market and exploit a genuine demand for their own personal gain.

Well let me tell you something matey, come the revolution we shall deal with your type in the most forthright manner.

Matches will be provided free of charge to all class-conscious members of the proletariat.

They stood for election, published a manifesto then did things to the country. Is that sufficient to form an opinionon on them

No. It’s sufficient to form an opinion on their parties’ ideas for the current political situation as they see it. Given the competence of politicians and the burden of spurious marketing and spin under which they have to operate, I’d say it’s impossible to really understand how the individuals concerned feel about their fellow human beings.

By all means judge their policies on whether or not you think they will work (I don’t think they will very well) but judging their policies based on the kind of people you think they are is a bit silly.

I guess I should reserve judgement on Hitler, Pol pot, mandela and Ghandi

Ridiculous!

But quite a good idea re Mandela and Ghandi. Two people idolised by millions whose public image is quite possibly not quite like the truth.

Either thay are very thick or they are doing this for ideological reasons – or both

Its very clear from as whole load of analysis like that posted by Ernie that this is a foolish path to take at best. So if they want to take it they are either thick or are not doing it with the best interests of the country at heart. Remember Cameron is a PR flack.

…..but judging their policies based on the kind of people you think they are is a bit silly.

So give me a list of Bullingdon Club members who went on the become Labour politicians then.
After all, a great many of them do enter politics.

Clearly Bullingdon Club members are particular type of persons who have a particular type of ideology.

You don’t need special powers to figure out how they will be behave once they have entered politics.

To suggest that they come to conclusions once in power based on a neutral starting point, is more than
“a bit silly”

Indeed. People form their opinions and ideas from multriple sources but your peers are an important one.

These guys have very little or no experience outside the metropolitan elite and the rich. Of course tehy will be right wing economically and this has been tory policy as long as I have known politics. Reduce the state sector, make sure the elite are insulated from any cuts. After all teh wealth of the country belongs to the rich.

I think this bears repeating…

People form their opinions and ideas from multriple sources but your peers are an important one

If he is not a product of his upbringing why did his parents send him to private school in the first place?
If you grow up in a rough council estate, surrounded by poverty, drugs , unemployment and crime and someone else grows up in luxury , private schools , stately homes, foreign holidays chaufeurs etc does anyone really beleieve that neither iindividual wil be affected by the upbrining. prince charles will have similiar outlook on life as a homeless street urchin ? No point blaming either one for it it nor really denying it we are all products of our environment/upbrining – we call it learning generally.

this has been tory policy as long as I have known politics

Although in essence this is true, I have grossly oversimplified the point for molgrips sake as he appears to be in complete denial.

There have been considerable changes in Tory policies over recent decades. Just to shoot down my own argument, Harold Macmillan was an aristocratic Eton-educated Tory Prime Minister. And yet he was best described as a (business-friendly) social-democratic. He clearly believed in a more benevolent form of capitalism. Indeed he was nicknamed “the council house builder” due to the sheer volume of affordable housing he provided for ordinary working people. In the history of the British aristocracy there are many examples of benevolence towards those less fortunate.

The change of direction in the Tory Party and the ditching of the postwar consensus, occurred when Tories from working-class/lower middle-class backgrounds seized control of the party – the Thatchers and Tebbits of this world. They have always been the most vicious and callous Tories.

It is precisely for those reasons that I had hoped a Tory government under Cameron would have steered a more One Nation path – looking after themselves, yeah sure, but not necessarily kicking the working classes in the guts quite so viciously whilst doing so.

It seems however that they have not left their youthful arrogance, viciousness, and hooligan traits, at Oxford. And we will all pay the price for that.

Thanks for reminding me of that video noteeth – love it 8)

Clearly Bullingdon Club members are particular type of persons who have a particular type of ideology.

Clearly. But you seem to think that they want poor people to stay poor and downtrodden. It would seem more likely (but I don’t know) that they want private enterprise to do well and HOPE that the benefits pass down to the poor. I doubt very much if they actively want the poor to stay disadvantaged.

Which seems to be what you are thinking – or at least, that’s what I got from reading you.

Yeah, right, whatever, molgrips. The news concerning Jahwomble has taken the wind out of my sails and I can’t be bothered any more.

I thought that tragic death of his child had made Cameron realise that even someone as privledged as he requires the state to support him in times of greatest need… he used the NHS , social workers etc …looks like I was wrong.
One nation tories are right wing but at least they care about the poor and accept that they have a responsibility to them

good article here by a tory one nation MP but long 30 ish pages
http://www.andrewtyrie.com/upload/One%20Nation%20Again.pdf
brief overview here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537995/Cameron-heir-to-Disraeli-as-a-One-Nation-Tory.html

He says that One Nation Toryism was built on the belief that the party should be striving to maintain a “national community from which no citizen is excluded” and argue that the Conservative leader appears to have signed up to such an approach

Looks like we were both wrong

It would seem more likely (but I don’t know) that they want private enterprise to do well and HOPE that the benefits pass down to the poor. I doubt very much if they actively want the poor to stay disadvantaged.

probabl;y better ways of achieving this than putting a disproportionate burden on them via the budget and reducing their income. Perhaps they think wealth will trickle down but it does not in reality, I prefer horse and sparrow to describe this feed a horse enough oats and some will pass out of it to feed the sparrow, perhaps they dont care. Easier ways to help the poor than making them poorer I would have thought.

Surely if you were rich, and made money out of the less wealthy, you’d want them to have more money so that they would be able to buy more of your stuff/services etc….

Yeah, right, whatever, molgrips

I posted that before the Jahwomble news. I feel the same way tbh.

probabl;y better ways of achieving this than putting a disproportionate burden on them via the budget and reducing their income.

Yep.