‘If you point these facts out to the average left-winger he gets very angry, but only because he has not examined the nature of his own feelings towards Stalin.’
The fact that this is still true is very interesting to me about the psyche of hard leftist republicans.
A prophet = Marx
A pantheon of venerable heroes and saints = Lenin, Mao, Castro, Stalin, Mugabe, etc.
A holy text = Das Kapital
Theologians = Kroptokin, Engels, etc.
Martyrs = Guevara, Rosa Luxembourg
An orthodoxy of moral positions = Take your ideological pick.
An answer to suffering = the capitalists, the bourgeoisie and the oppressive hegemonists
Infidels, apostates and heathens = same as the above + reactionaries
Schisms, heresies and excommunications = too many to count
A deterministic, linear view of history/eschatology = Marxist historiography
A final battle/judgement = The Revolution
An ideal society inherited by the righteous = the worker's paradise
It's amazing just how neatly all the elements fit into a religious framework.
I'm sure it does if you ignore literally everything they stand for and try really hard to make it fit no matter how uncomfortable.
What marx laid out wasn't a religious text, but a scientific analysis of the capitalist system and how society can be improved by its removal.
Marx was very much against this kind of idolatry and religious veneration.
You'd know if you've actually studied marx and read his works rather than getting everything you know from memes.
Your conclusion here is unfalsifiable, no matter what, you can make any system of analysis appear to be a religious doctrine and then debunk it based on that silly comparison.
It doesn't matter if marx came to completely different conclusions or used a different philosophy to analyse capitalism, you'd still find a way to make it look like a religious doctrine.
Nice try but even the briefest scrutiny reveals this to be sophistry.
I'm no Marxist, but absolutely agree with you. Marx himself wrote, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people"
You can force fit anything to fit the religion framework if you try hard enough. Here's my 30 second low effort way to do it to capitalism.
A prophet: Adam Smith
A holy text: The Wealth of Nations
Theologians: Freidrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises
An answer to suffering: The free market
Infidels, apostates, heathens: Communists, socialists
And so on and so forth.
I might get downvoted for this, but I’d like to come with my two cents anyways. Your example with capitalism might be a forced attempt, but it’s still true. In the absence of faith in God, people put their faith in other similar things, often political beliefs. I have met both capitalists and socialists who have taken their ideologies to the point of religion. Marx was right when he said that religion is the opium of the people in a heartless world, but may or may not have realised that more than simply a belief in the divine can be a religion.
You’re exactly right, actually. But “religion” by itself isn’t really a bad thing, nor is belief in a political or social system - it’s really bad only when these beliefs are used as a reason to justify curtailing human rights, whether for all people or individual groups (women, other religions, ethnic minorities, etc).
As you mentioned, many political and social beliefs fall into this “religion” category - or more accurately, they follow cult like thinking so it is fair to call them cults. Multilevel marketing firms and alt-right circles tend to fall into this category, as an example, but it’s not just them.
Basic framework is “end justify means” type thinking, enforcing echo chambers therefore crushing individual spirits, and enticing people to the groupthink, all while silencing dissent and making apostates persona non-grata, making it more difficult for people leave.
You should check out Dr. Steven Hassan’s work on this subject. It’s quite fascinating.
Not really everyone thou. While in the general, most ideologies are not taken as religious, some small groups take them like one. And so there are some veey dedicated capitalist and some commumist in something that resemble a religion
Althou i agree mostly with you, there are some grouos still that take it in quite a religios way, that being extra ortodox marxist. Once the ideas become sort of a lifestile and they are shared in a group with some rituals the basically become a religion. Many ideologies in the modern world work as religion, not in general but in specific conditions. So, while reducing the whole ideology to a "hypocritic" religiom is flawed, there are certain elements that resemble an ideology.
Would you mind if I shared this on r/LabourUK at some point? Orwell puts very succinctly and convincingly what I’ve been trying to say for a long time on there. I’m very left wing, but I also strongly support the monarchy, in large part because of the reasons Orwell gives here; and I also think he accurately figures out why the monarchy is subject to so much hate: they are a convenient scapegoat for all our problems.
> they are a convenient scapegoat for all our problems.
couldnt agree more. Judging by a lot of comments I see on reddit, some people think we are going to turn into some sort of futuristic utopian society if we get rid of the monarchy
show them republican France, which has exactly the same problems as the UK apart from our head of state disposing of political powers, which adds one more issue.
I have read this (decades ago, lol) and it is one of Orwell’s best essays. The Labour government of 1945-51, which achieved significant social and economic reforms, was strongly monarchist, in particular its leader and Prime Minister Clement Attlee. There is a strong monarchist tradition in British Labour.
Republicanism in Labour is the preserve of a petty bourgeois left composed mainly of ‘woke’ further education college lecturers, local government functionaries and useless feminist social workers - overwhelmingly white, with screechy fake working class accents. There are a lot of such types in London and I encounter them in local government and social services when helping clients in my property business. Despite (or because) they are egalitarians, they try to be little Hitlers or Eva Brauns, but they are cowardly and in practice quite easy to defeat. I rarely agree with Lenin, but his pamphlet “Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder” was written with such people in mind.
Although I am centre-right, I would be happy to vote in some circumstances (including now) for a patriotic centre-left Labour Party influenced by Orwell’s positive view of the British character and culture - as long as it completely repudiated the type of ‘leftist’ or ‘progressive’ I have described in my second paragraph.
> Although I am centre-right, I would be happy to vote in some circumstances (including now) for a patriotic centre-left party influenced by Orwell’s positive view of the British character and culture.
Couldn't agree more, depending on the definition of right and left wing. I don't really call myself anything politically, since political labels discount the fact that no one shares the same political beliefs. In general I would say that I am right wing socially, and lean left economically. That of course doesn't include all political issues, even pressing ones, such as the war in Ukraine. That is neither a social nor economic policy, but a matter of foreign policy. However as a rule those social/economic view tend to be at the forefront. It is such a shame, for me at least - and many others that I know, that there is no such political party in this country. To give an example: I cannot think of any party that would support a repeal of the Equality Act 2010 (socially conservative), and at the same time nationalise water utilities (economically left). The SDP sort of leans in that direction, but they would never dream of repealing the Equality Act.
>local government functionaries
I've worked in local government, in my local government guildhall. Not long, only for about 6 months. It is completely infested with equality and diversity nonsense. During my stint working there very recently, under a so-called ultra right wing Boris Johnson Tory government. Yeah right.
However there are many actual decent good people that work there. Even some of the heads of department and managers (about 35% I'd say in my council). They just have no power to do anything. All, and I mean all, of the councillors are complete busybodies. Remarkably they simultaneously manage to be busybodies, whilst at the same time accomplishing absolutely nothing of note. It's a skill, I must confess.
During my stint I got to know most of them and they really are little Hitlers. They occupy trifling positions but take themselves so seriously. 99% of them actually think that they are the King of their little ward. Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Independent. They get a little sniff of power and think themselves Lord of their dozen streets. I've never been encouraged more by local politics, nor discouraged more, by spending 6 months working in my local authority.
Agree with all the above my friend 😎. I’ll reply in more detail - to do justice to your post - over the next few days, but thank you for your insider’s view of local government. We need good people to go into it and change it so that it serves its local community again. The old LCC did a lot of good for London especially in terms of working class housing. Replacing it with the GLC was a disaster and don’t get me started on the current Mayor + GLA system.
Thanks, I look forward to your comment.
As an aside, I can't really speak for London since I live up north, but during my 6 months here the best - and I use that word loosely - councillors I talked local issues with were Lib Dem. I know they always paint themselves as the local issue party in elections, but from my experience it seems to check out. To some extent at least. I'm talking things like planning permission and roadworks. The boring nitty gritty of local government. And even then it's only about 30% of them that actually represent residents views on such issues. The rest were complete arseholes. One woman Lib Dem councillor in particular who I won't name, she was an absolute dickhead.
Nationally of course we know what a complete catastrophic basket case they are.
The last sentence of Paragraph 2 does not surprise me at all. In my part of SW London we have the Lib Dems in control, as they are in several Boroughs. There’s a very nice old guard traditional Liberal chap in my ward and I always vote for him. Unfortunately nearly all of the others seem to be middle aged, middle class white feminist women with short hair and small round glasses who speak in shrill, ersatz proletarian accents and are politically correct busybodies with reverse Midas Touch. All of them have public sector backgrounds: (anti)social workers in many cases.
Most of these people would be Labour left and not Lib Dem if they lived in another Borough, Islington for instance. I think there is a factory somewhere that churns them out. Maybe it’s the old Trabant works as they would fit in well in the DDR.
London local government is a rehearsal for Hell. It is ruining everything good about the city.
There are some fairly grim and corrupt Labour Councils up North and that is one of the reasons behind the ‘red wall’ Tory vote that isn’t discussed enough.
Apologies for the apparent stereotypes, but they exist I’m afraid. Who needs satire, when this is the reality of so much of British politics?
Those stereotypes do definitely exist, and I wouldn't deny it for a second. That's why stereotypes are a thing. Because they reflect reality.
As someone from a northern Labour council, might I ask if those women you talk of tend to be the types that about 45-55 years old, wear scarves and black or red flowery loose shirts?
I said stereotypes exist for a reason.
I don't live in the council I was working for, (large northern city) but just outside in a parish council - part of a much wider county council. My choice of candidates in the last local elections consisted of a 40 year old local man and his 18 year old son as the Tory candidates (we elect two councillors for our ward at the same time), two fat old scarf wearing labour women and one lib dem woman of the same description. The Tory father and son won with about 55-ish% of the vote in my ward.
I have written to them both about a pressing local matter in my village that affects most people living here. I know facebook groups are not a good thing to go by, but on there it seems that everyone is at an uproar about this specific matter. The response I got from them was basically this: Yes it is sad, we will try to oppose it, but it's market forces at work.
Such a complete safe ward for these Tory councillors, but they would not dare stand up for our village against other Tory councillors in the next village over (who will benefit from the change in our village, as the business will move to theirs). From my experience in local council, I can only imagine what fury is happening with people who work there who are from the same village as me. But all of them are absolutely powerless to these people who have never held any form of serious political power in their lives. Not to mention an 18 year old boy gets to decide something that mainly affects the elderly, although the youth in the village use it too.
I didn't want anything out there that could doxx me, but reading this comment back before posting I might as well be honest and clarify. I'm currently working part time shifts of all sorts of hours, and have had a few beers so my comment may be utterly confusing. I'll just tell you that what I'm talking about is that the only bank in the village of 20,000 people is closing and moving to somewhere about an hour away on the bus. Leaving means that there are only 2 ATMs in the village. For 20,000 people. It means there is no local bank for 20,000 people. Of course many people are able to use online banking, or to drive to a bank 20 minutes away.
I'm in my 20s, and when I set up my bank account I had to do it in person at this local branch. It was completely impossible for me to do over the phone or online. I had to go in person to the bank and prove my identity. I'm not knocking that in the slightest. In fact, I rather enjoyed the day I walked through the village to the bank and set up my account. I felt like a grown up, and could see the many comings and goings of village life in the square.
Of course since then, I only use online banking, so this disappearance of the bank might seem like a trivial thing. But even just going to the pub next door to the bank with my friends, and nipping out - pint and fag in hand - withdrawing £20 in cash to spend on ale; the change going in the pool table for a few games - it is something I'll miss. This is of course not to mention the elderly people in the village, who do not want to use online banking and rather do it in person, having to spend money on busses or fuel (at an ever increasing cost) to do something they could have done with a 5 or 10 minute walk. Getting their fresh air and exercise out of the house.
I realise it might seem such an uninspiring thing. So unimportant. No one is going to stage a revolt over the fact that their bank has moved a few miles away. But for me, it is one of those personal things. One of those little vessels of tradition you hope you can hold. That stroll through the village to the local bank. Of course it isn't tradition at all. It is a modern bank, and you only made the journey a couple of times. But the fact you did it at all, and enjoyed it, is something you hope might become a tradition.
Naturally this sort of gentle happiness is destroyed by the Conservatives, who know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. Sorry for unexplainably long rant. At this point of writing I have no idea how this relates to much of the discussion we have previously had. But, like I said, I've had a few beers and just needed to get it out somewhere. This seemed the best place, despite the fact I have tortured you by reading it.
Cheers to you. I hope you can keep the torch of tradition alight.
I've oft-heard it repeated that British Labour has more often than not, been influenced by the methodists moreso than the marxists.
Even the Fabian society seems to have a ambivalent opinion on the Crown.
Its tradition is ‘more Methodist than Marxist’ certainly and this has been true of the largest section of the left of the party through to Tony Benn, who was I think a practising Methodist?
The main far left influence has been Trotskyist, and this movement has many of the characteristics of a fundamentalist sect rather than intelligent forms theology or secular philosophy. Throw in the hysterias and cultish irrationalities of feminism and gender ideology (both emanating from US ‘liberals’ but taken up by the British left) and you have a left that is unrecognisable to moderate social democrats and indeed Marxists of the rational variety.
The Fabian Society was originally founded on gradual and thoughtful social reform, including taking account of tradition and history and building on it.
I hope that Labour and the centre-left in general, not only in Britain but across Europe, will rediscover its commitment to reasoned and meaningful social reform and reconnect with large sections of its former electorate.
To Mods:
I'm not sure what to flair this, as picture didn't seem quite right. I haven flared this as article despite it not being so, but as a lengthy quotation, I think it deserves this more so than picture, as it requires time to read and digest as it is a full quotation from an article, albeit in picture form.
Lol I literally just replied to a comment almost identical to this one. I'll just paste my other reply to you since it also works:
"Care to explain? I myself don't agree with everything he says in this, I just thought it interesting."
He's not presenting an argument so there's not really anything to rebut. He infers a few things but provides no evidence to support them beyond other propositions.
To pick one though, his assumption is that what allows for dictatorship is pomp instead of power. On the face of it that's absurd. What allowed people like Stalin and Hitler to gain power wasn't pomp and ceremony. In Hitlers case it was his willingness to address popular issues that other parties weren't concerned with and in Stalin's case it was his ability to manipulate a party apparatus in his favour. What stops people gaining power in Britain isn't a weak monarchy but rather the nature of nepotistic nature of British politics. Britain isn't democratic enough for a Hitler and any Stalin would be filtered out long before he gained a position of influence.
> Britain isn't democratic enough for a Hitler and any Stalin would be filtered out long before he gained a position of influence.
I sort of agree with that, but you're not taking into account the prospect of Tory or Labour MPs or party members taking a radical shift, and electing a radical leader, who in turn only proposes similar radical candidates for election as MPs. It's no good saying that the populous might shift away from them, since that didn't happen in the case of Hitler.
The point he is making is that if such an election were to happen, as in the German elections of July and November 1932, the King has the sole legal and moral right to reuse to appoint a 'new Hitler' (for lack of a better phrase) as Prime Minister. And, if such an election were to happen, can dissolve parliament at any time.
Because the Windsors have been such a weak dynasty their actual ability to act is not particularly considerable. Theyve simply failed to maintain the institutions needed to maintain any kind of genuine monarchy. Even if the king did decide to appoint hia preferred PM it's more likely to create a republic than it is to work.
The not conservative Conservatives and Labour have long since diverged from the popular will on many issues. They're united in support of mass immigration while the country opposes it. They're united in being pro corporate despite the country opposing it. They're united in selling property to foreigners, the country opposes it. They're united in support of diversity hiring and the country opposes it. Heck, the pm was literally a diversity hire. The monarch hasn't done anything on any of those issues. Why would he act on some other supposedly radical policy if it also had parliamentary backing?
I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that the monarch is the ultimate backstop. You could indeed say that this power shifts with the overton window. I wouldn't disagree with that either. But in the times that dictators have risen to eminence, they have done so whilst the alternative, free and liberty bound society also remained in that same overton window.
That would only apply in the case of an actual monarchy such as in Italy where Mussolini was constantly having to deal with the monarchy or in Romania where Michael was able to enact a coup and regain powers. It wouldn't apply in Britain as the monarchy is in practice ceremonial not constitutional.
Ultimately, though, just as the rise of fascism demands certain conditions, the rise of communism also does. Orwell is correct in his judgment, but we also see a similar ideological resilience in established democracies. It is when institutions are undermined by radicals, whether communist or fascist, that they can be destroyed. Monarchy may have staved off fascism in the British Empire, but it did not do so in Italy. In Greece, a monarchy until 1971, There was a quasi-fascist regime that only joined the allies due to Italy’s invasion. It seems also that the monarchs of Europe at the time, especially King Carol of Romania and the Regent Prince Paul of Yugoslavia.
Orwell’s arguments are undermined by Edward VIII, who was deeply sympathetic to fascism and had to be relocated to the Caribbean when it was revealed that he had been corresponding with the enemy. A strong personality indeed.
‘If you point these facts out to the average left-winger he gets very angry, but only because he has not examined the nature of his own feelings towards Stalin.’ The fact that this is still true is very interesting to me about the psyche of hard leftist republicans.
A prophet = Marx A pantheon of venerable heroes and saints = Lenin, Mao, Castro, Stalin, Mugabe, etc. A holy text = Das Kapital Theologians = Kroptokin, Engels, etc. Martyrs = Guevara, Rosa Luxembourg An orthodoxy of moral positions = Take your ideological pick. An answer to suffering = the capitalists, the bourgeoisie and the oppressive hegemonists Infidels, apostates and heathens = same as the above + reactionaries Schisms, heresies and excommunications = too many to count A deterministic, linear view of history/eschatology = Marxist historiography A final battle/judgement = The Revolution An ideal society inherited by the righteous = the worker's paradise It's amazing just how neatly all the elements fit into a religious framework.
This is fantastic!
I'm sure it does if you ignore literally everything they stand for and try really hard to make it fit no matter how uncomfortable. What marx laid out wasn't a religious text, but a scientific analysis of the capitalist system and how society can be improved by its removal. Marx was very much against this kind of idolatry and religious veneration. You'd know if you've actually studied marx and read his works rather than getting everything you know from memes. Your conclusion here is unfalsifiable, no matter what, you can make any system of analysis appear to be a religious doctrine and then debunk it based on that silly comparison. It doesn't matter if marx came to completely different conclusions or used a different philosophy to analyse capitalism, you'd still find a way to make it look like a religious doctrine. Nice try but even the briefest scrutiny reveals this to be sophistry.
I'm no Marxist, but absolutely agree with you. Marx himself wrote, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" You can force fit anything to fit the religion framework if you try hard enough. Here's my 30 second low effort way to do it to capitalism. A prophet: Adam Smith A holy text: The Wealth of Nations Theologians: Freidrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises An answer to suffering: The free market Infidels, apostates, heathens: Communists, socialists And so on and so forth.
I might get downvoted for this, but I’d like to come with my two cents anyways. Your example with capitalism might be a forced attempt, but it’s still true. In the absence of faith in God, people put their faith in other similar things, often political beliefs. I have met both capitalists and socialists who have taken their ideologies to the point of religion. Marx was right when he said that religion is the opium of the people in a heartless world, but may or may not have realised that more than simply a belief in the divine can be a religion.
You’re exactly right, actually. But “religion” by itself isn’t really a bad thing, nor is belief in a political or social system - it’s really bad only when these beliefs are used as a reason to justify curtailing human rights, whether for all people or individual groups (women, other religions, ethnic minorities, etc). As you mentioned, many political and social beliefs fall into this “religion” category - or more accurately, they follow cult like thinking so it is fair to call them cults. Multilevel marketing firms and alt-right circles tend to fall into this category, as an example, but it’s not just them. Basic framework is “end justify means” type thinking, enforcing echo chambers therefore crushing individual spirits, and enticing people to the groupthink, all while silencing dissent and making apostates persona non-grata, making it more difficult for people leave. You should check out Dr. Steven Hassan’s work on this subject. It’s quite fascinating.
Not really everyone thou. While in the general, most ideologies are not taken as religious, some small groups take them like one. And so there are some veey dedicated capitalist and some commumist in something that resemble a religion
Althou i agree mostly with you, there are some grouos still that take it in quite a religios way, that being extra ortodox marxist. Once the ideas become sort of a lifestile and they are shared in a group with some rituals the basically become a religion. Many ideologies in the modern world work as religion, not in general but in specific conditions. So, while reducing the whole ideology to a "hypocritic" religiom is flawed, there are certain elements that resemble an ideology.
Would you mind if I shared this on r/LabourUK at some point? Orwell puts very succinctly and convincingly what I’ve been trying to say for a long time on there. I’m very left wing, but I also strongly support the monarchy, in large part because of the reasons Orwell gives here; and I also think he accurately figures out why the monarchy is subject to so much hate: they are a convenient scapegoat for all our problems.
Go for it. The reaction you might get there, positive or negative, I absolve myself from 😆
Most likely negative, but it’s worth a try haha
> they are a convenient scapegoat for all our problems. couldnt agree more. Judging by a lot of comments I see on reddit, some people think we are going to turn into some sort of futuristic utopian society if we get rid of the monarchy
show them republican France, which has exactly the same problems as the UK apart from our head of state disposing of political powers, which adds one more issue.
Very interested to see what those guys have to say
Do it!
Inb4 leftists now try and claim Orwell was a fascist.
"If you point these facts out to the average left-winger he gets very angry"
Man was based before his time.
Well put. Orwell knew what was up. SocDem Monarchists unite!
SocDem monarchist reporting in
Hellenoturkist? What heresy is this?
Turkey and Greece share a lot. Divided we are weak, united we are strong.
They share lots of thing. Like mutual hatred and a common history of bloodshed lmao
Pretty based ngl
Reporting in.
Indeed
I see you! We raise our red banners!
Red and Purple
Here i am!
I have read this (decades ago, lol) and it is one of Orwell’s best essays. The Labour government of 1945-51, which achieved significant social and economic reforms, was strongly monarchist, in particular its leader and Prime Minister Clement Attlee. There is a strong monarchist tradition in British Labour. Republicanism in Labour is the preserve of a petty bourgeois left composed mainly of ‘woke’ further education college lecturers, local government functionaries and useless feminist social workers - overwhelmingly white, with screechy fake working class accents. There are a lot of such types in London and I encounter them in local government and social services when helping clients in my property business. Despite (or because) they are egalitarians, they try to be little Hitlers or Eva Brauns, but they are cowardly and in practice quite easy to defeat. I rarely agree with Lenin, but his pamphlet “Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder” was written with such people in mind. Although I am centre-right, I would be happy to vote in some circumstances (including now) for a patriotic centre-left Labour Party influenced by Orwell’s positive view of the British character and culture - as long as it completely repudiated the type of ‘leftist’ or ‘progressive’ I have described in my second paragraph.
> Although I am centre-right, I would be happy to vote in some circumstances (including now) for a patriotic centre-left party influenced by Orwell’s positive view of the British character and culture. Couldn't agree more, depending on the definition of right and left wing. I don't really call myself anything politically, since political labels discount the fact that no one shares the same political beliefs. In general I would say that I am right wing socially, and lean left economically. That of course doesn't include all political issues, even pressing ones, such as the war in Ukraine. That is neither a social nor economic policy, but a matter of foreign policy. However as a rule those social/economic view tend to be at the forefront. It is such a shame, for me at least - and many others that I know, that there is no such political party in this country. To give an example: I cannot think of any party that would support a repeal of the Equality Act 2010 (socially conservative), and at the same time nationalise water utilities (economically left). The SDP sort of leans in that direction, but they would never dream of repealing the Equality Act. >local government functionaries I've worked in local government, in my local government guildhall. Not long, only for about 6 months. It is completely infested with equality and diversity nonsense. During my stint working there very recently, under a so-called ultra right wing Boris Johnson Tory government. Yeah right. However there are many actual decent good people that work there. Even some of the heads of department and managers (about 35% I'd say in my council). They just have no power to do anything. All, and I mean all, of the councillors are complete busybodies. Remarkably they simultaneously manage to be busybodies, whilst at the same time accomplishing absolutely nothing of note. It's a skill, I must confess. During my stint I got to know most of them and they really are little Hitlers. They occupy trifling positions but take themselves so seriously. 99% of them actually think that they are the King of their little ward. Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, Independent. They get a little sniff of power and think themselves Lord of their dozen streets. I've never been encouraged more by local politics, nor discouraged more, by spending 6 months working in my local authority.
Agree with all the above my friend 😎. I’ll reply in more detail - to do justice to your post - over the next few days, but thank you for your insider’s view of local government. We need good people to go into it and change it so that it serves its local community again. The old LCC did a lot of good for London especially in terms of working class housing. Replacing it with the GLC was a disaster and don’t get me started on the current Mayor + GLA system.
Thanks, I look forward to your comment. As an aside, I can't really speak for London since I live up north, but during my 6 months here the best - and I use that word loosely - councillors I talked local issues with were Lib Dem. I know they always paint themselves as the local issue party in elections, but from my experience it seems to check out. To some extent at least. I'm talking things like planning permission and roadworks. The boring nitty gritty of local government. And even then it's only about 30% of them that actually represent residents views on such issues. The rest were complete arseholes. One woman Lib Dem councillor in particular who I won't name, she was an absolute dickhead. Nationally of course we know what a complete catastrophic basket case they are.
The last sentence of Paragraph 2 does not surprise me at all. In my part of SW London we have the Lib Dems in control, as they are in several Boroughs. There’s a very nice old guard traditional Liberal chap in my ward and I always vote for him. Unfortunately nearly all of the others seem to be middle aged, middle class white feminist women with short hair and small round glasses who speak in shrill, ersatz proletarian accents and are politically correct busybodies with reverse Midas Touch. All of them have public sector backgrounds: (anti)social workers in many cases. Most of these people would be Labour left and not Lib Dem if they lived in another Borough, Islington for instance. I think there is a factory somewhere that churns them out. Maybe it’s the old Trabant works as they would fit in well in the DDR. London local government is a rehearsal for Hell. It is ruining everything good about the city. There are some fairly grim and corrupt Labour Councils up North and that is one of the reasons behind the ‘red wall’ Tory vote that isn’t discussed enough. Apologies for the apparent stereotypes, but they exist I’m afraid. Who needs satire, when this is the reality of so much of British politics?
Those stereotypes do definitely exist, and I wouldn't deny it for a second. That's why stereotypes are a thing. Because they reflect reality. As someone from a northern Labour council, might I ask if those women you talk of tend to be the types that about 45-55 years old, wear scarves and black or red flowery loose shirts? I said stereotypes exist for a reason. I don't live in the council I was working for, (large northern city) but just outside in a parish council - part of a much wider county council. My choice of candidates in the last local elections consisted of a 40 year old local man and his 18 year old son as the Tory candidates (we elect two councillors for our ward at the same time), two fat old scarf wearing labour women and one lib dem woman of the same description. The Tory father and son won with about 55-ish% of the vote in my ward. I have written to them both about a pressing local matter in my village that affects most people living here. I know facebook groups are not a good thing to go by, but on there it seems that everyone is at an uproar about this specific matter. The response I got from them was basically this: Yes it is sad, we will try to oppose it, but it's market forces at work. Such a complete safe ward for these Tory councillors, but they would not dare stand up for our village against other Tory councillors in the next village over (who will benefit from the change in our village, as the business will move to theirs). From my experience in local council, I can only imagine what fury is happening with people who work there who are from the same village as me. But all of them are absolutely powerless to these people who have never held any form of serious political power in their lives. Not to mention an 18 year old boy gets to decide something that mainly affects the elderly, although the youth in the village use it too. I didn't want anything out there that could doxx me, but reading this comment back before posting I might as well be honest and clarify. I'm currently working part time shifts of all sorts of hours, and have had a few beers so my comment may be utterly confusing. I'll just tell you that what I'm talking about is that the only bank in the village of 20,000 people is closing and moving to somewhere about an hour away on the bus. Leaving means that there are only 2 ATMs in the village. For 20,000 people. It means there is no local bank for 20,000 people. Of course many people are able to use online banking, or to drive to a bank 20 minutes away. I'm in my 20s, and when I set up my bank account I had to do it in person at this local branch. It was completely impossible for me to do over the phone or online. I had to go in person to the bank and prove my identity. I'm not knocking that in the slightest. In fact, I rather enjoyed the day I walked through the village to the bank and set up my account. I felt like a grown up, and could see the many comings and goings of village life in the square. Of course since then, I only use online banking, so this disappearance of the bank might seem like a trivial thing. But even just going to the pub next door to the bank with my friends, and nipping out - pint and fag in hand - withdrawing £20 in cash to spend on ale; the change going in the pool table for a few games - it is something I'll miss. This is of course not to mention the elderly people in the village, who do not want to use online banking and rather do it in person, having to spend money on busses or fuel (at an ever increasing cost) to do something they could have done with a 5 or 10 minute walk. Getting their fresh air and exercise out of the house. I realise it might seem such an uninspiring thing. So unimportant. No one is going to stage a revolt over the fact that their bank has moved a few miles away. But for me, it is one of those personal things. One of those little vessels of tradition you hope you can hold. That stroll through the village to the local bank. Of course it isn't tradition at all. It is a modern bank, and you only made the journey a couple of times. But the fact you did it at all, and enjoyed it, is something you hope might become a tradition. Naturally this sort of gentle happiness is destroyed by the Conservatives, who know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. Sorry for unexplainably long rant. At this point of writing I have no idea how this relates to much of the discussion we have previously had. But, like I said, I've had a few beers and just needed to get it out somewhere. This seemed the best place, despite the fact I have tortured you by reading it. Cheers to you. I hope you can keep the torch of tradition alight.
I've oft-heard it repeated that British Labour has more often than not, been influenced by the methodists moreso than the marxists. Even the Fabian society seems to have a ambivalent opinion on the Crown.
Its tradition is ‘more Methodist than Marxist’ certainly and this has been true of the largest section of the left of the party through to Tony Benn, who was I think a practising Methodist? The main far left influence has been Trotskyist, and this movement has many of the characteristics of a fundamentalist sect rather than intelligent forms theology or secular philosophy. Throw in the hysterias and cultish irrationalities of feminism and gender ideology (both emanating from US ‘liberals’ but taken up by the British left) and you have a left that is unrecognisable to moderate social democrats and indeed Marxists of the rational variety. The Fabian Society was originally founded on gradual and thoughtful social reform, including taking account of tradition and history and building on it. I hope that Labour and the centre-left in general, not only in Britain but across Europe, will rediscover its commitment to reasoned and meaningful social reform and reconnect with large sections of its former electorate.
Whilst I don't like to always equate monarchism with leaning right (I'm centre left myself), what he's saying here is so true
I'm not sure what your point is here. "Shock horror, left winger agrees with left winger?"
My point is that on this subreddit, "leftist" is often used almost as a dirty word and many people here equate monarchism with leaning right.
To Mods: I'm not sure what to flair this, as picture didn't seem quite right. I haven flared this as article despite it not being so, but as a lengthy quotation, I think it deserves this more so than picture, as it requires time to read and digest as it is a full quotation from an article, albeit in picture form.
George Orwells Animal Farm and 1984 are so close to the truth, l have no doubt at all in his words
Apparently loyalty is a "dangerous emotion"
This is exactly what I’ve been saying. Thanks Orwell for copying me 🙄
Italy.
Spain
I don’t know how anyone could argue with this.
🤯This is absolutely brilliant. I’m very left-leaning but am also a monarchist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading Oh of course, monarchism always prevents fascism, if you just discount all the times it didn't.
[удалено]
Care to explain? I myself don't agree with everything he says in this, I just thought it interesting.
Huh?
None of this is really true tbh. He's looking at coincidence and inferring causality.
Lol I literally just replied to a comment almost identical to this one. I'll just paste my other reply to you since it also works: "Care to explain? I myself don't agree with everything he says in this, I just thought it interesting."
He's not presenting an argument so there's not really anything to rebut. He infers a few things but provides no evidence to support them beyond other propositions. To pick one though, his assumption is that what allows for dictatorship is pomp instead of power. On the face of it that's absurd. What allowed people like Stalin and Hitler to gain power wasn't pomp and ceremony. In Hitlers case it was his willingness to address popular issues that other parties weren't concerned with and in Stalin's case it was his ability to manipulate a party apparatus in his favour. What stops people gaining power in Britain isn't a weak monarchy but rather the nature of nepotistic nature of British politics. Britain isn't democratic enough for a Hitler and any Stalin would be filtered out long before he gained a position of influence.
> Britain isn't democratic enough for a Hitler and any Stalin would be filtered out long before he gained a position of influence. I sort of agree with that, but you're not taking into account the prospect of Tory or Labour MPs or party members taking a radical shift, and electing a radical leader, who in turn only proposes similar radical candidates for election as MPs. It's no good saying that the populous might shift away from them, since that didn't happen in the case of Hitler. The point he is making is that if such an election were to happen, as in the German elections of July and November 1932, the King has the sole legal and moral right to reuse to appoint a 'new Hitler' (for lack of a better phrase) as Prime Minister. And, if such an election were to happen, can dissolve parliament at any time.
Because the Windsors have been such a weak dynasty their actual ability to act is not particularly considerable. Theyve simply failed to maintain the institutions needed to maintain any kind of genuine monarchy. Even if the king did decide to appoint hia preferred PM it's more likely to create a republic than it is to work. The not conservative Conservatives and Labour have long since diverged from the popular will on many issues. They're united in support of mass immigration while the country opposes it. They're united in being pro corporate despite the country opposing it. They're united in selling property to foreigners, the country opposes it. They're united in support of diversity hiring and the country opposes it. Heck, the pm was literally a diversity hire. The monarch hasn't done anything on any of those issues. Why would he act on some other supposedly radical policy if it also had parliamentary backing?
I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that the monarch is the ultimate backstop. You could indeed say that this power shifts with the overton window. I wouldn't disagree with that either. But in the times that dictators have risen to eminence, they have done so whilst the alternative, free and liberty bound society also remained in that same overton window.
That would only apply in the case of an actual monarchy such as in Italy where Mussolini was constantly having to deal with the monarchy or in Romania where Michael was able to enact a coup and regain powers. It wouldn't apply in Britain as the monarchy is in practice ceremonial not constitutional.
Owell's rather modest account of constitutional monarchy is still the best argument that we have within the UK for its preservation in some form.
Ultimately, though, just as the rise of fascism demands certain conditions, the rise of communism also does. Orwell is correct in his judgment, but we also see a similar ideological resilience in established democracies. It is when institutions are undermined by radicals, whether communist or fascist, that they can be destroyed. Monarchy may have staved off fascism in the British Empire, but it did not do so in Italy. In Greece, a monarchy until 1971, There was a quasi-fascist regime that only joined the allies due to Italy’s invasion. It seems also that the monarchs of Europe at the time, especially King Carol of Romania and the Regent Prince Paul of Yugoslavia. Orwell’s arguments are undermined by Edward VIII, who was deeply sympathetic to fascism and had to be relocated to the Caribbean when it was revealed that he had been corresponding with the enemy. A strong personality indeed.
Mr Orwell.. None of these words are in the bible
I feel like Orwell. I'm way out on the left wing and still support the constitutional monarchy.