Skip to main content

Cameron's BIg Society: Enlisting Communism for the Capitalist/Confucian Cause

(Daily Telegraph: 'Cameron Launches his Big Society'

It's called 'Bourgeois Socialism'. That's what's Cameron's Big Society really stands for.

"The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.

To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.

Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow. " - Frederick Engels, the principles of communism

Let's get together, work together, both rich and poor, young and old, celebrity and fan, homo and hetero, men and women, to make society a better place. Let the ghetto, the council estate, the country, the city, the worker, the boss, everyone, chip in and solve the problems that top-down state control can't.

Well, it almost sounds like communism, and anarchism. But the only factor that makes it different is that in this picture, both the boss and worker are working together, whilst the boss has her/is hand in the latter's pocket. And the latter is too busy being 'practical' and solving her/is daily problems too question it. For the ignorant out there, in a communist state, one doesn’t just bang on about ‘equal opportunities’, but equal access to the resources required to exercise equal opportunities.

However, what Cameron is talking about is Confucian, 'self-regulation'. In Confucian philosophy, and according to Confucius, the final aim of the government ought to be the creation of a 'harmonious' society where people have internalised the attitude and principles of the government and don't need to be told what to do. An egalitarian society is not his concern, and he believes that, through the 'rectification of names'(zheng ming), a person ought to recognise a Lord as a Lord because he is identified as one. All this twit is interested about is getting people to get used to the status quo and doing their best to make the best out of a bad situation. Definitely an overrated 'thinker'.

...'Big Society', or 'Bourgeois Socialism', or Confucian ‘Self-Regulation’ and ‘human-heartedness’ (jen), is one and the same thing. It is basically a rip-off of Communist/Anarchist ideas, except without the equality bit.
So within a capitalist milieu, 'Big Society', or 'Bourgeois Socialism', or Confucian ‘Self-Regulation’ and ‘human-heartedness’ (jen), is one and the same thing. It is basically a rip-off of Communist/Anarchist ideas, except without the equality bit. According to Karl Marx, the final aim of a communist society is for the government to 'melt away' as people would have internalised the egalitarian principles of communism and would have produced a culture and economic system to perpetuate its transmission to successive generations. Same thing goes for some fundamental tenets of Anarchism - except that Anarchists, i.e. Bakunin, etc, have sort of jumped the gun a bit and assumed that we wouldn't need a government from the outset because people whom have been bred within a capitalist milieu are immediately going to work for each other's benefit. Irrationally idealistic of course.

The point here is that whilst the capitalists, celebrities, and royalties throughout the globe seem to be devoutly against Communism, they rely on it to make Capitalism work as it would enable them to laugh their way to the bank with the masses' money with impunity. It is a 'contracting' of communism where Communist principles are confined to society below the levels of the elite. So long as the masses care and share, the elite can use that which they acquire through the masses to buy up more and more of humanity's resources and subjugate them. But in order to effectuate that, they will first have to work toward a 'Big Society' where people have internalised a culture of self-help, and of course, blaming themselves when things screw up, before they can confidently sit back and help themselves to the produce of the masses - you ‘help yourself’ by making money and producing goods, and they'll ‘help themselves’ to your money and the bulk of the profits from the goods. That's their 'self-help' philosophy.

But what is the role of the government within Cameron’s ‘Big Society’? This is the important bit. Pay attention.

It is a really twisted logic where the argument is, that the distinction between the capitalist/royal/celebrity class doesn’t exist because the government isn’t there to mediate between the interests of either.
The government has to melt away into the background as part of the process because, within the capitalist milieu, the first and foremost function of the government is to serve as mediator between the capitalist and worker. In other words, their very existence is a reminder that there is a conflict between the workers and the capitalists that requires mediating. It is a testament to the existence of inequality and exploitation. If, unlike Confucian states, the people do not 'melt away' by becoming disinterested in politics, or using politics to further their own individual/racial/national aspirations to be favoured, then the alternative to the bring about the same conclusion is to get the people into self-help.

This is quite possible as people in states with a large population of empathetic citizens can have their sense of empathy appealed to by the government to get them to ‘self-help’ Big Society-style. Stop all this ranting and raving about the government being the ‘executive arm of the bourgeoisie’ (Karl Marx) because the government doesn’t really exist anymore in a top-down control sense. In other words, the government must cease to be a mediator between the greed of the capitalists and the needs of the worker. They must cease to be a reminder that inequality and exploitation exists. For this to work, the people, despite class, have to chip in as ‘caring human beings’ to help makes society a better place. Then, if things don’t work, it isn’t because of top-down government control, it isn’t because of capitalist/royalty/celebrity greed, it is because the people aren’t efficient or intelligent enough. What the government is trying to do here is to create a paradoxical classless class-based society where people lose their cognizance of the distinction between classes and working together despite one’s class. Class mustn’t be the problem anymore. And for that, the government, the champion of the capitalist class, has to melt away. It is a really twisted logic where the argument is, that the distinction between the capitalist/royal/celebrity class doesn’t exist because the government isn’t there to mediate between the interests of either.

Don’t fall for it mate.



Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…