Miliband isn't anti-business. He's anti-socialism.
Well, Ed Miliband is denying that he is anti-business after he attacked ‘predatory’ firms and a ‘fast-buck’ culture.
He also said that ‘large bonuses for bosses who achieve little should be phased out’, and ‘vowed to fight for “a new bargain in our economy so reward is linked with effort”. bbc
Perhaps he’s attempting to justify their continued usage of the word Labour as the party name.
But no. Whilst quite a few business federations or association are calling him ‘anti-business’, Labour isn’t. And neither is Miliband.
All that this bloke is trying to do is to dismiss the socialist cause completely via his version of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’. It’s called bourgeois socialism - whose main aim is to make the exploitative status quo as palatable as possible with the right balance of garnish and desserts.
Let’s not forget. He is still justifying large bonuses for bosses who achieve much. That goes against the core principles of socialism which frowns upon anyone earning enough to subjugate another. Miliband doesn’t have a problem with that. And he is perverting socialism by putting implying that this is where ‘reward is linked with effort’. Bugger equality.
Compare this BS Miliband is spewing with Sydney Webb’s ‘Clause IV’, drafted in 1917, and adopted by the Labour party in 1918,
“To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”
Blair, in 1993, came along, and rewrote it,
“The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.”
This fella basically argued that the original Clause IV ‘confused ends with means’ - meaning that we can have the same equal ends, but via other means. What are these ‘other means’ he is talking about. All you need to figure that out is by looking at what Blair left out - ‘equitable distribution’(of wealth), ‘common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange’.
What happens then, is that whilst he claims that equal ends can be brought about by other means, he leaves out the means required to bring about an equal end - equitable distribution and common ownership.
So what Miliband is actually stating here is no different from what Blair came up with in ’93 in spirit. He is just attempting to make top-down exploitation more palatable by making business and bosses more accountable as opposed to doing away with exploitation altogether.
Let me put it simply,
when we are accustomed to choosing between the devil and the angel, we’ll just end up in purgatory.What the United Kingdom needs is, well, besides getting rid of their monarchy, is voting for truly left-wing parties like the Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, or the Communist Party. You see, when we are accustomed to choosing between the devil and the angel, we’ll just end up in purgatory. What the UK needs, besides a change of name that excludes ‘King’, is a greater shift leftward so that the parties on the right, including labour, in an effort to compromise with the greater angels whom are the truly left-wing parties, will become more left in their manifestos.
When good and evil compromise, it is good that suffers, whilst evil just waits for people to get used to the compromised good to lose enough sense of good so that more evil can later be introduced. But when you force a compromised good, like the Labour party, to compromise with a greater good, like the Socialist Party for instance, the compromised good gets better. Ummm....let me put it another way. Halfway between good and evil is half evil. Halfway between half evil and good is going to be more good than the former. Get it?
V once asked me what i would do if i was in charge of a Socialist state. I said, i’d ban all capitalist or right-wing parties. ‘But that’s not democratic right’?, she remarked.
with the existence of only socialist parties with different methods, what we are going to get is the attempt to refine ‘good’ as various socialist parties try to compete with each other in becoming good - as opposed to the present where parties try to undo each other in gaining popularity amongst a people whom are accustomed to nothing but a lesser evil.“No. It is. Democracy is a means by which people become all that they can be. The existence of capitalist or right-wing parties simply serve to undermine it by focusing the people on how much they can become if they would only agree to exploit and make less of others around them. And so long as the devil can be slightly popular, the angel will feel the pressure to meet halfway and become less good. But with the existence of only socialist parties with different methods, what we are going to get is the attempt to refine ‘good’ as various socialist parties try to compete with each other in becoming good - as opposed to the present where parties try to undo each other in gaining popularity amongst a people whom are accustomed to nothing but a lesser evil".