Marx and sparks

One of the talking points on Thursday's Question Time was the claim that John McDonnell had described himself as a Marxist.  I did a bit of digging and indeed the Telegraph had a short clip of him addressing a meeting to discuss the 2008 financial crash in which he said 'I'm a marxist'.  So he claim was correct.  Well yes... and to a certain extent, not necessarily.  Of course only McDonnell himself actually knows what he meant, but watching the clip it seems to have been something said slightly in jest.  

What he actually said was, ‘We’ve got to demand systemic change. Look, I’m straight, I’m honest with people: I’m a Marxist.

‘This is a classic crisis of the economy – a classic capitalist crisis. I’ve been waiting for this for a generation!

‘For Christ’s sake don’t waste it, you know; let’s use this to explain to people this system based on greed and profit does not work.’

It seems to me, and I may be biassed, unlike the journalist at the Daily Mail where I found the quote, that he was speaking in a historical context, rather than issuing a call to the barricades. What he seemed to be saying that the theory put forward by Marx which involved the inevitable decay and death of the capitalist system and its replacement first by socialism and then ultimately by communism had reached a point where capitalism was failing and socialism should be introduced to replace it.  As a socialist he had been waiting for most of his life for the right moment to arrive and this was it. Evidence for my assertion can be found in the final line of his statement, not generally quoted in the rightwing press.

In my humble opinion for what that's worth, there seems to be ample evidence that the capitalist model is failing.  It benefits only the very rich, leaving most of us to make do as best we can and it requires propping up by the state at regular intervals.  This is achieved by huge injections of cash directly into the banking system by a system called quantitive easing, or more simply, printing money.  The idea is that with more money in circulation the banks will lend more and this will stimulate the economy.  What actually seems to happen is that the banks stuff it under the bed for a rainy day and let the rest of us go hang.  Had all this extra money been pumped into say, the NHS and housebuilding programmes, imagine the benefit which would have accrued. 

What MDonnell and Corbyn are suggesting is we pump money into the system just as has already been happening but we put it where it can do most good rather than give it to the very institutions which got us into this mess in the first place.  In what other walk of life could you make an enormous cock up on an almost unimaginable scale and instead of being called to account you are given astronomical sums of extra cash and told to have another go.  

As far as I can see, and I am no economist or expert, the problem began when banks stopped fulfilling their traditional function which was to take deposits from savers paying them interest, and then lending this money at higher rates to borrowers and pocketing the difference.  When the difference between those two rates was too great it became usury, which pre-payday loans was frowned upon.  Now the bastards advertise on the television.

What banks realised was that they could make much more money by using the cash deposited with them to gamble on various money markets. What allowed this to happen was the process of deregulation of banking and stock markets begun under Thatcher and continued under Blair. Banks and financial institutions began to invent financial products designed to make them richer and the rest of us poorer.  They slipped in things like PPI under the radar, and we all paid for it, until, that is they were found out.  They were able to do this sort of thing because they were, and to a large extent still are, self regulating.  Self regulating is a sort of oxymoron in my book. Regulation implies oversight, and how can you provide oversight to yourself, without the use of mirrors (and probably quite a lot of smoke as well)?  

So John McDonnell doesn't like this system and when he invokes the name of Karl Marx in relation to the dreadful situation we find ourselves in he is vilified by those with the greatest investment in this system, the super rich and their dogsbodies.

John McDonnell may invoke the name of Marx but for all practical purposes he is a democratic socialist who works within the system, to change it by democratic means.  Were he really a revolutionary Marxist I feel sure he would have made his move by now, I mean he is no linger young, nor in the best of health.  

All this talk of ideologies got me thinking and I wondered if I could find anywhere the basic creeds of the three main parties who seek to be elected in this country.  I ignored UKIP because even they don't seem to know what they want and they are a shambles at the present.  I accept that the same could be said of the Labour Party but their mess is caused by a struggle for the soul of the party whereas UKIP's seems to be much more fundamental and their whole raison d'être appears to be based on what they don't like rather than what they want to achieve

Labour's aims and values are clearly laid out in the famous Clause IV of their rule book.  The first paragraph reads: 

1. 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 is followed by four more paragraphs outlining more detail.

The Liberal Democrats have a similar section.  In the preamble to their constitution they state: 

• The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

This too is followed by four more paragraphs of details.

The Conservative Party Constitution (which costs £10 to buy) states:

NAME, PURPOSE, OBJECTS AND VALUES 

1. This is the Constitution of a political party which shall be known as “The Conservative and Unionist Party” (referred to in this Constitution as “the Party”). 
2. Its purpose is to sustain and promote within the Nation the objects and values of the Conservative Party. 

And that is it.  

It then goes on to describe how the party is to be organised over approximately seventy more pages.

Nowhere does it actually say what these objects and values are.  I have tried Googling, but I can find nothing which provides further enlightenment.

So folks, next time you vote for the Conservative and Unionist Party remember you are voting for a party which stands for what it stands for.  Just don't ask what that is.  Remember brexit means brexit.

Me. I'd rather know what I was voting for and not just whom.  I quite like the idea of having some sort of ethical or ideological reason to put my cross on the ballot paper.  Is that odd?