A centre-stage slogan at the recent Conservative Party Conference in the UK actually made me laugh out loud. In huge letters behind the lectern and on it, could be read;


Some senior figures within the Conservative Party, no doubt in conjunction with a few from the advertising world, must have decided this combination of sound-bite words was significantly better than any others they could come up with. Someone then obviously ordered the printing of this nonsensical phrase on a placard and pinned it up. Those who were to speak to the audience gathered in the conference hall, were obviously tasked with promoting this nonsensical phrase, for this they duly did on numerous occasions to enthusiastic applause from those listening. Bear in mind those suggesting this slogan, agreeing to it, articulating it, applauding it’s utterance, and mediating and broadcasting it, are all part of a ruling elite and support team governing a powerful country of some fifty million plus citizens. Yet no one amongst this variegated section of the right-wing British elite seemed able to point out the ludicrous nature of this ill-thought out abstraction, let alone it’s sheer hypocricy.

Let us consider the content of this slogan, which probably took hours, if not weeks, of meetings and discussion among grandees and media gurus. First of all a country doesn’t work. Not for anyone, let alone for all. The country implicitly being referenced is of course – Britain! But ‘Britain’ is an geo-political name identifying a specific geographical and political area. So Britain doesn’t work either, not in a literal or even a metaphorical sense. Given the high levels of unemployment and the number of parasites who live off the labour of others the slogan reveals a degree of hypocricy. Yet at this conference we are informed that a geographical territory can work and that it is possible that it could work for all! This slogan is complete nonsense. Only animated beings (including people) can ‘work’. That is to say the term ‘work’ is only used rationally when applied to people who labour at certain tasks in certain situations.

Clearly these elite politicians know the difference between a country and a being that works, but this slogan indicates that in some intellectual matters they rarely bother to critically think through what they are writing or speaking. And an elite which fails to seriously think things through are a dangerous breed to be in charge of anything let alone a country with weapons of mass destruction. Memories of elites waving papers signed by Hitler and asserting this meant ‘peace in our time’ come eerily to mind. No wonder catastrophic blunders like the invasions into Afghanistan, Iraq and bombings of Lybia, Syria and Yemen are still piling up and making the world unsafe for everyone who does not have elite forms of protection.

Further rhetoric.

A global economy working for everyone?

Another Conference example of not thinking things through was in a speech referencing a commitment to wealth building and raised the rhetorical question ‘how our global economy can be made to work for everyone’. Here again an economy doesn’t ‘work’. The best that can be said of an economy (by itself a fairly meaninglessness abstraction) is that it functions. In this regard it is as plain as day to practically everyone by now that the global economy (the production and consumption of useful and necessary items – commodities and services) functions in a way that creates huge amounts of wealth for 1% of the global population. However, it is clearly known by the elite that the current economic system is a capitalist based one so once again they demonstrate the inability or a determined refusal to think things through. Bear in mind all this is from the combined intellect of a meritocratic elite.

The capitalist mode of production cannot work for all because it works in favour of those who own and/or control capital. In this case, as with others, the clue is in the name. Capital exploits labour. It does so in the following manner. Capitalists exploit workers primarily at work in order to extract surplus-value (value greater than the wages they pay) from what they produce in order to transform this surplus-value into monetary form which emerges as as profits. An economic system based upon the domination of capital over the means of production can do no other than this. It cannot be made to work for everyone. It never has been able to, and it never will be able to. The economic system of capitalism needs replacing, not propping up with ‘quantitative easing’ (ie printing money and giving it to the already rich) or any other such ill thought out fiddling while this corrupt system stagnates before it collapses.

The best that people running the system can do under certain circumstances – if they are so inclined – is to ease the burden of exploitation placed upon those who work but don’t control the means of production and distribution. And it cannot even do that for everyone as the example of the various welfare – state forms of capitalism have demonstrated. Even in the best of circumstances, in the post – second world war period, for example, the rich got richer and the poor stayed obscenely poor in all countries. It is true that a few sections of skilled workers experienced a short boom time in the 1950’s and 1960’s, but this was by no means universal. And this brief period was only possible because it came after a capitalist inspired war of commodity, infrastructure and human destruction. The systematic elimination of human beings by guns and bombs led to a shortage of skilled labour and an urgent need to rebuild the damaged infrastructure. That period has long gone – hasn’t it?

The reality.

Clearly the Conservative Party since the Brexit vote have been trying to imply to the citizens watching and listening to them, that as a government in power they would govern in such a manner that their decisions would benefit everyone within the country of Britain. But of course they cannot. I suggest that the reason the slogan is so confused and abstract is because any government dependent upon the capitalist mode of production cannot but respond to the needs of capitalists above all else. However, its human agents cannot openly acknowledge this. They have to pretend they will work for all. They use words (in the form of abstractions) to promote that pretence in the hope that people will either be gullible enough to accept them or insufficiently awake to recognise that actions speak louder than words. And actions there were.

For the same week that the abstraction ‘a country which works for all’ was plastered across the front of the conference hall (3 – 9 October 2016) and rhetoric of making the global economy work for everyone, was gushing out of ministerial lips, the Conservative government also allowed fracking to go ahead in the north of England. This decision was taken in full knowledge that large numbers of people in the north had objected to this proposal and their elected local government representatives had voted to ban this dangerous and chemically polluting method of extracting eco-damaging fossil fuel from beneath the ground. Clearly Lancashire citizens are not considered part of the ‘all‘.

Later in the week the proposal to make British employers to publish the ratio of foriegn workers to indigenous workers was scrapped. This was not done out of sensitivity to the feeings of immigrant workers, but so as not to embarrass the owners and controller’s of industry and commerce who are exploiting desperate people as sources of cheap labour. If this ratio was published it would allow people to boycott certain industries and commercial outlets if they so chose. These two examples alone indicate that the Conservative government is not working for all, but working for the owners of large capitalist firms. And not just any large firms, but the ones which are paying the lowest wages and those who haved polluted previous places, and are looking for the next location to pillage and plunder before moving on.

Roy Ratcliffe ( October 2016 )

Posted in capitalism, Critique, Economics, neo-liberalism | Tagged | Leave a comment


During the same week in September 2016, Teresa May in the UK and Hillary Clinton in the USA made interesting and revealing statements. May on the need to ‘improve access to the meritocracy’ in Britain; Clinton on stereotyping half the supporters of Donald Trump in the United States of America as a ‘basket of despicables’. Both these opinions were met with a considerable degree of media surprise in their respective countries. Yet the only thing that was really surprising was the fact that these two opinions were openly articulated by members of the political elite who were both alpha-females. Otherwise these views were just modern versions of an age old elite prejudice arising from the division of societies into two great classes.

Lower class citizens, who don’t follow the wishes or dictates of the ruling elite have always been considered troublesome or despicable. Elites can never imagine ordinary people as having ‘merit’ or being capable of self-governance. They automatically assume we need them to guide us. In the ancient world societies were split into Patricians and Plebians, Despots and Helots, etc., the latter catagories being frequently described as troublesome or despicable. During the Feudal mode of agricultural production the predominant class divisions within societies were between the Aristocracy (power originally gained by the sword) who owned and controlled the main means of production (land) and the peasants who were forced to work for them upon it.

The peasants were frequently unruly (there were many armed peasant revolts) and some were so routinely disruptive they were classed as ‘rogues’ and ‘sturdy beggars’. They would not always do as they were told. These latter categories were the medieval version of Clintons ‘basket of despicables’. There was no merit by education back then. For centuries the aristocrats, prior to the bourgeois revolutions, had been an hereditary ruling class. With very few exceptions, aristocrats were predominantly born into the elite and even most of the exceptions were admitted into it by the actions of an hereditary monarch. So the ordinary peasants (including the despicable rogues and sturdy beggars) could be under no illusion that whatever efforts they made and however amenable they made themselves, they could never rise into the ranks of the elite.

In contrast to the medieval period, the representatives of the capitalist mode of production, by means of a political and economic revolution, introduced the domination of a capital-owning meritocracy. It was this new class which became the economic elite and came to own and control the dominant means of production (land and industry) and created a working class who supplied the labour to operate them. The bourgeois mode of production, based upon the ownership and control of capital, created the possibility (and consequently a widespread illusion) that things could be different under this new mode of production. That particular illusion was (and still is) promoted in the form that; ‘we can be whatever we want to be’.

Bourgeois Meritocracy.

Supporters of the capital dominated mode of production claimed that by individual and family effort, ordinary working people could become part of the elite. It was further suggested that this would require considerable effort in the areas of thrift and educational attainment. By this logic an illusion was created that by unrelenting application of these characteristics, the old barriers of class could be overcome for anyone who wanted it enough. Eventually Grammar schools and the new universities in the UK and their equivalents in Europe, the USA and elsewhere, became the educational conduits for a few members of the working class and many members of the middle classes through which they could rise above their birth status and find a place in the ranks of the meritocratic pyramid. Without success in these areas they were not considered fit for anything other than wage labour.

It is to rectify an estimated decline in blue and white – collar working class access to this meritocracy, which ostensively lies behind the 2016 proposal of Teresa May and her neo-liberal supporters in the British Conservative Party, to promote a greater role for grammer and other forms of selective schools. More probably, this group of Conservatives reason that significant numbers of parents from these sectors of the working class will vote for the Conservative form of bourgeous rule if they dangle this particular carrot. The motivation of some parents being the hope that their children will be able to escape the increasingly degenerating economic and social conditions of working and lower middle-class life.

And some working class parents are still prepared to sacrifice almost everything and pressure their children to succeed educationally for exactly that reason. However, the scope for such opportunities, never great, is now rapidly dwindling. Neither the right-wing form of bourgeios rule (Conservative or Republican) nor the left-wing petite – bourgeoisie form (Labour or Democratic) or their analogues elsewhere, can halt the structural changes taking place within the capitalist mode of production. The shrinking size of the capitalist welfare state and the globalisation of skilled labour have depressed opportunities for all those not already ensconced within the privileged elite. As small capital is squeezed out by large capital and the economic role of the middle-class declines, a future of meritocratic advancement and career security is becoming an obvious mirage. Tens of thousands of graduates (or more) are already unable to find employment at any secure level of economic life and already many more thousands are in the pipeline. However, there is more than one fundamental illusion attached to the concept of meritocracy.

Bourgeois and petite-bourgeois reasoning assumes that creating a meritocracy is both an adequate way of governing modern societies and also the best possible way. For at least two or three generations, this meritocratic process has been in operation within most advanced capitalist countries, their ex-colonies and in the previous state-capitalist countries of the Soviet Union and China. Having said this, it ought to be recognised that family, religious, or political influences have still played an important part in distributing the definite benefits of entry into this international meritocracy. So even in so-called meritocratic democracies, this method of choosing the elite who own, control, govern and administer the capitalist mode of production is not as fair as it tries to make out. Someone who has been coached through elite schools and universities such as Eton, Harrow, Oxford and Cambridge in the UK, with family connections, are certain to become higher placed than those who went to Tyldesley County Primary and then Bolton or Bradford Universities. Someone who has inherited considerable capital will be at the front of the queue to join the elite compared to someone who has not. A similar advantage is gained in the rest of the world.

The meritocratic con trick.

When some of the elites, who have previously escaped the wage-labour slavery of their parents, tell the rest of us they made it through their own hard work and dedication, then this statement may well contain a small element of truth. However, when they go on to add (during school or college assemblies or on television broadcasts) as the govenor of the Bank of England recently did, that any one listening or watching can do the same if they try hard enough, they are consciously (or unconsciously) promoting a fiction. It is a fantasy founded upon a few exceptions. It is the same bourgeous capitalist trick as is pulled by the organisers of lotteries or gambling and gaming machines. ‘You have to be in it to win it’ as these missionaries of mammon routinely preach. Of course they fail to add that for someone (or some few) to ‘pay to win’ money this way, millions or several millions are required to lose money. Not everyone can be a winner precisely because it is deliberately set up so the vast majority have to ‘pay to lose’ in order for there to be a large enough pool of money available for the winners and the organisers.

It is the similar with access to the elites within societies. It is true there are thousands of elite positions within modern countries, from the highest paid in business, commerce, finance, politics, education, social work, health work, military, police, state civil service, church, sport and entertainment and down to the middle and lower paid ranks of this meritocracy. Nevertheless, these numbers are relatively low (and shrinking) compared with the populations at large. For example, if there were 50,000 elite jobs in any country and ten million eager adult employable citizens then it is clear that if every one of the ten million had worked equally hard, saved and gained comparable educational qualifications, then there would still be nine million, nine hundred and fifty thousand (9, 950, 000) who could not become part of the elite – no matter how hard they worked or how high their qualifications had become. Selection would still have to be made – but on the basis of an escalating set of criteria. They would still be stacking shelves, serving tables or cleaning toilets.

It would not matter what size the population or the ratio of elite job numbers to citizens, was (whether greater or lesser) it would not change the essential outcome. It would still, therefore, be a deliberate sowing of illusions to assert that everyone who worked hard enough and wanted it enough, could eventually achieve elite status based upon any criteria of merit. It is bourgeois ideological nonesense to advocate and promote such social and political illusions. Sadly some people will always be taken in by the meritocratic mirage and aspirational parents will be in the vanguard of welcoming any such new measures. They will be the most eager to attempt to propel their offspring into to one section of the elite or another.

However, as noted earlier, access to the meritocracy is already loaded against the white and blue collar working classes of whatever skin colour or gender, but that is not the most damaging criticism which can be levelled at the past, present and any future meritocracy. The most damaging criticism is the condition of the countries governed by two or three generations of meritocracy and the now appaling state of the planet. These meritocracies, complete with their 20th and 21st century miserly quotas of working class, female and non-white members, in full knowledge of the facts and probabilities, has steered the world into racist colonial expansion, two previous world wars and has brought to the 21st century, global economic, financial, social, ecological, and environmental Armagedon.

So how good are the meritocrats?

How well meritocracy has served humanity can be judged by the record of it in every country of the world, whether of the most advanced or of the less advanced. Whether we judge the actions of the national meritocratic elites of the Near East, the Far East, Africa, South America, North America, Europe, Asia or Oceana, the record is dire if not catastrophic. Whether organised in the form of left or right dictatorships or so-called democracies, the meritocracy in each and every country, unashamedly govern and administer systems of systemic corruption, oppression, exploitation, pollution, military aggression, injustice and rabid inequalities of class, gender, race and disability.

And these are not the worst activities perpetrated by members of the meritocracy, many of whom in addition to the above, also authorise, torture, assassinations, indiscriminate bombing and gassing while yet others pocket their stipends and not wanting to ‘rock the boat’ turn a convenient blind eye. The collective organisations of these meritocratic elites are no better. Whether we judge the actions of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the European Economic Community, the Organisation of African States, the G20 or any of the dozens of other such elite organisations, the results are depressing if not downright disgusting.

In every country and within every collective organisation, international or otherwise, the meritocracy are good at ensuring they have extravagant levels of pay, wonderful living conditions, excellent pensions, generous expenses, luxurious banquets, first class travel, top level limousines and numerous bodyguards – all paid for by the efforts of others. But that’s all they are really good at. Outside of these privileged elite protected bubbles, and under their administration and governance, the world is falling apart, ecologically, environmentally, socially, economically, financially and morally. Yet they show no shame!

In addition, the vast majority of the intellectual section of the national and global meritocracy, staffing the universities, education departments and financial institutions of the world haven’t fully understood or comprehensively criticised the contradictions of the mode of production from which they derive their inflated salaries and pensions. The numbers who predicted the last financial crisis of 2008 or really understood it when it happened could be counted on one hand. And there is still hardly any recognition among the intellectual meritocrats of the gathering momentum of the next one. How credible is that?

Also in the UK this month (September 2016) members of the political meritocracy via a parliamentary committee concluded that the military effort in Iraq “is bearing fruit” (?) whilst the military strategy in Syria was considered “necessary but not sufficient” because it lacked an adequate political dimension. A member of same committee publishing the report complained that there had been only 65 aircraft strikes on Syria by the UK! He wanted more! The same month the military meritocracy mistakenly killed innocent citizens and soldiers of their own alliance. Such blunders and self-serving delusions and justifications are so typical of the national and international political and military meritocracy that they are now routine. There was not one mention from these meritocrats, that unrequested military intervention in foreign countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia and Syria has caused devastating problems. The prior lessons of the Vietnam war suggest that military invasions are probably not a good idea in the first place. Failing to learn from numerous past failures – how meritorious is that?

Bearing all the above in mind, if any group of human beings should be described as ‘a basket of despicables’ it is surely this entire global elite of multi-disciplined, meritocratic parasites. Meritocracy and the capitalist mode of production are not the solution for the working classes and suffering humanity, they are in fact the fundamental problem. And the impending ‘decline and fall’ of the empire of capital will not be arrested or transformed by a few more underprivileged individuals being allowed to try to shoulder (or sycophant) their way up the national and international meritocratic pyramids of shame.

Roy Ratcliffe (September 2016)

Posted in Anti-Capitalism, Critique, Finance, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments


Have you ever wondered why in modern religions, the designated creative, super power of the universe is invariably classed as invisible yet is always conceived as being male? Do you, like me, wonder how such a gender specific fact could be definatively known if this imagined entity (as is also always asserted) is not only invisible but unknowable? Also, has it ever crossed your mind that it may be more than just a coincidence that most, if not all, modern religions asserting a male god are dominated by a heirarchy of men with males at the pinnicle of the religious hierarchy? If any of this has occurred to you, then like me you are in an undoubted minority. If it hasn’t, then perhaps it should, because the patriarchal imagination has not always been dominant within religion. As we shall see from evidence retrieved by archeology and anthropology, the creative principle in life and religion has not always been imagined as exclusively or even predominantly male. In terms of the existence of the human species and it’s evolving consciousness (several million years), male centredness and male domination are relatively recent developments. Would it really surprise you to learn that before the emergence of a patrifocal/patriarchal obsession a few thousand years ago, the dominant creative principle of life was usually imagined to be feminine?

Spirits and Goddesses.

There is clear evidence that many ancient human communities thought that everything (animals, rivers, plants, mountains, along with climatic conditions) was endowed with an animating spirit. It is also clear from the Sumarian and Babylonian religious myths that in many places goddesses were imagined to exist who were equal or even more powerful than gods. Indeed, in one of the imaginative creation myths of this ancient period the Great Earth Mother, ‘Tiamat’ is savagely killed by the god Merodach and cut up into pieces which he uses to form the earth and the heavens. Already in this part of the myth we witness an ideological construction in which the previously imagined female creative principle has been partially preserved by the use of her body to create the sky and the earth. However, her future as the preferred Createrix deity is also violently destroyed by being killed by the imagined male principle in the guise of the god Merodach. In yet another part of the Sumerian myth the god of mischief, Enki, is imagined to have said the following to Anshar, his forefather;

“See how the mother who created us is now rejecting us? And see, father, how the traitorous gods whom you produced are fighting beside her.” (Sumarian Mythology. Adrian Ambrose. Chapter 1. Emphasis added RR.)

‘The mother who created us’ – indeed! So goddesses created gods! Since all women and men emerged as babies from the bodies of women and then were nursed and nourished by the female body as were the animals around them, there was an obvious conclusion to be drawn. For these reasons early human communities invariably concluded that the female reality and principle was the creative one. Since the earth and sea produced the roots, fruits and fish upon which hunter-gatherer communities lived, it was a logical double step to imagine that the earth was a mother and thus a mother goddess was the creative force ensuring the fertility of nature and everything living on it. Before she was brutally murdered and dismembered by Enki, Tiamat, according to the same mythical sources, was also considered to be a sea goddess, whose domain provided an abundant supply of sea food protein. Mother Hubar was another imagined goddess who also created many things. The Babylonian goddess, Bau was also considered to be a Great Mother goddess. Furthermore, in the Gilgamesh Epic, Aruru was conceptualised as a goddess of creation and Inanna was the imagined goddess of love, beauty and warfare. The latter anticipating the Greek and Roman female goddess equivalents of Artemis and Diana or Hera and Juno. It appears the religious imagination of the ancient world was bursting at the seams with goddesses. These early peoples who settled in the Tigress and Euphrates valleys were agriculturalists and;

“Like other agricultural communities they were worshippers of the ‘World Mother’ , the Createrix, who was the giver of all good things, the Preserver and also the Destroyer – the goddess whose moods were reflected by natural phenomena, and whose lovers were the spirits of the seasons.” (Myths of Babylonia and Assyria. Donald Mackenzie.)

The fertile minds of these religious representatives of ancient peoples imagined that unseasonal droughts or floods negatively effecting crop production were the results of the Great Mother having a bad mood. In Pharaohonic Egypt, in the period when it was also another ancient agriculturalist based mode of production, the Great Mother of the universe and source of the food supply, was imagined to be Isis, ‘She who has given birth to the fruits of the earth’ as an early Greek inscription asserted. And;

“In the Egyptian legend, Osiris recieved the corn seeds from Isis, which suggests that among Great Mother worshiping peoples, it was believed that agricultural civilisation had a female origin.”(Myths of Babylonia and Assyria. Donald Mackenzie.)

Across the Mediterranean in Greece the goddess Demeter (also believed to be the giver of laws) was imagined to play essentially the same role. These early civilisations were not backward in intellect or practical skills. Quite the contrary. They studied astronomy, invented writing, developed calenders, built complex water management and irrigation systems along with huge temples and city complexes. So they must have had very good reason to continue to acknowledge and celebrate – at least within myth – the undeniable outstanding contributions women made to communities. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, some communities he had evidence of, still reckoned peoples lineage by the female line – ie matrilineality. This was a practice replicated in many places of the ancient world. From all this evidence we can conclude that for millions of years of human evolution, women were not always second class citizens in everyday life and the supernatural entities communities imagined were not always male.

From goddesses to gods.

So strong was this emphasis on the centrality of the female principle in life that the imagined Queens of Heaven and other such goddesses even had ancient cities named after them. This is a fact which has emphatically preserved some of their names for posterity. The city of Athens was named after the imaginary goddess Athena, and it is suggested that the extinct city of Nineveh on the banks of the river Tigris, was named after the imagined goddess Ninsun or Nina. So in the history of religeous forms of imagination it becomes apparent that to get from goddesses and gods to a single male god a two stage transition needed to take place within some important and influential communities. It was a transition which first moved from an emphasis on female creation deities to one with an emphasis on male creation deities and then later to imagine a single male creation deity.

In the above noted Sumerian myth we can witness this first ideological stage of overthrowing the female principle in religion in favour of the male, when Enki butchers Tiamat and uses her body parts to create the planetary structure on which humans live. The original female pro-creative principle embodied in the imaginary Tiamat is not only downgraded, but symbolically killed off by a male god. The Gilgamesh myth also has Inanna, the goddess of love, beauty and warfare practically begging to become the wife of Gilgamesh. Later after visiting her sister goddess of the underworld, Ereshkigal, Inanna is executed and her body callously hung on a hook. Another goddess bites the dust! In this transitional religious system many imaginary gods and goddesses are still considered to exist, but the male gods have been re-imagined as more powerful than female goddeses and with licence to kill some of them off. Where they survive goddesses have been relegated to the wives, mothers and consorts of the dominant male gods. This was essentially the same religious ideological template (with further polytheistic complexity added) as was adopted across parts of India and by the ancient Greek imagination with its male dominated pantheon situated on mount Olympus. Yet even in this first transitional phase, goddesses are still imagined to play a crucial role. For example;

“The idea that a goddess should take part with a god in man’s creation is already a familiar feature of Babylonian mythology. Thus the goddess Aruru, in cooperation with Marduk, might be credited with the creation of the human race, as she might also be pictured creating on her own initiative an individual hero such as Enkidu of the Gilgamesh Epic. The role of mother of mankind was also shared, as we have seen, by the Semitic Ishtar. (‘Legends of Babylonia and Egypt…’ LW King Paletine Press. lecture 3.)

This basic polytheistic, gender-divided, but male dominated divine framework of religeous imagination continued within the Roman Empire, albeit with additions adopted from the numerous conquered peoples as the empire expanded. But by the time of the Roman Empire, the second transitional stage had already emerged. For elsewhere, the religious imagination had developed ideas of one multi-tasking super powerful male god (monotheism) who replaced all the other job specific gods and rendered them redundant. A short-lived trial of a form of monotheism was attempted in Egypt under the Pharaoh Akhenaton, but this proved unpopular and was soon abandoned. But the idea was not. A male form of monotheism was adopted by some members of a tribe within the middle east. According to their oral and written traditions (Torah) conducted an intense and bloody internal sectarian struggle to persuade the tribe and its confederacy to abandon the worship of golden calves, Baal, Tammuz, the Queen of Heaven and numerous other local gods and goddesses.

From families of gods to a single male god.

Eventually, this middle eastern monotheistic versus polytheistic struggle was successful within these tribes and it became the religion now known as Judaism, whose charismatic leaders eventually named their one god Yahweh. They created their narratives and myths in the form of a series of oral narratives before these were copied onto scrolls and later transfered into books. Much later, a dissident group of Jews began to agitate for a change within Judaism but eventually broke away and called themselves Christians. They held onto the Judaic books (eventually known by Christians as the Old Testament) along with the concept of a male god and created a modified form of monotheism in their New Testament. The Christians introduced the concept of a son of God (Jesus) and also imagined the existence of a holy ghost – the three of which (two imaginary males and an imaginary spirit) became described as a Holy Trinity! This tiny group of Christians converted increasing numbers of people until eventually they became an accepted and then dominant religion within the declining Roman Empire and spread their influence across the western world.

Eventually a split occurred within Christianity, (the first of many) between what became known as the Catholic and Orthodox, or Western and Eastern versions. The trend toward a male form of monotheistic religion was clearly unstoppable. So much so that it eventually captured the imagination of some within the still multiple-god (polytheistic) pagans within the Arabian peninsular. After many battles and conversions, the eventual result was the third form of monotheism which is now known as Islam. This third version of male monotheism also spread to other areas of the world. Over time, this threefold patriarchal religious development, Judaism, Christianity and Islam led to the almost universal domination of the imaginary male supernatural entity, but in wildly competing forms or denominations. Henceforth, killing and torture in the name of a male God became an established and scripturaly authorised form of human interaction in major parts of the world.

It is clear from even this brief survey of religious ideology that over a period of two to three thousand years, the vast majority of religions underwent a definate gender transition. In the imagination of their priests, theologians and leading adherents, religious beliefs during that period went from being essentially matrifocal to definatively patrifocal. However, as we have seen, this transition was only achieved via a stage in which gods and goddesses were part of powerful but often disfunctional patriarchal families. This gender transformation itself is interesting and revealing, but it is equally interesting to consider what underpinned this change. What could have been the possible driving force behind this radically altered religious imagination? Perhaps a clue lies within the period of agricultural production noted above, where in the religious imagination female goddesses were still important but already subordinate to gods.

Gender and modes of production.

We know from Anthropology and Archaeology that prior to agriculture and animal husbandry, the hunter/gatherer form of food production had existed since the dawn of the human species. And of course it is still how the genders of most other life forms ensure their survival – either by hunting or gathering – or both. Prior to agriculture and animal herding, food and shelter production in non-coastal commuties was not gender specific because both male and female of all species, including the human species, could gather as well as hunt where it was safe to do so. Since gathering produced the bulk (estimated at 80%) of the nutritional requirements of early human communities, then women were for many purposes, (food production included) the equals of men and economically independent of them. Yet this was not all that determined female status. In the vitally important area of reproduction and nurture women were clearly more important than men.

Generations of being economically equal and independent, yet reproductively superior in real life, was a status for women which could hardly fail to be reflected in the thoughts and imaginations of those who found solace in spirituality and who had not yet fully understood the workings of the natural world around them. Any development of religious ideas could hardly avoid incorporating this real-world gender awareness into its ideological and imaginative framework. It is not only possible but highly probable that imaginary Goddesses and Mother Earth worship would flow naturally (or rather socially) from this fundamental hunter/gatherer base line as it merged with early agricultural production.

However, it is well established that the widespread development of agriculture and animal husbandry (as a revolutionary mode of production) also revolutionised social relations. This new mode ensured a more reliable and more abundant food supply, than the original hunter/gatherer mode. It also opened up the possibility of divisions of labour, the development of specialist skills, the accumulation of wealth and the creation of permanent religious and military elites. Conquest for regular tribute or pillage for periodic theft, became a way for elites to be ultra parasitic on the new agricultural mode of production. It can hardly be surprising if the ideas emanating from this revolutionary new reality were reflected within the realms of religious thought. If women’s access to this new mode of production was progressively reduced and their economic role gradually redefined (and it was) then sooner or later it is probable that the role of the goddesses in the imagined spiritual realm would also be redefined.

It would be strange indeed if in a male dominated economic system, male domination (patriarchy) did not also invade and conquer the religious mentality. The new mode of production also spawned civilisation with its reliance upon armed bodies of men for defence and territorial expansion. This development occurred in Assyria, Persia, Greece and Rome, The invention of a divine Ashur, the god of a military state, using the human king as his earthly representative, was perhaps a typical example and one which was replicated by most, if not all, ruling elites during that period and later. The domination of elite men over production and as a consequence their domination within civil society and military institutions was sooner or later bound to be reflected in one way or another within religious institutions and religious imagination.

The subsequent empire building by Persia, Greece and Rome, with its single male King of Kings, (Xerxes’, Alexander the Greats’, Julius Ceasars’ et al,) governing the real world were perhaps the physical precursors of the imaginary divine male King of Kings governing the universe and all it contained. Can it be surprising therefore that a centuries old reality of a single male exercising life and death control over large expanses of land, cities and peoples would not influence how people thought the universe might be ruled or should be ruled? It was perhaps the next logical (or vested interest) step to begin to imagine a single male creator god who also had the power of life and death over his subjects together with the idea that everyone should obey his wishes or suffer the most devastating tortures or even death at his divine displeasure. In other words is it only a coincidence that religious monotheism was a fantasy mirror image of the then visible reality of the male dominated empires within which the idea was born?

It would seem therefore that there is a very definite link between the social status of women within modes of production and the form religious mysticism takes. When women had direct access to the dominant mode of production and control of the instruments of production, they were treated equally or even with deference. And it seems this was reflected within the sphere of religious imagination. When the later modes of production came to be controlled by men this gender revolution was accompanied by a revolutionary transformation within the realm of esoteric religious thought. How could it be otherwise? Imagination has always been absolutely necessary in order to sustain belief in an invisible and unknowable spirit, whether that belief has been animism, idol worship or the idea of an invisible, unknowable all powerful male god. Imagination and unquestioning faith just has to be the modus operandi for the asserted existence of something that cannot be proven and evaluated by means of the five human senses aided by the tools which enhance these senses. And of course if enough influential people argue that something exists, whether it exists or not, most ordinary people will find it difficult, if not impossible, to contradict this dominant view.

The transformed role of women within economic production and within the imagined religious realm serves to indicate that religious beliefs are plastic and subject to periodic change. It can also be seen from the above evidence that religious beliefs are derived ultimately from experiences gained from mundane everyday life but as modified by the power of imagination. It also suggests that real equality for women can only be achieved when once again they have direct access to, and equal control of the means and instruments of production. This alienation from direct social production and the resultant inequality, is something women share with the working classes under the capitalist mode of production but they also suffer from male gender prejudice as well. It was only 96 years ago (1920) that men in the USA allowed women there to vote and only 88 years ago (1928) that men in the UK allowed their women full voting rights. Yet then and now most men and most women still remain subordinate wage (or salary) slaves to capital. As Karl Marx, noted;

“The whole of human servitude is involved in the relationship of the worker to production, and every relation of servitude is but a modification and consequence of this relation. (Marx. Economic and Philosophic notebooks of 1844.)

So it is important for those who have realised that a post-capitalist mode of production is necessary that they should campaign for and where possible assist the achievement of women’s equality now not tell them they should wait until after a revolution.

Roy Ratcliffe (September 2016)

Posted in Anti-Capitalism, Critique, Feminism, Patriarchy, Religion | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments


The statement by German President, Joachim Gauck, (August 2016) that; “The elites are not the problem, it’s the people who are the problem”, reveals far more than perhaps was intended. Indeed, it is worth considering this opinion in a much wider context. This reactionary outburst was asserted in relation to the millions of German nationals who are increasingly opposed to the current levels of immigration. However, this arrogant attitude is symptomatic of a much broader characteristic demonstrated by the political and economic elites the world over. From the perspective of the economic and political elites, the people are always the problem when they do not agree with or follow their suggestions or dictates. This symptom applies to all elites, whether of the left, centre or right wing inclinations. When they are allowed to vote, people are capable of voting the ‘wrong’ (sic) way – according to the elite mentality.

For example, after the result of the Brexit vote in the UK, many pro-European politicians, economists, academics, pundits and commentators considered that the problem lay with the millions who voted against their wishes. These Brexit voting people were alleged to be ill informed, racist or just not capable of being rational. In the USA, the people who are supporting the elite loose cannon Donald Trump are likewise being characterised by the dominant media outlets as racist, or insufficiently intelligent to know any better. The people really are becoming a serious problem for the economic, financial and political elites the world over. This same elite attitude was also revealed not too long ago when the people of Greece massively voted against Brussels proposals for austerity. The Greek people were seen by the Brussels elite as causing a problem, not the political elite who created the sovereign debt issue by reckless borrowing and the finincial elite by their aggressive lending.

These three recent examples make clear that from the perspective of the elites, the ‘people are the problem’. This is especially so if they object to the way the current neo-liberal phase of the capitalist mode of production is being administered. In the advanced countries, when the people demonstrate or ‘occupy’ to protest they are considered such a problem that they are pepper sprayed, kettled, arrested and injured. In less advanced countries people who protest against elite corruption are incarcerated, tortured, assassinated or simply disappear. During the 20th century, the Bolshevised and Stalinised elites of Russia and China etc., despite a rhetoric of concern for the oppressed, still treated millions of working people as a problem requiring, torture, incarceration and assassination to get them to ‘toe the (Party) line’. For elites the world over, the manifold problems infecting and effecting the modern world are never caused by themselves or the system they uphold – it is always the people!

So the contemporary response of blaming the victims by the elites is nothing new. The 20th and 21st centuries are full of such examples. In the UK, the US and Europe, the people were celebrated when they fought and died in two world wars to defend the capitalist system. However, as soon as they tried to defend the living standards achieved in the aftermath of the Second World War, they once again became perceived as a problem. After having laboured to reconstruct the post-war economies and create new levels of wealth for the new elites, the ‘people’, particularly working people, were once again perceived as an intractable problem. They were considered a problem of such magnitude that the full force of the nation – states of Europe and North America were successfully marshalled to corrupt, marginalise and destroy their organisations of resistance (trade unions) and communal associations.

With the achievement of a partial socio-economic destruction of peoples lives and communities under the Thatcher and Reagan periods of the 20th century, a new (big-bang!) neo-liberal phase of the capitalist mode of production was introduced. It has been a period of unregulated and unchallenged financial domination in which everything except the air people breathe has been up for sale to those who had gained wealth during the previous stage of reconstruction. In the UK for example, water, gas, electricity, transport, communications, were privatised and transformed from public services into sources of further profit for the financial, economic and political elite. Not content with this, the same financial, economic and political elites also devised stealth inspired manouvres to get control of profitable areas of health and education.

Not surprisingly under the new conditions of large-scale unemployment, low pay, precarious employment and contraction of welfare services, working people are again faced with a serious predicament. Do they passively accept the policies handed down to them by their elites or do they resist them? It is clear that increasing numbers of the citizens of the various nation-states have little or no trust (or faith) in the established bourgeois methods of social democratic governance. In addition in most countries, there is a new generation of well educated, jobless young people who recognise the corruption, the self-interested greed and the general incompetence of the political elites. They are also rejecting the two Janus faces of bourgeois social democracy, Republican and Democratic; Labour and Conservative; or Socialist and Social Democratic. They have already realised, that the problem is not the people, but the elites.

That is the first stage of recognising the real problem. It may take some time before this new generation recognises that it is the mode of production which needs to be changed, not simply the political puppets (left, right or centre) who constantly dance to its various tunes. Meanwhile, faced with frustrated careers, social exclusion and austerity, these new workers may well vote for demagogues, not vote at all or even protest and riot. Sooner or later, however, if they conclude that ‘another world is possible’ they will need to become revolutionary rather than reformist or abstentionist. More importantly still they will need to be revolutionary – humanists if they are not to recreate the the patriarchal vanguardist pretentions and totalitarian conditions of the various 20th century Bolsheviks, Trotskyists or Stalinists. As revolutionary humanists they truly will become a problem for the elites of all political persuasions and at the same time collectively become part of the solution to the problems now facing humanity and the global eco-system upon which humanity ultimately depends.

Roy Ratcliffe (August 2016)

Posted in Critique, neo-liberalism, Politics, Reformism, Revolutionary-Humanism, The State | Tagged , | 1 Comment


Differences between human beings such as those designated as ‘racial’ and religious are again being promoted as causing most, if not all, of the problems facing contemporary society. The reason is not too difficult to fathom. The economic aspects of the current crisis have created job insecurity, relative levels of poverty, contraction of welfare provisions and financial instability. In all countries in which the capitalist mode of production dominates, there are severe problems with housing, education, health provision, and employment opportunities. These symptoms have given rise to a percieved need by some to once again fall back upon exagerating differences among working people in order to have someone to blame. The five-fold crisis of the capitalist mode of production has once again provoked increased outbreaks of violence within the ranks of the exploited and oppressed.

The ‘austerity’ driven cutbacks particularly effect those in the low paid working and non-working sections of society. This in turn has produced despair, anxiety, anger and an emerging struggle between the various victims of the present system for access to the increasingly scarce resources. It is a struggle which is to some extent also directed against the state. As usual where there is organised protest against the deteriorating economic and social conditions, those who control the capitalist states defend themselves and their system aggresively. The armed bodies of men employed by the nation states are sent to pepper spray, tear gas, kettle, disperse, arrest, maim and even kill those who pay their wages but who do not accept the conditions they are currently required to endure. The capitalist system once again cannot provide adequate resources for the number of people requiring them. The resurrection of a previously invented scapegoat therefore is now in full swing.

Instead of blaming the capitalist mode of production for its many fundamental failings, the dominant ideological hold over opinion makers ensures they blame one or other of the victims of this global system of oppression and exploitation. The ersatz blame game by one set of petite bourgeois opinion makers has targeted immigrant workers as the problem causing repeated social crisis, whilst another distorted variant of petite bourgeois ideology blames the indigenous workers for being racially prejudiced, unwelcoming and exacerbating the internal crises of nation states. This is despite the fact that both these category of workers are equally the victims of the global capitalist system.

Even some of the traditional left have joined in on one side or another of this dualistic divide of blaming one or other of the working class victims who comprise of different ethnicities, skin colour, or religious denomination. Yet it should be obvious that any economic system based upon inequality needs to invent, construct and perpetuate exagerated differences such as religion, class or ‘race’ in order to justify itself. The capitalist mode of production is no different in this respect. Moreover, for the capitalist system to survive it’s periodic crises its supporters also need to choose periodic scapegoats. As we shall see, they have a long history of creating them.

In contrast to the apologists of capital, the voices and opinions raised against the capitalist system and its defensive and offensive ideology which fuels and rationalises this multifaceted crisis are feeble and few. This itself is a serious indictment of the sectarian fragmentation of the anti-capitalist movement – and the lack of a substantial one – which even fewer of its representatives are prepared to self-critically examine. Be that as it may, there is also the need to understand the economic tap roots of the cultural and ideological phenomena of prejudice in general and racial prejudice in particular. For racism, as with other discriminating prejudices is not an inevitable (or uncurable) disease but a carefully constructed, culturally driven aspect of bourgeois ideology. What follows is a contribution to furthering the understanding of that pernicious and divisive ideological feature driven by the needs of the capitalist mode of production.

The concept of race versus biology.

Dictionary definitions of race are many and they confusingly utilise a mix of environmental, geographical, linguistic and religious terms and characteristics. For example; lineage, blood, issue, people, type, clan, tribe, etc. This jumble of terms itself indicates that that the concept has little agreed social or biological content. This is perhaps not surprising since the concept of race, as has already been mentioned, is a manufactured or socially constructed invention of a previous century. Its biological basis in evolutionary reality has little or no substance.

It is a fact that people group together on the basis of family, location, religion, economic production or shared interest. It is also fact a that a permanent geographical location over extremely long periods, can alter the physical appearance and skills required by human groups to adapt to that environment. Skin pigment, muscle development and motor skills may differ from group to group by permanent residence in one location or by one habitual economic activity or another. So too will the domination of one food source lead to slight differences in health or longevity, as well as skin texture and internal tissue development. In other words humans adapt and evolve. It is also true that procreation and nurture will pass on many of these adapted characteristics, both positive and negative within any closed group of families.

But these are all minor alterations or  adaptations to the basic biological/physical construction of the entire human species. Human beings can interbreed successfully between the mostly widely differently adapted groups on the planet. Thus rendering the term ‘widely different’ in evolutionary and genetic terms a microscopically small one in actual fact.  In biological terms there are more genetic differences within groups of humans on the same continents (such as differences in the blood groups O, A and B and height) than between those human groups on different continents. These small differences arise because the human body along with other life forms is capable of adaptation and development which is now classed as evolution.  Very few, if any, of these globally diverse changes to the basic (out of Africa) structure of all humans is permanent or irreversible. Most, if not all, physical characteristics developed over millennia of adaptation to one environmental location will alter over further millennia of adaptation if transferred to a new one.

Skill sets, cultural preferences and knowledge will take only a fraction of that time to change and be adopted or adapted. So there is in actual fact biologically and socially only one human species and if by race, biological species continuity is being referenced, there is only one race – the human race. In evolutionary terms, biological continuity is a species issue, not one determined by ethnic, geographical, economical, cultural or ideological factors. Yet despite its despicable invention and spurious justifications, the concept of race – as just one form of deliberately exagerated difference – has served and still serves a very definate purpose.

The ‘creation’ of exagerated difference.

The creation of exaggerated difference certainly has one of its tap roots in the tribal histories of those groups who later founded the Abrahamic religions. This was a period when the competitive differences concerning how and where human beings lived and worked, (pastoralism, herding, agriculture and pillage, and the location in which these modes of production took place) were further and deliberately exaggerated by the construction of separate religions out of the one common concept of a male god. As pastoral and agricultural communities grew in size and complexity, competition for scarce resources ‘begat’ increased conflict for control of them. Utilising the concepts of God’s ‘chosen people’ and God’s ‘will’ to rationalise and justify, killing, territorial conquest and economic enslavement of other human beings, this became an early Abrahamic practice. Just to take one example of many;

“I am the Lord your God who has separated you from the peoples……I have set you apart from the peoples to be mine.” (Leviticus 20 v 24 and 26.) “They will bow down to you with their faces to the earth. And lick the dust of of your feet…..And foreigners will build up your walls…..For the nation and the kingdom which will not serve you will perish. And the nations will be utterly ruined.” (Isaiah 49 v 23; 60 v 12.)

The purpose of this ‘created’ difference is made crystal clear in this extract. The Old Testament (Torah), the foundational text of both Judaism and Christianity, is full of this sort of arrogant assumption of superior difference, intentional separation and belligerent, not to mention wealth appropriating and genocidal attitude, to other peoples. That is to say those peoples standing in the way of their prefered mode of production or not accepting their version of monotheism. The third, Abrahamic religion, Islam is not bereft of the same sectarian arrogance and attitude to resource conquest and killing in the name of God, within its ‘holy’ text, the Qur’an. By the use of these and other ancient ideological forms of patriarchy, belonging to the ‘right’ religion became the ‘fictionally invented’ positive marker for tribally associated human beings.

Not belonging to the ‘right’ religeous denomination consequently became the negative social marker for other human beings. And for 21st century remnants of this religious fundamentalism within all three religions – it still is. Organised religion was and is a mystical means of asserting and exagerating superiority and differences between human beings. However, this ancient tap root of economically motivated and deliberately exagerated difference was given a further intellectual twist during the development of the capitalist era. The deliberate, cobbled together construction of different ‘racial identities’ out of bits from anthropology, biology, economic participation, history and medical pathology, was given a supposedly scientific foundation for a definate purpose. The motivation for this invention became strong during the period between the 18th to 19th centuries with regard to dealing with ‘foreign’ native populations. Why this was so, is not really a mystery when we consider the investment and realisation needs of the dominant mode of production – capitalism!

Manufacturing the concept of race.

The rapid increase in economic productivity due to the industrial revolution phase of capitalism (via extraordinary surplus value extraction) provided the stimulous for two associated developments. First, it provided the necessity and motivation for seeking new sources of raw materials and markets. It was no use being able to mass produce commodities if insufficient raw materials were available to allow continuous production by workers and machinary or if the huge quantity of finished products could not be sold. At an early point in industrial development, the local, national and international markets established by commerce no longer sufficed and according to the capitalist perspective, the rest of the world was economically, socially and politically under-developed. The periods of colonialism and imperialism, were the logical capitalist and bourgeois answer to this problem of ensuring continuous production and continuous export for consumption. The return of capital investment and profit depended upon it.

Second, the same increase in industrial  productivity and surplus value on the backs of working people massed in factories,  also created the means for a greater production and accumulation of educated persons in the intellectual spheres of bourgeois life. A boom time for industry and commerce led to a boon time for the developing middle classes. New universities were formed, courses were extended, academic subjects added and mainly male students from the middle-classes were recruited. These students carried their middle class prejudices and bourgeois assumptions along with their books and clothes into their halls of residence when they went down to Oxford, Cambridge (or whichever university,) to begin their studies. Advances in the breadth and depth of bourgeois scientific understanding springing from and carried into industry, commerce, state bureaucracy and the armed forces, seemed on the surface to doubly enrich capitalist culture and on the surface it did. Nevertheless it’s primary purpose was to serve the economic interests of those supported by and engaged in the capitalist mode of production.

This early globalised ambition for profit brought the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie into closer contact and conflict with native inhabitants of the foreign lands they coveted for the raw materials and labour they could extract from them. However, the ruthless and relentless appropriation and exploitation of ‘other’ human beings needed more than just guns and steel, to maintain it. It needed both justification and rationalisation. The new sciences wielded by the newly educated middle class (ie bourgeois) intelligentia provided both. From the mid 1800’s on, Francis Galton in the UK, Charles Davenport in the USA and Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer and Fritz Lenz in Europe, were outstanding advocates of ideas which ultimately led to concepts of racial identity. By the turn of the 20th century their ideas were widely accepted among the scientific community and had filtered down into popular culture. The era of a so-called scientific basis for exagerated difference had begun.

Race as a tool of capital – 1 (colonialism and genocide).

The ideological tool of race was partly, if not wholely constructed in the intellectual workshops of a late 19th century discipline which was called Eugenics. Among other things, the eugenics movement studied supposed congenital traits and inborn character whilst selectively borrowing concepts and data from anthropology and cultural studies. The political purpose of racial eugenics was to rank global human communities on a sliding scale from advanced to backward. The advanced were considered to be the white European colonists, the so-called backward were those who did not measure up to the accepted European norms in economic activity, cultural levels and religious preferences. Skulls were measured, noses profiled, heights were measured along with many other physical characteristics, such as skin colour and hair texture, as well as alleged social attributes and character traits. For a time such eugenic classification of ‘other’ human beings became a bourgeois obsession of almost global proportions. For example;

“The first ever international meeting of eugenicists, in Dresden in 1911, brought together scholars from eight different countries: Germany, the United States, Great Britain, Austria, Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark. By the end of the 1930’s the eugenics network had expanded to include five times as many countries and dominions: France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, Mexico, Cuba, Columbia, Guatemala, Venezuela, San Salvador, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil, Panama, Peru, Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Siam, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and India.” (Racial Science in Hitler’s New Europe, 1938 – 1945. Introduction.)

In addition to the dates (1911 and the 1930’s) the keen observer will quickly note that the countries developing these proto racist ideas were those countries which had been colonised and those which had sponsored colonialism and imperialism. For, as noted above, when the ‘advanced’ nation states of Europe became the organisational vehicles for the dispossesion of native peoples, during the colonialist and imperialist periods of capitalist expansion, their elites needed a set of rationalising theories to justify this expansion into what became 19th century Empire building. The so-called science of eugenics supported by scientists, physicians, lawyers and academics – all drawn from the educated middle-classes – provided an important part of these theories. Popularising racist ideology for the lower classes was also not neglected as the following extract from a 19th century poem by Rudyard Kippling illustrates;

“Take up the White Man’s burden
send forth the best you breed
Go bind your son’s to exile,
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild,
Your new caught, sullen peoples
Half devil and half child.”

It’s amazing how much can be compressed into such a short extract, isn’t it? Racial stereotyping and imperial justification condensed into a few populist stanzas. Yes it is all in there – except the systematic genocide perpetrated against these global indigenous communities. And of course also missing is the recognition that there was an urgent economic need to exagerate difference in order to rapidly exploit the human and natural resources of the world. Racism was (and is) merely an intellectual appendage to bourgeois ideology.

Race as a tool of capital – 2 (sterilisation/euthanasia/slave labour).

It is interesting and revealing to note that this crude ‘bioligist’ ideology of the eugenics movement developed two distinct strands, negative eugenics and positive eugenics. Positive eugenics were seen as promoting policies and procedures which enhanced the health, strength and general well being of the favoured people (now posited as a superior ‘race’) whilst negative eugenics was meant to activate policies and practices which eliminated those defective among the favoured population. Elimination was a fate, along with slavery, which also awaited any unfavoured people, now designated as a inferior (or more offensively as ‘mongrel’) races.

In other words, healthy, foods, exercise and good living conditions for the favoured people, forced sterilisation and euthanasia for the deformed or mentally handicapped, and, slavery, internment or extermination for the ‘inferior’ categories or the socially deviant. The manufactured concept of race became so widely accepted that the elite in many nations, attempted to assert, their own version of racial superiority with regard to other people’s. The search for some mythical (non existent) pure blood continuity became widespread. So in many places and particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, the ideas developed in the eugenics movement quickly morphed into ideas of racial improvement by means of so-called Racial Hygiene. For example;

“The German Society for Racial Hygiene (Deutsch Gesellschaft fur Ras senhygiene) was replicated in the years leading to and immediately after the First World War across East Central Europe. Thus, similar institutions were established in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Estonia, and Bulgaria, although the specific national context and social and medical practices in those countries did not differ significantly.” (Racial Science in Hitler’s New Europe, 1938 – 1945. Introduction.)

So the pseudo-scientific ideology of race was already common place throughout Central Europe, North and South America as well as Eastern Europe around the time of the First World War (1914 – 1918). After that particular war, the Nazi elite and their followers merely took the internationalised ideas of the eugenics and racial hygiene movement to their logical distorted extreme. The Nazi intelligentia and their supporters had a particular need to exagerate difference for additional political as well as economic reasons. They merely included those classed as Jews and Slavs in their list of so-called ‘mongrel races’ and applied this type of racial categorisation to the continent of Europe as well as to the colonies of Africa, America, Asia and Oceana. These newly classified unworthy and unwanted Europeans (which also included communists) were eventually forced to work as slave labour, to emigrate or were simply eliminated. And again from the standpoint of the capitalist class and their state supporters, there was a compelling economic reason for them to do so.

The European states in which capital dominated not only created a new dominant mode of production but as noted expanded the means of production into larger and larger and more efficient units. This fact together with the industrial use of machinery created not only a surplus of commodities needing foreign outlets, but soon a surplus working population, who where no longer regularly needed. These dispossessed indigenous people were a potential and actual problem for they were prone to disatisfaction, disruption and rebellion. One solution was to provide them with newly sequestered land, farms, offices and buildings obtained by invading a foreign territory. And of course this type of capitalist inspired conquest required a disciplined, healthy fighting force of loyal citizens to seize and secure the confiscated factories, shops, offices and farms.

Prior to the development of Germanic lebensraum, advanced capitalist countries, such as Holland, France and England, had already done the same resource expansion and annexation in Africa and elsewhere. Spain and Portugal had done so in the Americas etc. It was only a matter of time before others tried the same. These loyal citizens of the state, in the case of Nazi controlled Germany where classed as the ‘true Germans’ of mythical ancient Aryan stock. Hence positive eugenics was practiced for those classified as such. That left the question of what to do with those – who for whatever reason – opposed such development? The answer was concentration camps, work camps, assassinations and ghettos. What to do with the unreliable, unhealthy or handicapped elements of Germany? The answer lay in negative eugenics – assassination, sterilisation or forced euthanasia.

So to sum up so far: The accelerated invention, manufacture and distribution of ‘race’ coincided with the accelerated invention, manufacture and distribution of commodities in general and of sugar, tobacco, tea, cotton, spices and fruits in particular. It was these latter commodities that required vast areas of foreign lands to farm and large numbers of slaves or other forms of compulsory labour, to plant, grow, pick, pack and deliver as cargo to the commercial wing of the capitalist mode of production. Such ruthless subjugation, exploitation and oppression, in pursuit of a profitable return on capital required an extention and promotion of bourgeois ideology in the form of supposed European superiority, allied to Eugenics and Racism. As we have seen, the invention of race was an aspect of pro-capitalist ideology that developed in the universities and state departments of the countries most advanced capitalistically. The 20th century Fascist version of state-capitalism in Germany merely came up with the ultimate eugenicist/racist (final) solution to the problem of people who got in the way.

The legacy of exaggerated difference.

Religeous differences are still being kept alive in the 21st century and are particularly emphasised by the fundamentalists of all religious persuasions. Reaching or harking back to the fundamental tenets of religions, as Jewish, Christian and Islamic fundamentalists do, means reviving ancient texts and renewing the myths and exagerated/distorted differences contained within them. Backward ideas based upon tribal rivalries of 1,500 to 2,000 years ago have now been reintroduced as relevant to the 21st century. Killing and land appropriation in the name of God after going out of fashion for a lengthy period, returned in the 20th century and sadly continues in the 21st.

The actual textual justification and recommendation of conquest and killing in the name of God contained within the Bible and Qur’an, which the extreme fundamentalists, utilise may have been neglected by the majority of those who still subscribe to these religions, but they have not been openly rejected by them. It is perhaps revealing why this might be so. Could it be that to reject them openly would be to admit that God is not good or alternatively admit that these words were not a God’s at all, but based upon the original, tribally inspired words of some dangerous, devious, and ancient patriarchal men?

The legecy of ‘scientific’ Racism lies partly in the way in which non-white people have been and still are being treated. The cobbled together psuedo-science of racial classification, so permiated the advanced capitalist (ex colonialist) countries in the 20th century, that its residue still exists in the form of discrimination against certain peoples – usually, but not exclusively, of colour. This racism has never completely disappeared and in many cases has been institutionalised. In this regard people rarely bother to consider why racism is predominantly, if not exclusively, a white problem and prejudice. Yet it is obvious why. The domination of the capitalist mode of production, first occurred in Europe, where nations of people of light skin existed in large numbers. The continuing domination of elite white people in all aspects of European and North American life, is a direct result of the global domination of capital as a mode of production.

Since capitalism is based upon minority control of wealth and competition for scarce resources, then that minority – as a dominant economic class – will tend to be white. But also since under the class divisions of capitalism, there is competition for jobs, housing and education, then this relative scarcity for the vast majority of citizens has engendered a need to gain (or prevent loss of) economic and social advantage. In an attempt to gain an advantage, it has become useful for some people to focus on small human differences such as skin colour or nationality and to continue to exagerate them. This relative scarcity of jobs has been made even worse by the capitalist inspired recruitment of low wage workers, of different ethnicities and religions who have been encouraged to become official economic immigrants. Imigrants, themselves victims of dispossession and displacement, particularly those of colour, are being conveniently being used as scapegoats for the present economic and social ills. However, it is the capitalist mode of production which is at fault. It creates wealth for some and relative scarecity for the majority. All this evidence suggests that as long as the bourgeois system of capitalism exists bourgeois inspired practices and prejudices such as racism will continue to surface. Yet the new crisis situation in the 21st century, points to more than one possible outcome.

The first outcome is, as we now witness developing in Europe and North America in particular, the taking up of previously sanctioned exagerated differences to claim priority in jobs, housing and education, among other things and to deny them to others. In this way the concept of ‘race’ along with ‘nationality’ and ‘religion’ will remain something of a socio – economic tool of capital for it hinders and obscures the second possible response to scarcity for the non – capitalist majority of the worlds populations. Since the present system of production could be and would be capable of ensuring a high standard of existence for everyone if a minority were not disproportionally benefiting from it whilst controlling it, then the second possibility is as follows.

It would be for the oppressed majority to refuse to sanction these previously manufactured exagerated differences and unite to challenge and change the mode of production. As we have seen it is the needs of those controlling this mode of production which has created the modern concepts of race (and nationality) as well as the relative economic scarcity for those not in the top ten percent. However, the very real danger is that those who are not provided with such a practical understanding along with a coherent humanist alternative, will always be subject to bourgeois prejudices such as sectarianism, racism and nationalism.

Once again I suggest that only a revolutionary – humanist understanding can offer a non-sectarian theoretical and practical alternative to the contemporary bourgeois and petite – bourgeois ideological hegemony. This is because sectarianism (political or religious) is just another form of petite bourgeois exagerated difference manufactured for very definite purposes of discrimination, exploitation and control. A revolutionary humanist understanding also contains the intellectual tools to deconstruct the economic base of the continuing racist and nationalist narratives and thus to challenge the practice of blaming and dividing the victims. Once again I suggest a critical-mass of revolutionary – humanists urgently needs to be created.

Roy Ratcliffe (July 2016)

Posted in Anti-Capitalism, Critique, Nationalism, Revolutionary-Humanism, Sectarianism, The State | Tagged , , | Leave a comment


A palpable sense of relief has been expressed in the mass media that the lone shooter of 8 plus people in Munich was not connected in any way with the Islamic fundamentalist movement, currently headed by ISIL. Within one day a provisional diagnosis of psychological problems was suggested by the German Police, the European political elite and the sycophantic press. I suggest the increasingly frequent reference to the possibility of mental disorders to explain such atrocities, is motivated by the relief that a confrontation with religious mysticism, extremism and reactionary ideology can once again be publicly avoided.

The recent events in Nice, Paris, the UK and elsewhere – instigated or recognised by the Islamic extremists of ISIL – has compounded the opinion held by many people that this particular religious form of belief has much to do with most of the current manifestation of targeted violence. I share the ‘obvious’ opinion that religion has much to do with many of the atrocities, but I also suggest a word of caution. By wanting a simple answer, it is too easy to miss another obvious connection. In actual fact, religion is not the only causal aspect of the modern manifestations of terrorist brutality. There is another.

Whilst the religious connection is obvious to all those not in denial, what is missing from the ‘official’ analysis is that this religious connection itself is yet another symptom stemming from the five-fold crisis of the capitalist mode of production. The extent of this compound crisis is causing high levels of dissatisfaction and anger among many of the millions effected negatively by one or more of the elements of what amounts to a large-scale global crisis. The economic part of the crisis is one of relative over-production, (exemplified by the symptoms of unemployment, precarious employment, low-paid employment and austerity) which mostly effects those among the working classes and poor. This economic part of the crisis also disproportionally effects the lives of young people – that much is obvious. The financial aspect of the crisis primarily effects those who live off, or depend upon, financial investments (shares, foreign currency dealing, futures trading, investment banking etc.) of one kind or another, but this also indirectly effects everyone.

The social dimension of the crisis, (housing, health, education, social services etc.) mostly effects the working classes and the poor, but again it disproportionally effects young people. That much should also be obvious. The ecological and moral elements of the crisis – themselves of substantial magnitude – also effect how disaffected some people feel with the world in which they live. In particular, illegal wars in which millions are killed unjustly by western armed aggression – can radicalise previously passive citizens. How much more will this fact alone radicalise many of those under 30 years old, who feel disgust at such barbaric injustice, particularly those who have so little to lose and want to hit back? What should also be obvious is that radicalisation and anger against the present neo-liberal capitalist system is unlikely to take the form of flowing through existing political channels. It is common knowledge that these channels have proved useless in the past and are choked with the detritus of existing ‘mature’ elites, who apart from rhetoric, are just out for themselves.

Disaffection with how capitalist societies are run, how the system divides up the wealth created, how its representatives bomb and invade countries and how productive activity for profit destroys the planets ecology, is now an almost universal if not co-ordinated reaction to the current multi-faceted crisis of this present mode of production. And deterioration and consequent dissatisfaction is bound to increase. To constantly ignore all this dissatisfaction, as most commentators do, is clearly to miss the obvious. For with this background in mind it is obvious that some sufficiently disaffected people will commit crimes against individuals, or property. Some may gather together and riot as they have done in the past!

Yet others will retreat into depression, drug addiction or commit an even quicker form of suicide. It is also obvious that some will even join a movement which is not only against the present system, but is in favour of another form. So despite a number of differences, what connects most of these 21st century outrageous acts, by small group and lone wolf perpetrators of mass killings, is the fact that they are predominantly the work of disaffected youth. Decades of history reveal that in a systemic crisis, young people (ie those above 15 and usually below 30 years of age) are invariably the first to become radicalised in one form or another.

During past crises of capitalism, radicalised young people (predominantly those between the ages of 17 and 30) also joined movements of violent pro-active action and resistance, such as the various fascist parties, socialist parties and communist parties.  This same age group also became the main shock troops of the two world wars, (1914 -18 and 1939 – 45). They sat in the trenches, piloted the warplanes and manned the naval vessels of various types. Of course, young people are not the only ones disaffected by modernity, but they are often the most alienated, energetic and self-sacrificing, members of our communities.

For the above reasons it is obvious that if in a maturing crisis, they are not provided with a decent living, a positive direction and motivation to make sense of their lives, some of them will individually hit out in anger and frustration. In other words they can be expected to react in just the way some have already done in Norway, America and now Munich. It is also obvious, that others will be influenced by one aspect of the crisis or another, to join organisations such as ISIL which collectively hit out and idealistically promise better things. Both these results or outcomes of the current multi-faceted crisis are occurring almost simultaneously within the towns and cities of the advanced capitalist countries of Europe and  North America.

The bourgeois characteristic of ‘missing the obvious’ is for me yet another example of the old saying ’there are none so blind as those who won’t see’. The current elite-led focus on remedies aimed at surface symptoms, such as gun control, airport security, personality profiling and increased policing will not remove the growing dissatisfaction of communities with the failing mode of production or its violent expression in one form or another. The real challenge for adult humanity, is to recognise the validity of the current dissatisfaction of young people and others and create a means of overcoming it which becomes a more attractive, comprehensive, achievable alternative than the self-defeating alternatives of depression, drug culture and individual or collective terrorist violence. When the Mayor of Paris told Parisians that they must learn to live with terrorism, this indicated a typical one-sided bourgeois hypocrisy and bankruptcy.

We in Europe and the west have lived with terrorism – state orchestrated terrorism – for decades as was practiced in Vietnam and numerous other places since. It just never greatly effected us directly. However, in the wake of the Afghan and Iraq wars and Syrian and Libyan interventions – it now does – and that too should by now be obvious as the long awaited report on the war in Iraq, makes clear. In contrast to the Mayor of Paris and the elites who think like him, we should no longer be prepared to live with state organised terrorism nor the form orchestrated by the reactionary ideologues of religions – all religions. We should actively oppose both! Another world is possible, but not if it is based upon the capitalist mode of production – state run or corporate controlled. All this should be glaringly obvious and yet it is obviously missing in the bourgeois and petite-bourgeois media outlets. Once again we are witnessing those who support the capitalist mode of production, demonstrably and perhaps deliberately ‘missing the obvious‘.

Roy Ratcliffe (July 2016.)

Posted in Anti-Capitalism, capitalism, Critique, Ecological damage., Finance, neo-liberalism, Politics | Leave a comment


As with many things influenced by the capitalist mode of production, the motives for political correctness are not all what they seem. On the surface, the promoters of this strand of bourgeois ideology seem to be concerned with how people ‘feel’ and appear to be anxious not to allow any disrespect to be shown to others. However, dig a little deeper and its true purpose can be seen to be fuelled by power, ambition and monetary concerns – not concerns for humanity. Those arguing for political correctness are highly selective in who they defend and who they attack; who they support and who they neglect. They are far from being universally benevolent. Some advocates of political correctness stayed silent on, or colluded with, the war on Iraq and the bombing of wedding parties in Afghanistan. Unsurprisingly the origin of the concept and practice of political correctness lies in the field of politics. The clue to its evolution and function clearly lies within the term itself – politics – and the less advertised, behind the scene, links to the economics of capitalism and state capitalism that politicians have.

In passing it should be remembered how Political Correctness was used under Fascism, Bolshevism, Stalinism and Maoism – all variants of capitalism, state orchestrated in this case rather than corporate. Under those particular political elites, any and every form of critical discourse, sarcastic comment or harmless joke against the ‘leader’ or the ‘system’, was met with savage reprisals. Within a short time of these elites gaining power, such was the oppression meted out to critics that self-censorship was practiced by all but a few. Indeed, in some of these former ‘systems’ and more recently others such as Egypt, ISIL and (last week) Turkey, such savage retaliation can still occur. Political correctness, whether exercised officially or unofficially, means pressure to never do, say or think something that the elite and their supporters do not like. The more power the elite have the more they are able to sanction or silence criticism with the most draconian measures of punishment. At the moment the western capitalist based elites and their supporters usually only detrimentally influence their own critics by neglect, disaproval or censure, for they are still platonically wedded to a modicum of free speech. But for how long?

Money makes the world go round’.

Under the normal phase of the capitalist mode of production, it is not productive activity which determines how money moves around, but it is the way money (in the form of capital) moves around which determines productive activity. Under capitalism, making money is the primary concern which dominates all else. Whether by working or investing for profit, obtaining money determines, how we live, where we live or even if we live. But everyone knows that the economic and political elites get the lions share of the available wealth distributed on the distorted ‘money-go-round’ of capitalism. They also have most to lose if anything interupts or interferes with the steady flow of cash which is channelled into their bank accounts.
It is potential social disturbances effecting these elite-destined power and cash steams which the concept of political correctness is designed to prevent. In the west, it is a concept originally coined by those whose cash flow is gained exclusively or predominantly through the bourgeois economic and political processes. Its open purpose is to modify attitudes and circumvent criticism of issues which are of vital concern to the economic and political elite. For example, issues such as religion and of course, the form of immigration practiced under the capitalist mode of production. In other words in the west, the concept of political correctness is yet another form of bourgeois and petite bourgeois intellectual thought control. Its undeclared purpose is to deflect a serious examination of the exploitation and oppression at the heart of capitalism and it’s desire for the ‘free’ movement of capital and labour.

The term has also been taken up as a valid form of linguistic currency by others within the middle classes, but for very different reasons. Nevertheless, even these particular dealers in political correctness and it’s associated boo words are also under the shared illusion that politics and capitalism are natural and therefore eternally valid forms of human interaction. In fact modern politics along with such terms as ‘political correctness’ are nothing more than social constructs manufactured by the bourgeoisie during the 20th century of their epoch. Like any other coin of the realm, ‘political correctness’ has two faces – a heads and a tails so to speak. The main side, the purpose for which it was fairly recently minted, was to avoid offending or alienating sections of the producing, purchasing and voting public in the modern mixed urban and global settings spawned by capital. But before exploring this aspect further, let us remind ourselves of what we already know.

‘All my troubles Lord, soon be over’.

The bourgeois (capitalist) mode of production has in the past few centuries, forcibly created a world market for its goods and services. During the periods of Colonial expansion and Imperialist control, the bourgeois economic and political elites had no fear of offending anyone or any group who stood in their way. With swords and guns in hand, they conquered lands and peoples. They bought and sold human beings, ethnically cleansed native populations and decimated indigenous peoples. Later still they bombed them into submission or into an early grave, whilst continuing to use the most foul language and disrespectful terms to describe them. The inhabitants of the Niger region of Africa or gentlemen of the western orient were shortened into nasty and frequently used expletives.

The elites who instigated and orchestrated this brutal extractive process, needed by the accelerating productivity of the capitalist system, were deeply racist and sexist and were mainly men. Until the advent of universal suffrage, their positions of power were not substantially reliant upon upsetting anyone and so as noted above, the names they chose to apply to their victims in Africa, Oceana, the Americas, and Europe were highly offensive and derogatory. In the 19th and 20th centuries whole departments of middle-class bourgeois intellectuals created fields of so-called science based upon the alleged and in most cases manufactured inferiority of the different non-favoured, non-white ‘races’. Since these males dominated society, they also dominated the intellectual discourse within bourgeous culture and their racism and sexism permiated down the class structures into popular culture. And sad to say pockets of it still persists in all classes and genders.

The times they are a changing’.

However times have changed and the pro-capitalist political elites in the ‘advanced’ capitalist countries have by now assembled a cultural mix of religions and ethnicities in all the major towns and cities who are not only cheap sources of labour for production, distribution and sales, but voters in elections and consumers of capitalist commodities and services. So now there is an urgent need not to offend any section of global society in case those offended cease to purchase goods and services (the primary vehicles of profit) from certain suppliers, cease to supply essential or ‘strategic’ raw materials, or fail to vote for an eager new candidate or currently incumbent politician.

Hence the the fear side of the political correctness coin. So much fear exists amongst the economic and political, elites that they will not publicly condemn any cultural or religeous backwardness unless they are forced to. Hence female genetal mutulation, forced marriages and honour attacks have until recently, had a blind eye turned to them. The fear of offending Zionists Jews has resulted in silence or muted complaints against the continuing slow genocide of Palestinian life in Gaza and the West Bank. The patriarchal ideology and practices of all the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are passed over in silence or even colluded with as if they and the capitalist mode of production were not the most significant parts of the problem facing humanity. Atrocities done in the name of Islam are classed as terrorist in order to avoid confronting the fact that some terrorist acts are directly inspired by Islamic religious ideology and their mainstream religious texts. Atrocities done in the name of the ‘war against terror’ are classed as self-defence in order to avoid confronting the fact that they are inspired by neo-liberal capitalist ideology. This type of hypocricy is all part of the broader spectrum of bourgeios ideology along with its recent appendage, political correctness.

‘Old man river’.

Then, as mentioned earlier, there is the other side of the political correctness currency which has a different motivation. This stems from a knowledge and understanding that the Colonial and Imperialist period of denegration of foreign peoples, women and homosexuals, was incorrect, inhuman, counterproductive and needed to be corrected – at least verbally. The concept of Political Correctness therefore had a warm reception amongst some sections of society. Not wanting to perpetuate the negative stereotypes of those who were once forced to plant and pick cotton, tobacco and sugar cane etc., this section of society in the name of ‘acceptance’ also kept silent or turned a blind eye to patriarchal and brutal practices such as child marriages and genetal mutulation, long condemned within the advanced capitalist countries. In this section of 20th century society too, there was no longer a need or desire for a crude derogatory regard for other cultures and ideas,

From the compensating and welcoming, non-judgemental perspective, the rights of women and children (or rather lack of them) were viewed as culturally and religiously specific. The right to openly criticise religious ideas and practices were (and are) seen by many in this mileu as phobic abberations. Political Correctness guru’s have wielded mis-used terms such as anti-semitism, (when they were actually witnessing Judeophobia), Islamophobia, (when they witnessed anti-Muslim racism), and racism (when they encountered ethnic or social intolerance). These accusations they levelled at anyone and everyone who dared raise an intellectual eyebrow let alone engage in any form of rigorous criticism against reactionary actions and ideologies. Some of these political correctness wielding individuals used (and still use) their positions of power and influence to ruin the careers and reputations of those who could not be silenced by any other means. As a result, self-censureship became part of the political correctness exchange currency within the so-called democracies. But at what cost?

The cost of political correctness can now be measured by the changes in politics itself. A resurgence of right-wing political movements is gaining ground because the politically correct left has abandoned a radical criticism of the capitalist mode of production and it’s reactionary and aggressive symptoms. The social-democratic left is in total denial concerning capitalism and crisis and the radical anti-capitalist left is in sectarian melt-down. Once again (as in the 1930’s) the main orchestrated radical voice arguing against the ongoing symptoms of capitalism in crisis are from the right-wing nationalists. These proto – fascist parties and individuals are correct when they say 21st century immigration is primarily a way to lower wages in the advanced capitalist countries.

They are also correct when they point out that the welfare system provided under the current neo-liberal economic and political structure are being stretched too far and applied unfairly. They are also correct when they argue that the EEC is a bureaucratic gravy train for business, banking and the political elite. In these and on other issues they are not original but merely echoing what large numbers of ordinary people already think. Being right on some issues of course does not mean that the right-wing proto-facists are not without extremely dangerous dispositions. However, it is far too simplistic to deny or ignore these realities because the proto-fascists constantly dwell upon them. Of course, what these right wing petite bourgeois elements do not say is that all these symptoms are the logical outcome of the capitalist mode of production in the 21st century. But neither do most of the left. And there is the danger.

‘You’ve got me, under your spell’.

While the ‘left’ has been intellectually hypnotised by the concept of political correctness swinging purposefully before their eyes, the ‘right’ appear to address reality – at least as far as some of the symptoms go. It cannot be surprising therefore if many people threatened by unemployment, low pay, deteriating welfare, health and educational opportunities are listening to the right-wing politicians rather than the left. The amazing response of much of the politically correct left (and even some of the so-called anti-capitalist left) to this outcome is to blame the white and blue collar victims of bourgeois practical and ideological domination. Workers (as yet not revolutionary minded) who want to protect themselves against unemployment, low pay, over crowded schools, poor housing, and hospital waiting lists – and say so – are designated by the politically correct, as racists or closet racists.

As perhaps could have been predicted, this ‘political correctness’ syndrome leaves no option for an anti-capitalist struggle based upon class, since class divisions are ignored, glossed over or dissolved by the acid of political correctness. Instead, there is a taking of sides over a distorted form of cultural and religious relativism. Political correctness is certainly not an aid to critical analysis of anything let alone the critical analysis of the capitalist mode of production and the manifold symptoms which emanate from it. Political correctness is nothing more than a means of curtailing analysis of anything the economic and political elites along with their petite bourgeois supporters deem detrimental to their interests. It is the thin end of the wedge being driven into the (perhaps no longer needed?) bourgeois notion of free speech. As such it can be extended to anything the elite designate as in the ‘national interest’ which of course is bourgeois interest carried into the insitutions of the state.

Politics is part of the problem for humanity, not part of the solution. One only needs to consider the recent events in Europe and North America with regard to the political elite, to appreciate that this is the case. Their evident self-interested manouvres and back stabbing during and after the 2016 Brexit, on the one hand, and their imposition of austerity, as in Greece etc., on the other, (how politically correct is all that?) is a sufficient indicator of the problems they cause and the incompetence they display. The working class and those identifying with working class struggles against the capitalist mode of production needs to be guided by political correctness like they need an additional (non-natural) hole in their head.

Roy Ratcliffe (July 2016)

Posted in Critique, neo-liberalism, Politics, Sectarianism | Tagged | 3 Comments