Tony Blair Part II: The Marxist Approach

Looks Fun!

Looks Fun!

This is in response to my previous post, ‘Tony Blair: A Modern Day Hero’, in which I pooped on Mr Blair’s PR campaign that paints him and his deeds as good as gold, while he sponges off public money to peddle an agenda that conveniently makes him rich.

Your thoughts Karl Marx?

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.

Marx & Engels (1888)

So basically, you are cordially invited to remain where you are in society under the promise that these rich folk will make those rich folk share their wealth with you. You aren’t entitled to your equal share of the nations wealth, and you’ve relinquished numerous freedoms that could have given you the capacity to produce wealth for yourself. Now big government is in control, and is¬†swallowing the responsibilities of taking care of everybody elses affairs, presenting the front of a humanitarian mission. Conveniently this really creates extra work to keep the political class minted for a lifetime. And noone dare speak against it, because that would be inhumane and unequalitable. But they keep the top buck, while thousands of ordinary people, the very people that the social biourgeois claim to help, come under ever tighter pressure to have a comfortable life, never mind accruing wealth.

What is commonly referred to today as socialism and communism has little connection or unanimity to the manifesto written by Marx and Engels. Think for yourself, discover what the political class’ real agenda is.

Leaders vs. Managers

The difference between management and leadership is that managers job’s are to get things done using people. Leaders on the other hand, while have a vision of accomplishment, realize goals through building and empowering people, and teaching them in such a way that the individual is united with the leader, understanding their role in the ecosystem. Often management tactics involve coercion and manipulation to get the job done, because the manager hold the mandate to complete the job, even though the successful completion requires the participation of all.

Looking at that then politically, what are we voting for? A leader or a manager? Are we looking for someone to get the job done, no matter what? Or are we looking for someone to inspire people to project themselves, in order to see goals reached by and for themselves?

Karl Marx successfully pointed out the follies of a system that distinguishes the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. His works have been used as justification for socialist movements across Europe and spreading now across North America. Yet the initiatives of many politicians and campaigns today create only a management platform, through which we elevate the politicians and consider it their job to solve our problems.

What we have ended with is a management team over the nation, who make changes and manipulations in order to cause people to comply. It might represent the opinions of the majority of voters, but it absolves them of personal responsibility. You can take the horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

A real leader empowers people to solve their own problems, and gives people ownership of their own affairs. Instead of calling for a manager to represent how we see the world, we should be voting a leader who has the qualities that instil confidence in people, teaches them the fundamental principles off which society grows, and then lets people care for themselves as free men and women.