Log in

View Full Version : BBC - British coalition gov. 'Maoist'



ed miliband
28th December 2010, 10:30
It might seem faintly ridiculous to compare Britain's coalition government to the brutal regime of former Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong. But that is precisely what one of its leading members, Vince Cable, has done. When questioned about Mr Cable's comments, David Cameron confessed he was not an expert on Maoism but unlike the former Chinese leader was not "going to insist on being called The Great Helmsman". So what could the business secretary possibly mean?
1. LOCALISM? - Mao wanted to smash the elites that ran pre-communist China, believing they had become corrupted by power. He wanted the peasants to rise up and effectively take charge of services in their own communities. Sound familiar? With its plans for elected police chiefs and local council tax referendums - not to mention its war on the highly-paid elites who run Town Halls and its call for an army of "armchair auditors" to hold civil servants to account for the money they spend - the coalition has, arguably, attempted to unleash its own cultural revolution in Britain's public services.
2. INFORMERS? - You had to be very careful what you said - and who you said it to - in Mao's China. Informers were everywhere - and citizens were forever being exposed for expressing "counter revolutionary" views. Vince Cable must know how they feel. He was having a private conversation with constituents when he described the coalition as "Maoist", and revealed dark thoughts about overthrowing the regime, only to find his words splashed across the pages of a national newspaper. For the analogy to work, of course, The Daily Telegraph would have to be seen as a party newspaper which, despite being affectionately known as The Torygraph, would be stretching it.
3. CHAOS? - Mao's cultural revolution unleashed chaos in Chinese society. Nothing was sacred. At the weekend, Tory MP Nick Boles, one of the coalition's leading thinkers, described the "chaos" that will follow the ripping up of central government planning as a "good thing". Political pundits have marvelled at the speed and ruthlessness of coalition ministers as they set about reforming monolithic institutions such as the NHS and the benefit system. One senior minister, commenting on the devolution of power from Whitehall, has reportedly used one of Mao's favourite slogans: "Let a thousand flowers bloom."
4. PERMANENT REVOLUTION? - Mao was a firm believer in the theory of permanent revolution, which he believed should be in the hearts of all Chinese Communists. The coalition is also partial to ideological purity (Before they adopted Mao as their role model, Tory high command urged activists to take a leaf out of Gandhi's book and "be the change"). Like Mao, the coalition is working to a strict Stalin-esque five year timetable. David Cameron's chief strategy adviser, Steve Hilton, described by Observer columnist Andrew Rawnsley as "the most Maoist person in the government", has reportedly been heard to tell colleagues: "Everything must have changed by 2015. Everything."
5. GANG OF FOUR? - The later stages of the cultural revolution were guided by an inner circle of powerful Communist party officials known as the Gang of Four. The coalition is, similarly, guided by what insiders call the "quad" - David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander, Nothing important happens without their say so apparently. They will be hoping to avoid the fate of their Chinese counterparts, who included Mao's wife, Jiang Qing, who were eventually tried for treason.
6. BRUTALITY? - The violence unleashed by Mao's cultural revolution, with students in the forefront, was responsible for many deaths. There may have been injuries and criminal damage caused in London during the recent student protests but even the most ardent opponents of the coalition would not claim it was going down a similar route to China in 1966.
7. DEFENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY? - Chairman Mao's China built up an impressive military might with a legacy of having the largest army in the world. The People's Republic also sought to avoid dependence on, and economic ties with, Western Europe and the capitalist world. By contrast Cameron's coalition has been slashing spending on defence and despite Eurosceptics urging the government to cut ties with the European Union, there are few signs of it happening.
8. IDEOLOGY? - Mao was driven by a belief in violent class struggle. As a devout Marxist, he would have had little time for the wealthy, public school educated plutocrats at the top of the coalition government. Everyone would be equal in theory in the communist state. He set the rules for all political, cultural, economic and intellectual activity. In other words, it was the exact opposite of the "small state" philosophy espoused by coalition ministers. Most Conservatives in the coalition government grew up in the Thatcher years, sharing a belief that there should be equality of opportunity for all, whatever the circumstances of their birth. As they put it in their 2010 slogan: "We're all in this together".
9. PROPAGANDA? - Their parties may have been keen on pasting giant posters or paintings of them in prominent city centre locations, but Mr Cameron has yet to come up with his own version of Mao's Little Red Book - a handy pocket book collection of quotations from his speeches Chinese citizens were encouraged to carry with them. The Conservative Party manifesto - a hardback entitled "an invitation to join the government of Great Britain" - in deepest Tory blue - may have become its nearest equivalent, if it had not been rendered obsolete by the coalition agreement.
10. RE-EDUCATION? - If Vince Cable had lived in Mao's China he would probably be packing his suitcase for a trip to a re-education camp by now. This was where "troublemakers" were sent to be persuaded of the error of their ways and to experience and reconnect with the life of the humble peasant. In London in 2010 Mr Cable may well be facing some tricky meetings with colleagues and strategists, but it's unlikely he's going to be sent off for a spot of farming.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12048836

Almost as good as 'Vince Cable and Karl Marx: Separated at birth?':

As an opposition politician, Vince Cable revelled in his role as cheerleader for the bank-bashing brigade.
He was free to air his views with little regard for the political consequences.
But, now that he is in government, the business secretary's views are scrutinised a little more closely.
So much so that his comments at the Liberal Democrat party conference have led to accusations of Marxist sympathies.
Understandably, as a member of a Tory-led coalition government, Mr Cable has quickly denied any anti-capitalist, socialist leanings.
But perhaps he has more in common with Marx than he would care to admit...
On being a Marxist

Cable:
"[My comments have been] interpreted as an outburst of Marxism. [I have had] to go round explaining that that's not what I meant."
Marx:
"I am not a Marxist."
On capitalism

Cable:
"Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can."
Marx:
"Capitalism is dead labour, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks."
On happiness and working for the common good

Cable:
"I am told that I look miserable. I'm sorry, conference, this is my happy face.
"'Aren't you having fun?' people ask. It isn't much fun but it's necessary: necessary for our country that our parties work together at a time of financial crisis."
Marx:
"If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people."
On the necessity of working together

Cable:
"But what is it like being in bed with the Tories? First, it's exhausting; it's exhausting because you have to fight to keep the duvet. But to hold our own we need to maintain our party's identity and our authentic voice."
Marx:
"Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand."
Are bankers the new bourgeoisie?

Cable:
"A bloated banking sector behaving as masters, not the servants of the people."
Marx:
"In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, [the bourgeoisie] has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."
On the stomach for change

Cable:
"A proper debate is impossible with people who start from the infantile proposition that there isn't a problem; and simply hark back to a failed world of 'business as usual.'"
Marx:
"The English have all the material requisites for the revolution. What they lack is the spirit of generalisation and revolutionary ardour."
On the need for drastic action

Cable:
"[Spending cuts are] bound to hurt. Strong disinfectant stings."
Marx:
"To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter."
On the worthiness of some jobs

Cable:
"I make no apology for attacking spivs and gamblers who did more harm to the British economy than [RMT union boss] Bob Crow could achieve in his wildest Trotskyite fantasies."
Marx:
"The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people."
On property

Cable:
"I personally regret that mansion tax did not make it into the Coalition Agreement."
Marx:
"A house may be large or small; as long as the neighbouring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence.
"But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11388764

Obs
28th December 2010, 10:54
Well, that was dumb.

ZeroNowhere
28th December 2010, 11:25
Wow, that second article just kind of began with some fairly silly comparisons, as well as quotations of the pre-communist Marx, but then became increasingly surreal as any modicum of connection between the quotes compared started to slip away, no matter how much one distorts them. Eventually, one just wonders whether they were tripping or something of the sort.

The first article is just fairly silly, but nothing to write home about.

Savage
28th December 2010, 12:23
It looks like the BBC is trying to rival Fox's idiocy.

Q
28th December 2010, 13:07
I am disappoint BBC.

LibertarianSocialist1
28th December 2010, 18:19
Wow, that second article just kind of began with some fairly silly comparisons, as well as quotations of the pre-communist Marx, but then became increasingly surreal as any modicum of connection between the quotes compared started to slip away, no matter how much one distorts them. Eventually, one just wonders whether they were tripping or something of the sort.

The first article is just fairly silly, but nothing to write home about.
Pre-communist Marx?

Iraultzaile Ezkerreko
28th December 2010, 20:16
Ok...that was ridiculous. Don't they have student activists to call 'terrorists' or something?

28350
28th December 2010, 20:29
Pre-communist Marx?

(Un?)fortunately, communism is not congenital.

ZeroNowhere
28th December 2010, 20:29
Pre-communist Marx?
As in, Marx before he became a communist. He did not pop out of his mother's womb and suddenly cry, "Working men of all countries, unite!"

I don't think so, at least.

Edit: It looks like Oscar The Grouch had already expressed the point better while I was posting.

LibertarianSocialist1
28th December 2010, 20:37
As in, Marx before he became a communist. He did not pop out of his mother's womb and suddenly cry, "Working men of all countries, unite!"
I think he had already become a communist when he started writing, though.

Zanthorus
28th December 2010, 20:37
Mao was a firm believer in the theory of permanent revolution,

I get the sneaking suspicion that this article was written by a Hoxhaist or someone with Hoxhaist sympathies.

Palingenisis
28th December 2010, 20:48
Well, that was dumb.

It was funny....But it should be pointed out that Maoists believe in the execution of David Cameron for all the obvious reasons.

human strike
28th December 2010, 22:28
Welcome to the new BBC. An institution I used to hold some respect for, but not anymore - nowadays I can't stand it. Maybe the BBC hasn't changed that much and I was just being naive before, either way for me all it stands for now is "Bourgeois Biased Bollocks and Bullshit Broadcasting Company".

Yeah I know that's too many Bs - I got carried away. It has that affect on me.

ed miliband
28th December 2010, 22:43
To be fair to the BBC I reckon some joker got this article slipped on the radar. They need to step up the quality control obviously but I don't think this can be taken as a serious reflection on the BBC.

Acostak3
28th December 2010, 23:10
I think he had already become a communist when he started writing, though.
I'm fairly certain he was left-Hegelian humanist liberal type when he started writing.

scarletghoul
28th December 2010, 23:38
I pointed out a while ago that Cameron's 'Big Society' was a form of 'maoism for the rich'
Note that Cameron also stole the panther phrase "power to the people" during the election campaign. Essentially the only similarity is an attempt at populism with promises of more thoroughgoing democracy and decentralisation,, difference is here it is for the benefit of rich families rather than the masses of people so has the opposite effect. Keep in mind the Mao is perhaps the most successful political strategist of all time so his methods will be picked up indirectly by politicians of all sorts

Zanthorus
29th December 2010, 00:38
I think he had already become a communist when he started writing, though.

No, when Marx began writing he was a Left-Hegelian. You can check for yourself if you want, his writings as a journalist for the Rheinische Zeitung are all online on the Marxists Internet Archive. His position at the time is that the essence of man is to be free and freedom is embodied in the state which represents a universal interest above the particular interests of civil society. The Prussian state of course did none of those things, but this is got around by saying that it is not actually a state but a non-state, and all the legislation in favour of the particular interests of various groups is tiptoed around as being formed with an "anti-state frame of mind". There's lots of stuff about freedom of speech and secularism, and even some stuff defending the customary rights of the poor and pointing out the abject living conditions of various strata of the German peasantry, but nothing that your average modern day welfare-state liberal would have too much of a problem with. He does actually discuss communism in one article. His position was that communism was obviously theoretically flawed, but he didn't really have any knowledge of writings by communists so he would have to reserve full judgement until he had properly acquainted with them. The first time he comes out clearly in favour of socialism is I think his september 1843 letter to Arnold Ruge, and even then at the time he thought that communism proper was a one sided doctrine which had been rightfully criticised by Proudhon and Fourier.