I do not know if Jeremy Corbyn subscribes 100% to Marxism as a political agenda. He has certainly praised Karl Marx and suggested that there is much that can be learned from his writings. Even if Mr. Corbyn is only an admirer, rather than an adherent, of Marxism, it opens up a myriad of questions. For whether Mr. Corbyn himself is a Marxist or not, many key players in his emerging leadership team unquestionably are Marxist adherents. Seamus Milne has made statements, for example, which not only advocate Marxism, but the narrow revolutionary offshoot of Marx, Marxism-Leninism. He has made statements which support the position of Stalin, even in his most bloodthirsty policies.
The problem I have here is that there is no government that has been accepted as Marxist that has not launched the most vile crimes against the people they purport to govern. Every single government that has been Marxist has also been a murderous tyranny.
The Soviet Union killed an estimated 20 million of their own citizens through famine, murder and the GULAG. China, in the "Great Leap Forward", and the "Cultural Revolution" may have killed as many as 90 million. Pol Pot's Cambodia killed about third of the entire population, at least 2 million people. From Angola to Vietnam, from North Korea to Benin to Congo, every Marxist state has become a charnel house of butchery.
There is no moral difference between Soviet Socialism and National Socialism. Indeed the death toll of Communism far exceeds that of Fascism.
So why do Corbyn's cronies still speak up for a political brand that is utterly ruinous?
In the case of Milne, it seems inescapable that he genuinely believes in the tenets of Communism, as such he is a moral leper, and utterly unworthy of any role in a democratic society.
In the case of Corbyn? Well who knows?
However, flirting with the worlds most murderous ideology is very dangerous. History shows us time and again that the "price of freedom" is indeed "eternal vigilance". The fact is that it is not good enough to say that one may believe that the states that called themselves Marxist were not in fact "true Marxists". When every single Marxist state has become a tyranny, why should anyone still use the Marxist political brand? Unless, that is that they believe in it, and therefore think the bloody death toll of Communism "a price worth paying", in which case they are the deadly enemy of Liberalism and indeed Democracy
Many, especially amongst the Conservatives may ask "So what"? The fact is that partly because he espouses this vile ideology, Corbyn's Labour can never be elected.
Yet the fact is that this could be complacent in the extreme. Suppose the Tories are wrecked either in the European debate in in some other argument or scandal- then Corbyn, disastrously, may yet claim the prize. Meanwhile, of course, Ken Livingstone, who famously deposed the nominal leader of the GLC, after the voters endorsed Labour to run London, also knows that once power is attained, it can be used, and by people and in ways the electorate may not wish for and did not vote for.
In the end Marxism believes in Democracy only as a vehicle to enact Marxism.
Meanwhile the leader of Russia, himself steeped in the Leninist tradition of subversion, is using bribery, blackmail murder and threats to subvert European Democracy too. Famously Mr. Milne has expressed admiration, even support of Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile the United States is investigating just how bad Putinist penetration in Europe actually is. Ironically the Putinists have targeted Labour possibly less than their Conservative rivals, on the other hand, given the warm words that they have offered to support Mr. Corbyn, perhaps they see that Mr. Livingstone's Newt Labour is already on side.
Mr. Putin may be a nominal Russian nationalist, but his methods are still out of the Leninist book of subversion, and the West has been caught napping.
Somehow, I don't think that Mr. Milne minds that too much.
For by making that appointment alone, Jeremy Corbyn has demonstrated that he must be stopped from ever wielding power.
The problem I have here is that there is no government that has been accepted as Marxist that has not launched the most vile crimes against the people they purport to govern. Every single government that has been Marxist has also been a murderous tyranny.
The Soviet Union killed an estimated 20 million of their own citizens through famine, murder and the GULAG. China, in the "Great Leap Forward", and the "Cultural Revolution" may have killed as many as 90 million. Pol Pot's Cambodia killed about third of the entire population, at least 2 million people. From Angola to Vietnam, from North Korea to Benin to Congo, every Marxist state has become a charnel house of butchery.
There is no moral difference between Soviet Socialism and National Socialism. Indeed the death toll of Communism far exceeds that of Fascism.
So why do Corbyn's cronies still speak up for a political brand that is utterly ruinous?
In the case of Milne, it seems inescapable that he genuinely believes in the tenets of Communism, as such he is a moral leper, and utterly unworthy of any role in a democratic society.
In the case of Corbyn? Well who knows?
However, flirting with the worlds most murderous ideology is very dangerous. History shows us time and again that the "price of freedom" is indeed "eternal vigilance". The fact is that it is not good enough to say that one may believe that the states that called themselves Marxist were not in fact "true Marxists". When every single Marxist state has become a tyranny, why should anyone still use the Marxist political brand? Unless, that is that they believe in it, and therefore think the bloody death toll of Communism "a price worth paying", in which case they are the deadly enemy of Liberalism and indeed Democracy
Many, especially amongst the Conservatives may ask "So what"? The fact is that partly because he espouses this vile ideology, Corbyn's Labour can never be elected.
Yet the fact is that this could be complacent in the extreme. Suppose the Tories are wrecked either in the European debate in in some other argument or scandal- then Corbyn, disastrously, may yet claim the prize. Meanwhile, of course, Ken Livingstone, who famously deposed the nominal leader of the GLC, after the voters endorsed Labour to run London, also knows that once power is attained, it can be used, and by people and in ways the electorate may not wish for and did not vote for.
In the end Marxism believes in Democracy only as a vehicle to enact Marxism.
Meanwhile the leader of Russia, himself steeped in the Leninist tradition of subversion, is using bribery, blackmail murder and threats to subvert European Democracy too. Famously Mr. Milne has expressed admiration, even support of Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile the United States is investigating just how bad Putinist penetration in Europe actually is. Ironically the Putinists have targeted Labour possibly less than their Conservative rivals, on the other hand, given the warm words that they have offered to support Mr. Corbyn, perhaps they see that Mr. Livingstone's Newt Labour is already on side.
Mr. Putin may be a nominal Russian nationalist, but his methods are still out of the Leninist book of subversion, and the West has been caught napping.
Somehow, I don't think that Mr. Milne minds that too much.
For by making that appointment alone, Jeremy Corbyn has demonstrated that he must be stopped from ever wielding power.
Comments