Google Ad

Eurosceptic Bloggers

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Social progress is our Duty

So says the EU Employment Commissioner Vladimir Spidla, speaking after agreement could not be reached over working time. This really is an issue I struggle to get my head around. Take this:

Backed by four other countries, the U.K. blocked a proposal to hold more British workers to the EU's 48-hour workweek, championed by countries such as France and Italy.
Please explain to me why France and Italy should care about how long British Workers work? This is a subject which, forget EU level, should not be discussed at national level either. An individual's labour is his own, to do with as he chooses.

I can understand Europhiles when they talk about common action on the Environment for example, they might have a point. But to take away individual choice and give it to Brussels, is just tyranny.


Anonymous said...

Serf, you are a one.

First it's inhuman to force someone to work more hours than is fair. Ok so it looks a bit nanny.

Second, here is an unfair advantage to be had by those not complying against those that are.
Rules are rules, so why want the advantage?

Third.Doctors in the NHS worked 100 hrs per week and made decisions. Now they work 48 and the argument goes, make better decisions.

You are arguing that we all want to work more and it's nothing to do with anyone else. Wrong!

Many cases are proven to be forced.

Opt outs for essential services are still Ok and for those that are self employed.

I'm dismayed at Britain's stance.


AntiCitizenOne said...


No-one is forcing anyone to work in the EU infact they encourage people through the daft incentives of the "welfare" state to be idle.

If you don't want the job, then don't do it. I don't want a transnational socialist organisation with a philosophy alien to the UK culture putting a cap on my income.

EU No thanks.

Anonymous said...

'An idividuals Labour is his own'

Completely not true, Mr. Anticitizenzone.

your disregard of your fellow lower man is carefully nurtured within your lack of compassion.

One day, you will require the social services.

They came for the Communists, then they came for the trade unionists , then my neighbour and when they came for me, there was no one left to save me.

Think carefully how far you want this once open classed society to develop.

The EU is my friend. They have given me more than my own(chosen) Government and I commend it to this Blog.


Serf said...


The reality is that the majority of workers are nowhere near the maximum number of hours.

At stake is the right of a small number of people, to work extra hours and earn more income.

AntiCitizenOne said...


Your "compassion" for your fellow man

a) stops him earning.
b) takes away his pay through taxing his income.

the one lesson the history of the last century tells us is that Socialism kills. It is the opposite of compassionate.

The day I require services is the day I shall pay for them (through insurance or directly) this is the only way to ensure they actually do something!

Have you not noticed that the North Korean Food Service is not feeding the North Koerean people?

Have you not noticed the NHS is starving and rationing treatment.

The way to be compassionate is via GENUINE charity not the false charity of state exortion, and the perverse and dangerous incentives that this creates.

AntiCitizenOne said...

The answer is to make "they" as small as possible.

"They" is allways the state, never someone who has to persuade you via mutual benefit AKA a capitalist.

Anonymous said...

Then why not just give them the extra money, Mr. Serf?

Is this a question of oppresive employers not wanting to pay extra NI contributions, therefore paying for the wonderful NHS?

An unfair advantage over unemployment for no apparant reason other than greed.

Anticitizenzone: What if you can't afford to pay? What if your neighbour can't afford it either?
Will you pay for him, or do I draw the short straw?


Serf said...

Then why not just give them the extra money, Mr. Serf?

You seriously think that giving money to people is better than letting them earn it?

That is a really silly idea.

Anonymous said...

That's what they do in the City, isn't it?

Besides, your concern is extra money, not work.


Anonymous said...

Gary's view is fairly common. It is the ideology developed by Karl Marx. The latter has been proven wrong by historical development and by economists such as Mises, Hayek etc, see Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. People are still buying Marxist ideas because they don't understand the workings of economy.

However, the foundation of economy and politics is simple. To live, humans need food, shelter, and other goods. People obtain these goods by finding or making them, i.e. by work. They can either make everything themselves or they can exchange their products for other goods. Voluntariy exchange is the foundation of economics, i.e. the economic means obtain goods.

The political means is an alternative method, i.e. the involuntariy transfer of goods, i.e. robbery. The powerful is able to use coercion and the weaker has to submit. Hence, the political means is profoundly immoral.

Now, let's look at Gary's suggestions.

oppresive employers

Is any employer except the state (i.e. the political means) able to force anyone to work for him?

No, any employers offers an opportunity to earn a living by work. The employee gives his work and obtains for it goods (via money as a medium of exchange). If the employee would not work for the employer, e.g. if he were a hunter-gatherer or peasant, he also would have to work for obtaining the goods. Is the forest or the cornfield oppressive because it forces the hunter or peasant to work long hours for obtaining his food? Similar to forests and fields, the employer offers a means to obtain goods for living, pleasure etc. Is the offer of the employer oppressive?

For answering the question, let's make a thought experiment. Let's imagine there weren't any employers at all. Would the employee have a better life?

Absolutely not. The employee would have to survive as hunter or peasant. Couldn't the state give him the goods he needs for a living? Unfortunately not, because the state doesn't produce anything, it simply takes away part of what others have produced. And without employers, nothing is produced, there are only hunter-gatherers, nomads, peasants and robbers.

AntiCitizenOne said...

I think people like Gary are ignorant of economics.

What is money?

Money is a proxy for the use of other peoples time.

when you extort money you forcibly use other peoples time, this in the past was called slavery. Now it's called Income Tax.

For some reason the left thinks that comparitive advantage is bad, and extortion is good. But then coerced collectivist policies are reposnsible for 100 million deaths last century.

Anonymous said...


"I think people like Gary are ignorant of economics."

You are probably right. Unfortunately, many people have become victims of state propaganda. It takes some serious reading and thinking to understand that

"The government [e.g. the EU] and its chiefs [e.g. the EU commissioners] do not have the powers of the mythical Santa Claus. They cannot spend except by taking out of the pockets of some people for the benefit of others." (Mises)

"coerced collectivist policies are reposnsible for 100 million deaths last century." (AntiCitizenOne)

Gary might want to understand why a supposedly superior human moral invariably leads to slavery by reading Hayek: The Road to Serfdom.

Anonymous said...

Colin, what a wonderful excuse for Capitalism you are.

Aren't you thankful that this Capitalist system we have here is run by the Socialists in a socialist way for Socialism?

Your theory of non oppresive employers in the UK startles me.There are many cases of such practice taking place and House Doctors performing for 100hrs per week is now ended.

Why does Britain need such an advantage over Europe? The rules disallow such disgraceful acts.


Anonymous said...


I only think that comparitive advantage is a bad thing if those seeking such an advantage do not share the hardships of their fellow man. Not everyone is able to take such an advantage.

Read Thatcher, 'No such thing as society'.

Sell everything off to the highest bidder and shareholder and leave in its wake, nothing of value.
Electric, Gas, rail etc...

If there is no such thing as society, then we will all work more than 48 hours. some will work none. Those that are very rich and those that are very poor.

Society does exist and has been rediscovered by Dave.

I never forgot it.


AntiCitizenOne said...


I don't see anything to disagree with in the FULL quote of what Mrs Thatcher (PBUH) said

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

She was right then, and she is still right.

Socialism is to sharing, as rape is to marriage.

Anonymous said...

That quote by Thatcher killed the Conservative Party stone dead!

Today's Conservative Party disasociates itself from such unadultarated filth.

Thatchers version of no society saw children taught in filthy run down schools and patients treat in derilict hospitals.

Poor people became poorer and, of course, rich people became richer.

Today in Socialist Britain all is changed.

Everyone has a part to play in the socialist state. New schools and hospitals and poor people on a living income.
Pensioners can turn their fires on in winter. And to top it all (as if that's not enough) we have a social charter of fundamental rights.

God! I'm proud to be British and living in a British EU land.

Three cheers for socialism, three cheers for Tony. All because we love the Labour Party.

Go back to sleepy land good Tories, for we'll wake you when we need you.


Anonymous said...

gary you are my hero, that piece was absolutely fantastic and is a credit to blogging.

Anonymous said...

''That quote by Thatcher killed the Conservative Party stone dead!''
It was said in October 87
And yet they remained in power for another 10 years. Hmmm

So like everything else you have said on this post Gary, it is utter bollocks

Anonymous said...

The EU should piss off out of telling people how many hours they must work.

Gary elsby, you are a mong, and here's why: What's next? Answer that one. Do we tell people who are driving their kids and themselves around during their holidays that they cannot spend more than eight hours behind the wheel in any given day? Do we tell women that they cannot watch TV for more than X hours because it will inpinge on their sleep?

This is just another diktat that is stifling free choice.

I'm self employed, I wnat to work, I like work, I run my own business; you telling me how many hours I can work? If my employees don't like their hours, they can fuck off somewhere else to work...and if they tell me they will sue me...then I will find a way to sack them, and that's easy.

There's simple facts you are disregarding in your rush to dictate your nanyism to your fellow worker...maybe people like to work...maybe want to work to earn more...maybe people just don't have anything but work.

You take the worst case scenario that may apply to a few, and foist YOUR simplistic and silly ideas on the masses; you are a combination of a communist and fascist.


This one made me laugh and cringe at the same time: Second, here is an unfair advantage to be had by those not complying against those that are. Rules are rules, so why want the advantage?

So you must COMPLY (be forced?) or you are taking an unfair advantage over those who do comply...? This is the racist analogy in action and it is are telling people they must comply because somebody else does? That is a self prepetuating idiocy and typical of the thought process behind the EU.

But what is an oppressive employer? Define one for us please? If you work for 60 hours and are paid for 38, despite your protestations, then maybe that is an oppressive employer, but you do have the choice don't you?


Is that not simple enough? It is for most people who think and have seen proven that socialism and communism are defunce and discredited.

Anonymous said...


You said: "Aren't you thankful that this Capitalist system we have here is run by the Socialists in a socialist way"

Why should I be thankful to socialists trying to run the economy in a socialist way? Are you?

If you are so thankful for socialism, why didn't or don't you move to one of these wonderful socialist paradises such as UdSSR, East Europe, Cuba and North Korea?

You also said: "Your theory of non oppresive employers in the UK startles me.There are many cases of such practice taking place and House Doctors performing for 100hrs per week is now ended."

Correct. And it proves my point. Why? Because House Doctors are not working in a capitalist economy but in a totally socialist economy. The NHS is run by the state not by capitalists.

The state is the oppressor, not capitalism. The state has the monopoly of violence, not the businessman. The state decided that House Doctors had to work 100hrs per week, a sort of slavery. The state made the medical profession so unattractive in the UK that many Britons are not interested in working as a medical doctor for the NHS so that a large number of doctors in the UK are foreigners.

Furthermore, you said "Why does Britain need such an advantage over Europe?"

Neither Britain nor Europe need "social progress" because the so-called "social progress" is an euphemism for taking your money by force and give it to somebody else who is willing to pay the politican for this gift by giving him his/her vote, i.e. power.

If you don't like an oppressive employer, you are free to work for somebody else. If you don't like the offer of a certain business, you can always shop somewhere else. It's only the state who makes you "an offer you cannot refuse".

In your view, "The rules disallow such disgraceful acts."

Neither God nor nature made these rules but human beings, politicians which as a class are known to be specialists of deception.

Indeed, disgraceful are the deceptions of the political class and the participation of the intellectuals because most depend on and are paied by the state.

Anonymous said...

"Today in Socialist Britain all is changed.

Everyone has a part to play in the socialist state. New schools and hospitals and poor people on a living income.
Pensioners can turn their fires on in winter. And to top it all (as if that's not enough) we have a social charter of fundamental rights.

God! I'm proud to be British and living in a British EU land."

Sounds like Gary is living in a socialist Disneyland. He seems to forget that all socialist countries including Stalin's UdSSR had a wonderful social charter of fundamental rights.

Obviously, Gary is working for and living from the state. Let me guess: teacher, bureaucrat, social worker? One of those who are constantly improving the lot of their fellow humans until the entire system collapses because working does not provide much benefits compared to no work as was the case in the UdSSR, PR China, GDR, etc.

It's a waste of time discussing with individuals suffering from intellectual dishonesty or delusions.

Anonymous said...

I repeat, the Conservative Party died the moment that statement was made. It hung around for a few years on a life support machine and not only did the socialist want to switch it off, the Tories (John's bastards)actually did it for us.

The freedoms that you speak of, employees freely switching from one job to another did not happen in Thatchers Britain.I was made to be thankful of the privelige of working for a pittance.

We have more jobs today and even British people only want the very good one's. The EU help out with the rest.

I'm generally OK about shotgun's abuse and I'm pleased for the Tory Party that they have him as their own. Absolutely.

Britain is a better place toaday because of raw socialism.

Granted, we wouldn't have terrorists or terrorism running riot in this green and pleasant land. But we can't all be perfect.
We socialists do have our flaws, I'll admit to that.
If only we'd listened to compassionate conservatism, maybe we could have hugged them or loved them more.


AntiCitizenOne said...


A 100 million people died because of what Marx wrote.

Anonymous said...

Why does the USA blockade Cuba?


Anonymous said...


I told you that it is a vaste of time. This chap doesn't even feel the need to use reason for disproving our arguments, instead he continues to state his beliefs. Socialism is a religion and Gary a deeply religious person. For him Karl Marx is God and Tony Blair his prophet and savior. For him salvation comes from socialism. Reason is useless for people who prefer to believe instead of knowing. You want proof?

Just look at his replies. For example, you correctly pointed out:

A 100 million people died because of what Marx wrote.

His reply:

Why does the USA blockade Cuba?

His reply has absolutely no logical relationship to your comment. The chap doesn't even know what logic is.

gary you are my hero, that piece was absolutely fantastic and is a credit to blogging.

Anonymous said...

Why does the USA blockade Cuba, which is a Marxist state?

Does it blockade this country because it has the best health system inthe world?

Does it blockade it because all can read and write?

Does it blockade it because everyone is guaranteed cheap food, electric and gas?

Does it blockade it because of full employment with no help or subsidy from Russia?

Is your system of Capitalism proud of the US state funding to any terrorist that will phsically remove the Leader and system?

Cuba is Marxist. According to your warped and innaccurate limited knowledge of politics, not just in this country but abroad,Capitalism is superior.


capitalism is threatened because it just can't deliver the goods, even when it has a free run of the world.

Viva Fidel
Viva Cuba


James Higham said...

Please explain to me why France and Italy should care about how long British Workers work?

They shouldn't.

Anonymous said...


You said Viva Fidel
Viva Cuba

When are you moving to Cuba to enjoy the full pleasure of your favorite way of life?

chris said...

Gary please go to Cuba then if you like it so much. You will be one of very very few going in that direction compared to the hundreds that every year try to get out of this paradise on whatever craft they can cobble together. And answer me this if an idividuals Labour is not his own, who's is it?

Anonymous said...

Chris asked Gary: "if an idividuals Labour is not his own, who's is it?"

It is Gary's and his friends, at least in Gary's view.

There is an interesting recent article explaining why capitalism developed in Europe making it prosperous Small States, Global Economy:

"Empires prior to the rise of capitalism were predatory of individual wealth, hostile toward entrepreneurship, and failed to recognize natural rights...

When liberty and capitalism were born over a millennium ago, states were small, decentralized, and weak. By restoring natural rights and civil society, the state will recede once again."

Gary and his friends want the opposite: less freedom for the individual and more power for the state.

Anonymous said...

Henry Hazlitt's book Man vs. The Welfare State provides the necessary background information for Gary if he would care to think and educate himself instead of repeating slogans.

Anonymous said...

"Viva Fidel
Viva Cuba"

The latter phrase does not follow from the former. In fact, each is the opposite of the other. Cuba in 1950 had the second-highest standard of living in the western hemisphere, behind only the US and ahead of Canada. It now has the second-lowest and is rapidly on pace to sink past perennial economic basket-case Haiti.

Gary, meet Val. Your life, such as it is, will now never be the same again. Val, have at him. Viva Cuba libre.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Dave J for the interesting link which brought me to the Real Cuba. There I found the following information:

"Fidel Castro’s regime has long been good at tapping phones and these days is just as skilled when it comes to the Internet, according to a recent report by Reporters Without Borders.

..the regime has simply put the Internet out of the reach of virtually the entire population. In fact, with less than 2 percent of its population online, Cuba is one of the most backward Internet countries.

Being online in Cuba is a rare privilege and requires special permission from the ruling Communist Party.

To surf the Internet or check their e-mail, Cubans have to go to public access points such as Internet cafes, universities and “youth computer clubs” where their activity is more easily monitored. Moreover, the computers in all the Internet cafes and leading hotels contain software installed by the Cuban police that triggers an alert message whenever “subversive” key-words are spotted. When a user does manage to get connected, often illegally, it is only to a highly-censored version of the Internet.

You can get 20 years in prison for writing “counter-revolutionary” articles for foreign websites. You can even get five years just for connecting to the Internet illegally."

Since Gary didn't comment recently, I suspect that he went to Cuba and got a 5 years prison-term for trying to connect with his friends on this blog. Viva Castro. Viva Gary in Cuba's prisons. Viva Gary's courage!

CityUnslicker said...

I have been to Cuba. It is a wonderful country full of the most beautiful and kind people.

Living in fear and poverty. Willing to risk tips on small boats to over 1000 miles to get to US shores.

Cuba's medical system is broken and the economy is a shambles.

As for the post as a whole. I love the argument of the French. Which basically reads like something out of a Douglas Adams novel:

"We choose to work 35 hour weeks"
"Oh Dear, our economic growth is sclerotic and the poor our rebelling. We have shot ourselves in the foot."
"This must be the fault of the Anglo-Saxons and their evil determination to work harder than us."
"Let's get them to shoot their foot"

Meanwhile, back in reality the poor of the world in China beg to have jobs and work 12 hour days to feed their families.

Socialism; the politics of stupidity and envy.

Anonymous said...

Your explanations of a Cuban failure (due to your request) is pitiful to say the least.

You asked for examples of socialism and I've given you the answer. You don't like the answer but I gave it to you nonetheless.

You talk bollocks about Cuba.

More people go to Cuba than ever before.

Europe is defying the US blockade (not embargo) and so is Canada and spain.

You hate Cuba because it is everything that Thatcher hated.

She sold Electric and Gas and, as night follows day, the Capitalist shaffting club has driven up prices for the shareholders. Your electric and gas is sky high because they bought it in at the wrong prices and dropped a giant bollock.

We pay because they got it wrong.

It doesn't happen in Socialist Cuba.It's never even given a thought.

The revolution never ends and is never in dispute.

Thatcher sold evrything and got it totally wrong and yet you still say different. That's why you never win elections anymore.

The US blockade Cuba because they say democracy does not exist. Communists aren't allowed to stand in elections. So who's the enemy here of democracy?
Sounds to me like it's the USA.

The USA wanted compensation from Nationalized US industries in Cuba. Fidel checked their accounts (tax returns) and gave them the full amount. The USA went nuts because they shortchanged annually the Cuban tax collector.

What Joy!

Soon, Cuba will be 50 years of age. It has been at war with the USA all of that time. They almost invaded Cuba at 9/11 (you didn't know this) because of air traffic hijacking from dissidents. The USA pays good money for anyone hijacking Cuban planes to Florida where they may live freely on the state.

You capitalist swine have no honour. Submit to superior Socialism. Allow Cubans to live peacefully and denounce US terrorism of a neighbouring state that is a member of the United Nations.

Rule 1. of the UN charter:The right to self determination.

The right of Cuba to live as it wants too is of no business of the USA.

Viva Fidel
viva Cuba.

Viva Gary

AntiCitizenOne said...


Others on this board are correct. You are a state worshiper.

You love extortion and the slavery of the state.

To you, 100 million dead is but a statistic.

I hope you get to "live" in the type of hell-hole country you desire for others.

Long may Castro suffer at deaths door for his crimes.

Anonymous said...

As pe usual, anticitizen falls to the superior argument of Socialism.

You, the Capitalist apologist portray your ilk as the saviour of all that is good with the rich V poor system, where the poor always lose to the bullying buying power of money.

Many people of this fair land just want to get on and pay their bills, if you kind sirs wouldn't mind.

The extortianate rates of life saving power held to ransom by the utility companies is as bankrupt as you are.

This system you failed us with has now outpriced the very people you asked to serve and it has taken this Government ( as usual) to hand out, in credits and winter payments,the only means possible for them, to pay.

Your system you champion is a failure and is seen to be a failyure.

My chosen system delivers every time. Rain or shine.

Capitalism 0
Socialism 133


Anonymous said...

I can recommend a good book on the evils of socialism: A People's Disaster, by Orlando Figes. A perfect dissection of everything that went wrong with the first socialist country, formed by the Russian Revolution.

Some held that money should be allowed to inflate so that it would become worthless, hence doing away with the question of rich v. poor. What economic tosh. Proof that socialists don't understand the economy.

This is the system that "delivers every time."

Anonymous said...

Gary said:

My chosen system delivers every time

(1) You are not living in your chosen system. That would be Cuba.

(2) Your chosen system (i.e. socialism) never delivers.


(a) The standard of living increased in China after they moved from pure socialism to market economy (capitalism).

(b) North Korea, a socialist country, can barely feed its population while the people in South Korea, a capitalist country,
enjoy a high standard of living.

(c) East Germany, a socialist country, was poor, while the people living in West Germany, a capitalist country, enjoyed a high standard of living.

(3)You never answer any question or disprove any statement but only repeat slogans.

Viva Gary, viva el papagayo!

AntiCitizenOne said...

Capitalism 0
Socialism 100,000,000 DEAD!

Anonymous said...

France and Italy care becuase they are lazy buggers (a less polite way of saving they have a different national culture) and banning us from working long hours is a way to remove the competitive advantage.

Anonymous said...

No wonder you poor excuses for capitalism hate the EU and its social democratic leanings.

You like advantage and causes of advantages. You like to see people taken down a peg or two.

I'm young and can work and deserve to live in the luxuries of capitalism. You are old and didn't work very hard at all. You are therefore weak.

The strong survive by advantage and the weak live in squalor.

Equality is the preffered choice of the many because it is fair.

Fair to you is a four letter word.

Explain the persecution of Cuba.
You may persuade me that you are right.



Anonymous said...


Explain the persecution of Cuba.
You may persuade me that you are right.


I am willing to explain it to you if you stop simply repeating your slogans instead of explaining to us why socialism is better than capitalism although the people are always living worse under socialism (re: North Korea, Mao's China, East Germany) and why millions get killed in socialist countries.

You may persuade me that you are right. Please.

Anonymous said...

The reasons that socialism is the superior politic is very simple but may pass you by.

Socialism delivers for the many and not the few. It interferes into the marketplace that has no concept of the great divide between those more able and those less able.

I'm more than pleased to see that you are one of the more able within our society and I wish you well. I am challenged by, for and with socialism to delive equality of opportunity to those that are disadvantaged with being less able in our society.

I don't have to do it. I wasn't born a socialist. I chose to be a socialist because I witnessed at first hand the horrors of an elected bully that gave claim to, 'no such thing as society'.

Britain burned and rioted at such politics and a militarised police attacked our own people for wanting to work.

Socialism delivers for all regardless of any disadvantages. Conservative/Capitalism delivers from the poor/disadvantaged to the rich.

You claim this is the politics of envy. I am not envious of a rich bully that continues to take advantage regardless of what they leave behind.

My children were taught in new clean schools. They were taught in modern further educational facilities and are grateful to receive higher education in Universities.

It's no mistake that this was unavailable in Conservative Britain and their failings.

Thank you Tony Blair.
Some say he isn't a socialist.
We laugh about that each and every day here in the sticks as we see our 5 new hospitals being built.
(It gets better doesn't it)


AntiCitizenOne said...

> Socialism delivers for the many and not the few.

A Lie. Socialism concentrates power in the hands of a few. Dictators and others with sociopathic tendencies are attracted to this power and control over others. Just use Occams Razor. in capitalism tow people agree to exchange THEIR time using the medium of currency. Under socialism, they have no usch freedom, they have to involve a third entity that takes a large cut and leaves both parties poorer.

> It interferes into the marketplace that has no concept of the great divide between those more able and those less able.

It punishes the more able and thus leaves nothing for those who are not able.
One of the interesting things about comparitive advantage is that it is a discovery process about finding people that can do things better than you. Those with a weak sense of ability and thus attracted to socialism will naturally hate being reminded that other people can do things better than themselves. Other more intelligent people will take advantage of this fact as it is to their mutual benefit, and thus the benefit of society.

> Britain burned and rioted at such politics and a militarised police attacked our own people for wanting to work.

Hence you want EVEN MORE power for a state to bully people! Socialism isn't even self consistent! You want to bully the "right" people, people who haven't done anything wrong, people who haven't used force against anyone else. Socialism is EVIL.

> Socialism delivers for all regardless of any disadvantages.

Socialism has NEVER DELIVERED, it's results have allways caused emigration, then starvation.
Why? Becuase socialism is based on jealousy and it's policies of punishing the succesful harm society (the collection of individuals).

Coerced collectivism (socialism) is allways a disaster becuase it is based on the slavery of the state owning you, and the false and religious concept of the state being above the people.

Voluntary collectivism (i.e. capitalism) is based on mutual benefit and comparitive advantage and has allways created wealth, as wealth is just the efficient use of time.

> My children were taught in new clean schools.

They were indoctrinated in state creches where parents can abandon their children. Parents should pay for the education of their children. People should pay for their own education, so that it is socially useful instead of a convienent time skiving (like I did at Uni).

P.S. The NHS is a disaster under Labour (not that any political party could make an extortion funded treatment rationing scheme that's the ideological twin of the North Korean Food Service work in a modern era that values freedom), I talk to nurses all the time, you can see where the money for the NHS has gone, it's in your GPs carpark, not in your treatment. NHS Productivity has fallen since 1997.

chris said...

Gary I'd still be interested in your answer to my question. If an idividuals Labour is not his own, who's is it?

Anonymous said...


Thank you for your attempt to answer our questions. Although you still did not answer the question why people are always living worse under socialism (re: North Korea, Mao's China, East Germany) and why millions get killed in socialist countries. Nevertheless, your reply is at least an attempt. Therefore, I am willing to answer your question: "Explain the persecution of Cuba."

The government of the USA is punishing Cuba by a trade embargo in order to overthrow the Cuban government. The state is doing it, not the capitalists. Businessmen would be happy to sell to Cubans everything they wish. But the state is punishing American businessmen (i.e. capitalists) if they do so. And the state is the same institution which takes the money from its citizens for redistribution (aka socialism). What is the state? The state is an established mechanism by which some people are able to force a minority to fulfill their and the majority's wishes at the expense of others.

Since you seem to be fairly young, maybe a pupil or student, please permit me to use an analogy. The state is the bully at the schoolyard. There is no such thing as a schoolyard society demanding that you turn your pocket money in. The bully is likely to demand it from you claiming that he is doing it in the name of the schoolyard society.

You have a wish and so you try to earn some extra money, e.g by mowing the lawn of your neighbour. But the bully at your schoolyard says that it is unfair that you have more money than he and the others and takes your money away, keeps part of it in his own pocket to "cover his expenses" and distributes the rest equally to the others. Now, everybody is equal in this schoolyard society. Wait a minute, you say, but that's untrue. Not everybody is equal. The bully isn't equal. He has the power to force all others to do what he likes. Well, Gary, you are right!

Bullying others is the nature of the state. And you are a dirty evil capitalist because you accepted money for your service of mowing the lawn instead of doing it for free. But your neighbour payed voluntarily because otherwise he would have to do the job himself. By doing the job for him, you made your neighbour happy as wells as yourself. Nobody was harmed and everybody involved had an advantage from your mowing the lawn.

However, the bully robbing you of your extra money earned by extra work makes himself happy and the members of the schoolyard society who got something for nothing. However, you have learned that it is a futile effort trying to fulfill your wishes by earning extra money. Therefore, you will not do it again.

The longterm consequence of the bully's action is to make the neighbour unhappy because his lawn doesn't get mowed, to make you unhappy because you cannot fulfill your wishes by earning extra money and to make the schoolyard society poorer because its members don't try to earn some extra money for fulfilling their wishes because they know its gets taken away by the bully. Consequently, everybody is poorer and worse off because of the bully's action to establish "fairness".

It is the nature of bullies to bully others inside as well as outside their schoolyard. Hence, states bully foreign countries (e.g. Cuba) and the citizens of their own country (e.g. British taxpayers). You condemn one bully and worship another because the latter promises you something, e.g. schools, hospitals etc.

People are always happy if they get something for free. But they forget the longterm effect that those who have been robbed will stop "mowing the lawn" and that at the end everybody is worse off.

You think that new schools and hospitals are the result of socialism. That's not correct. Somebody has to pay for it and its not the bully because he doesn't work but only takes away. Schools and hospitals were in very bad shape in Mao's socialist China. After introducing some capitalism, schools in Shanghai now have computers and audiovisual equipment and new hospitals are built. The Chinese are living much better than before. That's a fact.

You said: "The reasons that socialism is the superior politic is very simple but may pass you by."

It does not pass me by, Gary. Having been thoroughly trained in socialism for two years by the director of our school, a member of the communist party, I was as much convinced as you are that socialism will bring salvation to the people. It took me many years of thinking and studying to understand that socialism is the ideology of bullies for myopes.

Since I know the power of the socialist religion from first hand experience, I do not expect to be able to persuade you. May you become happy with your faith.

Anonymous said...


Nobel Prize winner Friedrich von Hayek is probably better able than myself to explain the mechanisms of state, freedom and the market. Here is a movie showing him dicussing economics with students at Stanford University: Inside the Hayek Equation. In this movie, he also explains how the unions destroyed the British industry.

Without the incomes from competitive industries, the government doesn't have the money to properly maintain public services. The run-down schools and hospital you were talking about were the result of the destructive effecst of the anti-capitalistic unions.

The reforms of M. Thatcher limited the destructive power of the unions thereby improving the British industry, economy and tax revenue.

The increased tax revenue made it possible for the post-Thatcher governments to spend the money created by her reforms among others on schools, hospitals etc.

Therefore, it appears that you have to thank Mrs. Thatcher for creating the income which could be spend by Tony Blair. I know it certainly sounds like heresy to you. But as a matter of fact, nobody is able to distribute wealth which has not previously been created.

Anonymous said...

I rememeber the strap-line for the "Yes"(Labour)campaign to the Common Market in 1975.

It read "A Socialist Britain in a Socialist Europe". If we not careful thats what we'll all get. (I'd change socialist to neo-fascist)

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your warped reply, I thoroughly enjoyed reading why you are subservient to the market place and why I know it to be a load of bollocks.

Socialist Cuba seems to be a prison camp according to you. I almost believed you but then again, I recall that persecuting and denying the population appears to be at odds with a Country that prides itself on having the best health system on the planet free to 100% of Cubans. Total literacy is not something that Saddam promoted.

The marketplace failed Ireland and India during the great famines.

As the people lay starving in the gutters of said Countries the landowners had an abundance of potato and grain on their hands.
A dillema for all would be monopolists.

As a good socialist, I would have sold to my fellow man at a knockdown price and fed the workforce of tomorrow.
But the Capitalist chose to sell his bumper crops abroad to the highest bidder.Thus starving to death the poor on his doorstep and feeding the rich in a foreign land.

That's not cricket but is an example of the failings of a system that if left unregulated by socialism, can be detrimental to society.

I know you believe that there is no such thing as society (indeed they tried to starve it to death as proof!)but I actually do.

As I am, as you have already suspected, a student of politics and will graduate soon, I have to say that I intend to further the freedoms guaranteed by socialism and further intend to realise my ambition of becoming a leader. Maybe even becoming the Prime Minister for this country.

I have therefore decided that your argument for the capitalist marketplace is fundamentally flawed, anti society and totally corrupt without feeling.

I think you should be shot.


Anonymous said...


Yes I believe that you do think that everyone around you is a neo fascist.

This is a condition that can be treated.

It involves a trap door, a length of rope and a very short and painless drop.

I note you are a failing MEP in all elections. Join UKIP and be humiliated for England.


Anonymous said...

It appears to have escaped your notice that the collectivisation of Agriculture in the USSR, and resultant famines,is not widely regarded as an unqualified success.
During what was ludicrously misnomered as The great leap forward Mao also tried this stupidity with 30 million + starving as a result.
Can i take this opportunity to suggest that you consider taking the remedy you prescribed for Jeremy and do us all a favour.
Thank you in advance from a concerned Kulak.

Anonymous said...


You said: "my ambition of becoming a leader. Maybe even becoming the Prime Minister for this country.

I think you should be shot.


Your words prove that you either are an outstanding comedian, a mediocre psychopath or a real socialist who always love killing dissenters.

If feel sorry for the hard working men and women in the UK who have to finance your via their taxes because your unability of logical discussion shows your lack of intelligence and talent and your ignorance of the political literature demonstrates your lazyness. Delusions of grandeur are no substitute of knowledge and hard work.

Businessmen like Anticitizenone are providing services to their fellow human beings thereby improving their lifes. In contrast, you are a blatherskite living on other human beings and giving them nothing as empty words in return, i.e. the lifestyle of a social parasite.

As a student of politics, if you take your studies seriously, you should at least read alternative hypotheses and know how to evaluate them. There is an article What Caused the Irish Potato Famine? by Mark Thornton who teaches economics at Columbus State University. According to him:

"In fact, the most glaring cause of the famine was not a plant disease, but England's long-running political hegemony over Ireland. The English conquered Ireland, several times, and took ownership of vast agricultural territory. Large chunks of land were given to Englishmen.

These landowners in turn hired farmers to manage their holdings. The managers then rented small plots to the local population in return for labor and cash crops. Competition for land resulted in high rents and smaller plots, thereby squeezing the Irish to subsistence and providing a large financial drain on the economy.

Land tenancy can be efficient, but the Irish had no rights to the land they worked or any improvements they might make. Only in areas dominated by Protestants did tenant farmers have any rights over their capital improvements. With the landlords largely residing in England, there was no one to conduct systematic capital improvements.

The Irish suffered from many famines under English rule...Free-market economist J.B. Say was quick to note that the system of absentee landlords was deplorable. He accurately diagnosed this cause and grimly predicted the disastrous results that did follow...

The British Corn Laws were designed to protect local grain farmers from foreign competition. In 1801, these laws were extended to Ireland. The laws not only kept prices high; they protected against falling prices in years of plenty. The main beneficiaries of this protectionism were the English absentee landlords of Ireland, not the Irish...

Let us now take a look at the so-called laissez-faire approach that the English applied to the famine and for which Tony Blair apologized. This is important because it forms the backbone of the case that the free market cannot address famine and crisis (also that the IMF and FEMA are all the more necessary today).

Far from allowing the market to work, England launched a massive program of government intervention, consisting mainly of building workhouses, most completed just prior to the onset of the Famine.

Fewer Irish people had died in the numerous past famines; indeed, the potato blight did not afflict most of Europe. What was different in Ireland in the 1840s? The Irish Poor Law crowded out private charity. In previous famines, the Irish and English people had provided extensive charity. But why donate when the taxpayer was taking care of the situation? The English people were heavily taxed to pay for massive welfare programs. The Irish taxpayer was in no position to provide additional charity.

Reports concerning English policy towards genuine charity are hard to ignore. One account had the people of Massachusetts sending a ship of grain to Ireland that English authorities placed in storage claiming that it would disturb trade. Another report has the British government appealing to the Sultan of Turkey to reduce his donation from o10,000 to o1,000 in order not to embarrass Queen Victoria who had only pledged o1,000 to relief...

Even more importantly, the Famine is a source of great economic errors, such as: Famines are the fault of the market and free trade, and starvation results from laissez-faire policy...

Ireland was swept away by the economic forces that emanated from the most powerful and aggressive state the world had ever known. It suffered not from a fungus (which English scientists insisted was just excessive dampness) but from conquest, theft, bondage, protectionism, government welfare, public works, and inflation."

In conclusion, the Irish famine was not caused by capitalism but by statism and you are vainly trying to become the leader of the latter.

Instead of trying to shoot people who do not share your views, you would undoubtedly provide a better service to humankind by shooting yourself.

Anonymous said...

Colin, after such a wonderful story of the Irish famine and the excusal of the marketplace in prosecuting the stavation of millions, I think you should be spared.

Your account (?) of the famine of Ireland was eye opening and enjoyed the published cause. I notice that you have not included India which was also under British control (free market by force).

Aren't you in the least bit concerned that the unregulated free marketplace you excuse, caused such a tradgedy?

Today, and to be fair to serfs original point, the free market is regulated by socialism here in the UK and throughout Europe, particularly within the EU and CAP.

Nothing on such a scale could ever happen again with such checks and balances in operation.
The bonus is a free and protected environment guaranteed by collective will and threat of force. Common ideals of freedom and working practices also free all from oppression. We also have the right to life and the right to live free from toil.

The EU is the answer to all that was wrong and I commend it to blogspheres everywhere.

I've noted that in all of this, you had no answers to the rights of communists to be communists and living within a socialist identity free from the threat of state sponsored terrorism.

I suspect that the answer may be that you have no answer.


Anonymous said...


Thank you for sparing me. You are too kind.

You asked "Aren't you in the least bit concerned that the unregulated free marketplace you excuse, caused such a tradgedy?"

No, I am not. Why?

Because states and hence governmental regulations exists only since the invention of agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago. Homo sapiens sapiens exist since 130,000 years. Modern humans are living only the last 8% of their time under governmental control. Government is a recent completely unnatural invention with disastrous consequences. And the bigger the worse (e.g. USA, UdSSR and soon the new kid on the blog: the EU Empire). Without the organized aggression of the state, there would be much more peaceful coexistence. Governments are the disease they claim to cure.

For example, statists claim that the achievements of human culture are the result of government planning. How then could agriculture have developed without governmental planning? And why is the food production higher in countries with less governmental interference than in countries with a planned economy?

Your statement is correct that "the free market is regulated by socialism here in the UK and throughout Europe, particularly within the EU ..."

That's one of the reasons why people in Africa are starving. The socialist EU does not permit that Africans sell their agricultural products in Europe. Moreover, your "benign" EU socialism pays the European farmers above the market prices and then dumps the resulting overproduction on the African markets. The African farmers are unable to produce and sell at the same price level as the highly subsidized EU prices. The result is the destruction of the only African industry which is competitive with the EU, i.e. farming.

Are Africans, like Ireland, pushed into dependence and poverty by the free market?

No, supermarkets and consumers would be happy to pay the lower African prices for agricultural products. The socialist EU prevents the imports from Africa and destroys their farming industry. Without the socialist EU regulations Africans could work on African instead on Spanish farms. They would't have to risk their lifes by crossing the sea on small boats in order to get into the EU.

To add injury to insult, the EU has just sent their soldiers into the Congo supposedly for securing democratic election. Aren't we all impressed by the humanitarian ethos of the EU government? Surprise, surprise, they forgot to tell us that the Elf Aquitaine Groups of France is the major operator in petroleum in Congo. Probably, you are saying: Look these evil capitalists! But, my dear Robin Hood, these are not true capitalists in the sense that they restrict themselves to operate within the rules of the free market. No, these people are using the power of the state, i.e. the military, for establishing monopolies. Without the power of the state, immoral businessmen were unable to establish monopolies. There isn't a monopoly anywhere in the world without a state enforcing it. A lot of people are trying to use the bully, i.e. the coercive mechanisms of the state, to their own advantage such as churches, big business, unions, media, and intellectuals.

That brings us to your professional plans. You ain't no Robin Hood, Gary. Instead, you are attempting to become the Sheriff of Nottingham. You know very well that people wouldn't pay you on the free market a single pound for your ideas. Therefore, you are using the coercive mechanism of the state to force others to pay for you via their taxes. Later, you want a higher payed job and more power. Your selfish interest to have an easy and pleasant life payed for by the much harder work of others is hidden from your own consciousness and from the others by what Karl Marx called an "Ueberbau" (superstructure). What is the ideological superstructure of your own materialist interest and those of many "intellectuals" ? It is the socialist ideology, the claim to protect the poor people from evil capitalists. In reality, the evil-doers are those who force others to work for them, in other words you and the other socialist hypocrites.

You and your intellectual friends are only second-hand dealers of ideas as Hayek correctly observed. You want to sell second-hand ideas (socialism) and since nobody is interested in paying for this old-fashioned and useless stuff, you are trying to force others to pay the price you are demanding via the power of the state. A social parasite preaching about the virtues of unselfishness is a farce. To paraphrase your first sentence to Serf, Gary, you are one.

Your last sentence was: "I've noted that in all of this, you had no answers to the rights of communists to be communists and living within a socialist identity free from the threat of state sponsored terrorism."

What a pure nonsense. You claim to study politics in the UK but haven't a clue about the famous British thinkers who fertilized Europe and the entire world with their libertarian ideas. Naturally, you and your communist friends should have the right to live free from threats of the state. You should have the right to worship whatever you like, the moon, rocks, Karl Marx, Lenin, Fidel Castro etc. But you definitely have not the right to use force against others as socialists and communists usually like to do.

Anonymous said...


I've read all that you've written and I find it difficult to believe that you're serious in what you say.

Firstly, let's shine a light onto the reality of Cuban Healthcare. 5 seconds on Google found me this: Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?

As for the difference between communism and capitalism in general. We never had to build a fence to keep our people in. I recommend you read the sections "Border Escapes" and Border Deaths" here:

Please feel free to relocate to a Socialist paradise whenever you're ready.

I promise I won't shoot you.

Anonymous said...


Thank you for the links. The pictures tell more than 1000 words about the Cuban paradise. Among your links, I especially like the pictures of the two cubas.

Furthermore, your point about Border Escapes is well taken. The simple fact that people are risking their lifes to escape socialist paradises demonstrates that socialism - with some delay in time - produce the opposite of its intention.

Anonymous said...

The 'Free Market' is the cause and not the solution.

The solution is always found in socialism. There are many who are scared of socialism. Rothermere,Northcliffe etc.. and their answer was to subsidise anti British values.

socialism will always pick up the pieces when the best of the so caled best of the right wingers fail to capture the market for the social good of our people.

Hence the antagonism towards the 48 hour week and social progress via the social charter.

Failure to support the Charter means you are either rich, gullible or just plain stupid.

UKIP fills all of this criteria.
So do you.


Anonymous said...


You accused us of being plain stupid because we do not embrace socialism.

That's a compliment if said by a person who neither knows the economic or political literature nor is willing or able to rationally disprove the facts that socialism produced poverty, slavery and killings in all the countries where it has consistently been applied.

It was a pleasure to meet such a feable mind.