Unenlightened class rhetoric from the Telegraph:
There can be no conciliation — no meeting halfway — with people who are completely at cross purposes. The militant voices at the TUC conference and, depressingly, even most of the supposedly moderate ones, were not in the same game as us. They do not want to make the free-market system work more fairly or more mercifully. They do not want to make it work at all. They actually believe that the need for real wealth creation is a myth: that money (as Marx held) is simply a “relation” and that you can expand its supply infinitely to provide unending jobs and services, without any consequences.
The Labour Party is about to decide which side of this argument it is on: is it going to help build a more conscientious free-market economy, or to join with those who want to undermine it?
Subtle, eh?
And so wildly wrong. But that never worried the neo-cons.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
This is hilariously bad stuff from the Torygraph. So bad it’s comical. It’s the level of economic analysis you get in Simon Heffer comment pieces.
I would argue that the trade unions understand a damn sight more about the real process of “wealth creation” than anyone at the Telegraph. And they also understand that the people who create the vast majority of wealth – ordinary working people in both public and private sectors – get a very unequal share of it. And also that the kind of policies that the Telegraph favours – total deregulation of markets and the expansion of multinational corporate power – are much more likely to destroy the capitalist system than anything Bob Crow (for example) might do. Does anyone at the Telegraph remember September 2008 when the whole system almost collapsed? They seem to be saying “we’ll have more of the same please”. Lunacy.
Does anyone recognise this version of Marx? I don’t quite hear the class struggle coming through in ‘unending jobs and services without any consequences’. Did I miss something in Marx’s analysis of the commodity or did Janet Daly get it from the Grundrisse? So many questions…