As far as I can tell, and I’ve heard quite a lot from the BBC today on the subject, Ed Miliband has been given an uncritical platform to ‘defend’ his father and to present himself in a manner designed to garner as much sympathy…and very cynically, votes…as possible.
Miliband’s own article in the Mail was not purely a defence of his Father but a subtle distancing of his own politics from that of his father…somewhat ironic in the circumstances….he complains that the Mail is traducing his father’s beliefs…and then disowns them himself:
‘My father’s strongly Left-wing views are well known, as is the fact that I have pursued a different path and I have a different vision.’
A case of Miliband junior not coming to praise his father but to bury him and his Marxist ‘vision’?
What was the other hypocrisy of Miliband junior?
He claims that…The Daily Mail sometimes claims it stands for the best of British values of decency. But something has really gone wrong when it attacks the family of a politician — any politician — in this way.
But the Mail article was an attack on his politics not ‘the family’, and Miliband himself cynically brought his father into the politics in his own speeches…
If Ed Miliband wanted his father to be off limits, he should have kept quiet about him
…and his wife into the frame with those photos of the couple kissing for the cameras.
Not only that but he had nothing to say when the BBC et al ran stories investigating his father’s politics when he was running for the leadership of the Labour Party in 2010. Here is the BBC Newsnight programme, dodging Marxism, but giving Ralph a nice little puff.
He had nothing to say because it was a puff piece moving swiftly over his father’s ‘Marxism’…telling us that it wasn’t really the ‘Bad’ sort.
It is curious that Ed Miliband should be so furious about the Daily Mail article on his father’s beliefs which was headlined:
The man who hated Britain: Red Ed’s pledge to bring back socialism is a homage to his Marxist father. So what did Miliband Snr really believe in? The answer should disturb everyone who loves this country
Miliband claims that ‘there is no credible argument in the article or evidence from his life which can remotely justify the lurid headline and its accompanying claim that it would ‘disturb everyone who loves this country….build an entire case about him hating our country on an adolescent diary entry is, of course, absurd.’
No ‘credible evidence’? Apart from the fact he was a hardcore Marxist.
Miliband claimed the case is based solely on one diary entry….but of course it isn’t…as said it was based on the well known beliefs and values of his Marxist father.
Miliband’s father may well have appreciated the safety, security, job opportunities and comforts of Britain but he was working to dismantle that and replace it with Communism.
All in all Miliband’s response was a highly political and manipulative piece that far from defending his father seemed more intent on winning votes.
But let’s have a look at what the BBC doesn’t like to dwell on…probably because much of Marxism actually finds favour in the corridors of the BBC…read on and tell me you disagree.
So what does Marx tell us about his aims and beliefs?
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Working Men of All Countries, Unite!
Family, religion, morality, nation states, nationality…all to be abolished with the aid of violent revolution by the armed Proletariat.
Would such beliefs and intent ‘disturb everyone who loves this country’?
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.
That the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
Marxism is the basis for everything that many in the BBC hold dear as more from the Communist Manifesto makes clear:
Multiculturalism: The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.
Anti-religious: But communism is the stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and brings about their disappearance.
The idea that the West is too dominant: Just as it [Bourgeoisie] has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
The horror of the Nation State: The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.
The radical Marxist agenda behind the Green movement: The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground – what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
Ralph Miliband always claimed to oppose Stalin’s methods but dodged a close analysis of them….‘he insisted that, whereas the controversy over the nature of the Soviet regime was “obviously of some importance…no conclusive answer to the question has ever been returned, or can be”’
He also dodged the real meaning of Marxism, usng the same trick that Muslims do to avoid the truth about Islam and the meaning of the Quran…claiming:
‘The very term Marxist was a contested category, with no universally accepted criteria by which a Marxist could be defined.’
Interesting though that despite being a Marxist and apparently believing in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat he actually wanted the Dictatorship of the Intellectual:
‘…in his analysis of the role of intellectuals within the Marxist movement, he claimed that the “Leninist” injunction that intellectuals should “serve the people” was, in one sense, unproblematic. However, he argued that within the Marxist movement after Lenin’s death the interpretation of how the people were to be served had been increasingly redefined such that only the party leader, specifically Stalin or Mao, could decide what it actually entailed. The differences between Lenin’s party and those of Stalin or Mao were accordingly ones of degree rather than of quality: “Leninism was a political style adapted … to a particular strategy … Stalinism … made a frightful caricature of the style, and made of the strategy what it willed”.’
Guess old Orwell was right…Four legs bad, two legs good.
