The Pseudo-Socialist Utopia of Witney


(This article was originally published in the New Worker – the newspaper of the New Communist Party of Britain – Issue No. 1791, Page 5 – dated the 19.9.14)

Bourgeois conservatism is built upon a flimsy bedrock of hypocrisy, contradiction, systemic denial, and spite.   Its essence functions through the physical world as pure greed for profit at any cost, and manifests as the grasping, maintaining, and squandering of all material resources. With everything exploitable in the material world firmly in its grasp, the bourgeoisie also try to possess the world of ideas (as in academia), and the realm of imagined spirits, as in the theology of religion. The UK city of Oxford is world renowned for the quality of education produced within the famous (and ancient) colleges that comprise its university. This university constitutes the dynamic city centre of Oxford, and is a stark contrast to Oxfordshire – which can be described as a collection of sleepy villages that are monochrome, dormant, and highly conservative in its attitude and nature. Students are not really welcome outside the city centre and its immediate environs, just as the inward looking and vigour lacking populace of Oxfordshire, are not particularly welcomed by the university. Although Oxford university is also known for its bourgeois conservatism, elitism, and snobbishness, nevertheless, occasionally its staff and students can be shockingly and unpredictably radical in their decisions and deliberations. In 1985, for instance, when Margaret Thatcher was at the height of her insane crusade against British Socialism, the dons of Oxford voted 738 to 319 in favour of not granting the then serving British Prime Minister an honorary degree. This was the first time in its history that the university refused to grant such an award to a British Prime Minister. It is interesting to see which way the contemporary dons proceed with regard to the current far-rightwing Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron – whose anti-Leftist policies are finishing the counter-revolution started by his idol – Margaret Thatcher.

For all its outlandish behaviour and quaint traditions, Oxford University is a hub of bourgeois academic excellence simply because it has historically controlled all related resources, and has thus created an unassailable fortress for itself within the capitalist system it represents. With the exception of Ruskin College (an affiliate of the university that recruits primarily from the brightest of the working class – founded in 1899) – Oxford University generally recruits only those from the right social class and background – that is the middle and upper classes of British society – into its numerous colleges. Where Oxford University once dominated through the theology of the Catholic Church (prior to the Dissolutions of the Monasteries in the 1530’s), it now dominates through the secular text-book. However, it does attract an international student body from all over the world, and within this multitude, there is a healthy leftwing ideological presence that the dons perceive as no real threat to their privilege and authority, and which they allow to continue unharassed. This gives a certain unexpected and radical streak to the Oxford Union Debating Society which in 1933 (during the ‘King and Country’ debate) voted 275 to 153 in support of the motion stating ‘that this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country’.

This gives something of the historical, and socio-economic history associated with the sleepy town of Witney, which is situated on the River Windrush, in Western Oxfordshire. Oxfordshire itself is comprised of a number picturesque villages and towns that surround the city of Oxford. With the exception of one or two working class areas, generally speaking, these affluent centres cater exclusively to the professional middle classes, whilst much of the available housing has been turned into holiday apartments for the rich, or much sought after second homes for well-off people from the major cities, etc. It may come as no surprise that the Member of Parliament for Witney is none other than the serving Conservative Prime Minister – David Cameron – and that the place itself functions very much like a ‘Socialist’ state would (if the people were given all the economic and material aid they needed), but of course, not because of Socialist ideology, but rather because of bourgeois hypocrisy, deception, and delusion. As a consequence, the streets of Witney are clean and tidy, and there is no obvious signs of poverty. The Witney NHS Services continue to function with maximum supplies and no waiting lists – as if the ConDem Coalition had never came to power – and there are no Job-centres to speak of. This is similar to when Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979, and her constituency of Finchley benefitted immensely from her term in office. Thatcher ensured that as a reward for voting for her, Finchley would have all the resources it needed – regardless of the destructive social and economic policies being applied elsewhere in the country. For a time, Finchley had a certain sense of ‘immunity’ from the vicious nation-wide cuts initiated by its MP, and a certain ‘confidence’ and ‘buoyancy’ in its collective attitude. Anyone travelling through Cameron’s Witney today, will notice exactly the same socio-economic conditions. People meet and greet one another in a civil manner because they are not paying the cost of their MP’s vicious ‘austerity’ programme that is depriving the vulnerable of their benefits, the disabled and elderly of their care, and the nation of the National Health Service and Welfare State. In Witney, none of these things matter because the area exists within a political bubble benefitting from what might be referred to as ‘political nepotism’. The people have no sense of oppression from above, and do not need to fight with one another for diminishing resources – this is how this political nepotism (from the Conservatives) mimics Socialist state planning.

The irony is that Socialist thinking – which a priori places people (and their needs) before profit – is viewed as the incarnation of the devil by the rightwing, and a manifestation of everything evil in the universe!  When in power, the bourgeois throw resources at their own kind, as those very resources are taken away from those who need them most in other parts of society.  Witney, for instance, can instigate completely free parking in its Marriots Walk multi-story car-park, because Tory local Councils up and down the UK charge extortionate parking fees and routinely break the law by making those with disabilities ‘pay’ for special parking space provided for them despite the fact many have gone through detailed, (and often demeaning), medical examinations and assessments to be granted a ‘Blue’ parking badge which is designed to exempt the poorest and most vulnerable from having to pay parking fees.  In this way, the bourgeois set-up economic enclaves for themselves that mimic the peace of mind of Socialism, but which are the product of an antithesis of thinking – as it is not the poor that are receiving the help – but rather those who already possess ample finances and access to resources.  In reality, if Socialist thinking was given a chance to develop free of the usual bourgeois attacks, all people could be living in a progressive society free from oppression from above, and the need to fight one another for dwindling resources.  The people of Witney are the real scroungers, as their current opulence is bought at the expense of the millions who have had their benefits and medical supplies cut, as well as those workers whose pay and conditions have worsened under this government, and who have to feed their families through food parcels.  The Conservatives mimic the social planning of Socialism when they wish to reward their own kind, and ensure the purchase of further votes in the future.  One thing is certain, with the granting of ample resources, much suffering can be relieved from the shoulders of humanity, and this is needed ‘society-wide’ so that the Tory ‘Enclavism’ represented by Witney and other Conservative areas can be swept away for the disease it undoubtedly represents.

Norman Tebbit’s ‘Cricket Test’ Comes Home to Roost


(This article appeared in issue 1790 of the New Worker – the newspaper of the New Communist Party of Britain – dated 12th of September, 2014 – Page 5)

The bourgeois system has always divided to conquer – from the division of labour, to the constitution of ‘class’, all is separated into mutually excluding categories that are designed to favour the interests of the middle and upper classes, and play-down and ignore the interests of the working class. The working class is then subdivided into ever more increasing (and artificial) categories that are forced to pointlessly compete for ever dwindling resources. This status quo is fuelled through the auspices of a ‘false consciousness’, which sees the victims of the bourgeoissystem unwittingly internalising the psychology of oppression, and fighting amongst themselves as a consequence. The oppressed toilers of the world are programmed to blame one another for the deprivations they suffer a priori at the hands of the oppressors, and never turn their attention toward the real problem and cause of all their torment – namely the international bourgeoisie. This is why it is in the best interests of the bourgeoisie to ensure that the working class remains its own worst enemy, and continues to be riddled with internecine conflicts that do nothing for its historical progression and development into the stage of the advanced stage Socialism. Inshort, the bourgeois psychological and historical conditioning that has been inflicted upon the working class serves to dominate through separation, so that the working class is prevented from truly uniting under such conditions, and I unable to break this cycle of abuse through the development of true self-knowledge and insight.

Bourgeois nations compete for resources as a major bulwark of capitalist market forces. The powerful, but thoroughly redundant mythology of ‘race’ and ‘racism’ is part and parcel of this competition, which divides the international working class into mutually excluding racial categories. Although the notion of ‘race’ has been scientifically discredited, nevertheless, even in the 21st century it is often the first recourse for the oppressor over the oppressed.  The pseudoscience that is racism is an example of a living mythology that claims (mistakenly) to be self-evidently true.  Cultural and physical differences in people are believed to be the product of a distinct and different physical origination for each ethnic and cultural grouping. This gives the impression that humans beings ‘mysteriously appeared’ (as if from nowhere) in different places, with no historical or biological connection to one another.  Upon first inspection, this seems suspiciously like the theology of theistic religion masquerading as legitimate science. Not only this, but the Judeo-Christian Church in the West has been happy to perpetuate this false science of racial hierarchy over the last four hundred years or so, using its political power and authority to give credence to the myth that bourgeois white-Europeans constitute a superior racial grouping. This is not surprising, as both the pseudoscience associated with racism, and the theology of the Judeo-Christian Church, are both premised upon mythology mistaken as fact. This is the classic inverted psychology of Marx (and Feuerbach), which gives rise to a distorted impression of the physical world.

This inverted or distorted impression of the world serves as the basis for the psychology of the bourgeoisie, and has been expressed on a number of occasions by the former Conservative MP – and now House of Lords member – Norman Tebbit. He served under the notorious government of Margaret Thatcher throughout the 1980’s, holding a number of important ministerial posts, and actively participating in the devastation that regime inflicted upon the people and Socialistic institutions of the UK. In April, 1990, he made an extraordinary attack on the UK’s vibrant multicultural communities. He suggested (in a widely broadcast interview) that all the socials ills in Britain were not the product of capitalism, but rather the fault of the ethnic minorities who had come to settle in the country after WWII. As with all comments of a racial nature, Norman Tebbit did not present any well thought out academic argument for his bizarre outburst, but rather justified his far-reaching and destructive statement through the simplistic rhetoric that appeals to the infantile support surrounding sporting personalities, and competing sports teams – all of course the products of the ruthless and exploitative capitalist system. Tebbit – like all racists – reduces, denies, and attempts to negate the all-important historical conditioning of the past that has created the current situation, and which will continue to mould the future. Whilst denying ‘history’, the reality of (bourgeois) white-Eurocentric racism is completely ignored and not considered a contributing (and conditioning) factor of the attitudes expressed by multicultural communities who have been victims of this ignorance in the UK for decades. This is a clear expression of the denial with which the bourgeoisie treats its own (and thoroughly corrupt) presence in the world, and serves to continuously demonstrate the demeaning attitude it has toward its victims, be they the working class or migrant communities and their descendants. Tebbit, obviously appealing to the British right-wing, stated that Black and Asian citizens of the UK are not really ‘British’ because they have a tendency to support the cricket team of their cultural-ethnic origin, rather than the cricket team representing England. The UK media disseminated Tebbit’s outburst as if he were an Oxford don pontificating on some new and important scientific breakthrough. Tebbit’s ignorance has set the agenda for decades by continuing the justification of social and cultural exclusion toward migrant communities. It is this quintessentially bourgeois attitude of divide and conquer expressed by Tebbit that has caused many diverse communities to feel permanently excluded from mainstream British society, and to shy away from direct mainstream interaction.

The current far-right government of David Cameron has continued the project of social destruction and cultural disintegration started by his political idol Margaret Thatcher. Following the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union, the USA and its European NATO allies have desperately sought a new enemy and have found one in the form of militant Islam. Although not representative of mainstream Islam, this violent strand has its historical origins in 1980’s Afghanistan which saw the USA (and others) fund, arm, and encourage Osama Bin Laden and his Mujahedeen fighters as they rebelled against the Soviet attempt to support the Communist movement there, and liberate that country from the ignorance of feudalism and theistic religion. The problem the US had after the withdrawal of Soviet Forces from Afghanistan in the late 1980’s, is that the Mujahedeen changed the emphasis of its activities away from targeting the USSR and toward the US policy of neo-colonialism in the Middle East. As the West continues to destabilise and eradicate legitimate regimes throughout the world, the threat from a resisting militancy has obviously increased. It is an obvious hypocrisy within bourgeois thinking that to support the ally of the moment is considered a superb act of loyalty to Western hegemony, whilst to show an allegiance to a current enemy of the West, is to express a diabolical attitude similar to that of devil worship. For instance, American-born Ukrainians who travel to Kiev to support the new US backed (and armed) neo-Nazi government is eulogised throughout the Western media, whilst alleged British Asians who travel to the Middle East to fight against the forces of Western imperialism, are considered traitors of the highest degree. With this kind of double standard in operation, it can come as no surprise to learn that David Cameron has granted the British police the power to seize the passports of any British citizen ‘suspected’ of travelling abroad with the intent to join or fight for what the UK government considers to be a ‘terrorist group’. Cameron also explained that he has plans to expand this measure to include the exclusion of British citizens from entering the UK if it is believed that they have been involved with terrorists groups, and to have them relocated elsewhere. Echoing Norman Tebbit’s outburst of 24 years ago, the current prime minister – David Cameron – has stated that he finds it ‘abhorrent’ that those British citizens who express and demonstrate an allegiance elsewhere, should be allowed to return to the UK and pose a national security threat. The racially discriminative nature of this action is obvious as it is intended toward a particular ethnic group and no one else, despite the deliberate vagaries of its details. One is left wondering whether the same level of scrutiny is going to be exercised with regard to white Americans, South Afrikaners, Australians, and New Zealanders, etc., currently residing in the United Kingdom, who habitually express non-British attitudes toward sports and often disagree on political issues.

%d bloggers like this: