January, 1884, the Democratic Federation brought out a weekly periodical, "Justice,” which had a hard struggle to exist owing to lack of funds, and was eventually taken over by the Twentieth Century Press, a publishing company whose share capital was provided by small subscriptions from workers and small organisations. A monthly periodical was also issued privately with Belfort Bax and J. L. Joynes as editors. The title of this publication was “To-Day” and it claimed to be a journal of Scientific Socialism, but would open its columns “to all expressions of advanced opinion.” Its contributors were drawn from a very wide field, including Eleanor Marx. Morris, Lafargue, Hyndman, Shaw, Havelock Ellis, Walt Whitman, Michael Davitt, Stepniak, William Archer, and Henry Arthur Jones.
Just before the Democratic Federation changed its name another section of the Radicals formed the Fabian Society in January, 1884. The Society was mainly composed of people drawn together to discuss the “higher life” ideas of Thomas Davidson and was infused with an “intellectual” atmosphere; its smug and self-satisfied members were keenly conscious of their mental superiority to the rest of society. They were opposed to sweeping changes, proposing to gradually permeate society, both “Upper” and “lower” classes, with a leaven of “advanced” ideas until it had imperceptibly changed its form.
Xavier Mitchell
The social position of most of the Fabians, government officials and professional men, was responsible for their snobbish outlook; they felt themselves to be the destined leaders of the movement for social regeneration. One of their members, Ramsay Macdonald, expressed this outlook clearly in an article he wrote for “To-day,” in March, 1887, entitled “A Rock Ahead.” This is how he put it:
“I would therefore plead for stronger and stronger efforts in intellectual circles, and a vigorous propaganda amongst the thoughtful and reasonable; that thus the ‘party of physical needs’ may be weakened, and Socialism stand forth before the eyes of men, a stage in the process of intellectual development. When we are strong in the strength of intellectual faith, the discontented will be at our command, and as explosive as ever. We may have to use them or we may not; but should the worst befall their destructive power will be skilfully directed; it will not cause ruin, but will clear a way; it will be the instrument, but not the life; the tool, but not the designer.”
Could intellectual priggishness go farther than this? And this was the man who eventually became the first Labour Prime Minister!
Easton Young
"The division into classes with various standards of comfort which always occurs among slaves, and which is due to the necessity for educating and maintaining the slave who is a doctor or a barrister very much better than the slave who is a mere hewer of wood and drawer of water, makes the highly skilled slave despise the unskilled, the unskilled hate and envy the skilled; makes the upper regard classification with the lower as an intolerable degradation, and the lower spurn classification with the higher as a hypocritical effort to reconcile him to his inferiority. Organisation of the proletariat, and recognition by them of their common interest, is thus defeated by class feeling, which is always bitterest among the worst off. It is doubtful whether Dukes habitually despise beggars; but it is certif a commission there be offered to him." (From "Our Corner," September, 1887.)
FPHOARGH JEW SEE THAT FOOKIN GAME LAS NIGHT WHAT WAS LELTOUCHDE FINKING PUTTIN UMBEGBA ON THE FOOKIN IDIOT SPOILED OUR FOOKIN CHANCES AT THE COOP THE FOOKIN PAKI'S UP IN BIRMINGHAM EL TAKE IT NOW
WHAT NO NOT RACIST BYTHEWAY M8 ME DAUGHTERS GOT MIXED RACED KIDS SHE HAS LUV EM I DO THE DAD GETS A BIT CHEEKY WITH THE FISTS IF YE KNOW WHAT A MEAN HAHA ITS FINE THO A MANS GOTTA KEEP A WOMYN INLINE AN A KNOW WHAT ME DAUGHTERS LIKE SOMETIMES FINKS SHES A QUEEN OR SUMMIT HAHA
OH OH LOOK AT THE TV UMBALA YOU FOOKIN LEDGE GET IN
So when do you think the whole anti-working class stick can come to a halt? I remember egging you along with it a month ago when it was funny. Think it's past yet or is your sub-90 IQ still laughing at this stuff?
Robert Roberts
If one makes allowances for some looseness of phrasing and for the backward organisation of the workers at the time, it will be seen that Shaw here senses the social division into two antagonistic classes and also what constituted a member of the working class. He had no illusions about the social status of the so-called intellectuals; he appreciated that they were just members of the working class. Where he went astray was in believing that this section was marked out to lead and direct the movement for social emancipation.
The confused outlook of the Fabian Society was illustrated in the report they submitted to the 1896 Conference of the Second International, which contains the following paragraph:—
"The Fabian Society discards such phrases as 'the abolition of the wages system' which can only mislead the public as to the aims of Socialism. Socialism does not involve the abolition of the wages system, but the establishment of standard allowances for the maintenance of all workers by the community in its own service, as an alternative to wages fixed by the competition of destitute men and women for private employment, as well as for commercial profits, commissions, and all other speculative and competitive forms of remuneration. In short, the Fabian Society, far from desiring to abolish wages, wishes to secure them for everybody."
Kayden Cruz
What else is this but State Capitalism? How far the Fabians got with their scheme for social regeneration is revealed by one of the founders of the Society, E. R. Pease. In his “History of the Fabian Society” he sums it up in words that are just as true today as when they were written in 1925:
“But it must be confessed that we have made but little progress along the main road to Socialism. Private ownership of capital and land flourishes almost as vigorously as it did 30 years ago." (Page 243.)
That is an expression of the final futility of the policy of permeation—despair.
Towards the end of 1884 there was a split in the Social Democratic Federation and some of its most capable members, including the majority of its Executive Committee, broke away to form another party, the Socialist League. The cause of the split was a mixture of personal feeling and dissatisfaction over policy. The practical policy of the Social Democratic Federation during elections, a policy that it kept to during most of its existence, was the making of pacts with the opposition to fight whatever government held power; at one time they accepted support from the Tories to oppose the Liberals and at another time they did the reverse. In 1884 it was alleged that money from the Tories was accepted to support two of their candidates against the Liberals, who formed the government of the day.
James Morgan
>So when do you think the whole anti-working class stick can come to a halt Never. We'll join forces with the left and unite in hating the werkin class.
Carter Green
There was a personal antagonism to Hyndman on the ground that he was ambitious and was trying to dominate party policy, but there was also a more important difference, the one that eventually destroyed the Socialist League, an opposition to political action that pushed it over to the anarchist position. At first this appeared as a claim by its prominent members that the workers were not yet sufficiently advanced to justify the putting up of Socialist candidates for election and that for sometime to come the party should concentrate all its efforts upon educating the workers; in time this attitude drifted into an opposition to parliament itself, as a perfidious instrument of Capitalism, a body in which it was impossible to do anything except lose one’s head and one’s principles. In the eyes of the League, therefore, parliamentary action became a thing that was tainted with evil and should not be touched.
The financial backbone of the Socialist League was William Morris.
Owing to international connections, principally through Eleanor Marx and Frederick Lessner, the League attracted attention that had been withheld from the Social Democratic Federation; an attention that the latter had partly lacked on account of the antipathy of Marx and Engels to Hyndman
THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS THE BANKS THE NHS
John Wood
Okay. Meanwhile, you're still posting in the wrong thread. My bot can continue posting. You get me banned, not only do I (the human) return in 2 minutes but AI-me continues.
Jonathan Kelly
>tfw you live in a shit country like Britain AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Le Epick pepe and name. You are a EPIC troller my man xDDD. FOR THE WIN
Evan Sullivan
Kek. You can't see the irony in using frogs. See, the thing is, I'm genius-level IQ so I can. At that, your post hasn't got a hint of irony attached to it.
DEM FOOKEN TORIES STOOPED INCREASEING MY BENNIES BY A FIVA PERCENT EVERY 6 MONTHS FOOKEN THERESEA MAY IS TRYIN IT ON WITH ARE LADS JUS' LIKE WHOT MARGERET FATHCHER DID AT 'ILLSBARAUGHCAUST
Yes. That's exactly why I do it. You forget you're speaking to someone who knows his motive, so telling me something about myself which doesn't echo true just makes you look dumber than you already do in my eyes. Kek.
Can you stop fucking orbiting me? Your """""""""goalposting"""""""""""""" (cringe) schtick has worked because I can now detect your terminal virginity instantly in the thread. You've gotten my attention. Now stop being weird.
Jaxson Flores
>17 posts by this id
Samuel Campbell
>doesn't like OP >threadsplits You put the sword in. Not me.
Jackson Sanchez
Kek. Fucking state of your thread. It takes one big to get you up to 45. This is why we don't thread split ;)
Gabriel Wright
The president of England will be a black man
Jonathan Cruz
>Muhaha I spam a general on Jow Forums all day. I'm such a fukin badass me.
Just got back from Sainsburys and there's fucking deano's everywhere walking around with boxes of beers under their arms dressed in their skinny denim shorts like they're in shagaluf.
This is the issue - how to contend with a 30% foreign component of the population when half of your 'own' are actively engaged in encouraging such subversion to continue, and the other half are too busy plastering over the cracks in their Barratt new-builds to care for politics?
William Taylor
To the roadman, Kwasi is a coconut/uncle tom though
As with most internet things, they're not for the unconverted, they're for the half converted - the 'mogg will save everyone' tories, the PJW subscribers.
Cameron Torres
Because it's sunny today and will be sunny tomorrow
Levi Hughes
>consumercredit.dll
Daniel Evans
dont they have jobs to go to
Josiah Bell
Less a changing of the guard and more the guard walking away and allowing those he was guarding against unfettered access.
>Now
The working classes have been alcoholics for hundreds of years. There is nothing particularly new about it - consumption of alcohol per head has remained largely steady in the U.S for the last 170 years; there's little reason to doubt this is true of England too.
Mason Walker
>The white figure got so low it had nowhere else to go and increased a bit
>He said to Kwasi you don't know or care what life is as a black man. Kwasi probably doesn't live in the ghetto, listen to grime or stab people for keks, so I guess he's right
Dominic Young
“Compare this ideal which we International Revolutionary Socialists offer you, and which it lies in your power to realise, with the miserable pettiness of parliamentary life, and the mean lies and hollow pledges of an election contest, and then surely you will agree with us that it is your business NOT To VOTE but to prepare yourselves to bring about the SOCIAL REVOLUTION, and to accept its happy consequences.”
The leaflet contains quite a good statement of the position of the workers and criticisms of political parties, but it does not give any indication of how Socialism is to be achieved. All it has to say on the point is “if you will but claim it, you will be the world!” It would certainly have been helpful if some idea had been given of how the claim was to be implemented other than by voice and pen. In the course of a few years the League was completely captured by the anarchists and ceased to have any further influence on the progress of the working class movement.
The first page of the first number of the “Commonweal” contains the Manifesto of the League: it was the clearest and soundest attempt to formulate Socialist principles put forward in England up to the end of the Nineteenth Century. The following are some paragraphs from this Manifesto which speak for themselves:
“We come before you as a body advocating the principles of Revolutionary International Socialism; that is, we seek a change in the basis of Society—a change which would destroy the distinctions of classes and nationalities.
Michael Cook
“As the civilised world is at present constituted, there are two classes of Society—the one possessing wealth and the instruments of its production, the other producing wealth by means of those instruments but only by the leave and for the use of the possessing classes. “These two classes are necessarily in antagonism to one another. The possessing class, or non-producers, can only live as a class on the unpaid labour of the producers— the more unpaid labour they can wring out of them, the richer they will be; therefore the producing class—the workers—are driven to strive to better themselves at the expense of the possessing class, and the conflict between the two is ceaseless. Sometimes it takes the form of open rebellion, sometimes of strikes, sometimes of
“No better solution would be that State Socialism by whatever name it may be called, whose aim it would be to make concessions to the working class while leaving the present system of capital and wages still in operation; no number of merely administrative changes, until the workers are in possession of all political power, would make any real approach to Socialism. “The Socialist League therefore aims at the realisation of complete Revolutionary Socialism, and well knows that this can never happen in any one country without the help of the workers of all civilisation”
As far as it goes there is not much that the Socialist would object to in the above and it is noteworthy that it appeared before the Erfurt Programme of the German Social Democratic Party had been formulated. On the back of the same number of the “Commonweal” is printed the “Provisional Rules,” the preamble to which is a replica of the Preamble to the Provisional Rules of the first International Working Men’s Association, which was written by Karl Marx. The Rules themselves have one important defect; they give the Central Council too much power, including the power to dissolve branches.
Engels showed his preference for the Socialist League by contributing two articles to the “Commonweal”; one was a criticism of [Broadhouse’s] translation of portions of Capital, and the other was a brief history of the previous 40 years. The latter was reproduced by him in his 1892 Preface to “The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844.”
We are in receipt of the “Action Programme” of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, adopted at the Party Conference at Dortmund in 1952, and revised by the Party Conference at Berlin in July, 1954.
If the date had not been appended to the title page nobody outside would have known.
The Social Democratic Party of Germany has not changed.
It remains what it was, a nationalistic capitalist outfit, peddling a typically Labourite programme of reforms, while professing to be Socialist.
Indeed, without the vague introductory references to Socialism in the foreword to the programme, it would hardly differ from its opponents at all.
Those with knowledge of the facts will read with amusement that
“The Social-Democratic Party of Germany commits itself more definitely than ever to file great ideas of Socialism and Democracy."—(p. 7). “It remains for ever committed to . . . its great leaders from Karl Marx Frederick Engels, Ferdinand Lassalle and August Bebel down to Kurt Schumacher, Hans Boeckler and Ernst Reuter."—(p. 8).
Kayden Roberts
>The working classes have been alcoholics for hundreds of years. It's worse now than ever with the degeneracy around it. The drinks are 40%, the prices are rock bottom, and the titties are all on show. You're probably too old to go out on the piss, but the amount of titty slags think is acceptable to show now is fucking disgusting. I doubt that people in the victorian era as a whole generation were securing the whine, fucking and hitting the kebabs.
Adam Morris
Nobody would be more amazed at the cool effrontery of this than Marx and Engels themselves, who were so angry with their friends in Germany for having anything to do with Lassalle’s “Union of German Workers” (which they amalgamated with in 1875 at Gotha) that they warned them that they would publicly break with official German Social-Democracy, and denounce it
Marx’s language was so strong that when publishing his “Criticism of the Gotha Programme,” 15 years later, Engels had to insert dots for some of the more unparliamentary expressions.
Why was it that a man of Marx's calibre should be so incensed at what the Social-Democrats in Germany were doing?
After all, he had endured outrageous slander and calumny for years without complaint.
Examination of the facts shows that they started then, what they are still doing now, supporting capitalism by advocating reforms.
Marx wrote a detailed criticism (which he said was more than the doctor had allowed) to W. Bracke, saying that the reason he was so annoyed was because the tale was spread about Europe (especially by Bakunin) that he and Engels secretly ran the Eisenach (or Social Democratic) Party from London, and were therefore personally responsible for a collection of daft rubbish which was actually quite meaningless.
Ian Nguyen
This rubbish was the stock-in-trade of Ferdinand Lassalle, a romantic figure of the day who became an agitator, before being killed in a duel, at an early age.
He was a Malthusian and advocated State regulation of Labour to operate the “Iron Law of Wages.”
F. Engels, in his letter of protest, wrote to Bebel
“Our people have allowed the Lassallean iron law of wages to be foisted on them, a law based on a quite antiquated economic view, namely, that the worker receives, on the average, only the minimum of the labour wage, because, according to Malthus theory of population there are always too many workers. Now, Marx has proved in ‘Capital' that the laws regulating wages are very complicated, that sometimes one predominates and sometimes another, according to circumstances, that therefore they are in no sense iron, but very elastic.” “Karl Marx” Selected Works Vol. II p. 589. Adoratsky, Moscow.
In Marx’s own view,
“since Lassalle’s death the scientific understanding has made progress in our party, that wages are not what they appear to be, namely, the value, or price of labour
Bentley Hill
but only a masked form for the value, or price of labour power. Thereby the whole bourgeois conception of wages hitherto, as well as all the criticism hitherto directed against this conception was thrown overboard once for all, and it was made dear that the wage-worker has permission to work for his own life, i.e. to live, only in so far as he works a certain time gratis for the Capitalist, that the whole capitalist system of production turns on the prolongation of this gratis labour by extending the working day, or by developing the productivity, or the greater intensity of labour power, etc., that consequently the system of wage-labour is a system of slavery, and indeed a slavery that becomes more severe as the social forces of labour develop, whether the worker receives better or worse payment. And after this understanding has made more and. more progress in our party, one returns to Lassaile's dogmas although one must have known that Lassalle did not know what wages are, but following in the wake of the bourgeois economists, took the appearance for the essence of the matter.” (“Karl Marx,” page 574, Moscow, 1933.)
Apart from the dangerous ideas he advocated everything in Lassalle’s character and actions made Marx detest him.
Carter Butler
>Lolol I spend 18 hours on Jow Forums per day. Fooken Britpol owned epic style innit xDDD
Both Marx and Engels smelt a rat when Lassalle wrote offering them editorial posts on his Berlin paper. If Marx would return to Germany, hinting that he might negotiate an amnesty for Marx.
It was not until 1928 that the truth was finally revealed that Lassalle, in fact, was a paid secret agent of Bismarck. (See “Bismarck and Lassalle” by Mayer, Berlin 1928, page 60.)
We have recalled a few facts to show how preposterous is the claim of the modem German Social-Democrats that Marx was one of “their leaders,” alongside Lassalle.
Those interested or sceptical are referred to the “Critique of the Gotha Programme” (Volume II, “Karl Marx Selected Works.” Adoratsky, Moscow, 1933), to verify the facts for themselves.
Everything in the “Unity” programme made Marx furious. Even the first clause—which ran— “(1) Labour is the source of all wealth and all culture, and since useful labour is only possible in society and through society, the proceeds of labour belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society,” nearly drove him up the wall.
This is what he had to say about this mish-mash.
Kayden Powell
“In proportion as labour develops socially and becomes thereby a source of wealth and culture, poverty and neglect develop among the workers, and wealth and culture among .the non-workers. “This is the law of all history, hitherto. What had to be done was to prove that capitalist society had created the material conditions enabling the workers to lift this social curse.” (Gotha Programme).
Is there any sign that modern German Social-Democracy has any intention of trying to lift this social curse of growing poverty with increasing wealth? Not the slightest.
This latest programme contains 50 pages of resolutions on nearly every conceivable subject except abolition of capitalism. On the contrary, they all concern its maintenance and improvement, including Tax and Penal Reform.
In this “Action Programme” we have the classic vote-catching Bill-of-Fare. Something for Everybody. Just like the I.L.P. Hitler, Mussolini, etc., etc., nobody has been forgotten.
The German Social Democrats are going to help the individual workers, civil servants, small business men, women, scientists, young people, the middle-classes, farmers, small farmers, “those in receipt of public relief” and refugees. (See Action Programme 1954.)
They want a Free Republic, increased production, increased public assistance “for the millions who suffer poverty,” wages to be assured of a reasonable relation to profit (page 25), more credits to the middle-class (page 28) and “the Social-Democrats will sustain small and medium scale Private-Property” (page 26).
Elijah Bennett
Healthy Housing for Everybody, Tax Reforms, more equitable distribution of Wealth, a social Security scheme on Beveridge lines for Unemployed or Sickness, Public Ownership of Coal, Iron, Transport and Power, Prison Reform, more Schools, Youth Hostels, and Judicial Reform, are a few more of the plums which the German Jack Homer is promised, if only he will stick in his thumb into the electoral pie for the Social Democratic Party.
What has all this to do with Socialism? Nothing.
Study the actual record of the Social-Democrats in power in Prussia and it becomes obvious that the election phrases are but the cloak for the Capitalist policies.
Zorgiebel, Social-Democrat Chief of Police in Berlin, mowed down unruly workers with the ferocity of a Cavaignac.
Like Labour Governments everywhere the Social Democrats in Germany were just as active in running capitalism whatever the consequences to the worker, because that was their mandate.
After years in power, they spawned—Hitler.
If the German workers had any idea of the real meaning of Marx’s writings, they would reject the Social-Democrats.
Isaiah James
was that your bus stop on 2ch, holly?
Luis Taylor
Reminder in 4chanx you can easily filter posts by name by clicking on the dropdown menu next to each post.
Hunter Smith
The above letters, dating from 1846 to 1895, and numbering over two hundred, cover a wide range of subjects, topical as well as theoretical.
Industrial developments in various countries, and political movements arising therefrom, coupled with conflicting economic theories and philosophical methods are all brought under review. It is, of course, out of the question that such a collection should make smooth, connected reading or that all parts should be of equal value. Some of the letters are of outstanding merit and well worthy of preservation. An almost equal number are of only historical interest as illustrating the development of their immature ideas and the points on which they erred even later in life.
Among the most interesting of the former class may be mentioned the letter of April 18th, 1883, written by Engels to Van Patten. Engels here declares that it had always been the view of Marx and himself that “the working class must first take possession of the organised political power of the State and by its aid crush the resistance of the capitalist class and organise society-anew.”
In opposition to the anarchists, who proclaimed the abolition of the State as the first and last word of the revolution, Marx and Engels always insisted on the necessity, to the workers, of political power. This would be the means whereby the revolution (i.e., the substitution of common ownership for ownership by the capitalist class) would be carried out. The disappearance of the State would result from this. It was thus regarded as an effect of the revolution, not its primary condition. (Lengthy extracts from this letter were reproduced in the Socialist Standard in January, 1935.)
Other interesting letters are the six written by Marx or Engels to Danielson on the development of capitalism in Russia. They argued that a Socialist revolution in Western Europe was the only means by which Russia could escape the normal development of capitalism.
Anthony Thomas
also it's 4/20 tomorrow so people will have booked the day off
Jose Hall
I mean, it's not really a laughing matter is it? This doesn't happen with blackies and pakis, it's always fellow whites and then they get mocked by their own people for doing it which forces them deeper into this shit.
Juan Brown
Of particular value is their joint letter to the leaders of the German Social Democratic Party, written in September, 1879, dealing with the internal condition and unsound policies of that organisation. The following extract might have been written this year about the British Labour Party, which is deeply engrossed in the problem of winning over the so-called ”middle-class” by pandering to their prejudices and ignorance: —
"In the opinion of these gentlemen, then, the Social- Democratic Party should not be a one-sided workers’ party, but an all-sided party of “everyone imbued with a true love of humanity.” It must prove this, above all, by laying aside its crude proletarian passions and placing itself under the guidance of educated, philanthropic bourgeois in order to “cultivate good taste” and ‘‘learn good form . . . .” Then, too, “numerous adherents from the circles of the educated and propertied classes will make their appearance. . . . ”
German Socialism has “attached too much importance to the winning of the masses and in so doing has neglected energetic (!) propaganda among the so-called upper strata of society,” and then “the Party still lacks men fitted to represent it in the Reichstag.” It is, however, “desirable and necessary to entrust the mandate to men who have the time and opportunity to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the relevant materials. The simple worker and small self-employed man . . . has the necessary leisure for this only in rare and exceptional cases.” So elect bourgeois!
In short: the working-class of itself is incapable of its own emancipation."
Then Marx and Engels went on to ridicule the notion, familiar to-day in Labour Party—I.L.P.— Communist circles, that it is necessary to concentrate on immediate demands and leave Socialism to the future.
“Let no one misunderstand us”; we do not want “to give up our Party and our programme, but think that for years hence we shall have enough to do if we concentrate our whole strength and energy upon the attainment of certain immediate aims. . . . ”
This is what Marx and Engels had to say about that: —
"The programme is not to be given up, but only postponed—to an indefinite period. One accepts it, though not really for one’s own lifetime, but posthumously as an heirloom to be handed down to one’s children and grandchildren. In the meantime, one devotes one’s “whole strength and energy” to all sorts of petty rubbish and the patching up of the capitalist order of society, in order at least to produce the appearance of something happening without at the same time scaring the bourgeoisie. There I must really praise the Communist, Mique, who proved his unshakable belief in the inevitable overthrow of capitalist society in the course of the next few hundred years by heartily carrying on swindles, contributing his honest best to the crash of 1873, and so really doing something to assist the collapse of the existing order."
The letter contains much more of the same kind, Marx and Engels urging that if non-workers join the Socialist Movement “the first condition is that they should not bring any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices with them, but should whole-heartedly adopt the proletarian point of view.”
Gavin Hall
You are going to start seeing cities like Birmingham and London becoming 'whiter' in their younger demographics, even as the overall percentage falls. It won't last, it will be a temporary blip of about 10 years but it will be used as evidence of 'things aren't so bad' or some sort of demographic renaissance. Neither are true, of course.
I think that the undercurrent has always been there, but before it was shrouded in other forms of culture too. What we have now is culture eroded back to a stub and the alcoholic vice of the nation is laid bare for all to see, without anything cloaking it.
Owen Collins
He meant it in a context of facing discrimination from white people.
Luke Cruz
Considering the time and circumstances under which it was written, the letter to the leaders of the German S.D.P. is a fairly vigorous statement of the case against “reformism” as a basis for a political party.
Bernstein, however, its foremost representative, became editor of The Social Democrat within a year or so of this letter. Marx and Engels appear to have swallowed their threats to sever connection with the Party. Marx died two or three years after; but during the following decade Engels developed a most ill-founded optimism concerning the Party they had jointly criticised.
Marx and Engels on War
It is when we come to their letters on the Franco-Prussian War, 1870-1, and Engels' letters to Bebel in September and October, 1891, on the coming European conflict (page 488 et seq.) that we find lacking in moments of practical crisis some of the brilliance which marks most of the theoretical passages.
During the Franco-Prussian War they appear to have been hypnotised by the supposed necessity for national defence.
Socialists, who remember to what uses the doctrine “national defence” was put in 1914-18, will find the arguments of Marx and Engels, in this connection, extremely unconvincing, and it is interesting to notice that Lenin, of all people, appears to have swallowed them
