Socialism is incompatible with democracy. It is by nature totalitarian and can brook no opposition to its goals. Lenin knew that and was quick to stamp on Russia's nascent democracy. Russia became a Republic on 1st of September 1917 with the establishment of a Provisional Council as a temporary parliament. Preparations for elections to a Constituent Assembly were under way when on 7th of November 1917, a Coup d'état organised by Lenin seized power.
Despite the coup, elections went ahead. The Bolsheviks under Lenin received slightly under 25% of the vote. The new assembly met on the 18th of January 1918, issuing a decree, proclaiming Russia a democratic federal republic under the name 'Russian Democratic Federative Republic'. On the 19th of January Lenin dissolved the assembly and on the 25th of January he abolished democracy and proclaimed the Russian Soviet Republic. This led to the Russian Civil War. Lenin's justification was that "The people did not fully understand the Bolshevik agenda".
Starmer's excuse for cancelling elections is that the areas concerned are not yet properly organised. Giving away sovereign British territory and ignoring the views of its erstwhile inhabitants. The introduction by stealth of a government Ap to control all interactions with the state and the shrinking of the right to a jury trial are all features of totalitarianism.
Starmer is a Socialist, so was Lenin. The difference is that Lenin believed in the imposition of Socialism by revolution . Starmer, a Fabian, believes in its imposition by stealth. What he and Lenin do have in common is the use of Marxism to obtain their ends.
Britain had a proud history of law and the growth of democracy. The Peasants followed Richard II because he promised that their demands would be met. Their demands were simple. Restoration of their ancient rights and the right to till their own land. Elizabeth I introduced poor laws making each parish responsible for welfare. The idea of self reliance marked our history until the end of the 19th century. Cooperatives sought ways to combine and gain advantages by bulk buying. Friendly societies offered insurance for a few pennies. Those like the Tredegar Medical Aid Society provided medical services to its members. Society was upwardly mobile. Examples are, Captain James Cook and Lord Nelson who began his naval carreer as an ordinary seaman. Ted Heath, John Major and Margaret Thatcher enjoyed no special advantage.
Most of the founders of modern socialism were middle and upper class men and women who neither worked nor worried about the next day. They shared a belief in their ability to rule and create a better society. In the early days most supported eugenics in the belief that they could 'breed' better people. However, first they needed power. How to get that with a population determined to plough its own furrow?
Karl Marx provided the answer. Marx was a scrounger. He cadged money from his family, from his friends, from wealthy Engels, from his wife's aristocratic relatives and from the Dutch industrial Phillips family his sister had married into . He wanted world revolution and his genius was to focus on the sins of greed and envy. His genius was that he turned jealousy, envy and spite into political virtues. It was not necessary to strive, to believe in self reliance and betterment. Your condition was not your fault - the blame lay with landowners, property owners capitalists, employers, shopkeepers. It was simple. Empower socialism. Give Socialists the job of running your lives and by taking over all wealth and property you would be assured of a wonderful carefree life.
It sounded wonderful to a war weary 1920s world. Even more so to the people of 1945 Britain who elected what was essentially a communist government. Atlee had questioned the value of democracy and about the only thing we can be grateful for was that he stepped aside when he lost in 1951. As Derek Bennett argues socialism has always failed. That so many still cling to the idea of a free lunch is a puzzle. A Russian saying "The only free cheeses is in a mousetrap" is based on bitter experience.
And now the campaign to rejoin the EU. is gathering momentum. Starmer and his allies using 'predictions' made ten years ago claim that we have suffered economically. In fact as the researchers at Facts4EU have demonstrated that is not true. Using official government and EU figures they show that we have prospered. Why the lies? What is the point of denigrating your own country? The answer is simple. Socialists do not believe in a nation state, a country. They follow a religion and sovereignty has no part in it. They are happy to spout on endlessly about the working class, but when there is a benefit to be grabbed it is for them. Starmer cheerfully had his pension protected and sat smirking while his Chancellor capped those of the people.
The EU is run by an unelected Politburo. At its heart it's socialist. Each province of course has a parliament, parties, elections, but the decisions are for the commission. It's a Socialists dream. Do away with democracy and the sovereign rights of the people, but get paid for running a country. We are, true to the Chinese curse, "Living in interesting times". Somehow we will get out of this and I pray that no one, ever again, will believe in free Socialist lunches.
