logo
Even Karl Marx respected the rich more than Rachel Reeves

Even Karl Marx respected the rich more than Rachel Reeves

Telegraph18-05-2025

Labour owes more to Methodism than Marxism. Or so its general secretary from 1944 to 1962, Morgan Phillips, famously postulated.
The Welsh ex-miner himself was not a paragon of Wesleyan virtues. Alongside his Labour colleagues, Nye Bevan and Richard Crossman, he sued The Spectator for libel in 1957 for suggesting that the threesome exhibited an insatiable capacity for downing whisky while attending a socialist conference in Venice.
The Labour men won, and the magazine only narrowly avoided closure – Crossman's posthumously published diaries revealed The Spectator's claims were true.
Nevertheless, a moralising streak has long been at the vanguard of Labour thinking, and the party's attacks on the rich ever since it first came to power have been at least as much motivated by the notion that accumulating great wealth is just wrong than by socialist ideology. Today's Labour Party is far removed from the muscular Christianity of the chapel.
But its attitude to wealth and the rich displays a closer affinity to the moral judgments of stern church elders than to the strictures of Karl Marx. A secularised, bastardised version of Christian morality holds sway in the party, and indeed the wider Left. It sees riches as sinful, a moral failing that requires earthly retribution, or rather redistribution.
But the quest for immodest terrestrial riches has arguably been the greatest engine of progress in human history. And one does not have to be a starry eyed pro-market zealot to believe this. It is something the 19th century German sage well understood.
Surprising as it may sound, Marx and Friedrich Engels' The Communist Manifesto, published in London in 1848, contains one of the finest paeans to the achievements of the capitalist class ever penned: 'The bourgeoisie... has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals...
'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?'
Ayn Rand, the author of the cult pro-capitalist novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, could have proudly put those words into one of her heroes speeches. Why was the very font of anti-capitalist thought championing capitalists?
Marx's condemnation of the bourgeoisie was predominantly not a moral one. For our Karl, history is very much not just a tale of one damn thing after another. He had inculcated the pre-existing nostrum that history has a predestined direction and is shaped not by individual choices, but by vast impersonal forces.
And capitalism is one of the essential stages, an unavoidable prerequisite, leading to the eventual communist nirvana.
Marx believed that capitalism's overthrow would come about through its own success. The market – and this is where old Charlie got it spectacularly wrong – would eventually satiate all bourgeois demand. Overproduction, and counter-intuitively mechanisation (he was also quite wrong about this), would reduce the capitalists' profits.
Marx's adoption of the labour theory of value – the idea that the worth of any good is determined by the amount of work put into it, a nostrum that was already losing its lustre during the lifetime of socialism's founding father – meant that the bourgeoisie would only have one option to maintain their riches.
And that is scalping a larger share of what the workers' labour has produced. The eventual result of the proletariat's consequent immiseration would be world revolution.
For many Marxists, the big question for the last 180 years has been, when will this crisis of capitalism come? Every downturn and every slump, the communists among us hope, may finally be corroboration of their apostle's creed. But somehow the markets always bounce back. The demise of the bourgeoisie has been endlessly foretold – and endlessly delayed.
When some of those Labour figures most deeply pickled in Marxist dogma, people like Ken Livingstone, the former London mayor, state that socialism has not failed, but is yet to come, this is what they mean.
It is not just a hopeful refrain that true socialism will make a comeback. It is a profound belief that Marx's grand schema is still working through its modes and history has not played its last hand yet.
The Marxist Left – or at least some of them, communists as a breed are more schismatic than any Christian denomination – understand what capitalism has achieved. The most enlightened of them even appreciate that capitalists may still have a good long run left in them.
But instead of this understanding, for today's Labour Party, the accumulation of wealth is a morality tale, or rather a saga of immorality. Those who become rich must somehow be perfidious and squalid.
And thus wealth taxes, non-dom crackdowns, and VAT on school are the least that they deserve. The fact that such taxes make society poorer as a whole can safely be ignored as sinners must be punished.
When Peter Mandelson proclaimed that he was 'intensely relaxed about people getting filthy stinking rich', he wasn't actually speaking out of turn. That sentiment has a very good Left-wing pedigree, Marx would certainly have agreed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How the assisted dying debate is dividing doctors as politicians prepare to vote on bill
How the assisted dying debate is dividing doctors as politicians prepare to vote on bill

Sky News

time30 minutes ago

  • Sky News

How the assisted dying debate is dividing doctors as politicians prepare to vote on bill

There are few issues more controversial, more divisive. Assisted dying polarises opinion. But it's a difficult conversation that needs to be had because ultimately death affects us all. Even if you are fortunate enough to never be directly impacted by an assisted death you will almost certainly be indirectly affected if the End of Life Bill passes into law. It would be the biggest social change to British society many of us would ever see in our lifetimes. And after patients and their immediate families, it's the country's doctors who will be the most affected by any change in the law. Like society, the medical community is divided on the issue. One senior doctor said: "It's like Brexit, but worse." Another told me: "Emotions are running high". These are the milder, reportable comments. There is bitterness and mistrust. The deep-rooted anger leads to each side accusing the other of deliberately spreading misinformation, "what-iffery" and "shenanigans" in the lead-up to the final vote next week. We asked two senior doctors to share their views on assisted dying with us and each other. Dr Mark Lee is a consultant in palliative care. "I have worked in this field for 25 years and looked after thousands of patients at the end of their lives. I am against the assisted dying bill because I believe it poses risks to patients, to families, to doctors and to palliative care." 'We can get this right' Dr Jacky Davis is a consultant radiologist and a campaigner for assisted dying legislation in this country. One of the arguments put forward by opponents of assisted dying is that Britain ranks highest among countries in its delivery of palliative care. And there is no need for such a radical change in end of life care. It is not an argument Dr Davis accepts. She said: "The status quo at the moment means a number of people are dying bad deaths every day. 300 million people around the world have access to assisted dying and more legislation is in the pipeline and no place that has taken up a law on assisted dying has ever reversed it. So we can learn from other places, we can get this right, we can offer people a compassionate choice at the end of life." Most deaths in palliative care 'peaceful' Dr Lee accepts palliative care has its limitations but this is a result of underfunding. This national conversation, he argues, is an opportunity to address some of those failings and improve end of life care. "I think the NHS currently is not resourcing the situation enough to be able to provide the patients with the choice that they need to get the care that they needed and that is because they are not getting the choice and because palliative care is patchy. But in my day-to-day work, and I've worked in palliative care for 25 years, normal death is peaceful, comfortable, and does not involve people dying in pain." "I absolutely agree with Mark," Dr Davis responded. "The vast majority of people will die a peaceful death and do not have the need for an assisted death. And I absolutely am with him that palliative care in this country has been treated abysmally. Nobody should have to hold a jumble sale in order to fund a hospice. That's terrible. "What I didn't hear from Mark is, while the vast majority of people will die a peaceful death and have got nothing to fear facing death, there are people who have diagnoses where they know that they are likely to face a difficult death and will face a difficult death. "What are you offering to the people who aren't going to die a peaceful death? And what are you offering to people who are so afraid that that's going to happen that they will take their own lives or will go abroad to seek an assisted death?" Concerns about pressure on NHS One important voice that has been missing from the national assisted dying debate is that of the NHS. Senior leaders will not speak on the issue until the fate of the bill is decided. And its understandable why. It is not clear what role the health service would have if the bill passes. 0:32 Dr Lee warned that his NHS colleagues were "extremely worried", going further to say assisted dying would "break the NHS". He added, that the country's already under-pressure hospice sector would struggle to cope with staff "walking away from the job if they are forced to be involved in any way". Dr Davis refuses to accept these warnings, arguing that the challenge to the health service is being overstated. "I think it's really important to take a step back and say this would be a very small number of deaths. And this is very small in terms of the other things that are coming through big drug discoveries, big new surgeries, all the rest of it this would be very small in terms in terms of money." The two doctors did agree on one thing. That every patient is entitled to a pain free and dignified death. 1:12 Dr Lee said: "I look at the whites of the eyes of people every day with that. I stand in that place every day. And that is shameful that anyone in this day and age should die in that position. Jacky and I can agree on that. That is unacceptable. But it still doesn't justify the response that we meet suffering with killing someone, rather than addressing the needs that are in front of us." Dr Davis responded by saying: "You say you've looked in the whites of patients' eyes at the end, and I'd say looking into the whites of patients eyes and listening to what they're asking for when they've been offered everything that you can offer them and they're still saying, 'I've had enough', then we should follow the example of other countries and say, 'we will help you'." These are the two very divided opinions of two NHS doctors, but these are the same arguments that will be taking place in hospitals, hospices, offices, factories and living rooms across the country. In about a week's time, it will be down to the politicians to decide.

Ballymena riots: Families flee 'locals' venting their feelings
Ballymena riots: Families flee 'locals' venting their feelings

Sky News

time37 minutes ago

  • Sky News

Ballymena riots: Families flee 'locals' venting their feelings

Here we go again. It was not long after 8pm when a police announcement over a tannoy mounted on their armoured vehicles reverberated around for all to hear. "Force is about to be used against violent individuals," blasted from the speakers as locals, some masked, stood waiting for action. "You better be filming this," one man said as we captured the scenes for Sky News amid a growing sense from locals that the police were being heavy handed in their tactics. And then officers, holding their shields, surged forward as people edged back. The move seemed to further anger the residents who had gathered, almost goading them as tensions ran high. The pace of clashes was slower on this, the third night of conflict. But it was nevertheless just as ugly and messy. Eyewitness: It is hard to see where the violence will end Soon came the baton rounds, the firebombs, the water cannon. Those pelting the police seemed unfazed as they were battered with plastic bullets in return. The watching crowd cheered the rioters on. Police chiefs earlier defended their operation. A senior officer insisted he did have "a grip" on the unravelling situation when questioned by Sky News. The increased presence of officers was felt on the ground and was clear to see. The soundtrack of sirens swirled around this town once again as police lurched from incident to incident as pockets of violence flared up. Officers are on their way from Scotland, England and Wales to help bolster resources. And they won't be short of work. A leisure centre 25 minutes away in Larne came under attack on Wednesday evening after it emerged some of the foreign families fleeing the Ballymena chaos were being temporarily held there. A short drive around Ballymena's one way road system takes you on a journey through housing estates where people have flooded the streets with union jack flags and stuck yellow A4 sheets to their windows with the words, "LOCALS LIVE HERE". These colourful displays are being seen as a public noticeboard of the nationality of the occupants inside each home. A deterrent to make the angry mob to look elsewhere. And those failing to advertise whether they are a 'native' or not seem to be paying a price. I witnessed an upper floor flat with a window smashed, the guttering on fire and the ground outside ablaze. An older neighbour fled her home downstairs in her dressing gown. Earlier in the day two Romanian women were frantically examining their phones down an alleyway as their kids played on the trampoline in the garden. They were terrified and were bundling their belongings in the car and leaving for good. A sizeable chunk of people born in Ballymena are angry. They do not like the talk from police and politicians that taking to the streets following an alleged sex attack on a teenage girl equates to them being "racist thugs". They see this as an act of venting their feelings. And they are hellbent on continuing this campaign of carnage across Northern Ireland to ensure they prove their point.

NHS, houses, nuclear submarines: Labour sets out its spending plans
NHS, houses, nuclear submarines: Labour sets out its spending plans

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

NHS, houses, nuclear submarines: Labour sets out its spending plans

The last few weeks have proved difficult for Rachel Reeves. In public, the news has been dominated by Labour's U-turn on the winter fuel allowance. In private, the Treasury has been caught up in wrangle after wrangle with ministers, all negotiating what their departments would receive in the spending review. Reeves' speech to parliament on Wednesday announcing the review was a chance to tell a more positive story – particularly for a government accused of lacking direction and ambition. As economics editor Heather Stewart reports, there were some big winners: health, defence, and housing. Yet at the same time, day-to-day spending for some departments – such as local government or the environment – seems very tight. So, asks Helen Pidd, will Labour allow those services to come under even more pressure, or will Reeves have to eventually raise taxes to fund them too?

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store