How did ‘non-racism and non-sectarianism’ end up in the UKIP constitution?

[Geoffrey Collier]

Baron von Lotsov: Marx was motivated in his youth to proffer a repudiation of Hegel. Hegel's first question, 'what causes society to change', is the basis of Marxism. Hegel was an idealistic philosopher (in the philosophical sense of the word) but Marx argued that world of ideas (thesis, synthesis and antithesis) was secondary to that relationship of human beings to their material world which was imposed upon them independently of their will. (He was a materialist in the philosophical meaning of the word.) Marx believed that capitalism was the most remarkable system of either ancient or modern times, but like all previous economic systems it was doomed due to its inherent contradictions. The capitalists would make a world in their own image, but they would be their own grave diggers. Were capitalists evil people,: no said Marx, they are what capitalism required them to be. Anarchism cannot be linked to Marxism in the way you suggest. Was it Mikhail Bakunin the Russian anarchist that you had in mind? Presumably you could equally argue that theology and secularism could be deemed the interplay of opposites? I'm not sure where that line of reasoning leads. For want of clarity I depart this place.

[Baron von Lotsov]

Regarding Hegel and Marx, yes I know they used to argue a lot, but at the same time they were influencing each other. When I talk of Marxism I often mean in the broader context. It was a movement that bears his name but it has people before him and people after him. They all squabbled a lot and had different ideals that roughly formed a movement, which was to cause the Soviet Union to form. The problem with it generally is that Marx had certain ideas that were supposed to liberate everyone, but in practice they did the opposite, whereas the thing that did lead to liberation was the very capitalism the Soviets were most against. Eventually it collapsed because the people found out it was all a lie. The authorities even went so far as to jam radio transmissions from the West, but you can’t keep a secret forever. It seems to me the same mistakes are made today. People believe something will liberate them but it will actually do the reverse. Often the reasons for this are subtle and involve more than a simple one stage process.

Was it Mikhail Bakunin the Russian anarchist that you had in mind?

No, it was Peter Kropotkin. Now that is a very strange story.

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/brit...es-london.html

[Geoffrey Collier]

Regarding Hegel and Marx, yes I know they used to argue a lot, but at the same time they were influencing each other. When I talk of Marxism I often mean in the broader context. It was a movement that bears his name but it has people before him and people after him. They all squabbled a lot and had different ideals that roughly formed a movement, which was to cause the Soviet Union to form. The problem with it generally is that Marx had certain ideas that were supposed to liberate everyone, but in practice they did the opposite, whereas the thing that did lead to liberation was the very capitalism the Soviets were most against. Eventually it collapsed because the people found out it was all a lie. The authorities even went so far as to jam radio transmissions from the West, but you can’t keep a secret forever. It seems to me the same mistakes are made today. People believe something will liberate them but it will actually do the reverse. Often the reasons for this are subtle and involve more than a simple one stage process.
No, it was Peter Kropotkin. Now that is a very strange story.

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/brit...es-london.html

Baron von Lotsov:
In deference to accuracy Hegel (1770-1831) and Marx (1818-1883) never used to talk to each other at all. Indeed, the former never knew of the latter's existence. In his old age Marx said that there is only one thing that he knew for certain, and that was that he was not a Marxist. So distorted and misintrepreted were his writings, he came to the conclusion that many did not understand what he was actually arguing.

You may agree with me BvL that the 20th C. saw two political ideologies and both of which 'enlisted' postumously two 19th.C philosophers, and neither of whom were responsible for either the events or instrumental for their existence. The late fuhrer's 'hero' was Freidrich Nietzsche. His idealised human being was the artist-tyrant. Now adolph thought that he was 'a bit of an artist' and could easily turn tyrannical if even his tea was cold. So he may have fitted the first part. However, Nietzsche, had not one ounce of nationalism in his body. Indeed, a Frenchman, Englishman, or any other nation, could produce his idealised superman. In order to find a philosopher for his cause, these minor points, however, were forgive.

Marx was enlisted by the Russian communists as their 'inspiration'. Admittedly a few changes had to be made. Abandoning capitalism and the creation of a bourgeoisie were to be the first sacrifices. Their revolution decided to circumvent capitalism and go straight for communism. That was a slight change to the original script. If we want to be accurate as to the historical reasons for the collapse of communism in eastern Europe; it was the enduring legacies of nationalism and religion. There were economic factors involved; but it is interesting that there was not a simultaneous demand for the restorations of their monarchial dynasties, many of which had collasped after WW!. Another point is the fact that Stalin defended Mother Russia against the Nazis: that is a plus which many 'conservative' Russians would be reluctant not to concede. Very complicated these matters: never cut-corners when explanations are needed.

[Baron von Lotsov]

Marx was influenced by Hegel though. He did used to argue about his ideas a lot, but never the less, he was interested in what he had to say. So to that extent there is a connection. I have read Nietzsche and his concept of the superman and certainly the Nazis were influenced by that. They were national socialists that also took elements of the opposite and formed what Hegel would have called a synthesis. So the communists and the Nazis were two different sects of socialism and hated each other. We see a similar thing today with the BNP and the Labour party. They are both leftwing economically, but one is international socialism and the other one national.

A proper right-winger doesn’t care what people think. All they are concerned about is that trade can flow freely and people can buy what they want. The democracy in that system is linked to trade, so you vote every time you buy or sell something, which is far more democratic than just electing a government every five years. This is what the UKIP should be about, and not trying to make immigrants pretend to be British. That’s social engineering, which is socialist.

[Geoffrey Collier]

Marx was influenced by Hegel though. He did used to argue about his ideas a lot, but never the less, he was interested in what he had to say. So to that extent there is a connection. I have read Nietzsche and his concept of the superman and certainly the Nazis were influenced by that. They were national socialists that also took elements of the opposite and formed what Hegel would have called a synthesis. So the communists and the Nazis were two different sects of socialism and hated each other. We see a similar thing today with the BNP and the Labour party. They are both leftwing economically, but one is international socialism and the other one national.

A proper right-winger doesn’t care what people think. All they are concerned about is that trade can flow freely and people can buy what they want. The democracy in that system is linked to trade, so you vote every time you buy or sell something, which is far more democratic than just electing a government every five years. This is what the UKIP should be about, and not trying to make immigrants pretend to be British. That’s social engineering, which is socialist.

Baron von Lotsov: Try as I can, I cannot see Nazism as simply another strand of socialism. The first assumption of Nazism was biological supriority, and some humans were so inferior that they had no defensible claim to life. Secondly, they were assisted by a demoralised middle-class who suffered loss of economic status through hyper-inflation. The traditional aristocratic classes (there were many subsections) feared the rise of communism. On his 'election' to power, the Vatican concluded a Concordat with Hitler. (that wasn't repudiated even when the policy of genocide was known) Abroad, Hitler was admired by many arostocratic individuals; the Duke of Bedford, and I suppose that the Duke of Windsor, deserves a mention. What about the delightful Mitford sisters? They grew-up on an estate, but it wasn't a council estate. Lord Nuffield (William Morris the car-maker) was a contributor to Sir Oswald Mosley, and even Henry Ford admired Hitler. Hitler made no concessions to the German working-class, but to accommodate the social and industrial elites, (not to mention the professional elites) it was a complete surrender. To argue that Nazism was merely another expression of socialism is an indefensible proposition.

Democracy and capitalism have totally different roots, which in some countries have coincided by historical accident. The two develo[pment are unrelated. Latin America is capitalist, but there is only minimal democracy. Much of the investment is foreign, and in many of those countries the constitutions have the military as the final authority when an interpretation is required. What about rich oil countries; capitalist but certainly not havens of democracy? Vaclav Harvel wanted the rule of law and Human Rights as the foundation of the new Czechoslovakia: Charter 77. I don't think that you will find capitalism was very high on the list.

There is a limit to what we can 'jumble-up' to make a sound argument.

[Baron von Lotsov]

Baron von Lotsov: Try as I can, I cannot see Nazism as simply another strand of socialism. The first assumption of Nazism was biological supriority, and some humans were so inferior that they had no defensible claim to life. Secondly, they were assisted by a demoralised middle-class who suffered loss of economic status through hyper-inflation. The traditional aristocratic classes (there were many subsections) feared the rise of communism. On his 'election' to power, the Vatican concluded a Concordat with Hitler. (that wasn't repudiated even when the policy of genocide was known) Abroad, Hitler was admired by many arostocratic individuals; the Duke of Bedford, and I suppose that the Duke of Windsor, deserves a mention. What about the delightful Mitford sisters? They grew-up on an estate, but it wasn't a council estate. Lord Nuffield (William Morris the car-maker) was a contributor to Sir Oswald Mosley, and even Henry Ford admired Hitler. Hitler made no concessions to the German working-class, but to accommodate the social and industrial elites, (not to mention the professional elites) it was a complete surrender. To argue that Nazism was merely another expression of socialism is an indefensible proposition.

Democracy and capitalism have totally different roots, which in some countries have coincided by historical accident. The two develo[pment are unrelated. Latin America is capitalist, but there is only minimal democracy. Much of the investment is foreign, and in many of those countries the constitutions have the military as the final authority when an interpretation is required. What about rich oil countries; capitalist but certainly not havens of democracy? Vaclav Harvel wanted the rule of law and Human Rights as the foundation of the new Czechoslovakia: Charter 77. I don't think that you will find capitalism was very high on the list.

There is a limit to what we can 'jumble-up' to make a sound argument.

Well the Nazis called themselves socialists, so there you have it. I agree that Nietzsche was really the polar opposite in that he believed in the survival of the fittest and the law of the jungle in selecting the strongest by natural selection. So you have an odd mixture of Left and Right here, but they were authoritarian, whereas our 19-century capitalism was laissez faire. Also Mussolini was a socialist who ended up as a fascist. It is my belief that the authoritarian nature of socialism can lead to fascism quite easily when there is economic strife, which there nearly always is with socialism eventually, except when the electorate swing back to capitalism in the nick of time as we seem to have done after Labour.

Regarding all those who supported Hitler, well the same thing was going on with Stalin as well. I don't hold the aristocracy as anything ideologically pure. Some have done a lot of good and others have been as bad as any dictator. We are going to have to get a bit more practiced in spotting these fascists before they really cause problems. I don't think Cameron personally has the capability of becoming an evil dictator, but I do wonder about some of these Eurocrats. You can often tell a dictator in the making because they never delegate anything. All commands have to come from them. Cameron is pretty good as leaving his ministers to run their own departments. Brown was the opposite and so was Blair.

[Tom Wilde]

Baron, given that you have never been a UKIP member and don't support the party, I'm a bit at a loss as to why you are so concerned about UKIP in particular choosing to express its non-racist principles in its party constitution. I can see you don't like what you regard as political correctness, but why is your concern with UKIP particularly? Why don't you go and hassle the Labour Party or Respect or the Tories or any of the other mainstream parties in Britain about their political correctness, if that's how you feel?

[Geoffrey Collier]

Well the Nazis called themselves socialists, so there you have it. I agree that Nietzsche was really the polar opposite in that he believed in the survival of the fittest and the law of the jungle in selecting the strongest by natural selection. So you have an odd mixture of Left and Right here, but they were authoritarian, whereas our 19-century capitalism was laissez faire. Also Mussolini was a socialist who ended up as a fascist. It is my belief that the authoritarian nature of socialism can lead to fascism quite easily when there is economic strife, which there nearly always is with socialism eventually, except when the electorate swing back to capitalism in the nick of time as we seem to have done after Labour.

Regarding all those who supported Hitler, well the same thing was going on with Stalin as well. I don't hold the aristocracy as anything ideologically pure. Some have done a lot of good and others have been as bad as any dictator. We are going to have to get a bit more practiced in spotting these fascists before they really cause problems. I don't think Cameron personally has the capability of becoming an evil dictator, but I do wonder about some of these Eurocrats. You can often tell a dictator in the making because they never delegate anything. All commands have to come from them. Cameron is pretty good as leaving his ministers to run their own departments. Brown was the opposite and so was Blair.

Baron von Lotsov: As I have told you before, Lenin replaced Kerensky under the auspices of Queen Victoria's favourite grandson Kaiser Wilhelm. You cannot grab theories out of fresh air. If cruelty, wickedness and authoritarianism are wrong, that is a strong indictment of all political oligarchies in history. Do you imagine that theocracies, irrespective of the religion, were gentle and meek men of prayer? They were brutal when it was required, and controlled the economic power of the state for their own ends. Absolute monarchies were no better, as were the aristocracy in their heyday. As Lord Acton correctly observed, 'All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. If laissez-faire proved one thing, it was that Adam Smith's claim that there is an 'invisible hand' controlling the market place was absolute nonsense. Indeed the social problems caused by urban capitalism was the environment which produced the rise of the Labour Party. For good measure, at the outbreak of WW1, there was virtually not a single member of any European government who was not either an aristocrat or from the upper-middle classes. If one needs rich, educated men to run the governments; until 1914 they existed in abundance. Theories that 'blood is thicker than water', was not too obvious when the European royal houses were engaged in an horrendous war against their cousins. These are the realities that must be addressed when engaged in historical analysis. It can't be viewed with the unpleasant aspects being ignored. So long as human beings remain imperfect, this is what we must expect. The very idea that some idealised economic system willl come to our rescue is sheer phantasy. Roger Bootle, in his book that Father Christmas gave me two weeks ago, said that the more prosperous the economic system became, greater became the problem of greed and corruption. He identifies one character who warned the authorities repeatedly for nine years of the crimes being committed by Madoff, with 'gift-wrapped' evidence, and about twenty-eight red-flag markers to guide them; he was totally ignored until $50. billion worth was fraud became manifest when the 'implosion' struck. Whatever the merits of a market system, don't count on it as a means of reforming human nature.

[BCG Jason]

Baron, given that you have never been a UKIP member and don't support the party, I'm a bit at a loss as to why you are so concerned about UKIP in particular choosing to express its non-racist principles in its party constitution. I can see you don't like what you regard as political correctness, but why is your concern with UKIP particularly? Why don't you go and hassle the Labour Party or Respect or the Tories or any of the other mainstream parties in Britain about their political correctness, if that's how you feel?

Where have been Tom?
BVL did support UKIP in a big way, he has moved around a few web forums.

[Baron von Lotsov]

Baron von Lotsov: As I have told you before, Lenin replaced Kerensky under the auspices of Queen Victoria's favourite grandson Kaiser Wilhelm. You cannot grab theories out of fresh air. If cruelty, wickedness and authoritarianism are wrong, that is a strong indictment of all political oligarchies in history. Do you imagine that theocracies, irrespective of the religion, were gentle and meek men of prayer? They were brutal when it was required, and controlled the economic power of the state for their own ends. Absolute monarchies were no better, as were the aristocracy in their heyday. As Lord Acton correctly observed, 'All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. If laissez-faire proved one thing, it was that Adam Smith's claim that there is an 'invisible hand' controlling the market place was absolute nonsense. Indeed the social problems caused by urban capitalism was the environment which produced the rise of the Labour Party. For good measure, at the outbreak of WW1, there was virtually not a single member of any European government who was not either an aristocrat or from the upper-middle classes. If one needs rich, educated men to run the governments; until 1914 they existed in abundance. Theories that 'blood is thicker than water', was not too obvious when the European royal houses were engaged in an horrendous war against their cousins. These are the realities that must be addressed when engaged in historical analysis. It can't be viewed with the unpleasant aspects being ignored. So long as human beings remain imperfect, this is what we must expect. The very idea that some idealised economic system willl come to our rescue is sheer phantasy. Roger Bootle, in his book that Father Christmas gave me two weeks ago, said that the more prosperous the economic system became, greater became the problem of greed and corruption. He identifies one character who warned the authorities repeatedly for nine years of the crimes being committed by Madoff, with 'gift-wrapped' evidence, and about twenty-eight red-flag markers to guide them; he was totally ignored until $50. billion worth was fraud became manifest when the 'implosion' struck. Whatever the merits of a market system, don't count on it as a means of reforming human nature.

Yes I know there is corruption, but a capitalist system is better because the wealth is more evenly spread out. It is not a case of who are friends with the rulers, but a case of who satisfies the desires of the consumer, so you have far more millionaires and far fewer billionaires. Billionaires come about because they control markets. The richest man in the world owns 90% of the Mexican telecom's market. Bill Gates formed a monopoly with his operating system, and then we have gangsters in Russia that are billionaires and we have the usual Arabs as well. None of these people compete in a free market.

A free market system needs a far smaller government. All the government really needs to do is make certain people play by the rules of the free market so there is no one holding a gun to anyone's head, and things like running the currency and a few other bits and pieces. The smaller the government is the better as long as it can keep the market free. At the moment we have something like 50% of our GDP in the hands of the government and much of that money goes missing between the taxpayer and the final recipient. No system is perfect because no human is perfect as you point out, but it is far better to have a distributed system. This is one of the problems of the EU. It has too much power in too few hands, so the very nature of the system creates corruption no matter what the intentions are of the designers of the system. Free markets have always outperformed command economies. Even the Chinese have figured this out and they are supposed to be communists.