Ed Miliband, Sayeeda Warsi, Stalinism, and me

Ed Milliband MP speaking at the Labour Party c...
Image via Wikipedia

 

It’s been a strange weekend. On Saturday night, I was sharing in the happiness of Comrades around the country and adding my usual incisively brilliant commentary to the political events of the day. 

Baroness Warsi was sent to Manchester, I can only assume by the Tory high command, to push the Tory line that Ed Miliband was a ‘puppet of the unions’. The Tory logic being that the union members who voted in the contest hadn’t acted as hard-working individuals from varying walks of life, but had in fact all voted as one on the command of Derek Simpson. 

So there on Sky News we could all see Baroness Warsi questioning the democratic legitimacy of Ed Miliband’s election to the office of Leader of the Labour Party. 

Now, I don’t know what you think of that image. All I know is that I found it hilarious that CCHQ had sent an unelected minister to make a point about Labour democracy. I thought they would get more mileage from that line if they’d sent an elected minister to talk about it. 

See where I was going with that logic? Anyway, I made this point via Twitter, as  you can see here: 

“LOVE that the Tories have sent Baroness Warsi to attack Ed M’s democratic legitimacy. That’s life peer Baroness Warsi!” 

All well and good. Until five or six minutes later when I get a response from a Tory supporter I’ve never heard of and never tweeted before. We entered into a debate spread over the next couple of hours which I thought was hilarious and weird in equal measure while also providing a classic example of how Tories typically debate. 

I’ve decided to put it all on here for you to read. Please do let me know what you think. 

Saturday’s big debate 

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. The failure of Bolsheviks, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, is a very powerful argument against Marx’s idea of proletarian dictatorship. But some disagree, saying that the theory is good but was not applied properly. They blame an individual–Stalin. This implies that communist ideology is not alsifiable. Facts consistent with the theory are used to validate it while facts that are not consistent are attributed to something else. A theory that is not
    consistent with reality must be either revised or rejected. That is what scientists do. Marx, if
    he were alive, would not miss an opportunity to compare his theory of proletarian dictatorship with the results of its implementations.

    Ludwik Kowalski, author of

    “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.” the link is
    http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

    Some have said that the book is “imperialist propaganda” and a “cold war relic.” How can it be? I was not commissioned to write it. Writing was a moral obligation for me. I am 79 and I want to share
    what I know and think, before it is too late.

    It is an autobiography illustrating my evolution from one extreme to another–from a devoted Stalinist to an active anti-communist. This testimony is based on a diary I kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

    Please share this information with others who might be interested. Thank you in advance.

    “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s