Society is cooperation;
it is community in action.

Brought forward – I’m on holiday.

Thinking about the pressures on capitalism — or rather, on the interventionism that passes for capitalism today — and on the alternative which was most comprehensively implemented, I discovered this recipe for chaos and failure from Bukharin:

Under communism people receive a many-sided culture, and find themselves at home in various branches of production: today I work in an administrative capacity, I reckon up how many felt boots or how many French rolls must be produced in the following month; tomorrow I shall be working in a soap factory, next month perhaps in a steam-laundry, and the month after in an electric power station. This will be possible when all the members of society have been suitably educated.

via Nikolai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky: The ABC of Communism – Chapter III : Communism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

As one who has not long studied Marxism, it is frankly amazing that Bukharin was hailed by Lenin as “a most valuable and major theorist of the Party” when he wrote such impractical nonsense. Here’s another taste of his particular madness, expounding on what we know as “from each according to his ability to each according to his work” and “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs”:

The communist method of production presupposes in addition that production is not for the market, but for use. Under communism, it is no longer the individual manufacturer or the individual peasant who produces; the work of production is effected by the gigantic cooperative as a whole. In consequence of this change, we no longer have commodities, but only products. These products are not exchanged one for another; they are neither bought nor sold. They are simply stored in the communal warehouses, and are subsequently delivered to those who need them. In such conditions, money will no longer be required. ‘How can that be?’ some of you will ask. ‘In that case one person will get too much and another too little. What sense is there in such a method of distribution?’ The answer is as follows. At first, doubtless, and perhaps for twenty or thirty years, it will be necessary to have various regulations. Maybe certain products will only be supplied to those persons who have a special entry in their work-book or on their work-card. Subsequently, when communist society has been consolidated and fully developed, no such regulations will be needed. There will be an ample quantity of all products, our present wounds will long since have been healed, and everyone will be able to get just as much as he needs. ‘But will not people find it to their interest to take more than they need?’ Certainly not. Today, for example, no one thinks it worth while when he wants one seat in a tram, to take three tickets and keep two places empty. It will be just the same in the case of all products. A person will take from the communal storehouse precisely as much as he needs, no more. No one will have any interest in taking more than he wants in order to sell the surplus to others, since all these others can satisfy their needs whenever they please. Money will then have no value. Our meaning is that at the outset, in the first days of communist society, products will probably be distributed in accordance with the amount of work done by the applicant; at a later stage, however, they will simply be supplied according to the needs of the comrades.

Where to begin a critique? “The applicant” for products? I think perhaps we should bear in mind the madness of this system when we lament our present circumstances.  We should remember that even in Bukharin’s peculiar dreams, repression was essential:

For a long time yet, the working class will have to fight against, all its enemies, and in especial against the relics of the past, such as sloth, slackness, criminality, pride. All these will have to be stamped out. Two or three generations of persons will have to grow up under the new conditions before the need will pass for laws and punishments and for the use of repressive measures by the workers’ State.

At 13:00 today, I attended a busy Westminster Hall debate on Equitable Life secured by Nicola Blackwood MP, to which the minister, Mark Hoban MP, responded.

Nicola covered the situation incisively. Many of us made an exception to sign the Equitable Life pledge during the campaign and we do expect it to be fulfilled. Many older people are living in poverty as a result of Equitable Life’s failure. Many concerns have been expressed to MPs since the election. We have inherited a scandalous legacy from Labour and EMAG members have lost faith in government as a result.

I must dash to my next meeting, so I will post a link to this debate as soon as it is available on Hansard.

Update: the full debate, which I recommend, may be found here. In particular, from the Minister’s response:

I remind hon. Members that no final decisions have yet been made on many of the important issues associated with the scheme. I want the decisions to be in the best interests of policyholders and taxpayers, and I encourage EMAG and others to be involved so that we can move the process on and find a resolution, for which policyholders have waited for many years.

I will give more details on our approach and the next steps in the process when Sir John Chadwick’s final report is published, but I can confidently say that we are moving towards our objective of resolving the issue. We are now reaching a crucial stage in the story of the Equitable Life payment scheme. What happens in the coming months will be decisive in laying out how the scheme operates and the quantum of payments that will be made to policyholders. I encourage all MPs to engage in the debate. This is certainly an issue that we must get right.

Via ConservativeHome:

More.

Via PharmaTimes | EU to probe pharma over “false pandemic”, this deserves a longer post:

The WHO’s “false pandemic” flu campaign is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century,” according to Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, chairman the PACE Health Committee, who introduced the parliamentary motion. “The definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the influence of drug-sellers,” he adds.

Is this really the best way to secure public health?

A friend recently sent me this celebrated letter on the absurdity of bureaucracy. If you have not seen it, enjoy:

Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR

16 July 2009

Dear Secretary of State,

My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs.. I would now like to join the “not rearing pigs” business.

In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy.

I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?

As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven’t reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?

My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is – until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.

If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?

Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don’t rear?

I am also considering the “not milking cows” business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?

In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.

Yours faithfully,

Nigel Johnson-Hill

Further reading

• Mises, Bureaucracy (PDF, buy at Amazon)

Via Climate targets can’t be achieved, say energy companies – Telegraph:

Energy companies have privately warned the Government that its climate change targets are “illusory” and “delusional” as global leaders prepare to sign up to stricter guidelines at the Copenhagen climate change conference in six weeks.

We are already facing electricity shortages: how long before someone suggests we live with rationed electricity?

If we are serious about energy security and global warming, what is required is a business environment which will be stable over the long term so that private companies and individuals can plan to supply what people need: reliable, plentiful electricity.

Police have confirmed that Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman is being investigated over her involvement in a car collision.

It follows claims that she allegedly left the scene of an accident without giving her insurance details – an offence carrying a possible six-month jail term.

The Mail on Sunday said the accident happened when the Leader of the House of Commons drove into a parked car while talking on her mobile phone.

But a spokeswoman for the MP for Camberwell and Peckham said Ms Harman strongly refuted the allegations.

via Harriet Harman Investigated By Police Over Car Crash In Dulwich | UK News | Sky News.

Fleeced!

Via the Taxpayers’ Alliance:

On Monday, Matthew Elliott and David Craig released their new book Fleeced! How we’ve been betrayed by the politicians, bureaucrats and bankers… and how much they’ve cost us, published by Constable. Fleeced! is the very first book to analyse the financial, fiscal and political crisis resulting from a decade spent under the stewardship of Gordon Brown and is a devastating indictment of Brown’s time as Chancellor and Prime Minister. The authors, who were the first to reveal the shocking truth about Brown’s overspending since 1997 in their previous books, show that in 12 years of New Labour around £1.5 trillion of taxpayers’ money has been squandered on an acceleration in profligate government spending fuelled by the economic boom; and around another £1.5 trillion has evaporated in the bust.

Fleeced! was given a big preview in the Daily Mail who summarised the key chapters, explaining how the authors arrived at the eye-watering total of £3 trillion for Gordon Brown’s mishandling of the economy. The release of Fleeced! and Brown’s £3 trillion con were also reported in:

The Sun, Labour blunders cost taxpayers £3 trillion

Daily Express, Brown the bungler has cost every person in Britain £50,000

Daily Mail, Brown’s mishandling of the economy has cost £50,000 for every person in Britain, according to new book

Daily Star, Bungler Brown has bled Britain dry

Daily Telegraph, Gordon Brown ‘wasted three trillion’

The Guardian, Comment Is Free: I see no wisdom, Mandelson

This is Money, Brown ‘cost us £50,000 each’ in tax

Press Association, ‘Brown cost taxpayers £3 trillion’

Matthew Elliott was interviewed on Sky Sunrise on Monday morning and on John Gaunt’s Suntalk radio show on Tuesday.

Fleeced! RRP £8.99, is now available in all good bookshops and on Amazon here

This morning, I woke early and finished The Great European Rip-off: How the Corrupt, Wasteful EU is Taking Control of Our Lives.  I then discovered this article in the Telegraph:

The global financial crisis has inflicted such damage to free market principles that it risks undermining the core function of Brussels and triggering the disintegration of the European Union, according to the EU’s most revered economic figure.

…

Former Italian premier Massimo D’Alema said the EU’s modernisation drive sketched at Lisbon in 2000 was fantasy. “We are prisoners of our rhetoric,” he said. “It is an illusion to think that once crisis is over we will return to where we were. The US and China will emerge stronger: we will be left ever further behind. Within 15 years not a single country in the EU will qualify for the G7, except perhaps Germany.”

via EU faces ‘existential’ danger from economic crisis – Telegraph.

In this context, it is vitally important to form a strictly pragmatic view of the EU and whether it will help or hinder our recovery.

Craig and Elliott wrestle courageously to deliver just that in The Great European Rip-off, though the title rather gives away their conclusions. It seems to me any objective review of the EU would conclude that it is an exorbitantly expensive threat to our prosperity and freedom.
Read more