If the past few days have shown anything, it is that the increasingly extreme left-wing party, Solidarity, have very little interest in anything other than complete control over the UK Economy, over the workers and over your life.
From limiting the sort of work you can do, to ‘gradually transferring’ your pension equity to someone else, Solidarities recent campaign pledges have painted an ugly picture of their plan for the United Kingdom should they enter a government after the next election. In a spat that has dominated the press cycle, Solidarity announced (or reconfirmed according to their members) their commitment to banning Zero Hours Contracts (ZHCs), causing rebuttal arguments from other parties, which Solidarity ignored – despite the overwhelming evidence that their proposed ban could put upward of seven-hundred thousand people out of work.
Speaking at the time of the release, former Justice Secretary /u/vitiating debunked the claims that ZHCs undermine workers rights saying:
“There exists laws that prevent the exploitation of workers by allowing them to request a fixed hours contract with the employer only being allowed to reject this request in limited circumstances.”/r/MHOCPress, 12 January 2021, link
This claim was attacked by Solidarity leader /u/motelblinds, who claimed that workers “have to beg” (link) for contracts with more hours, which once again was swiftly debunked by the former Justice Secretary, who pointed out the clear difference between ‘requesting’ and ‘begging’, before reiterating once again that the point of ZHCs is flexibility. Solidarity however stuck to their lines, ignoring the evidence mounting against them – before finally, the dam broke, and it became clear just why they wanted this form of worker freedom outlawed, with Libertarian leader, /u/Friedmanite19 summing it up saying;
“I am sure the many people on their zero-hour contracts can speak from experience and don’t need you to use the force the state to outlaw their current arrangements. Outlawing the contracts means fewer jobs will be given out and there is less flexibility. Not everyone wants fixed or small guaranteed hours. This policy will increase costs, make the labour market more rigid and take away opportunities from people. Trying to force people onto permanent contracts will be bad for employers and employees alike.”(/r/MHOCPress, 12 December 2021, link)
As ever, the move to outlaw workers freedoms by scrapping the ZHC, has nothing to do with protecting the worker, and everything to do with state overreach, and a widespread movement within the radical left to increase the control the state has over your life.
Never was this made clearer than with the recently announced plan from Solidarity to ‘gradually’ remove private share ownership. As part of their shift toward socialism, Solidarity therefore naturally makes a move against Capitalism – and we are left asking ourselves, which one of these systems is more democratic? Which one of these systems maximises your freedom, and which one of these systems would hand the state more and more control over our lives.
It cannot be denied that Socialism has a long track record of failure, however, according to its supporters, it is more democratic and more moral than its competitors. Looking at the words of socialist film producer, Michael Moore, we can begin to see where this fallacy originated, and how it continues to spread.
“Democratic socialism means everyone has a seat at the table, and everybody gets a slice of the pie.”(Vanity Fair, 21 May 2020, link)
Generally speaking, if the majority of people working through their representatives declare something to be a ‘public good’ then they have the moral justification to extract resources from others in order to finance this endeavour. On a superficial basis, this probably sounds good – but you need to ask yourself a series of questions.
What control do the people really have over any governmental institution? There are simple examples to answer this question in the United Kingdom alone, what control do you have over the BBC, over the NHS – the answer is none. Genuine public control over the institutions of government is simply a facade for government control, over aspects of your lives.
When it comes to Solidarity the question of ‘majority rule’ becomes more pressing than ever. What if 51 per cent of the UK population vote to remove the personal property from the remaining 49 per cent? Does that make the action right? Under the authoritarian proposals of a socialist government, this could well be the case – except once again, the wealth would work its way back into the hands of the State, not the 51 per cent of people who voted to seize the wealth in the first place. And then the question arises if you hand the state that sort of power – what stops them using it against you?
However, the main issue with the concept of Solidarity’s style of socialism is the false issue they take with the idea that under a different system, the economy is not under the control of the people.
This is not the case. Everyone within the United Kingdom is both a citizen of the United Kingdom and a consumer within its economy. Both can vote, either in general elections or several times a day with purchases; in the largest single democratic undertaking in history, the free market. It is the absolute pinnacle of democracy, the ability to exercise your choice with every pound that you spend, with every patronage you give to a store, an outlet or a service.
You do not ‘cede’ your democratic rights to a representative, you enact your democratic rights yourself.
Let’s be exceptionally clear. Under the Solidarity system, you pass your right to chose to the State, and cede your freedoms in the process. Under the alternative system, you keep your freedoms, your rights to choose, yourself.
It cannot be denied at all, that there is a clear and present danger in the United Kingdoms political system – the Solidarity Party, and their crusade to stop the state being subservient to the people, and make the people, subservient to the state.