The Influx Of Wealth Into Britain

Do you really want to know what is going on in Britain today (late 2014)? Let me give my impression of it.

The present state of Britain revolves around one central fact that must be understood. It is the great volume of wealth that is being brought into London from abroad. This is affecting the entire country.

London has become a place for very wealthy people to buy homes, along with other investments. About one of every thirty-six people in London today is a millionaire. I know that one should be careful to state such a thing, but a crash in London property values is nearly unimaginable. The majority of rich people bringing wealth into London seem to be Russian and Arab.

This has affected politics in Britain, bringing the country further to the right than it would be otherwise. The reason is simple, if Britain started turning more socialist and raising taxes there would be plenty of other places that these people could take their wealth.

This rightward turn is what prompted the independence referendum in Scotland, which has long been more leftward when it comes to economics.

The rightward economic turn has also affected Britain's relationship with Europe. There is a system that redistributes wealth from the richer European countries to the poorer ones, which means Britain giving money to Europe. An increasing number of people in Britain do not feel like sharing the country's wealth with migrants from other European countries.

My personal opinion, as a native of Britain, is that it would be a shame to see it leaving Europe altogether.

Have you ever stopped to think about just how ironic things often are?

Modern capitalism began with the economic theory of Scotland's Adam Smith, which was a part of the "Scottish Renaissance". The theories of Karl Marx, which was the beginning of modern Communism was a reaction against the destructive effects of that capitalism, primarily the few rich using their great wealth to oppress the many poor. Marx was a German Jew, living in exile in London, who did most of his writing in the Reading Room at the British Museum, with Britain as the intended audience.

But the first land to accept Marxist theory was  Russia, which I am sure that Marx never would have imagined. Marx's homeland of Germany, which was at war with Russia, inadvertently helped to facilitate the implementation of his theories. A Russian agitator, by the name of Lenin, was in exile in Switzerland. The Germans transported him in a rail car to Russia to help bring about a political revolution that was brewing there, which they hoped would hamper the Czar's ability to continue the war against them.

Marxism was based on atheism and joined with evolution, considering religion as "the opiate of the masses" and for collectivism to be the next step in human social evolution. Evolutionary theory, like the theories of Adam Smith and Marx, began in Britain with the writings of Charles Darwin. The irony here is that evolution very much resembled capitalism in it's operation. Capitalism is the economic manifestation, and evolution is the biological manifestation. But the two are the same thing, progressive adaptation to the environment by way of natural selection or the survival of the fittest.

It was the crash of extreme capitalism, based on the theory of Adam Smith, which boosted Marxist theory, and made it into a global ideology. In the 1920s, following the First World War, assembly line industrial production had been perfected and factories in America turned out vast quantities of manufactured goods, from cars to radios. The trouble was that the workers were not being paid enough to be able to afford to buy all of those goods, and they were just piling up in warehouses. Factories began cutting back on production, which meant that workers had even less money, and it spiraled into a devastating crash.

The Crash of 1929 really devastated Germany, Marx's homeland, which had joined the global economic order after the war. Along came a party called the Nazis, which had a solution to the economic catastrophe. The military was drastically increased, to absorb unemployment, and factories were brought back to full production making military equipment for them. Their economic system, supposedly neither capitalism nor communism but between the two, was called National Socialism. Production was undertaken by business, not by the government as in communism, but business worked for the government.

The result was war, with the western Allies which practiced the capitalism of Adam Smith on one side, and Russia (as part of the Soviet Union) which practiced the Marxism, which was a reaction against capitalism, on the other side. After that war was over, conflict continued as a Cold War between proponents of the original theories of Smith and Marx.

Another great irony is the icon of postwar American business, based on the theory of Scotland’s Adam Smith, that became far and away the most prominent Scottish name in the world. It familiarized the world with the Mc that prefixes so many Scottish names. But it had nothing to do with Scotland, or anyone from Scotland. McDonald’s Restaurant didn’t even have anything to do with anyone actually named McDonald. An American milkshake machine salesman, named Ray Kroc, bought a small restaurant that had been owned by the McDonald brothers, and he kept the name because it was familiar to area customers. The global food brand developed from there.

The next irony is how the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher aggravated Scotland, all the while carrying a copy of Adam Smith's book in her handbag as if it were a Bible. Scotland, where capitalist theory had originated, had by this time become more socialist. While London, where Marx had written the theory that would lead to communism and Charles Dickens had written extensively of the negatives of daily life under Nineteenth Century capitalism before that, had become essentially Britain's capitalist center.

What we could call the Communist manifestation of Marx ended with the end of the Cold War and the Soviet Union split up. But the irony continues.Russia, led by Boris Yeltsin, turned from communism to the capitalist theory of Adam Smith instead, but proved the validity of Marx by having it end in disaster. Have you ever stopped to ponder that Soviet era Communists were proven to be absolutely right about capitalism, not by the propaganda that they issued but by the disaster that capitalism would turn out to be for their own country after it abandoned communism?

A few people in Russia got fantastically rich, referred to as the oligarchs, but most everything else was worse off until Vladimir Putin put the country on a more realistic course (and often clashed with the oligarchs). Some of the very rich brought wealth to other countries. So many bought expensive homes in London that it became known as Londongrad.

Just stop and ponder this. The city where Marx had written his theory was flooded with wealth. This flood of wealth was indirectly due to that theory. Marx's theory had supposedly been proven wrong, not in Britain but in Russia, but then the capitalist theory that Marxism was a reaction against had been proven to be even worse. Marx, in writing his theory, was reacting against the capitalist concentration of wealth by a few rich people. But now people who had gained wealth in this way were bringing it into the city where Marx had written his theory.

Could Marx have imagined that it would turn out like this?

The irony continues. Britain was brought economically to the right to keep the wealth coming in, which alienated Scotland where Adam Smith had written capitalist theory. The nationalist party in Scotland organized a referendum on independence.

This means that the referendum in Scotland on the breakup of Britain was due indirectly to wealth coming into London, much of it from Russia, in which some had concentrated wealth after the country had adapted the theory written in Scotland after the supposed failure of the theory written in London but they would find reason to take wealth out of the country after the theory written in Scotland would fail even worse than the one written in London.

Could Adam Smith have imagined that it would turn out like this?

Wealth from outside coming into London drives up prices and rents, making life more difficult for the non-wealthy, possibly creating similar conditions to those which originally inspired Marx. Maybe we can start the whole cycle again, with both sides moving closer to the center until each realizes that it has only half of the complete answer.Neither the nation state, religion nor profit motive have faded away as Marx predicted they would. Even when religion does fade away, ideologies such as that of Marx take their place as secular religions.

However, Marx might be pleased with unions, minimum wage laws, safety and working hours regulations and unemployment and social benefits, and especially mandatory public education. All of which were virtually unheard of in the Nineteenth Century.The ideal of Marxism is very much manifested online, as free applications such as this blog and my two favorite web sites, www.maps.google.com  and www.wikipedia.org , but are ultimately driven by the profit motive, as defined by Adam Smith.