Ed Miliband’s take on Leninism

As little Ed was growing up, he must have heard numerous quotations from Lenin.

Ed’s father Ralph was a Marxist academic who once pledged a personal commitment to the socialist cause at the grave of Karl Marx. By the time Ed was born, in 1969, Ralph was certain the cause had been betrayed by the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites.

Those heretics weren’t hard enough, nor competent enough. Real socialism should put the velvet glove of economic excellence on the iron fist of oppression.

Lenin, Ralph’s idol, emphasised that duality in his 1920 pronouncement: “Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.” This must have been part of the prayer-like mantras in the Miliband household, and I’m sure by the time he went to school little Ed could recite many of Lenin’s commandments by heart.

Marxists have a particular fondness for epigrammatic adages, such as “religion is the opium of the people” (Marx), or “Marx’s teaching is omnipotent because it’s true” (Lenin), or “The state is nothing but an instrument of oppression of one class by another” (Engels), or “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic” (Stalin), or “If you can’t convince a fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement” (Trotsky).

I’m sure Ralph Miliband’s house was alive with the beautiful sounds of such words to live by, and Ed has indeed been living by them ever since. However, he has let Ralph and his idols down by having so far been unable to match their aphoristic output.

Fair enough, Ed has tried his best to be a real Marxist in deed, if not yet in snappy word. When in 2010 his elder brother David was the odds-on candidate for Labour leadership, Ed sneaked in and stabbed Dave in the back, winning the coveted prize for himself.

Ed, where is your brother Dave? Sent to Coventry, or rather to the US where he made his fortune in assorted sinecures. That was less sanguinary than the internecine conflict between Stalin and Trotsky, but just as effective in eliminating a fraternal rival.

Ed then promptly lost the general election to Dave Cameron, which was a classic case of the bland leading the bland. Thereafter Ed languished on the back benches until July 2024, when he became Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

The title sounds ever so slightly oxymoronic, not to say moronic. After all, the concept of net zero was introduced specifically to undermine energy production, and Ed is keenly aware of this part of his brief.

In the good Marxist tradition, he clouds this destructive intent in the fog of bien pensant waffle, in this case about our use of fossil fuels threatening to fry ‘our planet’ well-done. In fact, Britain produces only about 0.8 per cent of the global CO2, compared to China’s 34 per cent and America’s 14 per cent.

However, Ed goes beyond parochial English interests to extend his protective instincts to the whole global atmosphere, and he is in no way deterred by the demonstrable fact that Britain’s contribution to it is negligible. As Stalin said, “If facts are stubborn things, then so much the worse for facts”.

Truth is whatever ‘the general line of the Party’ says it is, and, when the general line changes, so does the truth. The general line at the moment is that ‘our planet’ is overheating to a point of extinction.

Never mind all evidence to the contrary. Such as the fact that ‘our planet’ has been warmer than it is now for some 80 per cent of its known age, which started long before those petrol-guzzling vehicles began to roll off the production lines.

It’s not facts but principles that matter. And the principle that matters in this case is that fossil fuels fired up the Industrial Revolution. In its turn, the Industrial Revolution gave a boost to capitalism, that scriptural enemy of all Marxists.

Hence, what’s good for capitalism is bad for Marxism and vice versa. Continuing use of fossil fuels is undeniably good for capitalism, which is why Ed has pledged to fight those offensive substances with every ounce of his strength.

He put an end to any new drilling in the North Sea, and his tireless propaganda has made shale gas exploration unthinkable. That fracking produces earthquakes is another arrow in the quiver of Marxist anti-capitalist armoury. In fact, it’s another falsehood: the seismic events produced by hydraulic fracturing are no greater than those produced by city traffic.

However, while even Ed’s Labour colleagues are beginning to hint that perhaps a bit more drilling is preferable to electricity bills beggaring Britons, he remains steadfast.

Stepping up oil production is an obvious response to the looming energy crisis, but Marxists worship a higher truth than obvious responses. Ed’s response may be less obvious, but it shows the kind of subtlety than no non-Marxist could ever muster:

“As we face the second fossil fuel shock in less than five years, the lesson for our country is clear… the era of fossil fuel security is over.” Tell this to the Chinese and the Americans, Ed. See what Xi and Trump have to say about it.

Xi is a bit of an enigma to me, but I can predict Trump’s response: “Ed, take the words ‘off’ and ‘f***’ and arrange them in the right order.” Say what you will about the Donald, but his take on energy policy is rather the opposite of Marxist sabotage.

Here goes, class: when oil becomes scarce, should we step its production up or down? What, up? Who said that? Arrest him on the charge of global warming denial.

Re-examining Lenin’s 1920 sermon on electrification, “Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country”, Ed must realise it’s hopelessly anachronistic. What’s needed at this time is another version of that maxim, but Ed seems to be struggling with that rhetorical task.

Since it hurts me to see a fellow man in such discomfort, I’d like to lend him a helping hand. How about this: “Socialism is Labour power plus the de-electrification of the whole country.” Yes, that works. What it misses in originality it gains in honesty.

P.S. A student of my Moscow university was once expelled for being better at algebra than at politics. When asked to define communism, he said, “Electrification minus Soviet power”.