Control/Power;And how the revolution can and will come from the majority

[durruti02]

One of the things that come thru these pages is that so many of the left while spouting about revolution and all,actually when there are real issuesto be dealt with DENY to people their right to make decisions on the basis that it will be reactionary/racist etc etc

equally they utterly fail to understand that much of todays unrest e.g. re immigration is due to the fact that people are impotent /powerless in front if capital and it compliant state ..

AND that the left instead of sympathising with the people CONDEMNS them for being reactionary and nationalist and little englander ..

So you say but the majority/middle england are NOT interested in revolution .. well thats because both the state and the left wing have told people that the left are not interested in them .. and it is true .. the left are not interested in the ordinary person ..

The left is still obsessed finding some holy grail in some shat upon minority. This will never work .. those shat on are actually most likely to except crumbs off the table .. It is those who have enough who will make a REAL revolution. .. so they lurch from one minority to another .. currently the 'opressed ' muslims ( like muslims are fking oppressed in this country!)

but if we look outside we see an enormous dissatisfaction .. not one related to poverty ( there are VERY few people in real poverty nowadays) .. not too oppression .. BUT to a lack of control over our lives ..

it comes out in arguments over cars / cameras / immigration/ europe / smoking / flying the flag / closed shop / sons and daughters / paedophiles

and almost EVERY times the left lines up behind the state condemning those who protest those who demand a say as reactionary / behind the times etc etc .. it is tragic

the @ and sensible left have a massive captive audience is this area .. the bnp can NEVER claim to be in favour of giving control back to people as theybelieve in a strong state ..

and ah ha .. thi is the crux .. of course the orthodox left believe in a strong state too .. so they are scared of the idea of giving people power over local affairs/law/justice

time for them to move on ..

 

[mk12]

excellent post.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Alot of generalisations but to pick at one; what do you mean by left?

 

[clmk]

the orthodox left believe in a strong state too .. so they are scared of the idea of giving people power over local affairs/law/justice That sounds like the SWP and they have no interest in a democratic country, which isn't based on a class system, the journalist I met from SWP at a NHS protest march had studied physics at cambridge university...............I wouldn't really call the SWP the left.....

 

[danny la rouge]

There's a lot in that post, and a lot I agree with, especially the central point about control. But my eye was drawn to one statement you make:

It is those who have enough who will make a REAL revolution.

I'm interested in hearing more about this. Why do you think that is, and what do you mean by "real revolution"? You capitalise real, so I'm assuming you are contrasting it with other nominal revolutions, phony revolution. I think I know what you'd mean by phony revolution. But what do you think a real revolution would look like. And what are the conditions for it?

 

[tbaldwin]

As an Authoritarian Socialist i am all for ordinary people having more choice on issues that really matter......

And i think the laughable Libertarian Left are usually control freaks.....They want to deny ordinary people a say in any issues they suspect they cant be trusted on......Look how many times anyone who strays from an Orthodx left view is dismissed as a reactionary tabloid loving fascist etc etc.....

 

[durruti02]

There's a lot in that post, and a lot I agree with, especially the central point about control. But my eye was drawn to one statement you make:I'm interested in hearing more about this. Why do you think that is, and what do you mean by "real revolution"? You capitalise real, so I'm assuming you are contrasting it with other nominal revolutions, phony revolution. I think I know what you'd mean by phony revolution. But what do you think a real revolution would look like. And what are the conditions for it?

i think you know what i mean .. i mean you can have a unreal revolution based on those who have nothing, rising up, but being lead and ultimately ruled by another elite .. e.g russia 1917

if and when the majority ( i am referring to) decide on revolution they will not allow for this .. most people have NO time for the left now as it is .. they see in them power people/fakes/frauds etc ..

real revolution is when it is not blanquist or leninist but popular .. i sympathise ( to an extent!!) with the SPGB who argue you can only have revolution when you have argued and converted the majority to that position

most of the so called far left ( SWP etc ) and most @s still follow the evangelist/ leninist/blanquist idea of the small groups leading revolution .. and as much as any mad christians, they will laugh when you say to them, ' but no one is interested in you' .. tbh it is middle class ideology .. the idea that the w/c is too stupid to run things themselves and need leadership .. people see thru that

and unreal revolutions do not deal with power .. as the leninists do not see this as an issue ... it has to be intregal not just to when the rev starts but in arguing for change now


we need to turn all this on its head .. start absolutely at the base .. acknoledge that ordinary people contain within them and their communties as much rev history and solidarity and spirit as the so called flame bearers of revolution of the left/@

and absolutely respect people and work with them .. all the cults leftist and @ go to people with their manifestos already written .. this has to go ..

( and the reason i bang on about immigration is it is a classic case of the left/@NOT listenning to ordinary people .. not respecting what they feel .. and then they wonder why people listen more to the BNP than them! which is tragic as people may start moving toward racism and facism )

i always thought whilhelm riechs critique of lenism was spot on .. that the rev was not just lost cos of the white armies but the moment bolshevicks started taking power away from people .. then rev was lost ..

 

[durruti02]

Alot of generalisations but to pick at one; what do you mean by left?

old chestnut! .. the swp essentially .. but thru the last decades the IMG/SO etc etc .. the wrp/militant have essentially the same ideology but were more w/c .. and i add in 90% of the @s who while saying they are against power behave like they constantly know best ..

 

[kyser_soze]

Top OP Durruti - just finishing work now, but yeah, lot of sense talked there...

 

[Kid_Eternity]

old chestnut! .. the swp essentially .. but thru the last decades the IMG/SO etc etc .. the wrp/militant have essentially the same ideology but were more w/c .. and i add in 90% of the @s who while saying they are against power behave like they constantly know best ..

Fair enough, just wanted to be sure, sometimes when some people say left they mean one part of it is all...

 

[Crispy]

we need to turn all this on its head .. start absolutely at the base .. acknoledge that ordinary people contain within them and their communties as much rev history and solidarity and spirit as the so called flame bearers of revolution of the left/@

There's the rub - these communities, all communities really, have been eroded for the last 50 years. With the casualisation and free movement of labour (seperate issues btw), there are now less and less ties to hold communities together. Even the family is disintegrating. Time was when there'd be 3 or 4 generations under one roof, or at least in the same road. The baby-boomer's "everything, for me, now" attitude has ridden rough-shod over the majority of community solidarity that used to exist.

Some people might say that this has been the result of a concerted plan by those in power, others might say it's the natural outcome of global capitalism, others might blame freud for unleashing 'the individual'. Whatever the reason, it sucks, and is the major obstacle in the path of any potential mass revolution.

 

[Hawkeye Pearce]

I think that a "real" revolution only when the overwhelming majority of people decide to act for themselves outside of the state and outside of its blind alley political institutions. When people realise that that they will lead better lives without the state and without capitalist social relations dominating their lives and that they can work much better in a worker controlled workplace, then and only then will it happen. The job of everyone who believes in a non-capitalist non-statist future is to try and make this happen, not by pious lectures or shouting about something they read in the guardian that weekend. People at the moment feel powerless and more dissiullusioned than at any time over the past fifty years. The old ways of expressing discontent have been imploded (labour party) or turned into empty shells (trade unions) added to this is the fact that many of the ways in which working class communities bonded together have simply dissappeared (i.e. the factory, mine or mill) and these communities have become atomised. This is why people vote BNP in the north, the loss of everything that used to mean something to people, and a fear of the future combined with the powerlessness of their situation.

The political elite have nothing left to offer anymore and are widely despised but this doesn't mean that things are neccessarily turning leftwards they could turn rightwards rapidly unless a radical social movement can emerge.

 

[treelover]

Can i just say its good to have Danny back and i look forward to his often very incisive and illuminating posts.

 

[treelover]

Thats how i feel, totally unrepresented, powerlessness, but i dont think anarchism is going to come anytime soon and anyway i'm no anarchist. The welfare state at least, is to me is a guarantor of civil society, though disappearing fast.

but i certianaly won't vote BNP

This is why people vote BNP in the north, the loss of everything that used to mean something to people, and a fear of the future combined with the powerlessness of their situation.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Can i just say its good to have Danny back and i look forward to his often very incisive and illuminating posts.

Seconded, he's a dude.

 

[Hawkeye Pearce]

Thats how i feel, totally unrepresented, powerlessness, but i dont think anarchism is going to come anytime soon and anyway i'm no anarchist. The welfare state at least, is to me is a guarantor of civil society, though disappearing fast.

but i certianaly won't vote BNP

Most people don't at the moment. I was just laying down why i think people do and more might in the future.

 

[TeeJay]

...but if we look outside we see an enormous dissatisfaction .. not one related to poverty ( there are VERY few people in real poverty nowadays) .. not too oppression .. BUT to a lack of control over our lives ..

In the past the exploited poverty-striken masses were located side-by-side with the well-off in British cities.

In a far more globalised world the exploited poverty-striken masses are overwhealmingly in poor countries.

Anyone who calls themself a socialist or left-wing must be utterly deluded if they think that 'there are very few people in real poverty nowadays', unless their socialism or left-wingedness only extends as far as their own countries borders, in which case I would suggest that it is shallow and in fact petty nationalism not socialism at all.

durruti02, I would suggest you go and have a long, hard look at yourself and your 'ideology'.

 

[treelover]

agree with that, there is a political vaccuum and an open question as who is going to fill it. One of the things that people on the left 'just don't get' in some ways including me, is that many, most? people in the U.K are not very interested in politics, they certainly don't analyse it the way we do. So its really only at election time, when they decide who to vote for, that they really consider the issues, though obviously thru the years a 'mood' has been created, in many areas that mood favours the BNP. Erm, start again! I think what i am trying to say is to us on here, voting far right is a big deal, but for many its just a cross on a bit of paper, they will probably then forget about it. I do think that when the recession comes as it will, i do think the 'mood' will make more people put thier x next to the BNP.

Most people don't at the moment. I was just laying down why i think people do and more might in the future.

 

[Hawkeye Pearce]

Hardly anyone lacks for the trinkets of the modern world in the england. But much of this is based on credit card spending which you just know is going to end badly quite soon. Then all of this fake "prosperity" will come to an abrupt end.

 

[treelover]

anyone got the figures for personal debt, it is truly massive now and apparently the economy is now 2/3's based on services and consumer spending.

 

[mk12]

in the U.K are not very interested in politics

See, this is where I personally feel the left is wrong. You're right treelover, in the sense that people aren't necessarily interested in 'politics' with a capital P. IE. Politics meaning: parliamentary debates, elections, political theory, far-off events (iraq, iran, middle east, latin america etc). I feel the same - I get bored by newsnight, question time etc. I don't read the 'political' papers.

The left at the moment spends most of its time on these issues - when I was in the SWP, nearly every week I did a petition on Iraq. We pushed the political issues (political with a capital P again). Joining the SWP largely meant campaigning on issues like global debt, supporting the 'Iraqi resistance', going on about George Bush etc etc.

So the left is part of the problem in that it pushes this official politics (which may attract a few, but only ever a few). What we need to do in my opinion is focus on politics with a small p - issues which people get annoyed about and are actually relevant to other people. If people are more interested in crime than Iraq, why argue Iraq is the most important issue? Why not develop a theory about crime? Why not listen to people on that issue, and work alongside people who see this as a major issue?

edit: i know the swp focus on pensions and domestic things like that. I am saying the majority of the time they focus on the big foreign policy issues.

 

[treelover]

as i said what i mant was that the decision to put your x in the box for the bnp can be done on one day and then forgotten about,its only us and the media who make it a big thing.


re politics: er, that what i have been saying for years, bread and butter issues, not fetishing foreign policy which we can do little about.

 

[tbaldwin]

See, this is where I personally feel the left is wrong. You're right treelover, in the sense that people aren't necessarily interested in 'politics' with a capital P. IE. Politics meaning: parliamentary debates, elections, political theory, far-off events (iraq, iran, middle east, latin america etc). I feel the same - I get bored by newsnight, question time etc. I don't read the 'political' papers.

The left at the moment spends most of its time on these issues - when I was in the SWP, nearly every week I did a petition on Iraq. We pushed the political issues (political with a capital P again). Joining the SWP largely meant campaigning on issues like global debt, supporting the 'Iraqi resistance', going on about George Bush etc etc.

So the left is part of the problem in that it pushes this official politics (which may attract a few, but only ever a few). What we need to do in my opinion is focus on politics with a small p - issues which people get annoyed about and are actually relevant to other people. If people are more interested in crime than Iraq, why argue Iraq is the most important issue? Why not develop a theory about crime? Why not listen to people on that issue, and work alongside people who see this as a major issue?

edit: i know the swp focus on pensions and domestic things like that. I am saying the majority of the time they focus on the big foreign policy issues.

Excellent post.

 

[danny la rouge]

i think you know what i mean .. i mean you can have a unreal revolution based on those who have nothing, rising up, but being lead and ultimately ruled by another elite .. e.g russia 1917 ..

Right, I don't want to bang on about this because you raise some good points, and several other good points have been made in the thread. But I must be missing something. I do think I know what you mean by real/unreal revolutions, and as far as I understand I agree. The thing I'm interested in is the bit about those who have enough. Who are they, and why are they the drivers of change?

You seem to say the Russian revolution (as an example) failed because those who rose up had nothing. That's not an analysis I'm familiar with, and I'd like to hear more about it. I have to say that my initial reaction would be to disagree, but it intrigues me, so I'd like to hear more before I judge. Would another thread, maybe in theory, be a better place to discuss that aspect?

 

[kyser_soze]

The thing I'm interested in is the bit about those who have enough. Who are they, and why are they the drivers of change?

Possibly the big middle ground of people who aren't 'rich', but have enough income to buy their home, holiday once a year, run a car etc etc, i.e people who are likely to be content with their lives and status and comfortable with the status quo? I'm thinking about the vast swathes of people who live on Barret, Wimpey and Redrow new build estates and suchlike.

 

[danny la rouge]

And the reason the Russian revolution failed is because that demographic weren't involved?

 

[kyser_soze]

Russia didn't really have that demographic really tho, did it?

There are probably a 1001 reasons the RR failed:

Being a largely agrarian rather than industrialised society
No one really paying attention to power struggles at the top
Listening to that 'dictatorship of the proletariat' guff and accepting it...

There are probably more, but generally that it happened in an industrialising rather than industrialised society (same goes for China) and getting out of Karly's progress of history?

 

[Dissident Junk]

As I think we are going to see some dramatic shifts both economically and politically over the next ten years, I wonder whether we should expect a mini-revolution sooner. Things simply cannot economically go on as they are: there needs to be a correction, particularly regarding consumer debt and the cost of housing.

There was a piece the other day about a pensioner that has a £400,000 debt spread over 47 credit cards. Fashionable housing developments in Manchester are only selling 10% off plan, and the rest of the units are vacant. Repossession rates are increasing. The value of your pay packet hasn't risen since the 70s.

From my 'word on the street' sources, people are starting to get very pissed off, particularly now with this council tax/migration problem. The fallout from getting the handling of this situation wrong could be disastrous, and the overall picture looks like it could be worse than the late 80s. A vast swathe of people could end up on the shitheap, all because Brown refuses to look at the reality on the ground. Prudence, my arse.

And when shifts like this happen, coupled with the current political climate regarding Iraq and terrorism, we might just get some riots.

 

[treelover]

So do others see a crisis coming, particualry over resources such as water, and this is from no left wing source

Cost of water shortage: civil unrest, mass migration and economic collapse

Analysts see widespread conflicts by 2015 but pin hopes on technology and better management

John Vidal, environment editor
Thursday August 17, 2006
The Guardian


Cholera may return to London, the mass migration of Africans could cause civil unrest in Europe and China's economy could crash by 2015 as the supply of fresh water becomes critical to the global economy. That was the bleak assessment yesterday by forecasters from some of the world's leading corporate users of fresh water, 200 of the largest food, oil, water and chemical companies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1851654,00.html

 

[treelover]

what does that mean?

Fashionable housing developments in Manchester are only selling 10% off plan,