Countryside And Class

[TremulousTetra]

Was going to write a proper article but now I'm pissed and tired so it's more vague thoughts in article forms, but the thread needs starting so this'll do to set it off.


The list of grievances of the rural working class is a long one. The decline of post offices and local shops everywhere has been well document and in the countryside the absence of reliable public transport, or even the existence of public transport, has compounded the difficulties this creates. Rising house prices in urban areas have led to a huge increase in commuters with corresponding rises in house prices which has been unmatched by rural wages. Since there are no work pensions for the farm labourers the erosion of the state pension has had particularly harsh affects in the countryside, especially when combined with the physical isolation of small villages. And there are the traditional complaints, even after advances in wages and conditions during the first half of the 90’s, farm labourers will still typically earn £10,000 a year working 12 out of 14 days. There has also been a steep and constant reduction in the number of people employed on farms over the last 50 years and with no jobs replacing them obtaining any kind of employment has been increasing tricky for those not prepared to bow to the demands of capital and ’get on their bike’.

The Countryside Alliance and it’s campaign for the continuation of fox hunting initially appear odd vehicles for the expression of these grievances. The CA is led solely by middle, if not upper class people and, despite it’s claims to stand for more than just fox hunting, it was formed in response to a possible ban on fox hunting through a merger of the British Field Sports Society, the Countryside Movement and the Countryside Business Group, all groups who existed solely to perpetuate blood sports. Fox hunting also is predominantly (although not exclusively) a middle class activity. Yet to see the Countryside Alliance and associated demonstrations solely as a middle class vehicle for a middle class pursuit would be to miss how it has responded to the more demands of the rural working class and has become a vehicle for these desires.

These issues that primarily affect the rural working class, and the culture surrounding the rural working class (that working class people can wear tweed, fish and shoot is something that the leaders of groups such as the SWP have failed to comprehend) have been ignored by the left to such an extent that the CA has been able to masquerade as the defender of these ‘rights’, whilst actually centring it’s campaign around the bosses rights. And because of the CA’s role as vehicle for these issues it is very easy to miss the significance of the increased radicalism and mobilisation of the rural working class in the same manner as much of the left dismissed the fuel protests as reactionary rubbish. But it is important, both as a sign that the political forms of the rural working class are changing to reflected how their employment relationships have changed and also because it presents an opportunity for the left (in the widest possible sense of the word) to reconnect with the rural working class and begin to respond to it’s desires rather than ignoring it’s existence entirely or dealing only with an idealised and imaginary rural working class that never has existed.

A very good thread. Just one point you raised.

Many S. W. members, including myself, were down on the fuel protest picket lines selling socialist worker and talking to people. Socialist worker sold quite well really. And in fact, I found myself having to defend such actions to stewards at the local bus station who attacked me for doing so, them concentrating on the role of farmers as etc in the miners' strike. time moves on, and so should we. but having the number of people necessary to do all the jobs that are needing to be done is a constant pressure.

Did socialist worker put as much effort into building the CA demonstration has the stop the war demonstration? I don't think they did, because as you point out the leadership of the CA at the moment is dominated by the wrong class interests.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Hmmm I'm no expert or anything, but generally aren't energy price increases useful for capital to attack working class power? Like in the 73 energy crisis where prices of all commodities shot up but wages remained static (or fell due to things like the 3 day week)?

Or are you talking more long-term, where actual shortage of oil reduced the amount technology can be used rather than just increasing its cost? Or would these factors cancel each other out? Hmmmm I'm confused...
<snip>

I suspect it's like decomposition, it can play both ways. As change occurs, both capital and workers respond to the change. Because the overall system is complex and still changing, the outcomes will be uncertain.

Specific effects of oil price increases include:

Short term: farmers already over-extended in debt from buying industrial inputs and living on very thin margins are severely hit by fuel price rises. In addition, because of the central role of oil in our economies, everybody else is hit by rising fuel costs and inflationary pressures in the short-medium term.

Long term: most of the 'Green Revolution' technology which underlies the mainstream forms of agriculture is oil dependent. Transport, machinery, pesticides, fertilizers etc. Without these, farm yield drops significantly, especially in farms which have restructured extensively around these technologies. Similar changes would also be likely to characterise effective action against climate change, soil erosion etc.

There are two basic technical ways to respond to this, each with implied political and economic characteristics.

Organic farming techniques, in some cases techniques that look more like gardening than farming (ie labour intensive, involving hand weeding, daily inspection for disease and pests, maximising diversity etc.) are substituted for oil-dependent industrial farming techniques. Cuba's response to the 'Special Period' is very instructive here. The other side of this adaptation is localisation. Food travels just a few miles in many cases, so transport fuel inputs and imports are reduced, disintermediation cuts out supermarket chains, marketing, packaging etc. It also has the characteristic that growth is limited by availability of land, water, sunlight, labour etc. On the whole, this approach tends to empower the people who participate in it as in the Cuban case, by improving food security, by fostering human and ecological health and by helping to build up community and solidarity. It also has potential for conflict with agribusiness, major landowners, property developers etc.

The other approach, favoured by agri-business, is to look towards genetic modification for alternatives to some petrochemical inputs, ie by modifying crops against pests and diseases (and in the process gaining property rights over the seed lines) and presumably also looking to alternative energy sources (e.g. nuclear/hydrogen) to provide for long distance transport, power for machinery and so on, in order to maintain their industrial farming approach and continuing growth through the use of increasing external inputs. This tends to perpetuate and may even tend to increase the disempowerment of ordinary people in their characters as both workers and consumers.

 

[totaladdict]

Can't say I agree with the point re peasants, white lotus!! We country folk, well, I know we gots our little rhyme (I can't read and I cant write but I can droive a traaactor) but it's really only a wind up. We only speak loike 'is so people think we're thick....

(And I don't think the point stands anyway... peasants have revolted in the past because of real material conditions, not because some clever townies came and radicalised them.)

 

[Funky_monks]

Can't say I agree with the point re peasants, white lotus!! We country folk, well, I know we gots our little rhyme (I can't read and I cant write but I can droive a traaactor) but it's really only a wind up. We only speak loike 'is so people think we're thick....

(And I don't think the point stands anyway... peasants have revolted in the past because of real material conditions, not because some clever townies came and radicalised them.)

Well, oi wouldnt know anything about all that, only bein' a simple country boy n'all......................

 

[General Ludd]

Hmmm I'm no expert or anything, but generally aren't energy price increases useful for capital to attack working class power? Like in the 73 energy crisis where prices of all commodities shot up but wages remained static (or fell due to things like the 3 day week)?

Or are you talking more long-term, where actual shortage of oil reduced the amount technology can be used rather than just increasing its cost? Or would these factors cancel each other out? Hmmmm I'm confused...

It was used in the 1970's to decompose working class struggle but in the specific example of farm labourers I think it would be to their advantage, assuming that no alternative to increasing the number of labourers employed is found by capital. Cause if capital manages to use rising oil prices to attack the working class as a whole then the position of farm labourers would worsen because even if they individually should have been strengthened the general weakening of the working class would mean they couldn't take advantage. More later, got to catch a train in 20 minutes.

 

[The Black Hand]

Why are you talking in the past tense? Do you think that poachers no longer exist? Take it from me, there's plenty still going on.

It depends how you judge history, even this post will be IN THE PAST by the time you read it...

It's funny you bang on about poaching nuances. I know people don't appreciate it when I use this type of argument, but I think I know more about poaching than anybody who posts on these boards cos of the research I've done

AS for 'ideological differences', some of the evidence is in a book by VIncenzo Ruggiero called "The City and social movements", prentice hall, 2001, i think... [that reference could have slight innacuracies in it, but if you try google you will find the book i is on about...

The other stuff I'll get round to readuing when I have chance

 

[Pickman's model]

I think I know more about poaching than anybody who posts on these boards cos of the research I've done

ok, tbh.

what recipe d'you use for poached salmon?

 

[The Black Hand]

Here's a link to a great article
http://www.labouranimalwelfaresociety.org/articles/Racism of the Countryside Alliance.htm

 

[totaladdict]

Fuck me that article is tedious.

There's some interesting stuff in there re racism - especially towards gypsies etc (which is pretty bad in my experience)... no mention of racism towards Portuguese or Eastern European farm workers though - which is maybe not that weird cos they're quite a new development (here in Suffolk anyway, last 3 or 4 years has seen a big increase, esp. in places like Thetford etc) but does mean the article is missing something, considering it's about the CA.

Can't really say much more about it cos I could only manage skim reading most of it (too much waffle to pick through it properly). I did notice this bit though - "Countryside people have been in a minority since the urban population outstripped the rural in 1830, but this didn't stop them literally lording it over us..." - which is obviously pretty shit. I would come under the classification of "countryside people", as would millions of other people, and we haven't been fucking "lording it" over anyone.

 

[The Black Hand]

Fuck me that article is tedious.

There's some interesting stuff in there re racism - especially towards gypsies etc (which is pretty bad in my experience)... no mention of racism towards Portuguese or Eastern European farm workers though - which is maybe not that weird cos they're quite a new development (here in Suffolk anyway, last 3 or 4 years has seen a big increase, esp. in places like Thetford etc) but does mean the article is missing something, considering it's about the CA.

Can't really say much more about it cos I could only manage skim reading most of it (too much waffle to pick through it properly). I did notice this bit though - "Countryside people have been in a minority since the urban population outstripped the rural in 1830, but this didn't stop them literally lording it over us..." - which is obviously pretty shit. I would come under the classification of "countryside people", as would millions of other people, and we haven't been fucking "lording it" over anyone.

The author was clearly trying to convey that is was minority rule by the aristocracy ie. The Lords ruling... not too difficult to understand....though I see where you get your interpretation from....

AS for tedius, I think tracing the historical devlopment of class rule in detail IS important...

 

[totaladdict]

The author was clearly trying to convey that is was minority rule by the aristocracy ie. The Lords ruling... not too difficult to understand....though I see where you get your interpretation from....

AS for tedius, I think tracing the historical devlopment of class rule in detail IS important...

Am I to assume that the author was you?

Okay, fair enough about the detail thing - it IS important, I agree. I just got the feeling very early on that it was being written by someone who didn't know the countryside. Lots of book research, but no direct experience... and that lack of subtle knowledge shows - in the lack of accuracy in defining who exactly is being discussed for one thing (and if you're not being accurate then detail doesn't matter for shit). This is the full paragraph from which I took that quote:

"The Countryside Alliance is trying to position itself as the defenders of British liberty protecting minority interests using the language of civil rights - but this is glossing over the overwhelminng weight of evidence to the contrary. Countryside people have been in a minority since the urban population outstripped the rural in 1830, but this didn't stop them literally lording it over us till the hereditary principle was finally challenged in the House of Lords in 2,000 - but some of them are still lording it. The evidence also shows that these people have historically persecuted the real countryside minorities, the gypsies, and more recently the travellers on the streets and in legislation."

I think it shows a basic lack of understanding of the way country people see themselves.

'The author' is obviously talking about the rural population in general when s/he talks about them becoming "a minority since the urban population outstripped the rural in 1830". So then s/he is obviously also refering to the rural population in general when talking about "them lording it over us".

How is the term 'lording it' generally used by you? Round here it doesn't lead to any insinuations of actual aristocracy, it simply means 'living it up at the expense of someone else'.

And just so I'm not hanging this lack of subtelty on one quote, here are a few more:

"The 'Countryside' is seen as a place of all things traditionally British, it’s almost entirely white, ‘cultured’, patriotic, heterosexual, family centred, beef eating, conservative, and in places very wealthy."

Why not talk about ',and in places very poor.'?

And this:

"In Britain today the urban masses are again denied land rights, the money to go hunting, and perhaps with the availability of food the issue is of equality of aspirations and resources at birth against the demanded arrogance to go hunting with no social obligations."

And what about the rural masses who are denied the exact same rights?

The author is showing a real lack of tact, and continuing to push the message that rural people are somehow the enemy. In the same way 'the left' has been guilty of pushing poor w/class people towards the BNP by ignoring their real concerns, that article is guilty of ignoring the concerns of the rural poor - and would probably push us in a similar direction if it had a readership of more than 20.

(That final coment might be a bit harsh, but that's just my "conservative persecution complex" coming out.)

 

[The Black Hand]

I just got the feeling very early on that it was being written by someone who didn't know the countryside. Lots of book research, but no direct experience... and that lack of subtle knowledge shows - in the lack of accuracy in defining who exactly is being discussed for one thing (and if you're not being accurate then detail doesn't matter for shit). This is the full paragraph from which I took that quote:

Look, I don't want to boast but... I know what the countryside is I come from 'rural stock'.

"The Countryside Alliance is trying to position itself as the defenders of British liberty protecting minority interests using the language of civil rights - but this is glossing over the overwhelminng weight of evidence to the contrary. Countryside people have been in a minority since the urban population outstripped the rural in 1830, but this didn't stop them literally lording it over us till the hereditary principle was finally challenged in the House of Lords in 2,000 - but some of them are still lording it. The evidence also shows that these people have historically persecuted the real countryside minorities, the gypsies, and more recently the travellers on the streets and in legislation."

I think it shows a basic lack of understanding of the way country people see themselves.

Erm, no. Perhaps it is because I understand some of them and the conservative mindset [not the only mindset of course] all too well

'The author' is obviously talking about the rural population in general when s/he talks about them becoming "a minority since the urban population outstripped the rural in 1830". So then s/he is obviously also refering to the rural population in general when talking about "them lording it over us".

Yes, your first sentence in this para is correct. This was used to show that their was no democratic legitimacy when the aristocracy was 'lording' it. 'Lording it' was used to mean the direct mechanism of class rule, if it includes others in your opinion that is your problem.


And just so I'm not hanging this lack of subtelty on one quote, here are a few more:

"The 'Countryside' is seen as a place of all things traditionally British, it’s almost entirely white, ‘cultured’, patriotic, heterosexual, family centred, beef eating, conservative, and in places very wealthy."

Why not talk about ',and in places very poor.'?

Because the aim was to talk about the right wing, the foxhunters, the landowners, the aristocracy, and the Countryside Alliance. But then, this is obvious, you obviously have a different agenda.

And this:

"In Britain today the urban masses are again denied land rights, the money to go hunting, and perhaps with the availability of food the issue is of equality of aspirations and resources at birth against the demanded arrogance to go hunting with no social obligations."

And what about the rural masses who are denied the exact same rights?

Just because it's not their doesn't mean the author is unaware of the rural working class. In fact, I believe the article mentions the T & G rural workers section with 20000 members.

The author is showing a real lack of tact, and continuing to push the message that rural people are somehow the enemy. In the same way 'the left' has been guilty of pushing poor w/class people towards the BNP by ignoring their real concerns, that article is guilty of ignoring the concerns of the rural poor - and would probably push us in a similar direction if it had a readership of more than 20.

(That final coment might be a bit harsh, but that's just my "conservative persecution complex" coming out.)

Again you miss the point, which was to concentrate on the neo-conservative, and in places proto fascist, elements within the reactionary countryside movement. An article aimed at 'mobilising' the rural poor would be TOTALLY different, therefore your 'critique' is wide of the mark and possibly disingenuous. As for the readership, definately add 2 more naughts, and it could be approaching or surpassing the third...

 

[totaladdict]

Fuck me.

I haven't the time for this crap. Say what you want about the obviousness of the point, but you can fuck off with your snide accusations of being disingenuous and having a different agenda. I've made clear from the start of this thread (and in others) that I have the interests of my people at heart.

If you can't handle some criticism without resorting to snideness and baseless accusations then all your talk of 'building a movement' (on other threads) is obviously complete bollocks.

 

[totaladdict]

"...the aim was to talk about the right wing, the foxhunters, the landowners, the aristocracy, and the Countryside Alliance....

....Just because it's not their doesn't mean the author is unaware of the rural working class....

....you miss the point, which was to concentrate on the neo-conservative, and in places proto fascist, elements within the reactionary countryside movement. An article aimed at 'mobilising' the rural poor would be TOTALLY different..."

I don't care much about what you aimed to do. I was pointing out some dodgy areas, where someone who identifies with the term rural - or country - might infer an (industrial capitalist inspired*) anti rural prejudice. All you want to do is defend your own ego.


* we can all make cheap digs.

 

[The Black Hand]

Fuck me.

I haven't the time for this crap. Say what you want about the obviousness of the point, but you can fuck off with your snide accusations of being disingenuous and having a different agenda. I've made clear from the start of this thread (and in others) that I have the interests of my people at heart.

If you can't handle some criticism without resorting to snideness and baseless accusations then all your talk of 'building a movement' (on other threads) is obviously complete bollocks.

You not the only one who hasn't time for this crap. You were the one who had criticisms that were off the mark, and I showed why that was. I said you had a different agenda, you did. If that is snide, that was because of the terms of the argument that you created. As for the interests of 'your people' being close to your heart, so did Hitler I do want to build a movement, but that will happen in the real world, not the virtual one Debate is the lifeblood of a movement, if you can't stand the heat get out of the fire or you could start by stopping posing false questions.

 

[The Black Hand]

"...the aim was to talk about the right wing, the foxhunters, the landowners, the aristocracy, and the Countryside Alliance....

....Just because it's not their doesn't mean the author is unaware of the rural working class....

....you miss the point, which was to concentrate on the neo-conservative, and in places proto fascist, elements within the reactionary countryside movement. An article aimed at 'mobilising' the rural poor would be TOTALLY different..."

I don't care much about what you aimed to do. I was pointing out some dodgy areas, where someone who identifies with the term rural - or country - might infer an (industrial capitalist inspired*) anti rural prejudice. All you want to do is defend your own ego.


* we can all make cheap digs.

Durrrr, try putting 'breath of waste' in the right order and apply it to your argument here... You're still posing false issues at the article from a false standpoint

 

[totaladdict]

Well yes, I suppose what I'm saying is a waste of time - since you never take on board what others are saying (judging from past threads).

There's nothing false about it though.

I'll hold my hands up to being a little over sensitive - but I still think my criticisms hold water. That article does show a lack of sensitivity to what you attack as a "conservative persecution complex", which is in fact a very real feeling among rural working class people that they are forgotten, misunderstood and ignored. The kind of feeling that would only increase if they happened to read your article.

If you want to "concentrate on the neo-conservative, and in places proto fascist, elements within the reactionary countryside movement" then it would surely be a good idea not to alienate those within the countryside who aren't neo-conservative, proto fascist or reactionary!

Just to be clear, I'm not defending any of the unsavoury elements that you highlight that exist in rural areas - "the right wing, the foxhunters, the landowners, the aristocracy, and the Countryside Alliance." - so I really don't know where you're coming from with this different agenda crap.

 

[White Lotus]

An article aimed at 'mobilising' the rural poor would be TOTALLY different

Uh huh.

Even those who are white, heterosexual and eat beef?

 

[The Black Hand]

Well yes, I suppose what I'm saying is a waste of time - since you never take on board what others are saying (judging from past threads).

There's nothing false about it though.

I'll hold my hands up to being a little over sensitive - but I still think my criticisms hold water. That article does show a lack of sensitivity to what you attack as a "conservative persecution complex", which is in fact a very real feeling among rural working class people that they are forgotten, misunderstood and ignored. The kind of feeling that would only increase if they happened to read your article.

If you want to "concentrate on the neo-conservative, and in places proto fascist, elements within the reactionary countryside movement" then it would surely be a good idea not to alienate those within the countryside who aren't neo-conservative, proto fascist or reactionary!

Just to be clear, I'm not defending any of the unsavoury elements that you highlight that exist in rural areas - "the right wing, the foxhunters, the landowners, the aristocracy, and the Countryside Alliance." - so I really don't know where you're coming from with this different agenda crap.

I will spell it out and make it clearer... the article concentrated "on the neo-conservative, and in places proto fascist, elements within the reactionary countryside movement"... therefore the only relevant grounds for criticism would be whether it succeeded or not in its' OWN TERMS OF REFERENCE, on what was known or was possible to know at the time it was written. The issues therefore that you critisize it for are false ones... (not that they are unreal issues in themselves). Your agenda IS different, yours is that of appealing to the rural poor at every available turn (or so it seems), go ahead, just do it...

The 'conservative persecution complex' is a widely observed phenomena, and something encouraged by the right... The article was never intended to be stuffed through people's doors so stop being silly by saying that the rural working class would be forced further to the right if they read it... The article was intended as an internal movement propaganda intervention, to clarify the dangers posed by the 'Alliance'... It's not that what you're saying is a waste of time, I've even acknowledged where you are right in earlier posts, but yours is a different subject.

Please go ahead and write the article you would give to the rural working class, so we can all see where we are all 'going wrong'. White lotus at least wants to see it; it would probably include housing issues, transport issues, employment issues, etc, encourage class struggle, and the joining up of struggles... Does that make it clearer?

 

[Streathamite]

sorry to break this up - but a big ^Thank-you to Gen. Ludd for this thread> I've nearly finished my first reading (will then reread in more detail). it is quite, quite superb, and a real eye-opener.

 

[totaladdict]

I will spell it out and make it clearer... the article concentrated "on the neo-conservative, and in places proto fascist, elements within the reactionary countryside movement"... therefore the only relevant grounds for criticism would be whether it succeeded or not in its' OWN TERMS OF REFERENCE, on what was known or was possible to know at the time it was written. The issues therefore that you critisize it for are false ones... (not that they are unreal issues in themselves). Your agenda IS different, yours is that of appealing to the rural poor at every available turn (or so it seems), go ahead, just do it...

The 'conservative persecution complex' is a widely observed phenomena, and something encouraged by the right... The article was never intended to be stuffed through people's doors so stop being silly by saying that the rural working class would be forced further to the right if they read it... The article was intended as an internal movement propaganda intervention, to clarify the dangers posed by the 'Alliance'... It's not that what you're saying is a waste of time, I've even acknowledged where you are right in earlier posts, but yours is a different subject.

Please go ahead and write the article you would give to the rural working class, so we can all see where we are all 'going wrong'. White lotus at least wants to see it; it would probably include housing issues, transport issues, employment issues, etc, encourage class struggle, and the joining up of struggles... Does that make it clearer?

Well, thanks for that post.

I was just in the middle of writing a post apologising for my part in derailing this thread so I might as well post it here now:

Apologies for helping to kill this thread then.

If anyone still wants to discuss these issues, ignore the last 15 posts or whatever and carry on. Maybe we can start from here:

Originally posted by General Ludd:
"...if capital manages to use rising oil prices to attack the working class as a whole then the position of farm labourers would worsen because even if they individually should have been strengthened the general weakening of the working class would mean they couldn't take advantage. More later..."

Or we could go way back and start again from pre-oil price increase related stuff if that has killed the class analysis stuff.... maybe we could start again from General Ludds other post and try to put some meat on some of the issues it brings up:

"The first sign for me is that, like in the cities, absenteeism and workplace theft and sabotage have increased in rural areas, like in the cities. What is significant about this is that whilst in the cities these new forms of resistance have appeared as a result of old modes of struggle (unions etc) becoming outdated and inefficient, whilst in the countryside these old modes of struggle were always much weaker for both cultural and strategic reasons (the lack of mass factories in particular). So in the cities increases in sickies is a sign of a shift in struggle, whilst in the countryside it indicates an increase in the level of struggle. More anecdotally I think in the last 10 years there has been an increase in the political consciosness of the rural working class, so that now there is now a 'mob' (and mob in a non-derogatory sense) that the CA can try and harness to achieve its political goals. I also think the state has become more important, so the working class in the countryside sees itself more in opposition to the state than previously where the played much less of a role in working class ideas which were, imo, much more localised. It's all got very wooly now but effectively I'm attempting to say that there has been a noticable increase in extent to which the rural working class sees itself as a whole, and it's struggles as a whole, rather than as seperate struggles and seperate individuals."

--------

As for writing an article... not really my thing (I'll just keep shouting my mouth of at work, and at footy, and in the pub). I imagine someone like General Ludd is much more capable.

(I'll drop the other stuff, though I still have to say that maybe it's not a good idea to post a sometimes insensitive article that is meant as an "internal movement propaganda intervention" in a thread where people (well, me certainly) are sensitive to being overlooked by the largely urban mainstream and alternative media.)

 

[The Black Hand]

The thread was about 'Countryside and Class', so I posted a link because the article did discuss class, perhaps not in the terms you wanted but I thought it was relevant to the issue as a whole...

 

[kropotkin]

can you please stop posting on this thread BlackHand. It was really good before you started being a twat. If you have interesting points to make, perhaps you could make them through someone less likely to piss people off?

<grin> etc...

 

[White Lotus]

More anecdotally I think in the last 10 years there has been an increase in the political consciosness of the rural working class, so that now there is now a 'mob' (and mob in a non-derogatory sense) that the CA can try and harness to achieve its political goals. I also think the state has become more important, so the working class in the countryside sees itself more in opposition to the state than previously where the played much less of a role in working class ideas which were, imo, much more localised. It's all got very wooly now but effectively I'm attempting to say that there has been a noticable increase in extent to which the rural working class sees itself as a whole, and it's struggles as a whole, rather than as seperate struggles and seperate individuals.

That's pretty much as I see things. Rural people (and I'm not distinguishing between "working class" and "petit bourgeoise" here although I exclude those who own counties) have had a growing sense of anger. The actual sources of their problems are various – eg big business supermarkets, insane EU bureaucracy, oil prices – but they're not going to flock to any unions because that's seen as New Labour who are associated with much of this. Not perhaps so much because of their actions, but because of their lack of action.

Why has this crystallised around hunting? Partly because of the role of the CA, who have hunting on their agenda but at the moment seem to be the only political group who even recognise rural issues. But if you take my case as an example, I've never been hunting, wouldn't go on one, and don't approve of it. (Although I do accept there's a need to humanely control fox populations, when you live in the countryside you see how destructive they are, rather than the Beatrix Potteresque image!) On the other hand, there's lots of things I wouldn't do that I don't feel needful to prevent other people from doing. I'm angry that it seems the only interest the government have in the countryside is to concrete over more of it, or to waste precious legislative time in banning a minority sport. From where I sit, it looks like a cheap shot designed to appease urban hardleft backbenchers who are pissed off over Iraq.

I think it is entirely possible to economically regenerate the countryside in ways that are eco-friendly – starting with the fact that if you have local employment, there'll be less of a dormitory commuter effect. But to do that you have to have infrastructure in place and that is the role of the government. They have underfunded roads and rail, allowed the likes of British Telecom to "cherry pick" the more densely populated areas for services such as broadband, introduced moves (eg bank transfers for pensions) that help kill off small post offices, and are about to allow competition to the Royal Mail that will spell the end of universal flat-rate post. They failed to reverse the bus privatisation that cost us rural routes and continued the disappearance of council housing in both towns and countryside.

So people here feel they were shafted by the Conservatives in the interest of profit – and that shafting has been continued by Labour. So, lots of disillusioned, disenfranchised voters ... anyone want us?

 

[The Black Hand]

can you please stop posting on this thread BlackHand. It was really good before you started being a twat. If you have interesting points to make, perhaps you could make them through someone less likely to piss people off?

<grin> etc...

Now now sonny don't get lippy to your elders.

 

[kropotkin]

No Gods, No Elders!!

 

[The Black Hand]

Touche

 

[The Black Hand]

Just noticed that the Labour Party Animal Welfare Section
has redesigned the website with a new address. Hasn't that guy been associated with our movement?

http://www.labouranimalwelfaresociety.org/gary/New articles/Racism and the Countryside Alliance.htm

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Was going to write a proper article but now I'm pissed and tired so it's more vague thoughts in article forms, but the thread needs starting so this'll do to set it off.


The list of grievances of the rural working class is a long one. The decline of post offices and local shops everywhere has been well document and in the countryside the absence of reliable public transport, or even the existence of public transport, has compounded the difficulties this creates. Rising house prices in urban areas have led to a huge increase in commuters with corresponding rises in house prices which has been unmatched by rural wages. Since there are no work pensions for the farm labourers the erosion of the state pension has had particularly harsh affects in the countryside, especially when combined with the physical isolation of small villages. And there are the traditional complaints, even after advances in wages and conditions during the first half of the 90?s, farm labourers will still typically earn £10,000 a year working 12 out of 14 days. There has also been a steep and constant reduction in the number of people employed on farms over the last 50 years and with no jobs replacing them obtaining any kind of employment has been increasing tricky for those not prepared to bow to the demands of capital and ?get on their bike?.

The Countryside Alliance and it?s campaign for the continuation of fox hunting initially appear odd vehicles for the expression of these grievances. The CA is led solely by middle, if not upper class people and, despite it?s claims to stand for more than just fox hunting, it was formed in response to a possible ban on fox hunting through a merger of the British Field Sports Society, the Countryside Movement and the Countryside Business Group, all groups who existed solely to perpetuate blood sports. Fox hunting also is predominantly (although not exclusively) a middle class activity. Yet to see the Countryside Alliance and associated demonstrations solely as a middle class vehicle for a middle class pursuit would be to miss how it has responded to the more demands of the rural working class and has become a vehicle for these desires.

These issues that primarily affect the rural working class, and the culture surrounding the rural working class (that working class people can wear tweed, fish and shoot is something that the leaders of groups such as the SWP have failed to comprehend) have been ignored by the left to such an extent that the CA has been able to masquerade as the defender of these ?rights?, whilst actually centring it?s campaign around the bosses rights. And because of the CA?s role as vehicle for these issues it is very easy to miss the significance of the increased radicalism and mobilisation of the rural working class in the same manner as much of the left dismissed the fuel protests as reactionary rubbish. But it is important, both as a sign that the political forms of the rural working class are changing to reflected how their employment relationships have changed and also because it presents an opportunity for the left (in the widest possible sense of the word) to reconnect with the rural working class and begin to respond to it?s desires rather than ignoring it?s existence entirely or dealing only with an idealised and imaginary rural working class that never has existed.

It seems a pity that this thread has gone quiet. Anyone feel like waking it up?

(I'm not going to try myself, because I helped to derail it away from class)

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Bump! Because this thread is extremely relevant to a couple of other threads that are going on right now. Thanks for the very timely reminder totaladdict