It's pure idealism, IMO, to believe that people ......

[durruti02]

It's pure idealism, IMO, to believe that people will be won to radical ideas outside of times when society is subject to great shocks.

i think this is one of the fundamental errors of leftism and one that has put us in the swamp/up the creek/deadend etc etc that we/the left are in

this 'disaster' politics / immiseration politics is totally wrong .. based on '.. only our chains to lose' i guess .. it is 150 years out of date

people who are desperate will always take reforms, will always settle for less than revolution ..

the left forever seeks out the new most oppressed group, the new immiserated group, the new minority that will lead the revolution, the shock that will open peoples eyes .. IT DOES NOT WORK .. revolution can only be based on the majority .. can only be based on APPEALING to the majority

people do not HAVE economic chains like they did ( at least in the uk eu and most of the western world ) .. unless you wish to write off ALL in the world who are economically ok ( food to live, roof over head etc)

the only way you will EVER get revolution is to create theory / politics / practice that is attractive to those who are comfortable .. and communism IS that good ( should be that good) .. but the left are incapablel of making thate argument

and why?? atually as they are NOT revolutionary .. they remain authoritartian elitist middle class top down managerial conservative .. really they are incapable of putting any arguement for change as in the 21st century they are still harking back to 19th reforms, STILL calling for a new bourgouis managerial revoluion EVEN when that has ALREADY ( in 1917-26) been seen to be inadequate to actually create real revolution

revolution is simple in the here and now .. people have been disempowered .. we never had that much but the w/c for over a couple of generations had through the LabParty and TUs at least one hand on power .. that has been removed .. communities have no say in what goes on .. unions are defeated .. it is power that is key .. our work MUST be geared towards empowerment .. the left do not do this .. they work at disempowering by collecting power in their 'elites' .. it has failed us for too long

(note how much of the neo liberalisms actions have been to reduce communal powerand boost individualism .. rtb, decreasing civil liberties, attcking TUs, ect etc and how they USE the ideas of choice when actully decreasing power for communities)

 

[butchersapron]

The middle 60s to 1974 - the greatest series of radical challenges to capitalism for decades at a rime of the greatest economic prosperity and security.

It's actually pure idealism to say that people will only 'be won' (if that's how you wish to proceed, rather than saying 'developing radical ideas on the basis of their own experience' etc)under certain situations rather than that they're capable of doing so under mnay different circumastances - as the concrete history of the 20th centuty clearly demonstrates.

I agree with the above point that today people see their current standard of living as non-negoitiable. Whether people sneer at that as consumerism or as i do, as a classical defence of socially and politically won needs (exactlky in long with what Marx wrote about historicvally ansd socially constructed needs), as a positive against the myth of consumerism. And that defence and exapnsion of these social needs is where we have to start. This was a view that i thought was already won after the experience of Italy in the 70s but seems to have dissapeared in favour of a 'thick passve comsuming proles', why oh why don't they see this - minds numbed by television o doubt approach

 

[The Black Hand]

Naomi Kleins new book "The Shock doctrine" is about disaster capitalism and how capitalism exploits all sorts of person made disasters (coups), 'natural' disasters (toon army, Katrina etc) economic shock therapy and war. It shows that the working class facing these is very unprepared to have any sort of response. It is not the interpretation of capitalism which is to blame, it is the lack of struggle, and the classes historical memory and theory which struggle brings.

Kleins is a thoroughly depressing book, but one which lays bare 'destructive reproduction' in a similar way that "No logo" did for the brand (both books incidentally have similar shortcomings).

 

[Steve Booth]

The system has endured many shocks

The system has endured many 'shocks' and can absorb a great deal of damage. Examples - the doubling of the price of oil in the 1970s - the present hike in the price of oil above $100 dollars a barrel.....

Why would people necessarily turn to revolutionary politics in a time of crisis? They might hold on harder to the things that they already have, or turn inwards. Rather than the Left, they might turn to the extreme right....

Perhaps a more successful pattern of activity would be to concentrate on a consistent pattern of small, but perceptible changes in the present, rather than to pin hopes on a possible cataclysmic change in the 'near' future.

In my opinion the catastrophe theory approach is rather like those newspaper or TV news reports where they say something is 'on the brink of collapse...' If a journalist says eg "The NHS is on the brink of collapse..." I always regard the story as false. There may be problems with it, but it will soldier on somehow. Ditto the capitalist system.

A real dole out of a single loaf of bread today is better than an idealistic promise of vast quantities of strawberries and cream tomorrow in the never realised future.

 

[Yossarian]

i think this is one of the fundamental errors of leftism and one that has put us in the swamp/up the creek/deadend etc etc that we/the left are in

the left forever seeks out the new most oppressed group, the new immiserated group, the new minority that will lead the revolution, the shock that will open peoples eyes .. IT DOES NOT WORK .. revolution can only be based on the majority .. can only be based on APPEALING to the majority

You make some good points there - but I'm not sure what you attribute the (extreme) unpopularity of revolutionary ideals to: people not understanding them, or people understanding and rejecting them?

 

[Spion]

I've no doubt the system can endure many shocks, but it seems to me the job of someone who wants to overthrow this society is to try and take hold of the opportunities such shocks provide. It still seems to me that people change most politically when they are forced to think of wider issues as they are compelled to advance or defend their interests.

The 60s/70s is interesting actually, because as well as economic uncertainty (of which there was a considerable amount also) for the w/cs there were great shocks (in the richer parts of the world) in terms of changes in social structure (race, gender etc) and in terms of war (Vietnam) and the dying of empire for the UK. 'Shocks' seem to come in a variety of forms, but that period was different to that we face now, which seems to me one - in the short/medium term - of economic vulnerability and inter-power rivalry as new economic powers begin to attampt to gain the political muscle they think they deserve.

And I'm not saying the arguments and the building of progressive currents of thought should be delayed. I just think that it'll take the bulk of the people saying, 'Hey, the things we have always believed are no longer making any sense. This system is lying to us,' before we see change of a radical nature.

I do also think people can react in left and right wing ways to crises, which is why I think that those who reckon they've got a good idea of how society works should attempt to create the best possible means of spreading those ideas.

 

[Spion]

You make some good points there - but I'm not sure what you attribute the (extreme) unpopularity of revolutionary ideals to: people not understanding them, or people understanding and rejecting them?

I don't think many people get to know what revolutionary ideas are. Just about everyone from the SWaPs to the anarchos have wonderful visions of future society, but can anyone remember much if anything genuinely radical that any left or anarcho group has actually fought for in a struggle in recent years?

 

[mk12]

edit: wrong thread

 

[mk12]

I don't think many people get to know what revolutionary ideas are. Just about everyone from the SWaPs to the anarchos have wonderful visions of future society, but can anyone remember much if anything genuinely radical that any left or anarcho group has actually fought for in a struggle in recent years?

I reckon lots of individual members of the SWP and anarchist groups have worked in useful campaigns over the years. Just like other groups on the left.

 

[Jonti]

Three things I'd like to see:-

* a unified benefit/tax system with a citizen's income so poor people could work just a few hours a week, and still be better off (without being strangled by bureaucracy); and moves towards the abolition of income and retail taxes (see below).

* a land rent tax to remove the subsidy enjoyed by landholders and the bourgoise at the expense of non-property owners

* energy taxes at well-heads, terminals and power stations, not at point of retail sale

 

[Prince Rhyus]

I'd like to see a law making it compulsory for all left-wing academic theorists and professors to work part-time in a supermarket and live on council estates to provide them with a "real world feel" to what they theorise about. (I'd like to make the same thing compulsory for all of those highly paid consultants that the Government awards contracts to to keep their minds focussed.)

 

[mk12]

I'd like to see a law making it compulsory for all left-wing academic theorists and professors to work part-time in a supermarket and live on council estates to provide them with a "real world feel" to what they theorise about. (I'd like to make the same thing compulsory for all of those highly paid consultants that the Government awards contracts to to keep their minds focussed.)

Can you imagine Callinicos working in Asda?

 

[durruti02]

You make some good points there - but I'm not sure what you attribute the (extreme) unpopularity of revolutionary ideals to: people not understanding them, or people understanding and rejecting them?

good question .. not sure .. i think it is that the revolutionary ideas that are put across neither SEEM worth fighting for and also that imho are usually NOT revolutionary .. so yes io think it is that people look at what is offerred and ( imho rightly ) reject them

look to ask that someone supports a revolution that will inevitabley mean a war of sorts, they will have give up ( at least temporarily ) all they have .. we no longer have just our chains to lose but our house our car our holidays our living to 80 our children NOT dieing at birth etc etc etc

so sell it on myths ( lies) of the soviet union is simpply idiotic .. it is like going to someone with a widescreen tv and trying to sell them a 1950s model ..

capitalism can win at DO economy and materialism every time .. to me the ONLY thing that capital can not do is democracy and power and community and what the relegious types call spiritual ( but i call solidarity / community etc)

our leftism is bleak unimaginative humourless souless .. it has to supply a hope that is lacking in modern society .. a hope of a society that is woth while giving up this one for ...

so i think the localist model is absolutly fundamental .. we have to build nes communities from the base on new ( actually old) ideas of solidarity etc

ime people are at teh very least interetested in this .. it is not hard to get people to bemoan teh loss of community, the commercialisation, that kids have no hope etc .. to me the sticking point is always that there is nothing better on offer .. nor anything that appears it could actually even change a light bulb!

 

[durruti02]

I've no doubt the system can endure many shocks, but it seems to me the job of someone who wants to overthrow this society is to try and take hold of the opportunities such shocks provide. It still seems to me that people change most politically when they are forced to think of wider issues as they are compelled to advance or defend their interests.

The 60s/70s is interesting actually, because as well as economic uncertainty (of which there was a considerable amount also) for the w/cs there were great shocks (in the richer parts of the world) in terms of changes in social structure (race, gender etc) and in terms of war (Vietnam) and the dying of empire for the UK. 'Shocks' seem to come in a variety of forms, but that period was different to that we face now, which seems to me one - in the short/medium term - of economic vulnerability and inter-power rivalry as new economic powers begin to attampt to gain the political muscle they think they deserve.

And I'm not saying the arguments and the building of progressive currents of thought should be delayed. I just think that it'll take the bulk of the people saying, 'Hey, the things we have always believed are no longer making any sense. This system is lying to us,' before we see change of a radical nature.

I do also think people can react in left and right wing ways to crises, which is why I think that those who reckon they've got a good idea of how society works should attempt to create the best possible means of spreading those ideas.

ok that is mostly reasonable .. of course we should use opportunities .. but i still think that just as people often DO think more in the shock period, they are also MORE likely to accept reform and moderation after ..

ONLY if people are won to those ideas in periods of NO shock will they REALLY hold firm .. ( see my comments to yossarian )

do you disagree that the left has concentrated on those in 'shock' ( industrial disputes / immigrants / minorities ) etc over time? and that this strategy has been based on that idea?

as i said maybe they should stop and say 'lets try to appeal to the maj' .. lets try to create a politics that will make the vast majority want to join a revolution'

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Can you imagine Callinicos working in Asda?

I can imagining shovelling shit.

 

[durruti02]

I don't think many people get to know what revolutionary ideas are. Just about everyone from the SWaPs to the anarchos have wonderful visions of future society, but can anyone remember much if anything genuinely radical that any left or anarcho group has actually fought for in a struggle in recent years?

interesting comment .. what do you mean mate? that we are not constructive creative enough?

 

[treelover]

good thread, I think a citizens income would cut the legs from those on the right and neo-labour who want to destroy/minimize the welfare state, its surely an idea Keynes would have approved of...

* a unified benefit/tax system with a citizen's income so poor people could work just a few hours a week, and still be better off (without being strangled by bureaucracy); and moves towards the abolition of income and retail taxes (see below).

 

[likesfish]

socialism wary fuzzy feeling if you in the in group "salt mine" if your not
don't crap service crap stuff and a state that will try to kill you if you leave

capitalism no warm fuzzy feeling competitive services choice of food lots of stuff to buy and a underpowered state
things could be better am I going to go to war to put the swp in power no and.........hell no

 

[Spion]

twat

 

[likesfish]

just cause I don't think handing every decison over to the state is a good idea?
because there doing such a bang up job now
British Leyland crap

 

[Blagsta]

just cause I don't think handing every decison over to the state is a good idea?
because there doing such a bang up job now
British Leyland crap

Why do you think socialism = "handing every decison over to the state"?

 

[likesfish]

because that was the plan last time round and didn't work to well
and some of the left still think the soviet union had anything good going for it

 

[likesfish]

Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.

thats why

 

[Blagsta]

See that bit about being controlled by the community? What does that have to do with either the Soviet Union or British Leyland?

 

[emanymton]

I'd like to see a law making it compulsory for all left-wing academic theorists and professors to work part-time in a supermarket and live on council estates to provide them with a "real world feel" to what they theorise about. (I'd like to make the same thing compulsory for all of those highly paid consultants that the Government awards contracts to to keep their minds focussed.)

What like most students have to these days?

 

[emanymton]

Socialism refers to the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.

thats why

First the [1] in your post implies you intended some kind of footnote, what was it?

Second, do you not think your definitions of direct and indirect control are describing two radically different things?

 

[Blagsta]

First the [1] in your post implies you intended some kind of footnote, what was it?

Second, do you not think your definitions of direct and indirect control are describing two radically different things?

He obviously c&p'd it from somewhere with no real understanding

 

[likesfish]

community control might work small scale say for a small workers co op.
but can't see it working for something large scale.
hell two piers housing co-op in Brighton not more than 200 members suffers constantly from people not putting any effort in.
imagine running water a hospital or a power station like that.
you'd just get a small clique doing the work and understanding the issues

 

[durruti02]

interesting comment .. what do you mean mate? that we are not constructive creative enough?

bumpity bump