John Major: let's keep the Coalition after the next election

[goldenecitrone]

where we combine popular unrest with a platform for alternatives. The alternative is simply defeatism.

That slogan may need some work to be fair.

 

[LLETSA]

Where did I say we wouldn't get more of the same from Labour? And did I say people would have to be told that Labour could not be trusted, or did I say that people's memories ain't that fucking short?

Do you read posts at all before responding to them?

I could ask you the same.

Unfortunately, people's memories really are that short. People will, as I said, vote Labour just because they hope they'll be 'better than the current lot.' It's what always happens. The idea that there will be a tremulous Labour government operating in fear of what a unified, militant working class might do to bring them down is a leftie wank fantasy. They couldn't be elected on that basis. Any suggestion of a radical change of direction (not that Labour has any intention of taking one) and the oligarch-controlled media would crucify them. While that might make no difference to the relatively few people who post on sites like this or riot in the streets, it will make a difference to most of the rest.

 

[ymu]

Once again, who is this 'we' that you claim is going to keep on rioting? There is no electorate with a unified set of demands. Society has never been more fragmented.

I haven't suggested anybody gives up anything. I've said that I think victories against some of the cuts are probably inevitable.

I'm pretty sure 'we' (an unbranded entity I have already defined very clearly for you) will keep rioting until the bankers are made to pay instead of us. The banks weren't regulated until 1935, following the 1929 crash. And look at what happened to income inequality in the aftermath.

There doesn't need to be a unified set of demands. There just needs to be angry people creating generalised mayhem until they get the message. If we can avoid the suffocating committees and impossibly expensive single-city national demos, we have a shot at getting there.

 

[ymu]

I could ask you the same.

Unfortunately, people's memories really are that short. People will, as I said, vote Labour just because they hope they'll be 'better than the current lot.' It's what always happens. The idea that there will be a tremulous Labour government operating in fear of what a unified, militant working class might do to bring them down is a leftie wank fantasy. They couldn't be elected on that basis. Any suggestion of a radical change of direction (not that Labour has any intention of taking one) and the oligarch-controlled media would crucify them. While that might make no difference to the relatively few people who post on sites like this or riot in the streets, it will make a difference to most of the rest.

Yeah - I have never once said that there will be.

What I have said is that we will have to keep rioting for as many elections as it takes until there is a government which accepts Keynesian economic theory and the idea that bankers must pay for all the damage they did, rather than getting their levy back in the form of a corporation tax rebate.

The Lib Dems and Tories had 66% of the student vote in May. They grew up under Labour - they're as likely to trust them now as I was the Tories had Blair's government fallen in 1998. The same goes for those of us with longer memories to search. There will always be Labour apologists, but so what? The rest of us ain't stupid.

 

[LLETSA]

I'm pretty sure 'we' (an unbranded entity I have already defined very clearly for you) will keep rioting until the bankers are made to pay instead of us. The banks weren't regulated until 1935, following the 1929 crash. And look at what happened to income inequality in the aftermath.

There doesn't need to be a unified set of demands. There just needs to be angry people creating generalised mayhem until they get the message. If we can avoid the suffocating committees and impossibly expensive single-city national demos, we have a shot at getting there.

The banks weren't regulated because people were rioting. And they were regulated during a worldwide economic depression they'd helped trigger, in an era when socialism, in its various forms, was in the ascendency. While another depression has been so far stifled, the political backdrop couldn't be more different. Income inequality is set to keep on rising due to the fact that nobody who stands for its reveral has any chance of political power (something that wouldn't guarantee its reversal anyway.)

As far as I can see, the 'we' you keep referring to seems to be the few thousand people who have taken part in riots so far. While this is probably exciting for those doing it, it is unlikely to result in a new set of banking regulations. And it will eventually peter out, as these things tend to do.

It's a curious kind of politics that seems to imply that it's possible to make the ruling elites and oligarchies change their minds through small numbers (in terms of the population) rioting.

 

[LLETSA]

Yeah - I have never once said that there will be.

What I have said is that we will have to keep rioting for as many elections as it takes until there is a government which accepts Keynesian economic theory and the idea that bankers must pay for all the damage they did, rather than getting their levy back in the form of a corporation tax rebate.

The Lib Dems and Tories had 66% of the student vote in May. They grew up under Labour - they're as likely to trust them now as I was the Tories had Blair's government fallen in 1998. The same goes for those of us with longer memories to search. There will always be Labour apologists, but so what? The rest of us ain't stupid.

Another example of that curious kind of politics involving ongoing rioting on behalf of neo-Keynesianism.

It doesn't matter if 66% of students or anybody else don't trust Labour if the only alternative government is represented by Labour.

 

[ymu]

Yeah. None of that stuff last week happened. It isn't a riot unless every single protester is smashing shit. It's all hopeless. Give up now. Emigrate or summat. Then there won't be any of this pesky action distracting important debate about how best to tackle this in theory.

 

[ymu]

Another example of that curious kind of politics involving ongoing rioting on behalf of neo-Keynesianism.

It doesn't matter if 66% of students or anybody else don't trust Labour if the only alternative government is represented by Labour.

I appear to be wasting my time with someone who can't hold more than one thought in their head at any given time. Bit tedious. Whatever you want to post next, I refer you to my previous posts. Have fun going round in circles with yourself.

 

[frogwoman]

to be honest, keynseianism isn't really what i'd go for.

 

[LLETSA]

Yeah. None of that stuff last week happened. It isn't a riot unless every single protester is smashing shit. It's all hopeless. Give up now. Emigrate or summat. Then there won't be any of this pesky action distracting important debate about how best to tackle this in theory.[

I haven't even remotely suggested that anybody gives up anything, as I've already said. Nor have I said anything didn't happen. You can surely see, however, that whether last week's rioters smashed anything or not (as if this has anything to do with anything) rioters are very few in number compared to the population as a whole.

Similarly, I haven't argued against action. What I've done is make the obvious point that without a political alternative, the overall war cannot be won.

 

[ymu]

to be honest, keynseianism isn't really what i'd go for.

It's the best we're going to get, short of a miraculous revolution, no? Or are we refusing reform in the hope of fomenting revolution, no matter what the cost? They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[LLETSA]

I appear to be wasting my time with someone who can't hold more than one thought in their head at any given time. Bit tedious. Whatever you want to post next, I refer you to my previous posts. Have fun going round in circles with yourself.

Again-what are you talking about? I've answered every single point you've made. I admire your enthusiasm, but your politics are nonsense.

 

[frogwoman]

Similarly, I haven't argued against action. What I've done is make the obvious point that without a political alternative, the overall war cannot be won.

dont always agree with your posts Lletsa but this is spot on

It's the best we're going to get, short of a miraculous revolution, no? Or are we refusing reform in the hope of fomenting revolution, no matter what the cost? They're not mutually exclusive.

right, but i don't think that it's really the best we can get tbh, it might be the best we can get under capitalism (lol) (and the gains made under that economic system were undone pretty quickly and only really existed as a result of a social consensus followin world war 2 which is now being steadily eroded and has practically disappeared in many cases).

im not talking about "fomenting revolution" - i know that is a long way off, and will possibly (probably?) never happen at all in the way we're thinking about it ... but i think we can afford to be a bit less tame and more specific ... now if only we could agree on what that "specific" thing was !

 

[ymu]

I haven't even remotely suggested that anybody gives up anything, as I've already said. Nor have I said anything didn't happen. You can surely see, however, that whether last week's rioters smashed anything or not (as if this has anything to do with anything) rioters are very few in number compared to the population as a whole.

Similarly, I haven't argued against action. What I've done is make the obvious point that without a political alternative, the overall war cannot be won.

No. I reject the need for a political alternative. I don't even want one if it is available. We cannot change the people in power - they're all the same regardless of what party they represent. We have to change the consensus - reset the boundaries of thinkable thought. Politics is not what happens in parliament, and if we reduce it to that we're doomed.

 

[ymu]

Again-what are you talking about? I've answered every single point you've made. I admire your enthusiasm, but your politics are nonsense.

You keep basing your points on things I haven't said - even after I've already pointed out that I never said them. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Get to grips with what I actually did say and come back with an honest response, and it might be worth continuing. Until then, why the fuck should I bother?

 

[ymu]

dont always agree with your posts Lletsa but this is spot on



right, but i don't think that it's really the best we can get tbh, it might be the best we can get under capitalism (lol) (and the gains made under that economic system were undone pretty quickly and only really existed as a result of a social consensus followin world war 2 which is now being steadily eroded and has practically disappeared in many cases).

im not talking about "fomenting revolution" - i know that is a long way off, and will possibly (probably?) never happen at all in the way we're thinking about it ... but i think we can afford to be a bit less tame and more specific ... now if only we could agree on what that "specific" thing was !

Under capitalism, it's cuts or Keynes. Do you want us to stick with cuts for the time being?

 

[frogwoman]

"political" doesn't have to mean "parliamentary"

 

[LLETSA]

It's the best we're going to get, short of a miraculous revolution, no? Or are we refusing reform in the hope of fomenting revolution, no matter what the cost? They're not mutually exclusive.

Nominally centre-right and centre-left governments have already taken what could be called Keynesian measures to help save the world economy going under after 2008. They did it of their own accord, without pressure from below, on the understanding (or pretence) that the neo-liberal project can be resumed when conditions allow. They can only take measures that the unaccountable oligarchies that truly call the shots agree to, however.

 

[frogwoman]

Under capitalism, it's cuts or Keynes. Do you want us to stick with cuts for the time being?

no, where did you get that from my post? all im saying is that we can afford to be a little less tame in our version of what the alternative would be, instead of sticking to vague slogans and stuff about taxing the rich etc (useful tho that is).

 

[LLETSA]

No. I reject the need for a political alternative. I don't even want one if it is available. We cannot change the people in power - they're all the same regardless of what party they represent. We have to change the consensus - reset the boundaries of thinkable thought. Politics is not what happens in parliament, and if we reduce it to that we're doomed.

This is pretty confused stuff. Who has suggested that politics is only, or even primarily, what happens in parliament? So we can't change the people in power, only the consensus (by rioting presumably?)-which can then presumably be ignored by those in power because 'they're all the same' (the familiar refrain of the apolitical throughout the ages.)

 

[ymu]

"political" doesn't have to mean "parliamentary"

OK. I still don't want a political alternative. Party politics is a dead-end, doomed to ride the same depressing merry-go-round of idealism and betrayal. I want the electorate to set the terms of the debate and to define the boundaries of acceptable action. Politicians are careerist scum - we have to work out how to sack them or they'll never do what we want.

 

[LLETSA]

You keep basing your points on things I haven't said - even after I've already pointed out that I never said them. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Get to grips with what I actually did say and come back with an honest response, and it might be worth continuing. Until then, why the fuck should I bother?

A brief read through the thread reveals that I've directly answered every point you've made.

 

[LLETSA]

OK. I still don't want a political alternative. Party politics is a dead-end, doomed to ride the same depressing merry-go-round of idealism and betrayal. I want the electorate to set the terms of the debate and to define the boundaries of acceptable action. Politicians are careerist scum - we have to work out how to sack them or they'll never do what we want.

You'll never get this united electorate 'setting the terms of debate.' It's pie in the sky. And if politicians are all the same, won't you be sacking them in favour of somebody...exactly the same?

 

[ymu]

Nominally centre-right and centre-left governments have already taken what could be called Keynesian measures to help save the world economy going under after 2008. They did it of their own accord, without pressure from below, on the understanding (or pretence) that the neo-liberal project can be resumed when conditions allow. They can only take measures that the unaccountable oligarchies that truly call the shots agree to, however.

Yes. Precisely what happened in the 1930s. The New Deal was just a means to shore up capitalism. Keynes is capitalist scum. I know. Where did I say otherwise?

There is a limit to their power - but only if we exercise ours. Repeatedly. Maybe you're right - maybe noone will turn out to give Labour a good kicking when they try to enact more or less the same policies - but I'm hoping this isn't the case, and I sure as hell ain't gonna give up on the idea that we can set the boundaries, given the will and determination to fight.

 

[ymu]

A brief read through the thread reveals that I've directly answered every point you've made.

No. You've directly answered a point I never made. Perhaps with more than a quick glance, you'll spot the posts where I point it out. Twice.

 

[frogwoman]

OK. I still don't want a political alternative. Party politics is a dead-end, doomed to ride the same depressing merry-go-round of idealism and betrayal. I want the electorate to set the terms of the debate and to define the boundaries of acceptable action. Politicians are careerist scum - we have to work out how to sack them or they'll never do what we want.

Right but who said anything about party politics? I wasn't even referring to that necessarily.

my point is that we have to be a little less timid about saying what we actually want in terms of society and economic systems (because a lot of the time, people are thinking this anyway - the things that we want - but are afraid to say so). also people are also clever enough imo to work out that keynseian capitalism is just frequently (usually) a short term solution and those gains can be clawed back as they have been during the last 30 years?

and surely the danger with a movement based on generalised anger towards "politicians" and nothing beyond that, is that it could - im trying to think of a good way of putitng this that won't be offensive or anything - but that it could be "hijacked" and used by people with less than savoury ideas about how the crisis originated etc and end up giving space to those people, if there's not a clear view (or range of views) that are put forward of what we want other than that cuts are bad, etc

not that anyone's view on the matter is necessarily very clear anyway as i've been recently finding out!!

 

[ymu]

I was talking about generalised anger towards policies. The politicians are irrelevant. No party can (openly) abolish the NHS. There's a reason for that. There is no reason why it cannot be made equally politically impossible to cut HB, reduce JSA, offer benefits in return for forced labour, charge tuition fees, move council tenants on for earning too much, and so on ad nauseam. Which of these things becomes politically impossible is down to us, and more specifically, how many of us give enough of a shit to do something about it.

 

[LLETSA]

Yes. Precisely what happened in the 1930s. The New Deal was just a means to shore up capitalism. Keynes is capitalist scum. I know. Where did I say otherwise?

There is a limit to their power - but only if we exercise ours. Repeatedly. Maybe you're right - maybe noone will turn out to give Labour a good kicking when they try to enact more or less the same policies - but I'm hoping this isn't the case, and I sure as hell ain't gonna give up on the idea that we can set the boundaries, given the will and determination to fight.

Yes, but as I said, the political backdrop duringthe 1930s was vastly different. Capitalism was faced with the possibility that it could be overthrown in some countries, while ecnomic planning and the like even had admirers among pro-capitalist economists and politicians and many employers. This is nowhere the case anymore, so the Keynesian type measures taken recently are nowhere near as far reaching as the banking reforms and so on back then were and are designed to be temporary. In any case, Keynesian reform is always subject to undermining by those who rally call the shots in terms of economic weight and power, as we've already seen.

It isn't impossible that people will campaign against a future Labour government implementing cuts, but the present momentum will inevitably slow-and even if it didn't,the eventual result is likely to be the Tories winning any subsequent election. After all, it isn't as if we haven't seen before what happens when a substantial minority of workers and a Labour government are at loggerheads without a feasible political alternative in the offing.

 

[frogwoman]

@ ymu post #117 - well yeh and once upon a time it would have been unacceptable but now it isn't, and i don't think there is a guarantee that, if it was "reformed", that that turn of events couldn't take place again (which isnt to say that fighting for reforms and other gains isn't necessary or worthwhile) im just saying that there needs to be another alternative in place other than "don't do this..." etc.

 

[frogwoman]

Yes, but as I said, the political backdrop duringthe 1930s was vastly different. Capitalism was faced with the possibility that it could be overthrown in some countries, while ecnomic planning and the like even had admirers among pro-capitalist economists and politicians and many employers. This is nowhere the case anymore, so the Keynesian type measures taken recently are nowhere near as far reaching as the banking reforms and so on back then were and are designed to be temporary. In any case, Keynesian reform is always subject to undermining by those who rally call the shots in terms of economic weight and power, as we've already seen.

damn, you said it better than i could ...