Just a word of warning re activism and the financial crisis

[durruti02]

Ok we are in and heading further into a deep financial crisis. We are probably 12 months behnd the USA where e.g. Michigan has over 12% unemployed .. it is thought that here house prices will halve ( though maybe not even back to where they were before ) and unemployment will hit 10%, so clearly a major crisis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/01/unhappy-new-year

now everyone including me has been following these events and quite rightly seeks to use them to put a revolutionary POV, some from a green perspective but also from a red (n black) perspective. fine and i am not sure what else we could do

but i worry .. for 2 reasons .. and just want to do a little warning

firstly, as a people or class, we are at the most fragmented and disorganised for generations .. this potential social crisis will not be one in which we can use the support networks we once had, particulalry in the cities where communities have been destroyed .. i am not saying that maybe they could not be built 'in the fire' but simply we have done minimal groundwork as we approach what some think could be years of deep class struggle

secondly, in this country, i do not think we understand 'reaction' .. the UK left has never in my understanding been attacked by 'reaction' like the lefts of every other european country i can think off .. Italy in 1920 onwards, austria, germany obviously, spain 36, and more recently the use of the strategy of tension, bombings etc and then mass arrests ( at one time there were over 10000 political prisoners in jail) in Italy in the mid/late 7ts. Only in France following 68 was there no extreme state or fascist 'reaction' except then the right swept the elections, increasing their vote as that of the left diminished.

In the uk we have never sufferred this with 2 specific exceptions, northern ireland, and the miners strike, though electorally maybe you could say after the heightenned class struggle of the 7ts and early 8ts, the rightwing swept the board electorally in 79 and 83. the british state is savvy enough to control events generally without being violent.

so what do i mean by 'reaction'? that following a period of strikes, protests etc the state will act, either by itself using the police and the 'law' and arrest harrass and lock up lots of people, or in proxy using fascists to attack and intimidate.

So for me my 1) is linked with the 2). It seems to me IF people wish to embark on a strategy that really means they wish to overthrow capitalism and the capitalist state then they really need to be aware of what that means ( and sorry to be preachy as i am sure most people ARE deeply aware of what this means for them ). But for me the key thing is that without the groundwork in the communities people are really putting themselves out on a limb.

Mao ( and the PIRA) used to talk of having 'a sea to swim in' .. and i agree absolutely .. without 'a sea to swim in' we are in a danger of falling into a trap in which 'reaction' will come and there will be nothing we can do to stop it

IF the financial crisis is as bad as people suggest it will be it will STILL only affect really negatively a minority of people .. i have long argued that change will not come form trying to mobilise minorities but convincing majorities of the need and benefit of change

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=173877 "Control/Power;And how the revolution can and will come from the majority"

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=246188

" .. 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.." etc etc

 

[treelover]

ooops, comment on wrong thread!

 

[tangentlama]

People don't want swift or violent revolution. We want to look back from the future and call these times 'revolutionary' but all the while we will know that the experience of this 'revolution' was, in reality, a series of gradual changes and adjustments which improved quality of life for the majority (not just in this country, but in other countries too).

PS. Another garbled 'durriti's favourite gripes' thread that chases it's own tale and isn't worth commenting on.

 

[durruti02]

PS. Another garbled 'durriti's favourite gripes' thread that chases it's own tale and isn't worth commenting on.

???? what on earth are you on about ..

 

[durruti02]

People don't want swift or violent revolution. We want to look back from the future and call these times 'revolutionary' but all the while we will know that the experience of this 'revolution' was, in reality, a series of gradual changes and adjustments which improved quality of life for the majority (not just in this country, but in other countries too).

who is this 'we'? the royal 'we'? .. there are plenty of peole who do want swift revolution .. this thread is for them .. if that is not you then bye bye

 

[laptop]

PS. Another garbled 'durriti's favourite gripes' thread that chases it's own tale and isn't worth commenting on.

But he left out Israel and Immigration

 

[ViolentPanda]

People don't want swift or violent revolution. We want to look back from the future and call these times 'revolutionary' but all the while we will know that the experience of this 'revolution' was, in reality, a series of gradual changes and adjustments which improved quality of life for the majority (not just in this country, but in other countries too).

Agreed, and those "gradual changes and adjustments" need to be propelled by the needs of the many, not the ambitions of the few. No "revolutionary vanguards".

 

[ViolentPanda]

???? what on earth are you on about ..

tangentlama is "on about" how you seem to be able to tak a subject, any subject, and find a way to insert your usual oft-repeated (ad-fucking-nauseam) opinions on the British left, whether they're relevant to the point you're making or not.
As for "reaction", did the history of organised labour pass you by?

 

[durruti02]

tangentlama is "on about" how you seem to be able to tak a subject, any subject, and find a way to insert your usual oft-repeated (ad-fucking-nauseam) opinions on the British left, whether they're relevant to the point you're making or not.

VP you crack me up these are debating forums .. most people repeat ideas ad nauseum .. there would be little traffic if things were no so .. it is the name of the game ..

but in this case i have not done what he and you appear to accuse me off .. so wierd

 

[durruti02]

As for "reaction", did the history of organised labour pass you by?

in which way? i have not noticed 'organised labour' setting of bombs as partof a strategy of tension and doing mass arrests as happenned in Italy

i guess you mean trade unions suppressing action from below? well yes i am aware of that VP D) .. but this thread refers to the state attacking dissent violently either by itself or using fascism

 

[durruti02]

Agreed, and those "gradual changes and adjustments" need to be propelled by the needs of the many, not the ambitions of the few. No "revolutionary vanguards".

agree .. so you agree with the OP?

 

[Raw SslaC]

Ok we are in and heading further into a deep financial crisis. We are probably 12 months behnd the USA where e.g. Michigan has over 12% unemployed .. it is thought that here house prices will halve ( though maybe not even back to where they were before ) and unemployment will hit 10%, so clearly a major crisis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/01/unhappy-new-year

now everyone including me has been following these events and quite rightly seeks to use them to put a revolutionary POV, some from a green perspective but also from a red (n black) perspective. fine and i am not sure what else we could do

but i worry .. for 2 reasons .. and just want to do a little warning

firstly, as a people or class, we are at the most fragmented and disorganised for generations .. this potential social crisis will not be one in which we can use the support networks we once had, particulalry in the cities where communities have been destroyed .. i am not saying that maybe they could not be built 'in the fire' but simply we have done minimal groundwork as we approach what some think could be years of deep class struggle

secondly, in this country, i do not think we understand 'reaction' .. the UK left has never in my understanding been attacked by 'reaction' like the lefts of every other european country i can think off .. Italy in 1920 onwards, austria, germany obviously, spain 36, and more recently the use of the strategy of tension, bombings etc and then mass arrests ( at one time there were over 10000 political prisoners in jail) in Italy in the mid/late 7ts. Only in France following 68 was there no extreme state or fascist 'reaction' except then the right swept the elections, increasing their vote as that of the left diminished.

In the uk we have never sufferred this with 2 specific exceptions, northern ireland, and the miners strike, though electorally maybe you could say after the heightenned class struggle of the 7ts and early 8ts, the rightwing swept the board electorally in 79 and 83. the british state is savvy enough to control events generally without being violent.

so what do i mean by 'reaction'? that following a period of strikes, protests etc the state will act, either by itself using the police and the 'law' and arrest harrass and lock up lots of people, or in proxy using fascists to attack and intimidate.

So for me my 1) is linked with the 2). It seems to me IF people wish to embark on a strategy that really means they wish to overthrow capitalism and the capitalist state then they really need to be aware of what that means ( and sorry to be preachy as i am sure most people ARE deeply aware of what this means for them ). But for me the key thing is that without the groundwork in the communities people are really putting themselves out on a limb.

Mao ( and the PIRA) used to talk of having 'a sea to swim in' .. and i agree absolutely .. without 'a sea to swim in' we are in a danger of falling into a trap in which 'reaction' will come and there will be nothing we can do to stop it

IF the financial crisis is as bad as people suggest it will be it will STILL only affect really negatively a minority of people .. i have long argued that change will not come form trying to mobilise minorities but convincing majorities of the need and benefit of change

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=173877 "Control/Power;And how the revolution can and will come from the majority"

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=246188

" .. 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.." etc etc

I agree with parts of this D, however who is the "majority". Its not neccesarily defined as the numerical, not all are equal - there must be only a couple 100,000's workers in the UK that actually hold the majority of power in terms of having the ability to shut the country down in a couple of hours - think the 1,200 workers in the transport sector who deliver petrol to petrol stations, or the energy workers, or other essential industries.

If you talk of majority, maybe in terms of what is percieved as a general opinion of people - this has problems as like all opinion it is manipulated through the information and realities that are presented to people via the news and newspapers and the statisticians.

If we talk of majority as the reflection of what people are presently doing (or not doing) then what space is there within that for a radical, tranformative approach? With that, you can see people are not fighting to change but struggling for stability and security. If stability and security can be provided by the state to the key portion of the population then whatever we say is not going to make ANY difference.

The interesting context we are fast approaching is that there is a deep crisis in capitalism that CANNOT offer this security any longer, so the extent our ideas and propositions are supported is the extent that we can convince enough people that their participation through self-activity, direct action and resistance in all areas of their lives is going to bring this security and stability above and beyond what they have experienced under the state and capitalist economy.

 

[newbie]

The interesting context we are fast approaching is that there is a deep crisis in capitalism that CANNOT offer this security any longer,

that remains to be seen. The effect of any recession is patchy, while some people lose job, home, relationship others glide through and may even benefit, in both the short and long term. While it's clear a substantial minority are being hurt we don't know how all this is going to affect the majority.

Currently it's causing greatly increased savings rates as fear drives retreat into the arms of the capitalists... interestingly we're told that the best collective response to recession is for us all to spend, but we reckon the best individual response is to squirrel away a nest egg, and that's what people are doing, looking after themselves even in the knowledge that by not eating out any more they're putting the waiter out of work.

Why shouldn't that continue? While the vast majority of public sector workers and a very significant number of those in the private sector keep their jobs and can continue to pay their bills, why would they look towards collective, rather than individual, security? Aren't they more likely to demand tax cuts, and thus cuts in services, just like they did in the early 80s and early 90s?

 

[durruti02]

1)I agree with parts of this D, however who is the "majority". Its not neccesarily defined as the numerical, not all are equal - there must be only a couple 100,000's workers in the UK that actually hold the majority of power in terms of having the ability to shut the country down in a couple of hours - think the 1,200 workers in the transport sector who deliver petrol to petrol stations, or the energy workers, or other essential industries.

2)If you talk of majority, maybe in terms of what is percieved as a general opinion of people - this has problems as like all opinion it is manipulated through the information and realities that are presented to people via the news and newspapers and the statisticians.

3)If we talk of majority as the reflection of what people are presently doing (or not doing) then what space is there within that for a radical, tranformative approach? With that, you can see people are not fighting to change but struggling for stability and security. If stability and security can be provided by the state to the key portion of the population then whatever we say is not going to make ANY difference.

4)The interesting context we are fast approaching is that there is a deep crisis in capitalism that CANNOT offer this security any longer, so the extent our ideas and propositions are supported is the extent that we can convince enough people that their participation through self-activity, direct action and resistance in all areas of their lives is going to bring this security and stability above and beyond what they have experienced under the state and capitalist economy.

cheers mate

1)ok .. no i mean numerically the majority .. not those who hold 'power'

2) yes i accept that there are problems with any formulation definition but i mean very generally that IF you do not have a movement that appeals to a majority you have a movmenet that appeals to a minority and minorities either then become dictatorships OR get smashed

3) yes absolutely .. did you check withre of those two threads i posted in the OP .. struggles during crisis are usually for stability .. at least by the majority .. it is in these conditions that those aiming higher can get caught out .. they think because thetre is much shouting that it is a movment for fundamental chnage when as you rightly point out people will accpet stability .. imho you need to have a politics ( and i think elements of the @ do) that CAN appeal to a the vast maj of people ..

4) yes though i am not sure if things are that bad .. capitalism is pretty bloody resourceful .. and i am not convinced this is not just a problem of overheating .. though clearly basic resources issues are becoming more and more important .. but then i come back to how widely that message has already been got out and how widely we can get it out .. i am not convinced we are all in a mindset to do this yet .. ( yes those involved in local group stuff clearly have thought of this

 

[ViolentPanda]

in which way? i have not noticed 'organised labour' setting of bombs as partof a strategy of tension and doing mass arrests as happenned in Italy

You claim that the UK left hasn't experienced being attacked by "reaction".
So, what do you call the use of military and para-military forces to break strikes? How about the widespread practice of blacklisting that held sway in most industries well into the second half of the 20th century (and arguably still goes on, albeit in an attenuated form)? What about the "secret armies" that the likes of David Stirling and other soi-disant "patriots" throughout the 20th century put together, and the assistance scum like the Freedom Association gave to help break strikes?
or isn't that "reaction" because there were too few "mass arrests" and not enough bomb blasts for you?

i guess you mean trade unions suppressing action from below? well yes i am aware of that VP D) .. but this thread refers to the state attacking dissent violently either by itself or using fascism

As usual, you're too busy being self-satisfied to have gotten the point. Plus ça change...

 

[tangentlama]

People don't want swift or violent revolution. We want to look back from the future and call these times 'revolutionary' but all the while we will know that the experience of this 'revolution' was, in reality, a series of gradual changes and adjustments which improved quality of life for the majority (not just in this country, but in other countries too).

[/QUOTE]
we=majority
those who want swift revolution=minority

PS. Another garbled 'durriti's favourite gripes' thread that chases it's own tale and isn't worth commenting on.

tangentlama is "on about" how you seem to be able to tak a subject, any subject, and find a way to insert your usual oft-repeated (ad-fucking-nauseam) opinions on the British left, whether they're relevant to the point you're making or not.
As for "reaction", did the history of organised labour pass you by?

Absolutly correct.

You claim that the UK left hasn't experienced being attacked by "reaction".
So, what do you call the use of military and para-military forces to break strikes? How about the widespread practice of blacklisting that held sway in most industries well into the second half of the 20th century (and arguably still goes on, albeit in an attenuated form)? What about the "secret armies" that the likes of David Stirling and other soi-disant "patriots" throughout the 20th century put together, and the assistance scum like the Freedom Association gave to help break strikes?
or isn't that "reaction" because there were too few "mass arrests" and not enough bomb blasts for you?

As usual, you're too busy being self-satisfied to have gotten the point. Plus ça change...

...plus ça la meme chose *sigh*

 

[yield]

You claim that the UK left hasn't experienced being attacked by "reaction".
So, what do you call the use of military and para-military forces to break strikes? How about the widespread practice of blacklisting that held sway in most industries well into the second half of the 20th century (and arguably still goes on, albeit in an attenuated form)? What about the "secret armies" that the likes of David Stirling and other soi-disant "patriots" throughout the 20th century put together, and the assistance scum like the Freedom Association gave to help break strikes?
or isn't that "reaction" because there were too few "mass arrests" and not enough bomb blasts for you?

And Airey Neave

Quite what Neave's role in the secret service was in the years that followed has never become clear. Critics of British policy in Ulster maintained that British intelligence became involved in treasonable policies. In 1987, the Labour MP Ken Livingstone used the cover of parliamentary privilege to suggest in the House of Commons that Airey Neave was a co-conspirator with MI5 and MI6 in disinformation activities involving the controversial whistle-blowing spies Colin Wallace and Peter Wright. He also alleged that, a week before his murder, Neave sought to recruit a former MI6 officer to set up a small group to involve itself in the internal struggles of the Labour Party. Livingstone's efforts earned him a deluge of condemnation from the British establishment, but there were straws in the wind that induced several security experts to wonder whether something untoward had indeed occurred.

Independent

 

[durruti02]

You claim that the UK left hasn't experienced being attacked by "reaction".
So, what do you call the use of military and para-military forces to break strikes? How about the widespread practice of blacklisting that held sway in most industries well into the second half of the 20th century (and arguably still goes on, albeit in an attenuated form)? What about the "secret armies" that the likes of David Stirling and other soi-disant "patriots" throughout the 20th century put together, and the assistance scum like the Freedom Association gave to help break strikes?
or isn't that "reaction" because there were too few "mass arrests" and not enough bomb blasts for you?

As usual, you're too busy being self-satisfied to have gotten the point. Plus ça change...

sorry but are you honestly suggestting we have sufferred in this country what the austrians, germans, italians and spaniards sufferred in the 20ts and 30ts?? or that we have had repression like in the Italian movement or Turkish movement did in the 7ts and early 8ts?

what you refer to is not at all relevent to what i am refering to .. it is NOT 'reaction'

.. attacks on strikes are common the world over ( i mentionned that in the OP) .. the use of blacklisting is common the world over .. and yes we all know about the behind the scenes shananigans in the 7ts .. BUT that entirely backs my point as they were NEVER used ..

i am talking about something you appear to have no understanding of - that during or after a period of significant crisis, when there is a movementthat is threatenning the status quo, the state will launch and assault on the movement either alone or via fascism

your bizarre reaction kind of shows you (and maybe a lot more people) do not comprehend what reaction is and certainly did not read the OP

 

[durruti02]

As usual, you're too busy being self-satisfied to have gotten the point. Plus ça change...

please drop the personal abuse .. it's not neccessary .. self satisfied? er no .. wanted debate er yes .. why do you assume this is self satisfication?

 

[_float_]

Ok we are in and heading further into a deep financial crisis. We are probably 12 months behnd the USA where e.g. Michigan has over 12% unemployed .. it is thought that here house prices will halve ( though maybe not even back to where they were before ) and unemployment will hit 10%, so clearly a major crisis

Although you are right about increasing US unemployment it is worth noting that the largest city in Michigan is Detroit, where the US auto industry was in trouble even before this recession hit, so Michigan isn't the most typical state (it is the worst iirc).

The US rate reached almost 10% at its highest in 1981 and since then the lowest has been c.4%, with an increase from c.5% at the start of 2008 to 8% (latest figures), currently increasing by c.0.5% per month. It isn't really clear where and when this will 'top out'.

IF the financial crisis is as bad as people suggest it will be it will STILL only affect really negatively a minority of people

Surely it will affect the majority of people - wages will be depressed as will the value of people's homes, businesses will go bust, consumption generally will be down - so everyione from richest to poorest will be 'impacted negatively' in a monetary sense.

According to Forbes magazine's annual 'rich list': "The richest people in the world have gotten poorer, just like the rest of us. This year the world's billionaires have an average net worth of $3 billion, down 23% in 12 months. The world now has 793 billionaires, down from 1,125 a year ago."

 

[_float_]

...there are plenty of peole who do want swift revolution .. this thread is for them .. if that is not you then bye bye

Not in the rich world (eg the UK) there aren't.

If you really want to be a revolutionary you shoud go to a poor country.

 

[durruti02]

Although you are right about increasing US unemployment it is worth noting that the largest city in Michigan is Detroit, where the US auto industry was in trouble even before this recession hit, so Michigan isn't the most typical state (it is the worst iirc).

The US rate reached almost 10% at its highest in 1981 and since then the lowest has been c.4%, with an increase from c.5% at the start of 2008 to 8% (latest figures), currently increasing by c.0.5% per month. It isn't really clear where and when this will 'top out'.
Surely it will affect the majority of people - wages will be depressed as will the value of people's homes, businesses will go bust, consumption generally will be down - so everyione from richest to poorest will be 'impacted negatively' in a monetary sense.

According to Forbes magazine's annual 'rich list': "The richest people in the world have gotten poorer, just like the rest of us. This year the world's billionaires have an average net worth of $3 billion, down 23% in 12 months. The world now has 793 billionaires, down from 1,125 a year ago."

yes of course a recession will impact on a lot of people .. but take the early 7ts recession .. most people were fine .. i do not remember mass protests about the level of unemployment

 

[durruti02]

Not in the rich world (eg the UK) there aren't.

there are enough i can assure you .. and my point is that they are relatively so few they need to be aware of the big picture ..

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Ok we are in and heading further into a deep financial crisis. We are probably 12 months behnd the USA where e.g. Michigan has over 12% unemployed .. it is thought that here house prices will halve ( though maybe not even back to where they were before ) and unemployment will hit 10%, so clearly a major crisis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/01/unhappy-new-year

now everyone including me has been following these events and quite rightly seeks to use them to put a revolutionary POV, some from a green perspective but also from a red (n black) perspective. fine and i am not sure what else we could do

but i worry .. for 2 reasons .. and just want to do a little warning

firstly, as a people or class, we are at the most fragmented and disorganised for generations .. this potential social crisis will not be one in which we can use the support networks we once had, particulalry in the cities where communities have been destroyed .. i am not saying that maybe they could not be built 'in the fire' but simply we have done minimal groundwork as we approach what some think could be years of deep class struggle

secondly, in this country, i do not think we understand 'reaction' .. the UK left has never in my understanding been attacked by 'reaction' like the lefts of every other european country i can think off .. Italy in 1920 onwards, austria, germany obviously, spain 36, and more recently the use of the strategy of tension, bombings etc and then mass arrests ( at one time there were over 10000 political prisoners in jail) in Italy in the mid/late 7ts. Only in France following 68 was there no extreme state or fascist 'reaction' except then the right swept the elections, increasing their vote as that of the left diminished.

In the uk we have never sufferred this with 2 specific exceptions, northern ireland, and the miners strike, though electorally maybe you could say after the heightenned class struggle of the 7ts and early 8ts, the rightwing swept the board electorally in 79 and 83. the british state is savvy enough to control events generally without being violent.

so what do i mean by 'reaction'? that following a period of strikes, protests etc the state will act, either by itself using the police and the 'law' and arrest harrass and lock up lots of people, or in proxy using fascists to attack and intimidate.

So for me my 1) is linked with the 2). It seems to me IF people wish to embark on a strategy that really means they wish to overthrow capitalism and the capitalist state then they really need to be aware of what that means ( and sorry to be preachy as i am sure most people ARE deeply aware of what this means for them ). But for me the key thing is that without the groundwork in the communities people are really putting themselves out on a limb.

Mao ( and the PIRA) used to talk of having 'a sea to swim in' .. and i agree absolutely .. without 'a sea to swim in' we are in a danger of falling into a trap in which 'reaction' will come and there will be nothing we can do to stop it

IF the financial crisis is as bad as people suggest it will be it will STILL only affect really negatively a minority of people .. i have long argued that change will not come form trying to mobilise minorities but convincing majorities of the need and benefit of change

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=173877 "Control/Power;And how the revolution can and will come from the majority"

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=246188

" .. 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.." etc etc

When you say "just a word".....

 

[durruti02]

As usual, you're too busy being self-satisfied to have gotten the point. Plus ça change...

and of course the bigger irony re self satisfaction is that while tangent and you were accusing me of having a go 'ad nasueum' against the left this thread was directed NOT at the left in my mind at all ( though much of its goes for elements of that too .. certainly not the SP) but at elements of the @ and ultra-green movement

 

[durruti02]

When you say "just a word".....

?

 

[kyser_soze]

Instead of going for the big hurrah and sexy country-wide seizing of power, how about working out how people can regain basic levels of control over their own lives, free of as many forms of dependency on the State as possible? Local health and education control; local control over social housing. You can talk forever about the lack of power and control people have over their lives, but then say nothing about reclaiming the prosaic and the boring, only ever about exciting things like seizing control of the grid, smashing the whole capitalist apparatus...and for whom? For what? Millions of people who have been degraded so far that even basic stuff like cooking is beyond not only their ability but also outside of their conception of life? You think that suddenly devolving control of the whole state to all of us, not just those at the bottom of the pile, who are used to not having to think about the wider ramifications of our lifestyles are suddenly going to be ready to run a country?

For all it's usefulness and moral correctness, the welfare state has mirrored wider society in that it removes control over individuals' lives, and you can't simply expect communities with high indexes of social deprivation to simply take control without some kind of inbetween stage where people of all classes have the opportunity to regain some measure of actual choice and control in their lives.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

the welfare state has mirrored wider society in that it removes control over individuals' lives

Compared to what?

 

[durruti02]

1)Instead of going for the big hurrah and sexy country-wide seizing of power, how about working out how people can regain basic levels of control over their own lives, free of as many forms of dependency on the State as possible? Local health and education control; local control over social housing.

2)You can talk forever about the lack of power and control people have over their lives, but then say nothing about reclaiming the prosaic and the boring, only ever about exciting things like seizing control of the grid, smashing the whole capitalist apparatus...and for whom? For what?

3)Millions of people who have been degraded so far that even basic stuff like cooking is beyond not only their ability but also outside of their conception of life? You think that suddenly devolving control of the whole state to all of us, not just those at the bottom of the pile, who are used to not having to think about the wider ramifications of our lifestyles are suddenly going to be ready to run a country?

4)For all it's usefulness and moral correctness, the welfare state has mirrored wider society in that it removes control over individuals' lives, and you can't simply expect communities with high indexes of social deprivation to simply take control without some kind of inbetween stage where people of all classes have the opportunity to regain some measure of actual choice and control in their lives.

1) totally agree hence being involved in groups like Hackney Independent

2)? i do .. constantly ( see other forum threads)

3) not so sure here

4) and disagree .. if we have lost such things and i accept we have to a degree .. then we need to learn to get them back ..and in fact the OP/point of ther thread is that we need this day to day stuff sorted to a large degree if chnage does NOT get sidetracked or defetaed by reaction

 

[kyser_soze]

We have become incredibly cossetted in a world of convenience that removes control from us in the guise of 'choice'; as this change has increased in wider society, so the level of control has increased over those dependent on the state to survive. Things like the ever debated convenience food, the takeaway that's cheaper and easier for the time pressed unemployed person to buy, and the culture that encourages it.

What I'm saying is that everyone in society has become disempowered and to a greater or lesser extent forgotten how to manage themselves, living in the expectation that someone else will take care of things; for those dependent on the state that's a baseline situation: someone is in control of your life, usually someone for whom you're a number and collection of responses on a form. You can't expect to have some kind of massive social change without addressing the levels of disempowerment and the problems that brings with it.