Just a word of warning re activism and the financial crisis

[Donna Ferentes]

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.

So how does convenience food increase the level of control?

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

Nonsense. There's nothing empowering about living without secure accommodation. Nor about having a little money in your pocket: that money empowers you.

 

[Brainaddict]

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.

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.

Now you're just being reasonable. You can prove anything with reason!

 

[durruti02]

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.

yes i agree .. but isn't that what i am arguing in every thread i post on?

btw my dad was one of those old school w/c socialists from the south wales DIY of the chapel libraries and WEA and ruskin college who always argued the welfare state would destroy the w/c

 

[ViolentPanda]

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?

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, as I'm sure you know.

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

Wrong, it is reaction. It may have been on a different scale to most European manifestations, but that is arguably because of our uniquely long industrialised history compared to the other states you mention.

.. 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 ..

You think that those "shenanigans" were confined to the 60s and 70s?

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

I understand it perfectly well. better perhaps than you understand how the British state engaged with it's own execution of "reaction".

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

I can see why condescending appeals to you, because you have so little to condescend about.
perhaps next time you do it, you'll actually have a reason for doing so, eh?

 

[kyser_soze]

So how does convenience food increase the level of control?

By destroying individually and communually held skillsets and knowledge about the most basic of things, eating, and relying on the whole logistic jewel of modern capitalism to feed oneself. I'm not advocating The Good Life in every estate, but FFS when I grew up take-aways and convenience food were a treat, not what we ate every night.

Nonsense. There's nothing empowering about living without secure accommodation. Nor about having a little money in your pocket: that money empowers you.

So you think dependency is empowering? You think relying on the largesse of the state is something that makes people feel good?

Not surprising since you can't see the moral issue with coercive taxation either, regardless of it's social benefits.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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?

You believe calling you "self-satisfied" is personal abuse?

get a grip, for fuck's sake!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

So you think dependency is empowering?

No. I don't think that it's dependency. And I ask "how non-dependent would people be without these things? What was it like before them?" and I notice that prior to the welfare state, poor, sick and unemployed people were genuinely dependent. They were dependent on on charity and the church. And so I don't come with with cock about "dependency" because people don't usually have to beg for the necessaries of life.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

Whoosh^^^^

That was the point going right over your head.

 

[durruti02]

You believe calling you "self-satisfied" is personal abuse?

get a grip, for fuck's sake!

vp whats wrong with you sometimes? you and tangent entirely missed the point of the OP ( you misunderstood what i was talking about and to who it was aimed ) and then start going on about self satisfied blah blah blah .. leave all the personal stuff out purlease

 

[Donna Ferentes]

you and tangent entirely missed the point of the OP

Not such a hard thing to do, to be honest

 

[durruti02]

Whoosh^^^^

That was the point going right over your head.

yeah right

"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."

you both were simply wrong

 

[kyser_soze]

I notice that prior to the welfare state, poor, sick and unemployed people were genuinely dependent. They were dependent on on charity and the church.

So we've institutionalised dependency; formalised the relationship within society. Great, a real advance.

 

[durruti02]

Not such a hard thing to do, to be honest

tangent in my experiance yes .. VP is usually pretty good imho

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Great, a real advance.

Oh yes. Without doubt. We provided the things which most people were always going to struggle to do independently, and thus gave them the chance to live properly, without their lives being dominated by want. Or indeed cant.

 

[durruti02]

Oh yes. Without doubt. We provided the things which most people were always going to struggle to do independently, and thus gave them the chance to live properly, without their lives being dominated by want. Or indeed cant.

yes and no cos it was a faustian deal surely .. you give up politics and community and what you create yourself .. in exchnage for the welfare state

 

[Donna Ferentes]

yes and no cos it was a faustian deal surely .. you give up politics and community and what you create yourself .. in exchnage for the welfare state

I'm not aware that either politics or community ceased to exist in 1945. Or, for that matter, the ability to create things yourself.

 

[durruti02]

I'm not aware that either politics or community ceased to exist in 1945. Or, for that matter, the ability to create things yourself.

well things did change clearly .. workers education was nationalised, self managed libraries were repalced by state libraries etc ... politics has not been about self organisation and what power ordianry people haev since 45 .. but about what the welfare state provides and hwo it is paid for

 

[Donna Ferentes]

well things did change clearly .. workers education was nationalised, self managed libraries were repalced by state libraries etc ...

Well, public libraries were provided. Good. But nobody was prevented from having any other sort of library.

 

[durruti02]

Well, public libraries were provided. Good. But nobody was prevented from having any other sort of library.

hi DF don't really want to totally derail this thread into debate on welfare state

 

[purplex]

Some good points durruti, It was much easier to organize during the 70s because, the organization was happening during a period of high union membership, and because the economic conditions which lasted until the early 80s. Thatcher played her mind trickery on the nation and it seems consumerism has won over minds and pockets. Youre going to need to provide a convincing economic argument to gain that popular support. Are there any economists out there providing that economic argument ?

 

[durruti02]

Some good points durruti, It was much easier to organize during the 70s because, the organization was happening during a period of high union membership, and because the economic conditions which lasted until the early 80s. Thatcher played her mind trickery on the nation and it seems consumerism has won over minds and pockets. Youre going to need to provide a convincing economic argument to gain that popular support. Are there any economists out there providing that economic argument ?

but that is the whole point of what i am saying . everyone is offerring an economic arguement .. i think the libertarian/@/left should provide a 'manifesto' based on power .. capitalism can provide fianacial security to the majority in the uk ( and will continue to do so for decades to come i think .. i donlt see this crisis as ending capitalism .. yes there are resource issues but there is stil plenty of stuff under the ground . plus wait till the new green deal kicks in)

re the 6ts and 7ts butchers made the point that these were s you say periods of high union density .. how and why it did not go further is what i am trying to dig out i guess

so i am saying the one thing capital can not provide is power to people .. that then should be our niche

 

[newbie]

re the 6ts and 7ts butchers made the point that these were s you say periods of high union density .. how and why it did not go further is what i am trying to dig out i guess

Did union membership decline because of objective conditions- breakup of heavy industry, prohibition of flying pickets, etc- or because people became disillusioned? Or, to put it another way, did ordinary people not part of any organised grouping, cadre or party, find their union membership any more empowering than, say, their membership of a mutual building society or friendly society? They walked away from the unions and voted to individualise the mutuals.

Thatcher didn't force a widespread move away from collective structures towards atomised individuality, but when she provided the conditions the opportunity was taken up pretty enthusiastically. Not only by the strong, those who would argue their case and fight their corner, but also by the legions of the weak, whose voice was seldom heard within collective structures. Whether they were, as said at the time, actively manipulated by the organised few or not they appear to have voted with their feet when they saw the chance.

 

[Brainaddict]

Did union membership decline because of objective conditions- breakup of heavy industry, prohibition of flying pickets, etc- or because people became disillusioned? Or, to put it another way, did ordinary people not part of any organised grouping, cadre or party, find their union membership any more empowering than, say, their membership of a mutual building society or friendly society? They walked away from the unions and voted to individualise the mutuals.

Thatcher didn't force a widespread move away from collective structures towards atomised individuality, but when she provided the conditions the opportunity was taken up pretty enthusiastically. Not only by the strong, those who would argue their case and fight their corner, but also by the legions of the weak, whose voice was seldom heard within collective structures. Whether they were, as said at the time, actively manipulated by the organised few or not they appear to have voted with their feet when they saw the chance.

Good point, I get annoyed when I hear people saying or implying that Thatcher destroyed the organised left in this country. I wasn't around at the time but from what I've read and heard I can't help suspecting that the organised left destroyed the organised left in this country, with a bit of help from Thatcher (and those who voted for her partly because of the lack of a democratic/empowering ethos among the organised left).

 

[durruti02]

any thoughts after G20 and now Strasbourg .. to me the later illustrates who daft some sections of the left/@s are .. they are not interested in the majority .. they will get isolated, and if a threat crushed ..