Keir Starmer's time is up
- Thread starter agricola
- Start date
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Anneliese Dodds doing the media round this morning suggesting tentatively that maybe, possibly the preceding decade of tory austerity had in some way some teeny-tiny impact on the UK Covid death toll.
Never mind mentioning the direct death toll from their class-war austerity.
Never mind mentioning the direct death toll from their class-war austerity.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
She was rubbish on the Today program. She sounds too much like a politician. She needs to plainly set out why the Tories are bad, what Labour is going to do differently, and why that will be better for the ordinary voter. Using phrases like “Tory ideology” makes her sound like she is a poster on the politics forum here.
strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
So she's a Stalinist then?
ska invita
back on the other side
i thought business rate holiday was already as good as announced for the coming financial year?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's been used in something like 100 posts here out of ~ 2.7m posts in the politics forum. So not really. Fuckwit, cunt, twat, running dog of imperialism, these would be things that would make her sound more like she's a poster in our politics forum
ska invita
back on the other side
you get better results for "tory cunts"
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Just so
teqniq
DisMembered
Originally I was reading the thread this was posted on because...
Seems like some at least have started to wake up and smell the coffee. With the constituency boundaries increasingly gerrymandered to favour the vermin the prospect of a FPTP win for Labour looks bleak, never even mind the present leader.
ska invita
back on the other side
I do hope theres a physical conference this year 
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
I still don't know what hegemony means and I've looked it up several times
One thing the right wing does a lot better than we do is using language that people actually fucking understand.
Eta: what Chomsky said that you can't encapsulate the problem in just a soundbite because you have to go against peoples' underlying belief system but we often just don't seem to try.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
But how does PR help the LP, or left-wing parties? More importantly how does it help the workers?
Italy has a system that incorporates PR, they just had (yet another) technocratic government installed. Germany has a system that has PR, the SDP are in a coalition with the CDU and dying, and while the Greens have grown chances are they are going to go into coalition with the CDU (and FDP).
Nether France nor Australian have FPTP (though neither has a electoral system that is proportional) and there is an absence of democratic socialist, or even social-democratic, parties there. NZ does have a PR system but again no significant social democratic party.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Do Italy/Germany/Scotland/NZ have "fairer" representation? What use is fairer representation if it does not change the neo-liberal politics of governments?
teqniq
DisMembered
Sounds like what you're actually wanting is a revolution - not that I'm actually against that in principle, but realistically it's unlikely imo. Otherwise to change the way politics and governance is currently done to a socialist model is a very long-term project indeed. Moreover it would be fought tooth and nail every inch of the way by all the usual suspects.
ska invita
back on the other side
PR, like Brexit, is good for democracy. Does that mean we get better governments? No, Brexit is currently extending Tory rule. Yet Brexit is still good for democracy.
ska invita
back on the other side
I have had that with Dialectics - i think I've got a very rudimentary grasp of that now after many yearsI still don't know what hegemony means and I've looked it up several times
Hegemony is a word I don't use, so could only do so clumsily, but I think its meaning is as simple as dominating, particularly when it comes to ideas, though it can be power more generally.
i.e the christian church was ideologically hegemonic in medieval europe
or the USA is a hegemonic power in international affairs
To have hegemonic control means to control the narrative, to control common understanding, or just dominate in general.
i think
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Well, a revolution would be quite good wouldn’t it???!
Anyway, leaving aside, for a minute, the current outcomes of the type of model that you propose which Red Squirrel has highlighted, how do you see this ‘socialist model’ happening?
In fact, isn’t the exact opposite of what you suggest likely to happen? Don’t these types of projects focussed on the capture of the state for socialist purposes tend to end up taking on the job of managing, rather than seriously challenging, capitalism, no matter how radical their original intentions may have been?
For example, phase two of the Corbyn project saw abandon the insurgent/social movement approach. Instead the focus was on the parliamentary games and positioning on Brexit.
Or take Syriza and it’s political trajectory on gaining power where it made a series of policy changes to present itself as a party of government before eventually capitulating completely and signing up the EU punishment beating of the country.
Can you give an example of where the approach you are talking about has actually worked? Or come close to working?
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
'We'll still kick you in the face, but at least we'll look a little bit less like we're enjoying it while we do.'
teqniq
DisMembered
No, I can't which is why I have said it would be a very long term project indeed. Capitalism is of course the main issue here - for me at least and to change how things are done, to address inequalities how resources are used, how we treat the environment, the planet is absolutely crucial. Kinda getting off the subject of the thread here a bit i think; partly my fault.
Last edited:
mojo pixy
שיר חדש
Antonio Gramsci had something to say on the matter, and the wikipedia entry on him gives a usefully simple outline of that.
Capitalism, Gramsci suggested, maintained control not just through violence and political and economic coercion, but also through ideology. The bourgeoisie developed a hegemonic culture, which propagated its own values and norms so that they became the "common sense" values of all.
So if I understand the concept something like the Protestant Work Ethic is a kind of hegemony. It influences all of us who grew up in it, in a thousand ways, without anyone necessarily being able to pin down exactly how it affects their world view. It's not just one thing, it's the interplay of all the mores and attitudes we are raised to consider normal and natural.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Ta - that makes sense, from Mirriam-Webster:
Illustrates my point a bit though - why not just use the word "dominant" as ? Everyone understands it, doesn't seem to lose any of the meaning.
ska invita
back on the other side
Yeah i know what you mean. There probably is a subtle difference. Ideological hegemony feels like it can be a bit more viral to me somehow, in the way 'common sense' is dominant without an immediately clear source of power.
Gramsci wrote in Italian, and maybe its a more commonly used word in Italy?
Knowing the origin helps remember it I think:
Hegemony comes to English from the Greek hēgemonia, a noun formed from the verb hēgeisthai ("to lead"), which also gave us the word exegesis ("exposition" or "explanation"). The word was first used in English in the mid-16th century in reference to the control once wielded by the ancient Greek states, and it was reapplied in later centuries as other nations subsequently rose to power. By the 20th century, it had acquired a second sense referring to the social or cultural influence wielded by a dominant member over others of its kind, such as the domination within an industry by a business conglomerate over smaller businesses.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Well we're back to the Post War Social Contract again aren't we. That came fucking close for 30 years until the media enabled Thatcher to come in with a big hammer and smash it.
Yes Corbyn phase two was a disaster but that's because Labour didn't win the election. If they'd got in power and concentrated on the same core policies of the PWSC I think they'd have made a real difference. And again - what's the alternative? I agree you organize and do what you can locally but it's the government that makes laws and a tory government makes laws that favour capitalists and fucks over unions. And that limits peoples' abilities to organize. I remember pre-Thatcher when there were ptoprt demonstrations when local hospitals were going to be closed and they actually made the decision makers think again.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
I am I revolutionary socialist, yes I'm an anarcho-communist. But that does not mean that I (or any revolutionary socialist, the level of understanding on U75 on this has gone down and down) believe it is a revolution or nothing, I am happy to get active in measures that will increase the power of the workers here and now. But you and the other people that mention PR have shown no evidence that PR will help workers.
You have said that capitalism is the main issue, absolutely it is. I'm asking you to outline how PR will challenge capitalism. I'm not particularly opposed to PR but the idea that it is going to really change the current politics is shown to be false by the large number of counter-examples. If we moved to PR in the UK the likelihood would be that you would not get Conservative majority governments, but instead you'd simply get neo-liberal coalition governments (Con+LD, LD+Lab, perhaps even Con+Lab).
In regard to PR "allowing" or providing a route to the formation of a democratic socialist party, well again where has this happened? In Greece where once in government Syrzia instituted a series of attacks on the working class.
teqniq
DisMembered
What you say is fair enough but PR may give the opportunity for realistic change. I accept that the examples you've given as to why it's not likely to are presently correct but under the current system we are fucked. We won't know until or unless we try something different. Notwithstanding revolution of course, but where is the appetite for that?
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
The post-war social contract was an attempt to manage capitalism. It was capital and the state reacting to the power of workers. That does not mean that it did not result in real benefits for workers but it was not a move to socialism. (EDIT: Remember Keynes saw his proposals as a way to protect capitalism)
This also feeds into the reasons for the decline of the post-war social contract. This was something that happened across the western world so to attribute it to Thatcher and the media misses the underlying causes. And it is worth noting that Labour government's were involved in the initial attacks upon the model of capitalism that had existed since (or during/prior) WWII.
Last edited:
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Like I said I'm not opposed to PR. If there was a referendum on it tomorrow I might even get out of bed to vote for it.
However, the idea that it is some game changer needs to be knocked on the head. Moreover, while it will likely result in no more Conservative majority governments the same applies to Labour majority governments. The biggest effect of PR in the UK (short term) would be giving the LDs the power to act as kingmakers
Similar threads
