Should the Trade unions form a new left leaning party?

[DotCommunist]

mocking your axe grinding is not the same as sticking up for islam is it?

 

[SpineyNorman]

mocking your axe grinding is not the same as sticking up for islam is it?

It is you know, it's not possible to think that both Islam and people who swallow some mental Koran fueled apocalyptic fantasy are stupid.

Strangely enough I actually agree with most of what JHE has been saying on this thread. I think what the left currently offers both in terms of descriptions of what the future society ought to look like and the means by which to get there does tend to be fairly vague. Fuck knows what the answer is though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's difficult to imagine such a party having much success. People are pissed off with politics generally. And political parties, whatever good intentions they might start off with, always come under increasing pressure to drop any radical ideas as they get nearer to forming a government. Germany had a Green-Socialist alliance government a few years ago, but the effects of that weren't exactly revolutionary.

Calling the SPD socialist is like using the same word to describe New Labour - entirely inaccurate. Expecting them to be revolutionary (as some Germans did) because the party had some 68ers at the top was wishful thinking on a grand scale.

A better idea would be a big pressure group aimed at defending the interests of workers and stopping the ruling class from abusing their power. But for that to work, it would be important that they are NOT tempted to become a party. Otherwise they would end up just the same as all the others, which is exactly what happened to the Labour Party.

Doc, we're long beyond the point where this can be about "defending the interests of the workers", it has to be about any and all threatened by capital defending themselves against it. Focussing on the workers may have been a great move 150, 100 even 50 years ago, but nowadays? With the constraints on meaningful trade union activity you'd be defending the interests of a minority.

 

[Dr Dolittle]

I thought that might come up, but I'm talking with my Marxist hat on. Nowadays, the 'workers' means just about all of us - including the 'squeezed middle' - all of us who are, as you say, "threatened by capital defending themselves against it", if I'm understanding you correctly. The middle class have been affected by declining living standards for at least ten years now, with most of them having to do the jobs previously done by at least two people. This was what Marx predicted, and we're finally starting to see it. If there's a serious organised rebellion against the abuses of capitalism, it will be the middle class who lead it, because they are the modern equivalent of the skilled working class of Marx's time.

 

[ViolentPanda]

if trade unionists were to try this it would have to be a lot more far reaching in appeal than just to their own kind.

I presume you mean other workers?

We have done left parties round and round here for many years. I think there is room for one, separate from the Green Party, and getting the SWPs heads round that would not be easy.

Who gives a dogs cock what the Swappies can get their head around? Look at their record, for fucks sake. They give the kiss of death to just about any endeavour they get involved in that won't allow itself to be used as an SWP front.

But it is the Labour left who would need to be attracted too.

The "Labour left" is a rump, not just in parliament, but in the constituencies. The old lefties have given up, and there's no new blood taking their place because frankly if you're interested in politics as a vehicle for beneficial social change, then Labour, even it's remaining left, won't inspire you much.

LRC has a not dis similar amount of members to the Green Party.

Not many, then.

Although the SPD/Green coalition in Germany wasn't especially radical, it should be noted that specific greenleft parties have made some decent progress in Iceland and Denmark.

Both countries that have small populations, and a far greater individual and community involvement in local and national politics, too. The simple fact is that here can't be like there because there is no mechanism available for "us" to garner meaningful representation from "them". The Danes and the Icelandic do have such mechanisms, we have barely any chance, with or without a "new left-leaning party", to secure such mechanisms for ourselves. That's what parliamentary democracy does - gives the illusion of democracy, so that we're free to sit and complain, but can't actually change anything unless it's a change "they" want rather than "us".

Overall, a non party movement as Dr Dolittle suggests, might well be a good idea too, but the function of an electoral political party is different and that function probably still needs attending to.

Fine, but non-party movements tend to run on either specific issues or on "single issues". What's your proposed angle?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Sadly I think you are right Violent Panda. I was one of the 'old lefties'. I never see any of the others I knew, these days. We have all given up on politics.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The problem is the poor don't vote so the politicians need to appeal to the people who do.

An admirably astute train of thought marred only by the fact that it's mind-fuckingly inaccurate.

The problem is that those members of "the poor" who don't vote (and an average of around 40% nationally DO, higher in Scotland and Wales) have no incentive to vote for anyone because under our current political system their votes are meaningless as devices for securing any gains for "the poor". Politics has shifted from (roughly) a social democracy approach where elements of capitalism and socialism existed (mostly uncomfortably) side-by-side, to an approach informed by neo-liberal economics, and exemplified by consumption - you are what you own. Rather than being defined by your achievements, you're now defined by what you accumulate. Don't have a smartphone? Then you're a nobody etc etc.

As for politicians needing to appeal to those who do vote, it's far worse than that: They only have to put any real eefort into reaching swing-voters in marginals, the rest just needs keeping an eye on.
Sad, but our governance depends on a couple of hundred thousand people who oscillate wildly across the political spectrum, depending on what bribes they're offered.

I have given up with politics for this very reason.

No, you've've given up on politics because it has no meaning and no benefit for you, just like "the poor" you're talking about.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't know which came first, the poor not voting or the main parties moving away from the poor. Either way they are not represented and as such have become apathetic.

The numbers, excluding flukes like "the Falklands factor" or the 1997 landslide, tend to show the drift away from political engagement happening across the social spectrum (bearing in mind that from the late 1960s-onward the whole "voting with your class" issue had started to dissolve). As fewer and fewer realise any direct or indirect benefit from one or another political party governing, so fewer vote, and more feel distrust.

 

[ViolentPanda]

All the mainstream parties come out with helping the 'squeezed middle' don't they? If that is so it leaves a bloated top ( which the Tories look after ) and a bloated bottom who.......just who IS looking out for the bloated bottom?

The whole "we'll help those in the squeezed middle" schtick is a phantom anyway. You're looking at a few feelgood policy ideas and a restatement of (so-called) values, that's all. What would help "the squeezed middle" (and everyone else except Capital) is making those who smashed the economy pay to rebuild it.

That won't happen.

If no-one is looking out for them then I suppose they will have to look out for themselves ( see; riots )

It's been that way as long as I can remember, mate. I first got involved in local politics as a teenager, in 1976, and it's the same now as it was then - you can only trust establishment politicians, even the "decent ones", to do one thing: Shit on you if it means perpetuating the state and assisting Capital and its' -ism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It is a mistake to think that the Trade Unions are on the left of politics. Within the Labour Party they have always voted to the right. Just because the tabloids throughout the post war period in attacking the trade unions by saying that they were communist controlled doesn't mean that the average trade unionist is communist or even on the left of the Labour Party. The hierarchical structure of the trade unions was a mirror of that within ownership and management of the industrial workplaces when these were the dominant employers. The trade unions originally founded the Labour Party to represent their interests but once it was created it had a life of its own and it was ruled by people who were part of the ruling class, if perhaps non-conformist. The Labour Party itself has never been particularly left wing except for a brief period after WWII. Even they they were just enacting policies that had been worked out during the war by middle-class educated idealists. That was a good thing because it created the Welfare State, which was so popular that even the Tories left it in place after winning the subsequent election.

The influence of idealist reformers has gone now. The word 'reform' has itself changed meaning. It used to be used to suggest an improvement for the oppressed or disadvantaged. Now 'reform' is a weasel word meaning strike out against anything that impedes the rich and powerful and the vested interests of international Capital.

As for the Trade Unions I think everyone who works should join their trade union and become an active member. The trade unions are very useful pressure groups and still do lots of good work in protecting the interests of working people operating within the laws. As for creating or changing those laws, this is the job of MPs but a vote for an MP does not influence their policies, they are controlled by patronage within the party. In any case change in the laws is not going to happen directly through Parliament any more. Even if by some strange change of fortunes there was a majority in Parliament for a trade union sympathetic party, old or new, the power of law is not within any one country any more. Our laws and that of all the countries within the EU are made within the European Parliament. The only relationship our Parliament has with the EU is one of subservience. I am not being Nationalist here. You can vote for an MEP but have no influence over policy. In its turn the EU Parliament is entirely under the control of international bankers and massive multinational companies whose purview is not just the EU but the whole world. Currently the media are reporting what the IMF is saying about European and World economic policies. Our various governments under all political persuasions will do exactly what the IMF wants. Who voted IMF in any election ever?

Well said.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why don't we wait for the backwash from the future ELECTION results as the by election disasters for the Lib Dems and Labour build up, and the results of the next General Election, before making such emphatic pronouncements. Early days yet in the ever deepening world capitalist meltdown to be making such "Nothing will ever change with the major parties" statements.

Yep, let's sit and wait and see, thumbs up our collective arses and silly grins on our faces.

You do "geddit" that we are in the most serious, and ever-deepening systemic world economic crisis since the 1930's dont you Buchersapron ? There's no quick fixes with this one , at the individual political party level never mind at the level of the individual nation state.

And why exactly are we in that crisis? What has been done to treat the cause of the crisis? I'll tell you what, the political equivalent of sticking an elastoplast on a sucking wound.

Do you "geddit" that because of the neo-liberal turn of politics, people at the bottom don't even have the pretence of a defence against what is already happening, let alone what is to come? This isn't about individual parties and states, it's about, eventually, living free, or living under (if you're privileged to live in a "democracy") the velvet glove concealing an iron fist that often won't hesitate to "amend" your rights to do anything that might threaten it.

 

[ayatollah]

Sadly I think you are right Violent Panda. I was one of the 'old lefties'. I never see any of the others I knew, these days. We have all given up on politics.

There's an awful lot of world weary pessimism and cynicism on here ... and obviously for good reason . I'm an old 70's Lefty too - finally so pissed off by the late 80's by the "Life of Brian " reenactment society antics of the Left that I gave up and "had a life" away from political activism. But , bloody hell, the much trumpeted "crisis of capitalism" we all blethered on about as young bright eyed socialists , fruitlessly, since 1945, is FINALLY HERE ! Only a mass Left isn't of course... it diminished in the interim to a handful of sad zealots...bloody typical of us all !

But we all better get off our collective arses and simply RESIST by whatever means we can, at local , national. and trades union levels , because if we don't , we are all going to suffer the 25%+ drop in living standards the capitalist class are quite openly lining up for us all. I simply don't know if viable new formal and informal political/campaigning organisations can be formed as the crisis deepens ... but I get some hope from seeing the spontaneous rising of resistance in the Arab states in the "Arab Spring events " (Though of course with the exception of Libya the bulk of the regimes are still there). Nevertheless , remembering the success of the anti poll tax campaign, and hoping that faced with collective and personal ruin we will eventually collectively start to RESIST in a myriad of ways against the cuts , I refuse to retreat to the saloon bar and weep at the hopelessness of it all. For instance I'll be demonstrating tomorrow in Manchester outside the Tory Conference with thousands of others. Useless ? Possibly, but at least we'll get some satisfaction of we can worry the bastards !

 

[ViolentPanda]

I thought that might come up, but I'm talking with my Marxist hat on. Nowadays, the 'workers' means just about all of us - including the 'squeezed middle' - all of us who are, as you say, "threatened by capital defending themselves against it", if I'm understanding you correctly. The middle class have been affected by declining living standards for at least ten years now, with most of them having to do the jobs previously done by at least two people. This was what Marx predicted, and we're finally starting to see it. If there's a serious organised rebellion against the abuses of capitalism, it will be the middle class who lead it, because they are the modern equivalent of the skilled working class of Marx's time.

Marx predicted it, Jack London wrote a very funny (in my opinion anyway ! ) explanation of why that'll never happen in "The Iron Heel". The middle classes, because of who they are, because of their drive for status, for some distinction from the masses, will almost always, except for isolated members, go with the forces of reaction rather than revolution, even though it's obvious that doing so will eventually crush them.
I realise that sounds a bit gloomy, but the middle classes have pissed on the poor so often through the course of history that on a worldwide basis we tend to loathe them even more than we loathe the ruling classes, modern-day equivalents to the artisan class or not.

I do take your point, I'm just not particularly sanguine that the middle classes will ever realise that making common cause with us makes sense, when it means destabilisation of everything many of them hold dear - relative status and power compared to "the common herd", even if it is transient.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sadly I think you are right Violent Panda. I was one of the 'old lefties'. I never see any of the others I knew, these days. We have all given up on politics.

Streathamite and I were discussing our own experiences too. Same thing, and those that did stay in post-Blair's demolition of any retence of socialism burned themselves out trying to keep their constituencies alive once the membership rolls started free-falling. Some haven't given up on politics per se, but merely on party politics, but even so, there was a wealth of knowledge and compassion there that the Labour party pissed away when it decided to follow the money trail.

 

[Dr Dolittle]

The MOD, apparently, don't share Violent Panda's view of the middle classes not going along with the common cause. My optimistic take is based partly on this report leaked by the Guardian a few years ago. Note the fourth paragraph, sub-headed 'Marxism'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/09/frontpagenews.news?INTCMP=SRCH

 

[Dr Dolittle]

Not that I'm a Marxist in the strictly conventional sense. I call myself a Marxist sympathiser - agreeing with some but not all of what Marxists say. Years ago, back in the 80s, I was involved in Militant, but even then I was sceptical about what they could achieve. It's clearer now than it was then that the Left were fighting a losing battle. But that was in the Thatcher days, and a lot has changed since then. Not that I'm likely to resume political activism: I'm too old, I haven't got the energy. But I wish the youth good luck.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There's an awful lot of world weary pessimism and cynicism on here ... and obviously for good reason . I'm an old 70's Lefty too - finally so pissed off by the late 80's by the "Life of Brian " reenactment society antics of the Left that I gave up and "had a life" away from political activism. But , bloody hell, the much trumpeted "crisis of capitalism" we all blethered on about as young bright eyed socialists , fruitlessly, since 1945, is FINALLY HERE ! Only a mass Left isn't of course... it diminished in the interim to a handful of sad zealots...bloody typical of us all !

This "crisis of capitalism" has been here for nigh on 40 years, mate, and if you are indeed an old lefty, you'll know why there's only a bewildered (and often bewildering) rump left. If you legislate away the ability of unions to take action, they become a tradition rather than a socially-relevant organisation. If you tie unions to political parties (as happens virtually everywhere), you inhibit action by introducing a brake on change.

But we all better get off our collective arses and simply RESIST by whatever means we can, at local , national. and trades union levels , because if we don't , we are all going to suffer the 25%+ drop in living standards the capitalist class are quite openly lining up for us all. I simply don't know if viable new formal and informal political/campaigning organisations can be formed as the crisis deepens ... but I get some hope from seeing the spontaneous rising of resistance in the Arab states in the "Arab Spring events " (Though of course with the exception of Libya the bulk of the regimes are still there). Nevertheless , remembering the success of the anti poll tax campaign, and hoping that faced with collective and personal ruin we will eventually collectively start to RESIST in a myriad of ways against the cuts , I refuse to retreat to the saloon bar and weep at the hopelessness of it all. For instance I'll be demonstrating tomorrow in Manchester outside the Tory Conference with thousands of others. Useless ? Possibly, but at least we'll get some satisfaction of we can worry the bastards !

The cuts are coming whoever sits in the Palace of Westminster. As I said earlier, we have no legal or licit mechanisms through which to prevent them. That means that people have (to their own minds) more to lose from resistance than compliance - resist and you could possibly end up in prison, comply and you'll suffer the cuts, but you'll still have your (relative) liberty. Things will need to a lot shittier before a Poll Tax riot or Arab Spring moment, direct threats such as the tuition fee rises, not nebulous local authority or police service spending cuts, and who disseminates the information about these threats? Who mediates the message between the threat and the reportage of it, "us" or "them"?

 

[ViolentPanda]

The MOD, apparently, don't share Violent Panda's view of the middle classes not going along with the common cause. My optimistic take is based partly on this report leaked by the Guardian a few years ago. Note the fourth paragraph, sub-headed 'Marxism'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/09/frontpagenews.news?INTCMP=SRCH

I remember reading that when it was first leaked. It was pretty much a belated echo of the sort of stuff Rand were producing and feeding to Rep and Dem politicians during Clinton's tenure. You basically work out where you want money to go, and then find a way to "sell" a threat that will have money spent on it. For Clinton that meant increased defence spending (obviously) but also increased Federal Emergency powers and funding to states for "internal security", here, it meant expanding spending on surveillance capabilities, both personnel and materiel.
History doesn't agree with that report, unfortunately for the authors. While elements of the middle classes become radicalised, the mass don't. The mass favour inertia, stability, the status quo.

 

[ayatollah]

Just picked up more gems from your endless pessimism ViolentPanda on my laptop whilst endlessly waiting around in a HUGE demo on the way to confront the Tory Conference in Manchester. No ViolentPanda capitalism hasn't been "in crisis for 40 years" ...it was actually in generally upward growth mode since WWII... the current world-wide systemic crisis only started in 2008. Why do you waste your time spreading your hopeless , weary worldly-wise saloon bar pessimism on this thread, why don't you just slit your wrists and spare us all your pathetic whining !

Anyone who wants a realtime update on this great demo have a look at the Socialist Worker website, now and during the day.

 

[Sasaferrato]

An admirably astute train of thought marred only by the fact that it's mind-fuckingly inaccurate.

The problem is that those members of "the poor" who don't vote (and an average of around 40% nationally DO, higher in Scotland and Wales) have no incentive to vote for anyone because under our current political system their votes are meaningless as devices for securing any gains for "the poor". Politics has shifted from (roughly) a social democracy approach where elements of capitalism and socialism existed (mostly uncomfortably) side-by-side, to an approach informed by neo-liberal economics, and exemplified by consumption - you are what you own. Rather than being defined by your achievements, you're now defined by what you accumulate. Don't have a smartphone? Then you're a nobody etc etc.

As for politicians needing to appeal to those who do vote, it's far worse than that: They only have to put any real eefort into reaching swing-voters in marginals, the rest just needs keeping an eye on.
Sad, but our governance depends on a couple of hundred thousand people who oscillate wildly across the political spectrum, depending on what bribes they're offered.

No, you've've given up on politics because it has no meaning and no benefit for you, just like "the poor" you're talking about.

' The Poor ' have a vote, just like those whom you would designate as ' not poor '. I suspect we would disagree as to the definition of poor, in my view, in Britain, we have those who are less well off, but by the standards of third world poverty, are actually quite well off. The point at issue with poverty is where society chooses to draw the financial line.

One person, one vote and a plethora of political divisions. In Scotland this is less of an issue, the loonie left picks up a seat or two in the Scottish ' Parliament ', but does not return a single mP to Westminster. The left needs to stop the whining and navel gazing and unite behind a single candidate. Forget the Marxist, Stalinist, Anarchist etc tossers, and combine the votes behind a credible candidate. At the moment the left is getting precisely what it deserves, fuck all.

 

[TremulousTetra]

if trade unionists were to try this it would have to be a lot more far reaching in appeal than just to their own kind. We have done left parties round and round here for many years. I think there is room for one, separate from the Green Party, and getting the SWPs heads round that would not be easy. But it is the Labour left who would need to be attracted too. LRC has a not dis similar amount of members to the Green Party.

Although the SPD/Green coalition in Germany wasn't especially radical, it should be noted that specific greenleft parties have made some decent progress in Iceland and Denmark.

Overall, a non party movement as Dr Dolittle suggests, might well be a good idea too, but the function of an electoral political party is different and that function probably still needs attending to.

As an X-SWP, I agree with all your comments there, which make your comments about the SWP not being able to get their head round it puzzling. What did you mean?

 

[TremulousTetra]

' The Poor ' have a vote, just like those whom you would designate as ' not poor '. I suspect we would disagree as to the definition of poor, in my view, in Britain, we have those who are less well off, but by the standards of third world poverty, are actually quite well off. The point at issue with poverty is where society chooses to draw the financial line.

you are just side stepping his point though, not dealing with it.

One person, one vote and a plethora of political divisions. In Scotland this is less of an issue, the loonie left picks up a seat or two in the Scottish ' Parliament ', but does not return a single mP to Westminster. The left needs to stop the whining and navel gazing and unite behind a single candidate. Forget the Marxist, Stalinist, Anarchist etc tossers, and combine the votes behind a credible candidate. At the moment the left is getting precisely what it deserves, fuck all.

I would put it the other way round. " At the moment the working-class is getting precisely what it deserves, fuck all." ONLY when the working class takes control of its destiny, ACTS,will it get something different.

 

[Sasaferrato]

you are just side stepping his point though, not dealing with it.

I would put it the other way round. " At the moment the working-class is getting precisely what it deserves, fuck all." ONLY when the working class takes control of its destiny, ACTS,will it get something different.

It is well beyond my scope to define where the line should be drawn as to what is poverty. I would regards the absence of:

Affordable housing
Enough to eat
A washing machie
Fridge
Vacuum cleaner
Televison
Telephone and internet
At least a basic cable or satellite subscription
Cooker with oven
Adequate heating

as meaning that someone was in poverty, others would add and subtract to the list. I regard the TV subscription as being an essential because when you cannot afford to go out, TV is virtually the only entertainment and stimulus.

You are correct regarding the left, working class, whatever. Until there is unity and endorsement of a single candidate, the left is going nowhere. You also really need a new leader, I would not be so presumptuous as to suggest whom, but Balls or Cooper would be little better than Milliband.

I am genuinely sad to see the death of the Labour party, in its heyday it was an institution that was working for the betterment of the ordinary person. That went with Blair, or perhaps even before then.

 

[TremulousTetra]

It is well beyond my scope to define where the line should be drawn as to what is poverty. I would regards the absence of:

Affordable housing
Enough to eat
A washing machie
Fridge
Vacuum cleaner
Televison
Telephone and internet
At least a basic cable or satellite subscription
Cooker with oven
Adequate heating

as meaning that someone was in poverty, others would add and subtract to the list. I regard the TV subscription as being an essential because when you cannot afford to go out, TV is virtually the only entertainment and stimulus.

I'm sorry, I can see now you are genuinely misunderstanding the main point, rather than sidestepping it.
It doesn't matter how you define poor, how many there are, whether they had them items on your list or not, there would still not be any significant political choice between any of the parties on offer, and so no reason to vote. That is main point. [Though there is some debate also about your definition of poor, in the 1950s and 60s we didn't have such abundanceof many of those things on your list, but were still arguably richer.]

You are correct regarding the left, working class, whatever. Until there is unity and endorsement of a single candidate, the left is going nowhere. You also really need a new leader, I would not be so presumptuous as to suggest whom, but Balls or Cooper would be little better than Milliband.

I am genuinely sad to see the death of the Labour party, in its heyday it was an institution that was working for the betterment of the ordinary person. That went with Blair, or perhaps even before then.

wouldn't the working class getting enough unity, to take power and deliver it to the likes of Balls and Cooper, just be repeating the mistakes of the past? Wouldn't it be better for ordinary people to take power for themselves rather than politicians, with their track record?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Just picked up more gems from your endless pessimism ViolentPanda on my laptop whilst endlessly waiting around in a HUGE demo on the way to confront the Tory Conference in Manchester.

Bully for you. Off you go to shout your slogans and wave your placards.

Ineffectively.

Again.

No ViolentPanda capitalism hasn't been "in crisis for 40 years" ...it was actually in generally upward growth mode since WWII...

40 years takes us back to the early 1970s, when that "generally-upward growth mode" you're blabbering about was kicked in the arse by, successively, the Nixon administration ceasing dollar convertability to gold, which in turn fed into the effects of the 1973 oil-shock and which both contributed, at separate times, to the two year-long worldwide bear market of 1973-'74. The effects of all these events contributed to a crisis of capitalism that fueled the political acceptance in supposed social democracies of a neo-liberal "solution" to that crisis. The crisis has never gone away. It is, in fact, perpetuated by an adherence to neo-liberal economic doctrine, as can be seen from an examination of most market and social failures over the last 40 years.

...the current world-wide systemic crisis only started in 2008.

It came to a head in 2008. It didn't start then.

Why do you waste your time spreading your hopeless , weary worldly-wise saloon bar pessimism on this thread, why don't you just slit your wrists and spare us all your pathetic whining !

I don't spread pessimism, I take a view, one that is informed not by adherence to a particular political dogma.

As for slashing my wrists, why would I do that when what I say riles a no-mark like you enough to call on me to commit suicide?

Anyone who wants a realtime update on this great demo have a look at the Socialist Worker website, now and during the day.

Says it all, really.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I'm sorry, I can see now you are genuinely misunderstanding the main point, rather than sidestepping it.
It doesn't matter how you define poor, how many there are, whether they had them items on your list or not, there would still not be any significant political choice between any of the parties on offer, and so no reason to vote. That is main point. [Though there is some debate also about your definition of poor, in the 1950s and 60s we didn't have such abundanceof many of those things on your list, but were still arguably richer.]
wouldn't the working class getting enough unity, to take power and deliver it to the likes of Balls and Cooper, just be repeating the mistakes of the past? Wouldn't it be better for ordinary people to take power for themselves rather than politicians, with their track record?

You will wait a long time before there is a revolution, armed or otherwise, in Britain. We have a parliamentary democracy. To change things, you need to get your people elected, not an easy task, but not impossible.

The formation of a new left leaning party would need to start soon, and to do so, with any hope of success, you need to get the disparate groups under one banner.

Good luck.

 

[ViolentPanda]

' The Poor ' have a vote, just like those whom you would designate as ' not poor '. I suspect we would disagree as to the definition of poor, in my view, in Britain, we have those who are less well off, but by the standards of third world poverty, are actually quite well off. The point at issue with poverty is where society chooses to draw the financial line.

One person, one vote and a plethora of political divisions. In Scotland this is less of an issue, the loonie left picks up a seat or two in the Scottish ' Parliament ', but does not return a single mP to Westminster. The left needs to stop the whining and navel gazing and unite behind a single candidate. Forget the Marxist, Stalinist, Anarchist etc tossers, and combine the votes behind a credible candidate. At the moment the left is getting precisely what it deserves, fuck all.

You've entirely missed my point, old son, which isn't about whether left or right is best, it's about a political culture that has progressively alienated people, left or right, from engaging with it. That people who have less, who may exist in poorer conditions, may be more alienated, less likely to vote, should be a cause for concern, yet it isn't, because our votes don't matter, our say doesn't matter.

You talk about creible candidates, but there aren't any, there are merely different flavours of the same pile of bullshit. \you may be unable to see the same neo-liberal principles behind the policies of every party, but plenty of others do.

 

[Sasaferrato]

This "crisis of capitalism" has been here for nigh on 40 years, mate, and if you are indeed an old lefty, you'll know why there's only a bewildered (and often bewildering) rump left. If you legislate away the ability of unions to take action, they become a tradition rather than a socially-relevant organisation. If you tie unions to political parties (as happens virtually everywhere), you inhibit action by introducing a brake on change.

The cuts are coming whoever sits in the Palace of Westminster. As I said earlier, we have no legal or licit mechanisms through which to prevent them. That means that people have (to their own minds) more to lose from resistance than compliance - resist and you could possibly end up in prison, comply and you'll suffer the cuts, but you'll still have your (relative) liberty. Things will need to a lot shittier before a Poll Tax riot or Arab Spring moment, direct threats such as the tuition fee rises, not nebulous local authority or police service spending cuts, and who disseminates the information about these threats? Who mediates the message between the threat and the reportage of it, "us" or "them"?

So you feel that the uprising from support for the naked greed of students protesting against fee rises? I don't think so. Go to Harvard if you don't like it here, fees £25k a year upfront, not after you are earning £21k a year. No student pays a penny until after graduation, not that you would realise that from their mendacious statements. The bare faced cheek of those people, they expect the taxes of the poor to go giving them a university education, which leads to salaries which are multiples of those whom they expect to feather bed them.

 

[fogbat]

Yep. You've got all the cliches in there. Well done.

 

[TremulousTetra]

please forgive me editing your post.

Just picked up more gems from your endless pessimism ViolentPanda on my laptop whilst endlessly waiting around in a HUGE demo on the way to confront the Tory Conference in Manchester. Why do you waste your time spreading your hopeless , weary worldly-wise saloon bar pessimism on this thread, why don't you just slit your wrists and spare us all your pathetic whining !

Anyone who wants a realtime update on this great demo have a look at the Socialist Worker website, now and during the day.

he's not pessimistic, he has an alternative which he feels would be more fruitful. Unfortunately I am unaware of any meaningful manifestation of that alternative in the UK.

No ViolentPanda capitalism hasn't been "in crisis for 40 years" ...it was actually in generally upward growth mode since WWII... the current world-wide systemic crisis only started in 2008.

have a look at the Socialist worker website, and its affiliate's, and you will see they too believe capitalism has been in crisis's for 40 years.in fact, it's a bit of a pedantic point and arbitrary, but from memory they place the date of the end of the post-war boom as 1972, and I think it was the Bretton Woods Agreement.