Should the Trade unions form a new left leaning party?

[ViolentPanda]

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.

You're again missing the point.

We have this thing called a social compact. It's basically an agreement between the governed and those that govern that in return for certain considerations, the governed submit to governance.

With me so far, Methuselah?

In the case of those students, they (and their parents and sometimes grandparents) have been brought up to believe that the system works a certain way - that if, for example, you achieve good results and wish to go to uni, that your tertiary education will be subsidised. This was the way of things from the early 1950s all the way into the 1990s. For you to define a desire to receive the same assistance their parents and grandparents might have received as "greed" is an egregious misuse of the word.

Will the likes of your Mr Cameron, and Mr. Osborne be paying for their (state-subsidised) stays at Oxbridge? Or the likes of many of the previous administrations? Of course they won't, and yet it's perfectly alright to change the rules unilaterally because the banks have blown the economy and no politician has a big enough pair to stand up to their paymasters?

As many of your fellow-countrymen might say, "get away tae fuck, ya choob".

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

He did indeed. It was like wading through bullshit soup.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

You trust politicians, nobody else does.literally nobody.

your argument was the same argument made to justify slavery, 'it's always been this way'.

 

[TremulousTetra]

He did indeed. It was like wading through bullshit soup.

God VP,you never used to be so rancorous. Just ignore people who get on your nerves mate, [including me ]

 

[ViolentPanda]

please forgive me editing your post.


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.
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.

'71, as I mentioned in my reply to the self-styled "Ayatollah", and it was the ending of the Bretton Woods agreement that arguably started the ball rolling, although the economic fundamentals even then weren't particularly robust (which was, of course, one of the reasons Nixon's administration decided to "bust" the agreement).

 

[ViolentPanda]

God VP,you never used to be so rancorous. Just ignore people who get on your nerves mate, [including me ]

I only show Sas rancour because I care, you know. Sometimes one has to be cruel to be kind.

 

[TremulousTetra]

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.

you'll remember this. Remember when we had apprenticeships? Well we still have them today, but now they are not on the job paid for by the bosses, they are paid for by the taxpayer as workers acquire those skills at college. In other words, the bosses don't mind nationalisation when it suits them.

from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair we paid through taxation for their education,so that big business could have a better quality workforce from which it could make better quality profits.

So all we are seeing in both cases is business shifting cost of producing a better quality workforce from itself, to the people.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I only show Sas rancour because I care, you know. Sometimes one has to be cruel to be kind.

that's up to you mate. Personally, I cannot see the point. Have a nice day.

 

[Blagsta]

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.

Those big salaries will pay more tax and pay for their education won't they?

 

[DotCommunist]

Sass makes a good point, the tax burden on low earners is too onerous, we should reduce it and fund higher education through heavier business taxation and lower the point where individuals come into the 50p tax bracket. Suprised to see him on the side of wealth redistribution of this kind but these are strange times.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Of course the reality is that the poorest tend to be net beneficiaries when it comes to taxes and what they're spent on so to say universities are paid for by the taxes of the poor is displays either ignorance or dishonesty. I'll let Sasaferrato tell us which.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Of course the reality is that the poorest tend to be net beneficiaries when it comes to taxes and what they're spent on so to say universities are paid for by the taxes of the poor is displays either ignorance or dishonesty. I'll let Sasaferrato tell us which.

It might be both, you know!

 

[frogwoman]

they are both the scrounging recipients of taxpayers' money, and they also are paying for more scroungers to go to university (heaven forbid poor people go to university, that is not possible)

 

[ViolentPanda]

they are both the scrounging recipients of taxpayers' money, and they also are paying for more scroungers to go to university (heaven forbid poor people go to university, that is not possible)

Fucking moochers!!

They should be like Sass, own their own property*, pay their taxes and be scrupulously financially honest**!!

*Bought at a discount rate from the local authority, though, an option that won't be extended to most youngsters.

**Because I'm sure he declares/will declare any profits he makes on his philatelic endeavours.

 

[TremulousTetra]

'71, as I mentioned in my reply to the self-styled "Ayatollah", and it was the ending of the Bretton Woods agreement that arguably started the ball rolling, although the economic fundamentals even then weren't particularly robust (which was, of course, one of the reasons Nixon's administration decided to "bust" the agreement).

yes you concur with sw on all counts. [is ayatollah sw, or fellow traveller?]

 

[ViolentPanda]

yes you concur with sw on all counts. [is ayatollah sw, or fellow traveller?]

Nope, I don't concur with SW, I concur with history, as does SW.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Nope, I don't concur with SW, I concur with history, as does SW.

LOL does it really hurt you that much to admit, on this interpretation of historic events you and SW are in agreement.

PS, my main point was to Ayatollah, that the position he was rubbishing of yours, was also the same view of the group he was touting people to look at their website. I wasn't having a go at you, if anything I was trying to assist your point.

 

[ViolentPanda]

LOL does it really hurt you that much to admit, on this interpretation of historic events you and SW are in agreement.

I just did. You're the one who made the error of saying I concurred with SW, rather than that SW and I concurred on history.

PS, my main point was to Ayatollah, that the position he was rubbishing of yours, was also the same view of the group he was touting people to look at their website. I wasn't having a go at you, if anything I was trying to assist your point.

I know.

 

[ayatollah]

please forgive me editing your post.


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.
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.

You should read the SWP article with a bit more care. You are simply wrong about the general view on the Left of the start of the current systemic world crisis . No, other than a recurring propagandist motif on the Left about the eternal "crisis of capitalism" I think you will find that the inherent "crisis" most on the Left point to is a continuous tendancy of the FALLING RATE OF PROFIT to manifest itself from the late 1940's onwards. But ever growing productivity ( hence a rising rate of exploitation) prevented the rate of profit falling - (hence no world systemic 1930's type crisis until 2008). The 1970's break up of the Bretton Woods international monetary system is seen as a vital part of the global deregulation of capitalism , a prerequisite for both further global expansion and laying the seeds of the eventual 2008 global crisis. Despite early post war denials no-one but the most blinkered Trot was claiming by the 60's that the post WWII period hadn't represented the single longest general expansion of capitalism , and rising living standards, in world history - regardless of many short term cyclical recessions..

Most on the Left then point out the HUGE transfer of income from the mass of the population to the top 5% from the 1980's onwards as a result of Reaganite/Thatcherite "neo Liberal" deregulated globalised capitalism policies. Thus the crisis of profitability was staved off as a systemic crisis of capitalism until the financial bubble finally burst in 2008.

I think any reasonable observor should be able to detect that there is a distinct qualitative difference between the general continued expansion in world capitalist production, and in general living standards in the advanced economies up to 2008 - and the situation AFTER the CRASH post 2008 ? Apparently the IWCA doesn't think anything radically new in the world and domestic economy has happened since 2008 ? - Strange position to hold - bit of a mirror image of the old late 1940's post WWII Trot view that the final crisis was imminant - regardlless of observable reality.

Anyone wanting to get a good view of the causes of the 2008 crash and aftermath should watch the 4 part "Meltdown" documentary on the Al Jazeera website - it's quite BRILLIANT.

I must say the "alternative " that Violent Panda (and I assume all the IWCA crew?) are constantly trying to promote, almost by default, (since you seldom offer a succinct alternative strategy), on this URBAN website, mainly through simply rubbishing the LEFT and each and ANY initiative by Socialists against the cuts, is a non-socialist "localist activism" politics which I find hard to grasp, as a Socialist. Good luck to you though with your very special "localist" political strategy - but I fail to see how rubbishing , for instance, a demonstration of 35,000 working class people against Tory policies on Sunday, really moves the struggle forward. "Solidarity in action anyone ?

By the way just because I recommended looking at the Socialist Worker website for news on the Sunday Manchester demo doesn't in any way imply a sympathy for the SWP - any more than my recommendation of the "Meltdown " documentary on Al Jazeera should suggest any enthusiasm for the Qatari Royal family. I'm just not sectarian where I get my information from.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You should read the SWP article with a bit more care. You are simply wrong about the general view on the Left of the start of the current systemic world crisis . No, other than a recurring propagandist motif on the Left about the eternal "crisis of capitalism" I think you will find that the inherent "crisis" most on the Left point to is a continuous tendancy of the FALLING RATE OF PROFIT to manifest itself from the late 1940's onwards. But ever growing productivity ( hence a rising rate of exploitation) prevented the rate of profit falling - (hence no world systemic 1930's type crisis until 2008).

Depending on when you're talking about between the '40s and the '70s, market expansion was as important as "growing productivity" (which was often characterised as stagnant in the '60s and '70s) in sustaining capitalism. Now production is more heavily reliant on selling "new and improved" than on new markets.

The 1970's break up of the Bretton Woods international trade system is seen as a vital part of the global deregulation of capitalism , a prerequisite for both further global expansion and laying the seeds of the eventual 2008 global crisis. Despite early post war denials no-one but the most blinkered Trot was claiming by the 60's that the post WWII period hadn't represented the single longest general expansion of capitalism , and rising living standards, in world history - regardless of many short term cyclical recessions..

No-one has claimed otherwise (except perhaps RMP3, and he doesn't count). A crisis of capitalism doesn't necessarily equate to a crisis for capitalism. It equates to a crisis for those who suffer most under capitalism.

Most on the Left then point out the HUGE transfer of income from the mass of the population to the top 5% from the 1980's onwards as a result of Reaganite/Thatcherite "neo Liberal" deregulated globalised capitalism policies. Thus the crisis of profitability was staved off as a systemic crisis of capitalism until the financial bubble finally burst in 2008.

To be fair, it started before Reagan and Thatcher, but the policies (hah!) they adopted certainly allowed the transfer to become faster and more systemic.

I think any reasonable observor should be able to detect that there is a distinct qualitative difference between the general continued expansion in world capitalist production, and in general living standards in the advanced economies up to 2008 - and the situation AFTER the CRASH post 2008 ? Apparently the IWCA doesn't think anything radically new in the world and domestic economy has happened since 2008 ? - Strange position to hold - bit of a mirror image of the old late 1940's post WWII Trot view that the final crisis was imminant - regardlless of observable reality.

What has happened "in the world and domestic economy" that is "new", then? Certainly not the attempts to shore up the various currencies and bail out the banks, because that's just been the same old dance to the same tired tune that's been played since the late 1880s, but most loudly in the 1930s. There are differences, sure, but they're mostly negative, so far.

Anyone wanting to get a good view of the causes of the 2008 crash and aftermath should watch the 4 part "Meltdown" documentary on the Al Jazeera website - it's quite BRILLIANT.

I must say the "alternative " that Violent Panda (and I assume all the IWCA crew?...

I'm not a member of the IWCA.

...are constantly trying to promote, almost by default, (since you seldom offer a succinct alternative strategy), on this URBAN website, mainly through simply rubbishing the LEFT and each and ANY initiative by Socialists against the cuts...

Wrong. Show me a good initiative by whoever (let alone socialists) that has even the possibility of succeeding and I'll back it, just as if you show me political hackery and tomfoolery I'll rubbish it.

...is a non-socialist "localist activism" politics which I find hard to grasp, as a Socialist.

Define your brand of socialism please. That way I can unpick it and tell you where you're missing the point, given that most of the grassroots activity proposed by many autonomous lefties on this board is socialist in nature (in the ideological rather than the dogmatic meaning of the word).

Good luck to you though with your very special "localist" political strategy - but I fail to see how rubbishing , for instance, a demonstration of 35,000 working class people against Tory policies on Sunday, really moves the struggle forward. "Solidarity in action anyone ?

Who rubbished your demonstration? I commented on your informing the board of your attendance "Bully for you. Off you go to shout your slogans and wave your placards.

Ineffectively.

Again."
That's not rubbishing your demo, that's stating a fact. Demos may make you feel good, energised, like you've done something meaningful, but they rarely are unless they're sustained week-in-week-out efforts, not just an occasional feel-good outing for the folks.

 

[ayatollah]

Quote "What has happened "in the world and domestic economy" that is "new", then? Certainly not the attempts to shore up the various currencies and bail out the banks, because that's just been the same old dance to the same tired tune that's been played since the late 1880s, but most loudly in the 1930s. There are differences, sure, but they're mostly negative, so far".

My reply


My sincere apologies to the IWCA , I thought the negative line you habitually spout about any action , analysis, or policy , by the socialist Left came from that "radical localist" agenda. However, the IWCA don't claim to be socialist , but it appears you do.

Re your extraordinary claim , above, that there is nothing special happening in the world economy , now, post the 2008 Crash. You are truly in denial, ViolentPanda. Then maybe you aren't one of the tens of millions who have lost their jobs and homes across the developed economies since 2008. Again I encourage you to have a look at the excellent "Meltdown" documentary series on Al Jazeera. It might open your eyes.

Fortunately across the world working people are taking to the streets, striking, demonstrating, trying to create forms of organisation and struggle which can, initially resist the capitalist offensive, and at some stage, hopefully, through STRUGGLE, create new organisational forms which attempt to supercede it.

You just carry on fruitlessly nitpicking and rubbishing everything the broad Left does, the many streams of activist struggle will just carry on regardless.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The 1970's break up of the Bretton Woods international monetary system is seen as a vital part of the global deregulation of capitalism , a prerequisite for both further global expansion and laying the seeds of the eventual 2008 global crisis. Despite early post war denials no-one but the most blinkered Trot was claiming by the 60's that the post WWII period hadn't represented the single longest general expansion of capitalism , and rising living standards, in world history - regardless of many short term cyclical recessions..

No-one has claimed otherwise (except perhaps RMP3, and he doesn't count). A crisis of capitalism doesn't necessarily equate to a crisis for capitalism. It equates to a crisis for those who suffer most under capitalism.

Now why just make shit up like that VP?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Again."
That's not rubbishing your demo, that's stating a fact. Demos may make you feel good, energised, like you've done something meaningful, but they rarely are unless they're sustained week-in-week-out efforts, not just an occasional feel-good outing for the folks.

I don't think anyone political needs this pointing out, do they?

I don't think anybody argues that marching from a to B is an end in itself, certainly not Socialist worker. They argue it is the beginning of a process, as in Rosa Luxemburg and General Strike.

 

[ayatollah]

Give up trying to reason with ViolentPanda ,ResistanceMP3, he's a perpetual argumentalist. BUT Is he really a 15 year old Tory Troll just winding us Lefties up do you think ? I think the evidence points that way.

But you are quite right NOONE thinks demos are an end in themselves - but they build class confidence and help to raise the general momentum of the wider struggle. Nowadays every boost to class solidarity and militancy helps. I tell you being with 35,000 other like minded people in Manchester on Sunday certainly boosted MY morale.

And in a non sectarian vein - I am not a member or supporter of the SWP (expelled with the Squadists in 1981) , but it IS nowadays an excellent website for keeping up with the rising tide of struggle, (as is Al Jazeera of course). So let's use em, without having to buy into any "agendas".

 

[TremulousTetra]

You should read the SWP article with a bit more care. You are simply wrong about the general view on the Left of the start of the current systemic world crisis . No, other than a recurring propagandist motif on the Left about the eternal "crisis of capitalism" I think you will find that the inherent "crisis" most on the Left point to is a continuous tendancy of the FALLING RATE OF PROFIT to manifest itself from the late 1940's onwards. But ever growing productivity ( hence a rising rate of exploitation) prevented the rate of profit falling - (hence no world systemic 1930's type crisis until 2008). The 1970's break up of the Bretton Woods international monetary system is seen as a vital part of the global deregulation of capitalism , a prerequisite for both further global expansion and laying the seeds of the eventual 2008 global crisis. Despite early post war denials no-one but the most blinkered Trot was claiming by the 60's that the post WWII period hadn't represented the single longest general expansion of capitalism , and rising living standards, in world history - regardless of many short term cyclical recessions..

Most on the Left then point out the HUGE transfer of income from the mass of the population to the top 5% from the 1980's onwards as a result of Reaganite/Thatcherite "neo Liberal" deregulated globalised capitalism policies. Thus the crisis of profitability was staved off as a systemic crisis of capitalism until the financial bubble finally burst in 2008.

I think any reasonable observor should be able to detect that there is a distinct qualitative difference between the general continued expansion in world capitalist production, and in general living standards in the advanced economies up to 2008 - and the situation AFTER the CRASH post 2008 ? Apparently the IWCA doesn't think anything radically new in the world and domestic economy has happened since 2008 ? - Strange position to hold - bit of a mirror image of the old late 1940's post WWII Trot view that the final crisis was imminant - regardlless of observable reality.

Anyone wanting to get a good view of the causes of the 2008 crash and aftermath should watch the 4 part "Meltdown" documentary on the Al Jazeera website - it's quite BRILLIANT.

I must say the "alternative " that Violent Panda (and I assume all the IWCA crew?) are constantly trying to promote, almost by default, (since you seldom offer a succinct alternative strategy), on this URBAN website, mainly through simply rubbishing the LEFT and each and ANY initiative by Socialists against the cuts, is a non-socialist "localist activism" politics which I find hard to grasp, as a Socialist. Good luck to you though with your very special "localist" political strategy - but I fail to see how rubbishing , for instance, a demonstration of 35,000 working class people against Tory policies on Sunday, really moves the struggle forward. "Solidarity in action anyone ?

By the way just because I recommended looking at the Socialist Worker website for news on the Sunday Manchester demo doesn't in any way imply a sympathy for the SWP - any more than my recommendation of the "Meltdown " documentary on Al Jazeera should suggest any enthusiasm for the Qatari Royal family. I'm just not sectarian where I get my information from.

What I am saying is that, the economy is a process. I constantly dynamic process. So one can get a number of insignificant changes taking place, each on its own un-important, however all these quantitative changes can add up to a qualitive change in the economy.

So between 1940ISH and 1971ISH, there was a capitalism which was qualitatively different from what went before, and has happened since. Chris Harman in Explaining the Crisis suggest there was a countervailing factor to the normal rise in the organic composition of capital, and the tendency for the rate of property to fall, namely the permanent arms economy. About 1971ish, this period of qualitatively different capitalism ended.

So the fundamental cause of crisis since 1971 has been the return of the upward tendency of the organic composition of capital, and the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Since then there have been all sorts of temporary countervailing factors, such as speculation booms, Keynesian style primer booms etc. Which have give temporary respite's from the slump.

I havn't read the article you are talking about. Can you give me a link please. I'm sure now, you are probably right. It looks like these temporary fixes for the fundamental cause have reached their limit, and that there is now a fundamental shift in the economy. However, I too do not know what these are and would be therefore interested in reading the article.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Give up trying to reason with ViolentPanda ,ResistanceMP3, he's a perpetual argumentalist. BUT Is he really a 15 year old Tory Troll just winding us Lefties up do you think ? I think the evidence points that way.

But you are quite right NOONE thinks demos are an end in themselves - but they build class confidence and help to raise the general momentum of the wider struggle. Nowadays every boost to class solidarity and militancy helps. I tell you being with 35,000 other like minded people in Manchester on Sunday certainly boosted MY morale.

And in a non sectarian vein - I am not a member or supporter of the SWP (expelled with the Squadists in 1981) , but it IS nowadays an excellent website for keeping up with the rising tide of struggle, (as is Al Jazeera of course). So let's use em, without having to buy into any "agendas".

Agreed! btw www.resistanceMP3.org.uk

No, he's an U75 anarchist. As you say, their sole purpose seems to be to pull everything apart, whilst producing/offering no meaningful manifestation of an alternative strategy.

ETA, I take that back. They are not all like that.

 

[ViolentPanda]

My sincere apologies to the IWCA , I thought the negative line you habitually spout about any action , analysis, or policy , by the socialist Left came from that "radical localist" agenda. However, the IWCA don't claim to be socialist , but it appears you do.

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote, without the blinkers on.
I said that most of the actions proposed by people here (and by the IWCA for that matter) are socialist in nature, not that the people carrying them out or calling for them are "socialists".

Re your extraordinary claim , above, that there is nothing special happening in the world economy , now, post the 2008 Crash. You are truly in denial, ViolentPanda.

I would be if that's what I'd said, but again your blinkers appear to be preventing you from actually comprehending that "nothing new" doesn't mean "nothing special".

Really, catch a hold of yourself.

Then maybe you aren't one of the tens of millions who have lost their jobs and homes across the developed economies since 2008. Again I encourage you to have a look at the excellent "Meltdown" documentary series on Al Jazeera. It might open your eyes.

Seen it, been saddened by it, don't need to open my eyes, especially by someone who manages to misinterpret the written word so often.

Fortunately across the world working people are taking to the streets, striking, demonstrating, trying to create forms of organisation and struggle which can, initially resist the capitalist offensive, and at some stage, hopefully, through STRUGGLE, create new organisational forms which attempt to supercede it.

You just carry on fruitlessly nitpicking and rubbishing everything the broad Left does, the many streams of activist struggle will just carry on regardless

Don't put words in my mouth, there's a good chap. As I said, I don't rubbish everything, and if trying to get to the core of issues is "nitpicking", then I'm guilty as charged. I'm happy and secure in the knowledge that the struggle carries on, as it should. I'm less than happy about constant attempts by political actors to appropriate those struggles for their own purposes.

Now, I've no doubt you'll continue to misread and misinterpret what I write, so I await any reply you choose to make with less than bated breath.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Now why just make shit up like that VP?

What have I made up? Everyone on here is aware that whatever the argument you almost always tow or tout the SWP line, and as ayatollah mentioned "blinkered Trots" you came naturally to mind.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Give up trying to reason with ViolentPanda ,ResistanceMP3, he's a perpetual argumentalist. BUT Is he really a 15 year old Tory Troll just winding us Lefties up do you think ? I think the evidence points that way.

Please tell me you're on the windup.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't think anyone political needs this pointing out, do they?

I don't think anybody argues that marching from a to B is an end in itself, certainly not Socialist worker. They argue it is the beginning of a process, as in Rosa Luxemburg and General Strike.

Oh come on.
We've both spent many decades moving in political circles, so we tend to see political action as a continuum (even when it is often "one step forward, two steps back"), but how many "non-political" (in an immediately ideological sense) people went on the big marches of the last decade? Many hundreds of thousands. How many of them were radicalised by it enough to reflect strongly in participation in political groups, single-issue groups etc, to actually become part of that continuum of action?

We both know that the answer is (unfortunately) "not many". It'd certainly be wonderful if people were as amenable to radicalisation as they were in Rosa's time, but the differing (social and economic) conditions between then and now mean that even with what ayatollah quantified as "the tens of millions who have lost their jobs and homes across the developed economies since 2008", a majority of those victims of capitalism have not felt sufficiently harmed by their situations to step beyond the standard electoral political set-ups extant in their countries. Until that happens (G-d help them ), until the tipping point of people saying "these cunts are just feathering the nests of their mates and themselves, and leaving us to pick up the tab. Let's get 'em", then "these cunts" aren't going to shft from what they're doing. Not when they've got their armed police and private security, their safely secured homes and hideaways behind which to shelter.

Remember the slogan "one solution, revolution"? Well fuck knows I don't pray for a bloody revolution, I've seen too much blood in my half a century, but I do hope for some kind of revolution in politics that shatters the grip of Capital on our political institutions. I happen to see it as needing to be "bottom up" rather than "top-down", though.