"The British people expressed their view very clearly on 23rd June"

[Louis MacNeice]

You are safe in your belief. I don't want to change your mind.

Thanks for providing that piece of your internal dialogue. I will leave you to it.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Pickman's model]

People have written things on this very forum. If you haven't seen them don't blame me. I don't blame others if I haven't read the books to which they are referring.

Yeh. These people, is it people like treelover or people who can string a thought together?

 

[chilango]

Tedious. Sorry B.I.G but this is just disruptive at this point . I'm gonna have to hit the "ignore" button now. You've joined a very short list. Congrats.

In going on 13 years there are only 5 posters on my "ignore" list. 3 were banned within a handful of posts anyway. So at least one result of this thread is that Awesome Wells finally has some company.

 

[Maggot]

B.I.G is fast becoming Notorious.

 

[danny la rouge]

except for the other one



yes I know, I'm white and male. I'm asking about the people it's not addressed to.

you've made blanket statements on this thread "it's about labour finding new paths and directions and 'socialists' getting on board and helping to fight for those new directions." and then "Labour won't open any new paths, labour (i.e. the working class, the proletariat, whatever your preferred term is) is the actor and we should follow that." (my emphasis) I'm asking you how you choose which political currents within the working class to follow and where your limits are with regard to views on racial (and other forms of) discrimination that aren't the same as your own.

There's another way round to look at this. The world outside is not some sort of Platonic ideal, where we can find ideological purity. So we can either do nothing until that arrives (which will mean never), or we can try to show by working together where we can find shared interests. That's how minds are changed.

This sort of approach can be seen in the work of the Wobblies 100 years ago. Where there was suspicion of immigrant labour undercutting or scabbing, they'd lay on social receptions for immigrants, find beds for them with families, help them with bureaucracy, that sort of thing. That way the immigrants would feel welcome, feel a connection with "local" labour, and therefore would be less likely to scab. In return "local" Labour would learn the immigrants are people with whom they have more in common than not, that they're decent people who wouldn't scab, and so on. Mutual trust has to be built.

Mutual aid is not just an ideal, it's a transformative process.

I've seen lots of examples of that sort of thing forging solidarity where you might not have expected it.

We are in a position where community has been atomised, quite deliberately. We need to reverse that. We never will if we wait for ideological purity before starting.

 

[newbie]

We are in a position where community has been atomised, quite deliberately. We need to reverse that. We never will if we wait for ideological purity before starting.

are you also proposing that "we should follow" wherever the working class goes?

There's political push at the moment, coming from the right, the alt-right and the far right.

It's very, very seldom anything desirable comes ever from the right, ime.

 

[brogdale]

are you also proposing that "we should follow" wherever the working class goes?

There's political push at the moment, coming from the right, the alt-right and the far right.

It's very, very seldom anything desirable comes ever from the right, ime.

FFS

 

[danny la rouge]

are you also proposing that "we should follow" wherever the working class goes?

There's political push at the moment, coming from the right, the alt-right and the far right.

It's very, very seldom anything desirable comes ever from the right, ime.

Let me get this straight: you read what I said and you interpreted that as me saying "cooperate with the far right"?

 

[redsquirrel]

except for the other one

You've misread what I've said. I'm saying that Zoe is not quoted as identifying as a racist. Linda is the only one in that piece that is actually quoted identifying as a racist. You've proclaimed the others 'specific racists' but that's your interpretation.

you've made blanket statements on this thread "it's about labour finding new paths and directions and 'socialists' getting on board and helping to fight for those new directions." and then "Labour won't open any new paths, labour (i.e. the working class, the proletariat, whatever your preferred term is) is the actor and we should follow that." (my emphasis) I'm asking you how you choose which political currents within the working class to follow and where your limits are with regard to views on racial (and other forms of) discrimination that aren't the same as your own.

I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to have this debate until you step back from/apologise for this.

What message does following the working class wherever it goes send to them?

There's a right-wing political push going on. You appear to be proposing "we should follow that" because there's a substantial w/c component to it. Crowd following, really?

How far does the abstract political ideal- "we should follow that" outweigh personal choice and responsibility?

I don't think going from my posts in reply to SaskiaJayne, - that rather than "It just needs a poltical movement that can put it's point across successfully. We need good orators.", socialism is, or should be the opposite, i.e. an essentially anti-vanguardist position if you want to get poncey - to the above is honest or arguing in good faith.

I'm perfectly willing to have a debate about, in the words of durutti02, 'Class struggle is not politically correct' but I'm not prepared to have that debate with someone who is essentially saying that I'm pandering to racists.

EDIT: and you've basically done the same to DLR above.

 

[crossthebreeze]

are you also proposing that "we should follow" wherever the working class goes?

There's political push at the moment, coming from the right, the alt-right and the far right.

It's very, very seldom anything desirable comes ever from the right, ime.

How the hell do you get that from what danny la rouge said??? He gave an example of a historic anti-racist strategy ffs!

How do you combat racism and the far right without engaging with people who have some racist views (but aren't organised racists) and working out where their predjudice has come from? Without trying to foster solidarity and mutual aid in those comunities? Because your strategy seems to be to write people off as socially conservative racists who are "opposing development" and therefore shouldn't be engaged with - so leave them to ukip or worse then?

 

[danny la rouge]

Because your strategy seems to be to write people off as socially conservative racists who are "opposing development" and therefore shouldn't be engaged with - so leave them to ukip or worse then?

Presicely.

 

[redsquirrel]

How do you combat racism and the far right without engaging with people who have some racist views (but aren't organised racists) and working out where their predjudice has come from? Without trying to foster solidarity and mutual aid in those comunities? Because your strategy seems to be to write people off as socially conservative racists who are "opposing development" and therefore shouldn't be engaged with - so leave them to ukip or worse then?

I just think that Glaberman quote is absolutely bloody brilliant, something that is just worth re-reading every so often (credit to BA).

I mean every past social movement of any worth is going to have some dodgy/"wrong" attitudes somewhere in it - the Levellers and Diggers; the bolsheviks; the CNT etc - but those movements inspired us (well me anyway) to our current political views. They changed the world for the better dodgy views and all. And through their struggles their own views changed.

 

[gosub]

If anything was going to strengthen my resolve and bite my lip about 'collywobbles', its the shit weasels Mssrs Blair and Mandelson trying to put a spanner in the works.

 

[newbie]

Let me get this straight: you read what I said and you interpreted that as me saying "cooperate with the far right"?

I asked you a question and briefly set out the context in which that question exists. Perhaps too brief, I'll post a longer reply below to redsquirrel which explores the context in more detail.

You mentioned the transformative nature of mutual aid, and said that in working together for shared interests "we" shouldn't wait for ideological purity. There is an awful lot of politics between that and full on cooperating with the far right (it never occurred to me you might read it like that). While it's undeniable they're part of the landscape they don't dominate it. Rightwing opinion does though, with the alt-right apparently well entrenched.

When the working class makes a rightward turn, how far should "we" follow it? Seems like a fairly clear question to me.

 

[newbie]

You've misread what I've said. I'm saying that Zoe is not quoted as identifying as a racist. Linda is the only one in that piece that is actually quoted identifying as a racist. You've proclaimed the others 'specific racists' but that's your interpretation.


I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to have this debate until you step back form/apologise for this.

I don't think going from my posts in reply to SaskiaJayne, - that rather than "It just needs a poltical movement that can put it's point across successfully. We need good orators.", socialism is, or should be the opposite, i.e. an essentially anti-vanguardist position if you want to get poncey - to the above is honest or arguing in good faith.

I'm perfectly willing to have a debate about, in the words of durutti02, 'Class struggle is not politically correct' but I'm not prepared to have that debate with someone who is essentially saying that I'm pandering to racists.

EDIT: and you've basically done the same to DLR above.

yes, you've both made essentially the same point, that you're not prepared to pander to racists. Of course, that was never in doubt. I don't like or knowingly make man not ball posts, I don't use words well but I do try hard not to make personal attacks or insinuations, though I can't always forsee how my words will be interpreted. I never intend to cause personal offence.

You noted that shared struggle and solidarity can change peoples' opinions. I understand that to mean get on board in the expectation that anti-discrimination understanding will prevail. Is that right?

Because that was the point of the question I keep asking- how far should "we" follow the working class? If "labour (i.e. the working class, the proletariat, whatever your preferred term is) is the actor and we should follow that" in the current climate, that means getting on board something fundamentally rightwing, with all the baggage that brings. Doesn't it? There isn't another game in town.

The right has been very successful at focussing discontent onto their favourite topics, including nationalism and immigration. Emboldened by Trump they're now cheering on Wilders and soon le Pen: it's the alt-right that has globalised political campaigning not the (historically internationalist) left. On the ground, in some w/c communities the right utilised the opportunities the referendum offered much more successfully than any left initiatives. Across swathes of the country the working class responded, got on board and mobilised politically into what I've called a social movement (I know you don't like the term, I don't have anything better, sorry). For the first time in a long time there are signs that there is authentic, at least partially self-organised working class political mobilisation in some parts of the country. Social and political solidarity ought to mean getting on board, helping the fight. But the agenda is much more rightwing than left. The paths and directions may be of and from the class but, crucially, but they're not about class. They're about nationalism and immigration and, ultimately, discrimination.

When the actor, the working class, stirs "we" should follow, be on the inside. When the right stirs "we" oppose, on the outside pissing in.

I can't square this circle. I'm asking you to explain your thinking in the context of now, early 2017.

edited to unbreak the formatting

 

[newbie]

I just think that Glaberman quote is absolutely bloody brilliant.

It's essential to reject the idea that nothing can happen until white workers are no longer racist. I don't know what anybody thinks the Russian workers in 1917 were. They were sexist. They were nationalist. A lot of them were under the thumb of the church. But they made a goddamn revolution that began to change them. Whether there's a social explosion or not doesn't depend on any formal attitudes or supporting this particular organisation or that particular organisation.

You haven't answered the question I asked: where does this leave BME people living in Rochdale or anywhere else, including those where you live if you're in a Brexit heartland?

 

[danny la rouge]

When the working class makes a rightward turn, how far should "we" follow it? Seems like a fairly clear question to me.

I think there's a basic difference both in how language is being used here, and in views of what the role of an activist should be/can be. And, fundamentally, what politics is.

I'm thinking of the sort of thing a writer like Harry Cleaver means when he says activists should be concerned with "the identification of already existing activities which embody new, alternative forms of social cooperation and ways of being".

For me, that's politics. Not helping one party or another to get elected. So perhaps you could give me an example of what sort of thing you have in mind that constitutes "a rightward turn"? Because if it's "helping UKIP get elected", then a) that's a category error mismatch from my perspective, and b) not something I'd be doing for a number of reasons.

 

[brogdale]

yes, you've both made essentially the same point, that you're not prepared to pander to racists. Of course, that was never in doubt. I don't like or knowingly make man not ball posts, I don't use words well but I do try hard not to make personal attacks or insinuations, though I can't always forsee how my words will be interpreted. I never intend to cause personal offence.

You noted that shared struggle and solidarity can change peoples' opinions. I understand that to mean get on board in the expectation that anti-discrimination understanding will prevail. Is that right?

Because that was the point of the question I keep asking- how far should "we" follow the working class? If "labour (i.e. the working class, the proletariat, whatever your preferred term is) is the actor and we should follow that" in the current climate, that means getting on board something fundamentally rightwing, with all the baggage that brings. Doesn't it? There isn't another game in town.

The right has been very successful at focussing discontent onto their favourite topics, including nationalism and immigration. Emboldened by Trump they're now cheering on Wilders and soon le Pen: it's the alt-right that has globalised political campaigning not the (historically internationalist) left. On the ground, in some w/c communities the right utilised the opportunities the referendum offered much more successfully than any left initiatives. Across swathes of the country the working class responded, got on board and mobilised politically into what I've called a social movement (I know you don't like the term, I don't have anything better, sorry). For the first time in a long time there are signs that there is authentic, at least partially self-organised working class political mobilisation in some parts of the country. Social and political solidarity ought to mean getting on board, helping the fight. But the agenda is much more rightwing than left. The paths and directions may be of and from the class but, crucially, but they're not about class. They're about nationalism and immigration and, ultimately, discrimination.

When the actor, the working class, stirs "we" should follow, be on the inside. When the right stirs "we" oppose, on the outside pissing in.

I can't square this circle. I'm asking you to explain your thinking in the context of now, early 2017.

edited to unbreak the formatting

I may be mis-reading/understanding what you're saying here but, with all this talk of "following" etc., do you in some way see yourself (or "we") as something separate and distinct from the working class?

 

[SaskiaJayne]

Since the Eastern European countries joined the EU the UK has embraced the EU holy grail of free movement of labour probably more so than any other of the more prosperous net contributing EU countries. The UK has been the most 'European' of all EU countries in this regard I think. The reason of course is that the neolibs saw the possiblities of a cheap & flexible labour force over local labour. Imported labour is here to work & earn money so they are prepared to work any sort of hours & not being familiar with the language they are less likely to complain or even sue if injured by unsafe working practises whereas local labour has homes & families nearby so want a work life balance, time off if they get sick & so on.

The relaxation of employment law & payment of in work benefits to susidise low wages paid by large companies who paid their top excecs £millions for the stated aim of job creation made the UK a far more attractive destination for EU migrant workers than countries like Holland & France with stronger employment laws that are actually enforced.

If we want people to vote in sufficient numbers to elect a Labour government that will be genuinely for working people across the board then the Labour Party led by a united leadership needs to forget about trying to save the rest of the world & state their intention to make brexit work for the lower paid. They do not to have to preach the xenophobia & racism of UKIP to do that. A well thought out plan to provide affordable housing for all & stronger employment law will probably do for now.

 

[B.I.G]

Since the Eastern European countries joined the EU the UK has embraced the EU holy grail of free movement of labour probably more so than any other of the more prosperous net contributing EU countries. The UK has been the most 'European' of all EU countries in this regard I think. The reason of course is that the neolibs saw the possiblities of a cheap & flexible labour force over local labour. Imported labour is here to work & earn money so they are prepared to work any sort of hours & not being familiar with the language they are less likely to complain or even sue if injured by unsafe working practises whereas local labour has homes & families nearby so want a work life balance, time off if they get sick & so on.

The relaxation of employment law & payment of in work benefits to susidise low wages paid by large companies who paid their top excecs £millions for the stated aim of job creation made the UK a far more attractive destination for EU migrant workers than countries like Holland & France with stronger employment laws that are actually enforced.

If we want people to vote in sufficient for a Labour government that will be genuinely for working people across the board then the Labour Party led by a united leadership needs to forget about trying to save the rest of the world & state their intention to make brexit work for the lower paid. They do not to have to preach the xenophobia & racism of UKIP to do that. A well thought out plan to provide affordable housing for all & stronger employment law will probably do for now.

Very fair points. However, the Eastern European migrants I know, still work to the same conditions as British labour and also have a home and family just as nearby.

 

[brogdale]

If we want people to vote in sufficient numbers to elect a Labour government that will be genuinely for working people across the board then the Labour Party led by a united leadership needs to forget about trying to save the rest of the world & state their intention to make brexit work for the lower paid. They do not to have to preach the xenophobia & racism of UKIP to do that. A well thought out plan to provide affordable housing for all & stronger employment law will probably do for now.

What do you mean by the bolded bit?

 

[SaskiaJayne]

Very fair points. However, the Eastern European migrants I know, still work to the same conditions as British labour and also have a home and family just as nearby.

I think one needs to break down EU migrant workers into different sections. Politician spectacularly fail to do this particularly Labour ones. They will talk of well paid EU migrant IT workers while normal folk will be screaming at their tellys "not those migrant workers you twat, the migrant workers being exploited at Sports Direct or at the car wash down the road". Migrant workers at the bottom are being exploited no doubt & by their own people. Romainian owned labour agencies will house workers in overcrowded houses & make large stoppages from their wages for rent & transport & profit from that. Every town UK has several car washes, people drive in there to get their cars washed for 7quid but do they notice the poor cunts freezing in their soaking worn out jeans & trainers? I doubt it. You do not see these car washes in France or Holland. Why? Because they would not be allowed to exist. That's why not.

This is where free movement of EU labour has gone wrong in the UK. Whole business models designed to exploit migrant labour because UK law allows it & the result of this is that it excludes & reduces potential earning ability of local people without much skills. If the UK had retained the type of employment laws other net contributing EU countries have then I doubt we would have voted leave.

 

[SaskiaJayne]

What do you mean by the bolded bit?

Labour need to look at what enrages the very people who should be natural Labour voters & it is things like foreign aid & globalism. Instead of railing against it like UKIP. Labour needs to really put overseas matters to one side & concentrate on the more parochial matters that concern those that cannot afford world travel or even a holiday away from the place where they were born & have lived all their lives.

 

[B.I.G]

I think one needs to break down EU migrant workers into different sections. Politician spectacularly fail to do this particularly Labour ones. They will talk of well paid EU migrant IT workers while normal folk will be screaming at their tellys "not those migrant workers you twat, the migrant workers being exploited at Sports Direct or at the car wash down the road". Migrant workers at the bottom are being exploited no doubt & by their own people. Romainian owned labour agencies will house workers in overcrowded houses & make large stoppages from their wages for rent & transport & profit from that. Every town UK has several car washes, people drive in there to get their cars washed for 7quid but do they notice the poor cunts freezing in their soaking worn out jeans & trainers? I doubt it. You do not see these car washes in France of Holland. Why? Because they would not be allowed to exist. That's why not.

This is where free movement of EU labour has gone wrong in the UK. Whole business models designed to exploit migrant labour because UK law allows it & the result of this is that it excludes & reduces potential earning ability of local people without much skills. If the UK had retained the type of employment laws other net contributing EU countries have then I doubt we would have voted leave.

Totally agree. Sadly, I think that the workers will be more exploited in the future when we are out of europe. Now there is the possibility to work in a carwash in London and then a shop, and then a restaurant and then an office and then anything else, building the way up. In the future, under any Tory Brexit government, they will have no rights and be shipped in, exploited, and then shipped out when it doesn't suit the government anymore.

The tories don't want to reduce immigration, they just want to allow the people than have come in far less rights to stay and make Britain their home.

 

[brogdale]

Labour need to look at what enrages the very people who should be natural Labour voters & it is things like foreign aid & globalism. Instead of railing against it like UKIP. Labour needs to really put overseas matters to one side & concentrate on the more parochial matters that concern those that cannot afford world travel or even a holiday away from the place where they were born & have lived all their lives.

So you're conflating the hugely nebulous and contested notion of 'globalism' with the specific policy goals of ODA and saying that both the working class and UKIP hate that?
To be clear, you're saying that your form of socialism would not include overseas aid?

 

[SaskiaJayne]

So you're conflating the hugely nebulous and contested notion of 'globalism' with the specific policy goals of ODA and saying that both the working class and UKIP hate the what you've created?
To be clear, you're saying that your form of socialism would not include overseas aid?

No. I'm being totally pragmatic. If Labour want to get elected again they also need to be pragmatic. The people who's votes they need want affordable housing & secure employment first. Foreign aid second. If Labour do not want the votes of those they might consider parochial, bigoted & xenophobic then they will not get back into power & will not be able to make a difference. That will play straight into the hands of those that want to make the UK a cheap labour tax haven for the super rich. Once Labour are back in power & have managed to improve the lives of lower paid with affordable housing & more secure job prospects then they can be more outward looking.

 

[brogdale]

No. I'm being totally pragmatic. If Labour want to get elected again they also need to be pragmatic. The people who's votes they need want affordable housing & secure employment first. Foreign aid second. If Labour do not want the votes of those they might consider parochial, bigoted & xenophobic then they will not get back into power & will not be able to make a difference. That will play straight into the hands of those that want to make the UK a cheap labour tax haven for the super rich. Once Labour are back in power & have managed to improve the lives of lower paid with affordable housing & more secure job prospects then they can be more outward looking.

So copy what UKIP say, then?

 

[SaskiaJayne]

So copy what UKIP say, then?

Not at all. UKIP are not really getting anywhere are they? They managed to bring about brexit I suppose but after that they appear to be going nowhere. I don't think anybody really likes them. I think most people don't really want extreme politics. So if Labour copy UKIP then they will get about as far as UKIP. UKIP have as much chance of gaining power as Boris Johnson had of becoming Prime Minister imo.

What people do want though is affordable housing & job security though so Labour can start with that. Labour are a brand that has succeeded in the past & they can succeed again. Problem at the moment is that working people have nobody to vote for. So Labour somehow needs to give us something to vote for.

 

[B.I.G]

Not at all. UKIP are not really getting anywhere are they? They managed to bring about brexit I suppose but after that they appear to be going nowhere. I don't think anybody really likes them. I think most people don't really want extreme politics. So if Labour copy UKIP then they will get about as far as UKIP. UKIP have as much chance of gaining power as Boris Johnson had of becoming Prime Minister imo.

What people do want though is affordable housing & job security though so Labour can start with that. Labour are a brand that has succeeded in the past & they can succeed again. Problem at the moment is that working people have nobody to vote for. So Labour somehow needs to give us something to vote for.

Labour absolutely need to concentrate on what the voters want with a dash of their own beliefs.

 

[brogdale]

Not at all. UKIP are not really getting anywhere are they? They managed to bring about brexit I suppose but after that they appear to be going nowhere. I don't think anybody really likes them. I think most people don't really want extreme politics. So if Labour copy UKIP then they will get about as far as UKIP. UKIP have as much chance of gaining power as Boris Johnson had of becoming Prime Minister imo.

What people do want though is affordable housing & job security though so Labour can start with that. Labour are a brand that has succeeded in the past & they can succeed again. Problem at the moment is that working people have nobody to vote for. So Labour somehow needs to give us something to vote for.

The Labour party is not a brand; it's a political party expressly created with the aim of securing parliamentary power. 'Working people' can vote for it if they wish, or they can vote for any other party that stands in elections. The question facing social democrats like those in Labour is whether or not they want to seek parliamentary power in order just to manage neoliberal forces as a consolidator state, or challenge such forces to effect structural change.