What Kind of Socialism do you want?

[becky p]

not quite sure what you saying except i think no one would disagree .. the issue is WITHOUT the w/c there is NO change is there? and equally without listenning to what people say there is no change either

Without the Middle Class there has never been change and there never will be. That is an issue people need to acknowledge.

 

[newbie]

drops of water are all the same.
drops of water can't exercise choice to change their condition.

I appreciate this isn't about individuals, even when used to illustrate wider trends.

But I also appreciate that to describe a homogenous working class, based on shared interest through deriving income solely or mainly from employment, tells little about a relationship with capital. Substantial asset owners are clearly stakeholders in capitalism, but so are some debtors, eg those who employ capital to provide a prosperous future or those anticipating inheritance. Other debtors are clearly victims of capital.

Expecting them to all act as a class, each in solidarity with the interests of others, is simply wishful thinking.

Isn't it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Without the Middle Class there has never been change and there never will be. That is an issue people need to acknowledge.

Except of course that "change" is a natural phenomenon, and isn't dependent on the existence of social classes (not even the middle class), is it?

Oh, and I think you'll find that durruti means that without the working class there isn't likely to be revolutionary change, just the same old reformism dressed up in new and exciting outfits.

 

[ViolentPanda]

drops of water are all the same.
drops of water can't exercise choice to change their condition.

I appreciate this isn't about individuals, even when used to illustrate wider trends.

But I also appreciate that to describe a homogenous working class, based on shared interest through deriving income solely or mainly from employment, tells little about a relationship with capital. Substantial asset owners are clearly stakeholders in capitalism, but so are some debtors, eg those who employ capital to provide a prosperous future or those anticipating inheritance. Other debtors are clearly victims of capital.

Expecting them to all act as a class, each in solidarity with the interests of others, is simply wishful thinking.

Isn't it?

It is.

 

[Fruitloop]

drops of water are all the same.
drops of water can't exercise choice to change their condition.

I appreciate this isn't about individuals, even when used to illustrate wider trends.

But I also appreciate that to describe a homogenous working class, based on shared interest through deriving income solely or mainly from employment, tells little about a relationship with capital. Substantial asset owners are clearly stakeholders in capitalism, but so are some debtors, eg those who employ capital to provide a prosperous future or those anticipating inheritance. Other debtors are clearly victims of capital.

Expecting them to all act as a class, each in solidarity with the interests of others, is simply wishful thinking.

Isn't it?

I'm afraid I don't get what your point is with this. The working class aren't homogenous and don't all act in their class interests otherwise there would be no need to have this discussion. Capital exploits labour in order to valorise itself, and it must do so because only labour is really capable of creating new value. Whether you think this is a bad thing or not does indeed depend on your relationship to it, but at the moment and at all times in capital's history there have been far more losers than winners in this equation. You can pick your side, but the wishful thinking is imagining that there is no choice to be made.

 

[Luther Blissett]

No, it's not at all clear. Socialism might be attractive to the majority in a country where 5% own all the wealth and 95% do all the work and own nothing. But here in Britain today, although there is scandalous wealth inequality, the majority would stand to lose assets they (or previous generations) have built up. So it's not clear, to me at least, what reason the majority might have to aid the struggle towards socialism.

Scandinavian model (social democracy) says no.

 

[Fruitloop]

Are we confusing private property and personal possessions again here? I don't think that most people have private property, and where they do it creates problems and social divisions of its own, e.g. the increase in landlordism etc.

 

[newbie]

I'm afraid I don't get what your point is with this. The working class aren't homogenous and don't all act in their class interests otherwise there would be no need to have this discussion.

What class interest? It can't be defined any more because so much of the modern (British) working class is simultaneously part of the exploiting class. If there is a common, class interest, why does no-one describe it except in ways dependent more on emotive language than actual observation?

Capital exploits labour in order to valorise itself, and it must do so because only labour is really capable of creating new value. Whether you think this is a bad thing or not does indeed depend on your relationship to it, but at the moment and at all times in capital's history there have been far more losers than winners in this equation. You can pick your side, but the wishful thinking is imagining that there is no choice to be made.

I agree, except that the winner/loser equation has tipped to the point that the majority (in the UK) consider themselves to be winners. Globally we are, of course.

The class interest choice is one increasingly based on altruism not self-interest.

 

[Luther Blissett]

I don't think the w/c has arrived at that decision by itself vis a vis socialism. There has been a systematic destruction of w/c support networks, communities and the unions since the 80's by the state and many have given up the struggle and submitted themselves to consumerism. It was Thatcher's avowed aim to "destroy socialism" (I wish I could find that quote somewhere) and she damned near succeeded. There has never been a united left and the chances of it happening are miniscule, given the amount of sectarian bickering and baiting that takes place on here alone.

"Bread and circuses" is what the Romans called it and it has worked.

... iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli
uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim
imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se
continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat,
panem et circenses ...

 

[nino_savatte]

... iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli
uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim
imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se
continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat,
panem et circenses ...

Innit?

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, they may consider themselves to be winners, but whilst Unicef rates the UK as one of the worst of the industrialised nations to bring up children, whilst it tops the rest of Europe for obesity, infant mortality and a whole collection of other negative social indicators then I'm gonna assume that there's some displarity between what they think and what is actually the case. In any case I'm an internationalist politically and not English in terms of nationality, so whilst there might be ebbs and flows within the international situation it doesn't really affect my assessment of the situation as a whole. Even were Britain uniquely well off at the moment, and leaving aside the ugly moral connotations of that kind of lifeboat ethic, the idea that in today's world you can just pull up the drawbridge and protect your own comparative privilege is not to be taken seriously.

 

[newbie]

Scandinavian model (social democracy) says no.

Basildon Man rejected that idea in favour of what they like to call an 'enterprise culture'. Do you see any appetite within the British population for a move towards Scandinavian style social democracy?

 

[newbie]

Well, they may consider themselves to be winners, but whilst Unicef rates the UK as one of the worst of the industrialised nations to bring up children, whilst it tops the rest of Europe for obesity, infant mortality and a whole collection of other negative social indicators then I'm gonna assume that there's some displarity between what they think and what is actually the case.

How do you convince those who see themselves as winners to join with the losers? The working class is enthusiastically stakeholding in a society with a widening wealth gap and decreasing social mobility.

 

[Fruitloop]

Hopefully the insane FPP system you have here where Basildon Man is the only one whose votes make any difference isn't going to be a long-term feature.

 

[newbie]

so finding a common class interest as a motor towards socialism depends on a LibDem style change in the electoral system


I know that's not what you meant....

 

[Fruitloop]

Ha ha. Certainly NL's fundamental unwillingness to do as they promised and address the democratic deficit is a cast-iron indication of whose interests they really serve. Given that they had to renege on a pretty key manifesto promise in their first term, I can't see that the LibDems would be somehow immune to the same pressures.

 

[newbie]

As I said some while ago, there's been an explicit attempt by both Tory & NuLab to create the stakeholder society explicitly to break any cohesion of the working class. That's what the whole project from council house sales, through privatisation to child trust funds and stakeholder pensions has been about.

Whether the working class has gained or lost from this is very hard to say. It appears to have killed a collective dream of socialism for a generation or more, but opened up far more possibilities for individuals than any time in the social democratic sixties or seventies.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, they certainly have pioneered the technique of mortgaging the future to buy off key voters in the present. That tactic coming after the working-class gains of the post-war consensus has bouyed up living standards here for quite a while, but the signs of decay are all around these days.

 

[nino_savatte]

How do you convince those who see themselves as winners to join with the losers? The working class is enthusiastically stakeholding in a society with a widening wealth gap and decreasing social mobility.

Who are the "winners"? The ones who can afford a mortgage and the debt that comes with it? Or those persons who are being targeted by the banks and credit card companies, who either don't have the income or the means to support a consumerist lifestyle but do so regardless of the financial consequences?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Who are the "winners"? The ones who can afford a mortgage and the debt that comes with it? Or those persons who are being targeted by the banks and credit card companies, who either don't have the income or the means to support a consumerist lifestyle but do so regardless of the financial consequences?

I think the point is that those people fulfilling their roles as consumers of mortgages etc may feel like winners, and those who can't may feel like losers, but that the labels signify nothing except conformity to an agenda set by those who'd prefer a non-cohesive "working class" to any form of working class cohesion.

We're conforming to their discourse instead of creating and enabling our own.

 

[nino_savatte]

I think the point is that those people fulfilling their roles as consumers of mortgages etc may feel like winners, and those who can't may feel like losers, but that the labels signify nothing except conformity to an agenda set by those who'd prefer a non-cohesive "working class" to any form of working class cohesion.

We're conforming to their discourse instead of creating and enabling our own.

Sure, even the government tells them that they're "winners" and this reinforces the message that we're a "top performing economy" and that "more wealth" is being created. It's all meaningless economic mumbo-jumbo that flies right over the heads of most folk, particularly w/c folk who don't see any of this supposed "wealth".

Hell, alchemists have more going for them than flaming economists.

 

[newbie]

Who are the "winners"? The ones who can afford a mortgage and the debt that comes with it? Or those persons who are being targeted by the banks and credit card companies, who either don't have the income or the means to support a consumerist lifestyle but do so regardless of the financial consequences?

there are a lot of winners. For instance anyone who bought a home before the stupid inflation took off: avg houseprice in 1997 ~ £70k, in 2007 ~ £180k. Many people have potentially had small mortgages to pay off in a period of low inflation. It's no coincidence that in that time two of the key buzzphrases have been 'equity release' and 'buy-to-let'.

 

[nino_savatte]

there are a lot of winners. For instance anyone who bought a home before the stupid inflation took off: avg houseprice in 1997 ~ £70k, in 2007 ~ £180k. Many people have potentially had small mortgages to pay off in a period of low inflation. It's no coincidence that in that time two of the key buzzphrases have been 'equity release' and 'buy-to-let'.

I think that it is all relative. The only real winners are the already well-off and the financial institutions that profit from credit arrangements.

I don't own my own home and I have no intention of ever taking out a mortgage. Does that make me a "loser"?

 

[Fruitloop]

I fucking hate fucking buy-to-let. All it means for my generation is that it's impossible to get into the housing market because people who bought twenty years ago are now charging each other stupid prices, and the rest of us have to pay daft money every month to have a place to live. The associated studentification of whole neighbourhoods is crap as well, as you can't have much of a community when everyone moves out every July.

 

[nino_savatte]

I fucking hate fucking buy-to-let. All it means for my generation is that it's impossible to get into the housing market because people who bought twenty years ago are now charging each other stupid prices, and the rest of us have to pay daft money every month to have a place to live. The associated studentification of whole neighbourhoods is crap as well, as you can't have much of a community when everyone moves out every July.

It stinks. It helps already greedy people to be become even greedier. There seems to be a lot of housing being built but how much of it is social housing? Not much.

 

[Fruitloop]

Indeed. One of the worst programs I saw on the telly was those two property wonks doing a thing about the best places to buy-to-let. There were some incredible comments about buying up houses in working-class areas of Manchester ('Of course the best thing about buy-to-let is that you don't actually have to live there'), and they finished by saying that the best thing you could do was buy one in Cambridge and let it to students, 'cos that way it didn't matter if the property fell into disrepair.

Hopefully the university will move out of town just as the economy tanks, and the fuckers will be left having paid far too much for a battered, pokey terrace. My sympathy will be so slight as to be almost non-existent.

 

[tbaldwin]

there are a lot of winners. For instance anyone who bought a home before the stupid inflation took off: avg houseprice in 1997 ~ £70k, in 2007 ~ £180k. Many people have potentially had small mortgages to pay off in a period of low inflation. It's no coincidence that in that time two of the key buzzphrases have been 'equity release' and 'buy-to-let'.

Agree with you here newbie.There are a lot of relative winners...A contented majority if you like...
People like nino and VP etc are very unrepresentative of most people in the UK. Most have aspirations to be better off than there parents were and most of us are...

 

[tbaldwin]

It stinks. It helps already greedy people to be become even greedier. There seems to be a lot of housing being built but how much of it is social housing? Not much.

Ooooohhhh the mixed up politics of envy......
Do you think that all housing should be allocated to need,nino?
We should all live in identical housing?

We should all get the same amount of free years of education???????

Or are you still a Tory?

 

[ViolentPanda]

there are a lot of winners. For instance anyone who bought a home before the stupid inflation took off: avg houseprice in 1997 ~ £70k, in 2007 ~ £180k. Many people have potentially had small mortgages to pay off in a period of low inflation. It's no coincidence that in that time two of the key buzzphrases have been 'equity release' and 'buy-to-let'.

For those who think of themselves as "winners" vis a vis having purchased a property at "the right time", it's an exercise in self-delusion, nothing more, nothing less.

All they've "won" is enough equity to perhaps move from one property to another, or to risk investing in "buy to let". Economic cycling being a rather hard-to-deny reality, I suspect that a significant minority of those "winners" will become 24-carat losers, homeless and wondering why there's no social housing for them to lay their capital-loving heads down in.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Agree with you here newbie.There are a lot of relative winners...A contented majority if you like...
People like nino and VP etc are very unrepresentative of most people in the UK. Most have aspirations to be better off than there parents were and most of us are...

Don't try to put words or opinions in my mouth, you tory tosspot.