Bob Crow calls for New Working Class Party ?
- Thread starter john malcolm
- Start date
Why has this 8 year old thread been bumped?
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Aren't there quite a few political parties already which are some way to the left of Labour and claim to represent the workers?
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Since the RMT are involved in TUSC already and the SP were involved in No2EU with Crow and he's worked pretty closely with the SP in things like the NSSN I would be very surprised, were anything to come of this, if Nellist at least wasn't involved in Crow's new party. And while I'm very skeptical about the prospects for a new party built from the top down (as in TUSC, Left Unity or any of the other electoral or wannabe electoral fronts we've seen and continue to see) rather than emerging bottom up from real grassroots movements, I think Scragill's control freakery (which was understandable given the way he'd been stabbed in the back and so on - not surprising he isn't the most trusting man alive) meant the SLP were doomed from the start.
There are a lot of brackets in this post.
el-ahrairah
forward communism, forward gerbils!
only technically.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
do they?
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Probably not, but that's because "the workers" are not in fact a homogeneous group with aligned interests.
SovietArmy
Well-Known Member
I am not against public sector workers at all, I did not heard something campaign for private sector workers, we are divided as workers private and public sector. So something should be done to unite all workers.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
does the fact the working class are not "a homogenous group" negate the possibility of aligned interests?
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Sorry. They are not a homogeneous group, nor do they have aligned interests.
So, for instance: you can have sensible transport policies without pretending (as people do) that "drivers" or "pedestrians" are in any way interest groups, which can be spoken for.
Similarly, you can tackle workplace exploitation, or set appropriate safety nets, without pretending that there is any such thing as "the workers", or that the idea of "solidarity" makes any sense.
So, for instance: you can have sensible transport policies without pretending (as people do) that "drivers" or "pedestrians" are in any way interest groups, which can be spoken for.
Similarly, you can tackle workplace exploitation, or set appropriate safety nets, without pretending that there is any such thing as "the workers", or that the idea of "solidarity" makes any sense.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
do the ruling class have no aligned interests either? They share no common interests?
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
For a start, there's no such thing as the ruling class. And even if there was, it would include a huge number of diametrically opposed interests. The aligned interests they have (mainly around enforcement of certain laws and rights) are also shared with lots of other people, including a fair few of your "workers".
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
It's ridiulous. You're taking a simple binary paradigm that was laughably outmoded even in the nineteenth century when the daft bearded chap first popularised it, and trying to make it work as the essential reference in a massively more complex world of conflicting and competing interests.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
no wonder you [ and people of your 'complexity theory' ilk] constantly misrepresent what "Marxists" say. What made you think that Marxists/Marx were unaware of the fact that the ruling classes had/ve " a huge number of diametrically opposed interests"?
PS. just to clarify your position a bit further. " no such thing as the ruling class". So, no such thing as the working class? No such thing as the capitalist class? how far do you oppose this notion of class societies?
You are a moron , or a 15 year old Tory Troll , most probably both, Silas Loom. Your bogus "argument, is entirely based on a spurious "straw man" misrepresentation of the socialist understanding of social class. There is quite evidently a tiny group of people, in every society on our planet, who own and control the overwhelming bulk of the productive wealth . This grouping , of around 5 to 10% of the population, but particularly concentrated at the top 1% , in the main (accepting the regular entry of "new blood nouveau riche" Bill Gates types ,and the exit of the odd ruined Toff bankrupt - a big difference from earlier rigidly stratified caste-based social systems like Feudalism), owe their huge wealth and consequent social power entirely to inherited wealth, and their easy entry to the highest earning decision making positions in society to the intertwined schooling and family and business connections of their class (the "Eton Toffs effect" and similar elite institutions carrying out ruling class scion indoctrination and connections establishing). The contemporary capitalist class, like in every other era with a ruling hereditary elite, constantly fight like buggery amongst themselves, for ever greater shares of the cake - but they work co-operatively together on a systematic basis when their overall class interests are threatened by the rest of us - in exactly the same way the constantly infighting Norman Barons did in the Feudal social system.
The international "jumping on the bandwagon " of enthusiasm for fascism as a social system by key sections of the ruling classes across Europe (and some pivotal capitalists like Henry Ford in the USA too), in the face of the threat to their collective class interests of the socialist and communist led working class offensives of the 20's and 30's illustrates this well. Didn't stop the established imperialist empires of France and Great Britain eventually fighting with the competing rising capitalist powers of Germany/Italy and Japan of course. But as Churchill's famous quote stated in the 20's "If I had been an Italian I would undoubtedly have supported the Fascist movement of Mussolini against the bestial appetites of Bolshevism".
The last 30 year experience of global "neoliberalism" in which, for instance, in the USA the share of national income going to the top 1% of superrich grew from around 9% to around 24% , is a good illustration of a world-wide sharing and copying of techniques of ideological and legal and structural domination , which brought about this astonishing wealth transfer from the majority to the rich. Many of the privatisation/liberalisation techniques we are experiencing today in the UK were first "piloted" in the brutal " social laboratory" of Pinochet's Chile in the 70's following the overthrow of the Allende government with heavy US (and Brazilian) involvement, on advice from the "Chicago Boys" US economists.
YOU may be so naïve, or simply pompously stupid, (most likely just a daft Tory Troll) as to claim there is no "ruling class" Silas, but more honestly frank capitalist bastards like legendary US billionaire capitalist Warren Buffet are often quite open at the regular strategy conferences that the superrich constantly hold to discuss their "investment strategies". As Buffet, AKA "The Sage of Omaha" , is very widely quoted in the international press as saying recently at such a gathering , "Of course there's a class struggle - and we're winning it!" - to much raucous applause from the assembled billionaire venture capitalist fat cats..
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
I think there a few Tory historians, who would deny there has been ruling classes. I think this fellow's influences lie elsewhere.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Do tell.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Hey silas, what ever your politics are, is fine by me. Tell, don't tell, your choice.
Similar threads
