Come the next election, local and General let us left thinkers snuff out New Labour.

[butchersapron]

A lot of people on the left like to complain about how our current system isn't very democratic, what with all the parties being the same now. It's a good point. Is the above suggestion any better though? I'd be surprised if you could find even 1% of the people in this country who would genuinely agree to the above. Which is significantly less democratic than the 60% or so (a guess) whose political views are currently reflected in the status quo.

Just recently I've started noticing this contradiction in what a lot of leftist radicals say. Always complaining about the lack of democracy. And always trying to say that the country should go in the direction that *they* want - even though the vast majority of people don't agree with them.

A difference of opinion as to how society needs to be organised isn't anti-democratic - what a bizzare argument. It's a form of democracy in action. Not being able to say what you think because only 1% of society agrees with you would be anti-democratic.

Democracy isn't a number, it's a process - and disagreement isn't a call for your will to be imposed.

 

[Brainaddict]

A difference of opinion as to how society needs to be organised isn't anti-democratic - what a bizzare argument. It's a form of democracy in action. Not being able to say what you think because only 1% of society agrees with you would be anti-democratic.

Democracy isn't a number, it's a process - and disagreement isn't a call for your will to be imposed.

Yeah, I know, but I get the impression a lot of lefties would be happy if the revolution happened tomorrow - and they would happily be part of the 1% on the streets. While the 99% of people sat at home wondering what was going to happen to them.

I'm not trying to say it's wrong to express the view that you want a revolution, but I find that the enthusiasm for the idea often overrides any desire for democracy.

Not always of course, but often.

 

[butchersapron]

Yeah, I know, but I get the impression a lot of lefties would be happy if the revolution happened tomorrow - and they would happily be part of the 1% on the streets. While the 99% of people sat at home wondering what was going to happen to them.

I'm not trying to say it's wrong to express the view that you want a revolution, but I find that the enthusiasm for the idea often overrides any desire for democracy.

Not always of course, but often.

Yes, the streets often run red with the blood of failed revolutions round my way.

Have you actually read any far left wing magazines or journals recently? Every single one of them argues that any social wide change must and can only come through democratic mass popular action, and they usually base that position on a principled rejection and critique of past failed attempts to do what you say they want to do.

 

[Brainaddict]

Yes, the streets often run red with the blood of failed revolutions round my way.

Have you actually read any far left wing magazines or journals recently? Every single one of them argues that any social wide change must and can only come through democratic mass popular action, and they usually base that position on a principled rejection and critique of past failed attempts to do what you say they want to do.

Meh. If anarchists spent a bit less time doing largely pointless direct actions and a bit more time trying to communicate their ideas to other people (and no, ghetto journals don't count) then I might actually believe them.

But all this is getting rather off topic.

 

[SpookyFrank]

What about the 40% or so who don't vote because no party reflects their views.

That number is only going to get bigger, and once it clears 50% how is any government going to claim any legitimacy?

 

[kyser_soze]

The idea of dumping the Labour Party is to create space for a new party representing the working (and unemployed) people. It is hoped that this will be the party that takes over from the single term of Tory rule.

This post sums up what people don't seem to get - you only have to keep most of the people moderately happy most of the time to win. It's why that unless things get worse then they were in the 70s and early 80s - possibly even to 1930s levels for more than people than the unemployed or disabled - things won't change. When you start to see house repossessions running into the millions, with people from ALL income/class levels of society affected then you will see change.

What about the 40% or so who don't vote because no party reflects their views.

Do you know what their views are tho? Can you motivate them to come out and vote? Out of that 40%, how many do you think actually have any genuine convictions or views or ideas about how politics and society should work?

The essential shift of power has to be to the local. This includes:
[1] Local tax raising powers.
[2] local decisionmaking with the power of veto (including the power of absolute financial veto) over policies imposed higher up.
[3] Local accountability, with frequent elections, opportunities to dismiss incompetent or corrupt representatives.

Gotta say I agree with this completely. If there was a party basically saying it would be elected to effectively dismantle the Westminster infrastructure in this way I'd vote for it...fuck it, I'd even get off my arse and try and convince other people to vote for it.

 

[butchersapron]

Meh. If anarchists spent a bit less time doing largely pointless direct actions and a bit more time trying to communicate their ideas to other people (and no, ghetto journals don't count) then I might actually believe them.

But all this is getting rather off topic.

Sorry, what the frig has that got to do with my post about your bizzare understanding of the content of far-left politics? Ah, you think that people involved in far-left politics are actually lying about their politics (without you seeming to go to the bother of understanding what those politics are). Righty ho.

And 'meh'? What year is this? Cowabunga dude!

 

[butchersapron]

That number is only going to get bigger, and once it clears 50% how is any government going to claim any legitimacy?

Turnout increased in the last GE.

 

[poster342002]

I think bluey is right:
I think it's sometimes hard to remember just how different the supposed "consensus" is now compared to the 1970's. But it's a manufactured consent. Thatcher made it possible for big business to complete the disenfranchisement of ordinary voters - by redistributing enough wealth from the poor to, not just the rich but also the moderately well-off. The destruction of the unions and massive shift away from manufacturing to lower paid white-collar work split the working class, giving the more "aspirational" amongst them groups to look down on - the unemployed, the unskilled, the low paid and those who could not exercise their right to buy.

Indeed. Very much what I've also been saying for quite some time now. Unless those sort of attiutdes change amongst the populace (and I see no real indication of it happening), then nothing will change politically.

 

[Brainaddict]

If there was a party basically saying it would be elected to effectively dismantle the Westminster infrastructure in this way I'd vote for it...fuck it, I'd even get off my arse and try and convince other people to vote for it.

There's a party in Scandinavia called Democratic Alternative who have this policy. They will only run in local, not national, elections, and their aim is to try and pull as much power as possible back down to a local level, with federation of local power where necessary. It's based on the philosophies and political programs of social ecology, as laid out by Murray Bookchin - and ultimately aims to undermine the state as a central power. They ran in their first election recently and got about 100 votes, so I'd say the idea isn't ready to take off yet - or perhaps they just can't afford the publicity machine you need to win an election these days

 

[butchersapron]

I think it's sometimes hard to remember just how different the supposed "consensus" is now compared to the 1970's. But it's a manufactured consent. Thatcher made it possible for big business to complete the disenfranchisement of ordinary voters - by redistributing enough wealth from the poor to, not just the rich but also the moderately well-off. The destruction of the unions and massive shift away from manufacturing to lower paid white-collar work split the working class, giving the more "aspirational" amongst them groups to look down on - the unemployed, the unskilled, the low paid and those who could not exercise their right to buy.

Well, the upper strata of this 'split' w/c is now under attack as well as those 'below' them - work and social conditions are becoming increasingly similiar. Surely a process of recomposition that will develop out of this - out of shared direct interests. That's what's generally happened in w/c history, of course it doesn't take place immediately, but it does take place.

And it's got nothing at all to with the old elitist model of a media manipulated w/c too thick to tie their own shoelaces and led by the nose by the papers etc

 

[poster342002]

It maybe that no party as an overall majority which means an whole new ball game .

And I predict that will usher in a "national coalition" which will cement itself into power for years - standing single candidtes in elections and the like. Coupled with a recession, "the war on terror", gobal warming and the like, they'll have the ideal excuse. They'll go so far as to call it "inclusive democracy" or something.

 

[poster342002]

Well, the upper strata of this 'split' w/c is now under attack as well as those 'below' them - work and social conditions are becoming increasingly similiar. Surely a process of recomposition that will develop out of this - out of shared direct interests. That's what's generally happened in w/c history, of course it doesn't take place immediately, but it does take place.

And it's got nothing at all to with the old elitist model of a media manipulated w/c too thick to tie their own shoelaces and led by the nose by the papers etc

Sadly, the most likely outcome is that they will go far-right rather than progressive.

 

[kyser_soze]

That number is only going to get bigger, and once it clears 50% how is any government going to claim any legitimacy?

By saying that those who don't vote don't count.

Besides, as BA said, turnout at the last GE was up. I'd expect it to be even higher at the next one, especially if there's a recession.

 

[butchersapron]

There's a party in Scandinavia called Democratic Alternative who have this policy. They will only run in local, not national, elections, and their aim is to try and pull as much power as possible back down to a local level, with federation of local power where necessary. It's based on the philosophies and political programs of social ecology, as laid out by Murray Bookchin - and ultimately aims to undermine the state as a central power. They ran in their first election recently and got about 100 votes, so I'd say the idea isn't ready to take off yet - or perhaps they just can't afford the publicity machine you need to win an election these days

Who organises the elections they take part in? Bookchin's idea was surely to run your own elections outside of the official ones and establish a democratic mandate/process this way (se also old sinn fein).

I shall read up on these - ta.

 

[butchersapron]

Sadly, the most likely outcome is that they will go far-right rather than progressive.

Why?

I entirely disagree. The far-right can only exacerabate the problems that will have brought about a recomposition.

 

[poster342002]

Why?

I entirely disagree. The far-right can only exacerabate the problems that will have brought about a recomposition.

You know that, I know that. A lot of people (too many, I think) don't look at it that logically, however, and will just make a "leap of faith" ...

 

[Brainaddict]

Who organises the elections they take part in? Bookchin's idea was surely to run your own elections outside of the official ones and establish a democratic mandate/process this way (se also old sinn fein).

I shall read up on these - ta.

Unfortunately their website seems to be down at the moment or I'd link to them.

Bookchin talked a lot about counter-institutions and I think in the end (his ideas changed over time) he got into the idea of running in local elections - not as an end in itself but as a way of changing the political landscape at the local level - in order to create new kinds of institutions that would be radically different from what current local councils look like. He considered that the more face-to-face nature of local politics made it less likely that people who entered it would be coopted.

 

[llantwit]

We (broadly defined libertarians/anarchists) can also use elections and the increased awareness of 'politics' in general that goes along with them to put forward our own agendas and spread awareness of anarchist principles.
We started this at the last Welsh Assembly elections with a quite good vote nobody campaign based mainly around a decent flyer and other related prop that we covered Cardiff and the surrounding area with. It was mainly a reactive and negative campaign, but we hope to do a more positive one in the future, based more around offering alternatives than just knocking the electoral process.
Stuff like this comes close to trying to tapping into treelovers libertarian version 'common sense' to combat the right wing 'common sense'. We shouldn't forget our ideas and critiques are quite appealing to lots of folk when you get chatting about them and have an opportunity to engage a bit, and elections offer a good opportunity for doing that.
Brainaddict - can you say anything about the London Social Ecology group's 'Everyone for Mayor' idea? Sounds interesting.

 

[treelover]

this bit from an excellent post on Guardian CIF sums up my feelings perfectly, i do think this is a very unusual time and no one knows how it may pan out.Though i would say the 1930's are on a par for a democratic deficit.

New Labour couldn't give a toss about the poor and the weak. It has no organising narrative, ideological basis or roots in civil society. It merely seeks power and money for the political elite it represents. Never in our democratic history have our elected representatives been so distant from the electorate and more different in terms of values and behaviours. We are at a profoundly dangerous moment for our democracy.

 

[kyser_soze]

We (broadly defined libertarians/anarchists) can also use elections and the increased awareness of 'politics' in general that goes along with them to put forward our own agendas and spread awareness of anarchist principles.

Maybe we should spread ideas of mutual cooperation and support without calling them anarchist? How's that for a radical idea eh?

 

[_angel_]

This post sums up what people don't seem to get - you only have to keep most of the people moderately happy most of the time to win. It's why that unless things get worse then they were in the 70s and early 80s - possibly even to 1930s levels for more than people than the unemployed or disabled - things won't change. When you start to see house repossessions running into the millions, with people from ALL income/class levels of society affected then you will see change.



Do you know what their views are tho? Can you motivate them to come out and vote? Out of that 40%, how many do you think actually have any genuine convictions or views or ideas about how politics and society should work?


Gotta say I agree with this completely. If there was a party basically saying it would be elected to effectively dismantle the Westminster infrastructure in this way I'd vote for it...fuck it, I'd even get off my arse and try and convince other people to vote for it.

I'm one of the 40 percent who can't find anyone to vote for.

Blaming 'apathy' and 'ignorance' on people who don't vote is as arrogant as it gets by our politicians.

I didn't see anyone standing in my constituency that I could even vaguely vote for (and most of them were so uninterested in my vote I only got literature from Labour and the BNP)

 

[Brainaddict]

Maybe we should spread ideas of mutual cooperation and support without calling them anarchist? How's that for a radical idea eh?

Traitor!! It's the name that matters!!

 

[kyser_soze]

I was going to try it out on Attica, but figured it would be too radical even for him...

 

[poster342002]

this bit from an excellent post on Guardian CIF sums up my feelings perfectly, i do think this is a very unusual time and no one knows how it may pan out.Though i would say the 1930's are on a par for a democratic deficit.

The one thing I vaguely agreed with Tony Cliff (founder of the IS/SWP) about was that this period of history is remniscent of the 1930 "in slow motion".

 

[Brainaddict]

I was going to try it out on Attica, but figured it would be too radical even for him...

I've tried it on a few anarchists. They always say they want to 'reclaim' the term. Good luck with that

 

[kyser_soze]

What I love about that idea is that historically (i.e. before the C19th) 'anarchy' did indeed mean 'chaos'...

 

[Spion]

Maybe we should spread ideas of mutual cooperation and support without calling them anarchist? How's that for a radical idea eh?

Well, I call mine marxism or communism, but having said that mere names don't or shouldn't be an obstacle to anyone who's seriously interested in finding solutions to society's problems. But perhaps it's different and I can concede your pooint if attempting to appeal to masses of people.

 

[tbaldwin]

Maybe we should spread ideas of mutual cooperation and support without calling them anarchist? How's that for a radical idea eh?

I think your on to something with that..... GO ON.

 

[bluestreak]

Good call, i'll happily stop using anarchist if we can come up with something better. of course, we can't use anything that harks of communism because that scares people too, mutualist is a bit, you know, 80s hairy dungaree separatist, anything made up will make us sound like we're rebranding the post office, anything vaguely militant will be just as reviled as anarchist...

kyser, you're the advertising bod, if we gave you the job to rebrand anarchism to market to the masses what would you come up with?