Control/Power;And how the revolution can and will come from the majority

[danny la rouge]

Russia didn't really have that demographic really tho, did it?

I was really trying to find out what durruti meant. I have my own ideas about the Russian revolution.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So do others see a crisis coming, particualry over resources such as water, and this is from no left wing source

Cost of water shortage: civil unrest, mass migration and economic collapse

Analysts see widespread conflicts by 2015 but pin hopes on technology and better management

John Vidal, environment editor
Thursday August 17, 2006
The Guardian


Cholera may return to London, the mass migration of Africans could cause civil unrest in Europe and China's economy could crash by 2015 as the supply of fresh water becomes critical to the global economy. That was the bleak assessment yesterday by forecasters from some of the world's leading corporate users of fresh water, 200 of the largest food, oil, water and chemical companies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1851654,00.html

There's nasty stuff like that potentially waiting for us, but I think a lot depends on how the impacts of those things actually pan out.

It's not immediately obvious to me how increasing pressures of that kind will impact our society.

I don't doubt that it will, but I think a lot of people are going to be arguing about what to do about it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

what does that mean?

"Off plan" sales are units sold before the development has been completed, in some cases before the development has been built. The person (supposedly) buys after seeing the plans, therefore "off plan".

 

[Dissident Junk]

Thing is up until about a year ago, a developer would sell upwards of 75% off plan if the development was networked to a large city transport system. This is no longer occuring, yet the media continues to report rising house prices on the basis of estate agent figures and mortgage statistics.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Thing is up until about a year ago, a developer would sell upwards of 75% off plan if the development was networked to a large city transport system. This is no longer occuring, yet the media continues to report rising house prices on the basis of estate agent figures and mortgage statistics.

Yep, in fact some of the developers pretty much rely on "off plan" sales to finance completion of the development, highly irregular, but an increasingly common practice, as it's "cheaper" money than borrowing from the bank.

I sometimes have the niggling suspicion that financial journalists are being "encouraged" to spin the ever-bouyant state of house prices in order to help fend off a collapse, and that the lenders have their part in spinning the fairy tale too.

 

[Dissident Junk]

I also suspect that too, VP.

There has been talk over the last six years that Brown fended off a serious recession by encouraging consumers to fund spending using their homes as assets they could borrow against. As any fule kno, a house is not a particularly good asset - in most cases, it functions as a liability because you need a mortgage, which invokes interest payments. In a way, buying a house means you pay a lot of money for the privilege of investing in something where the value could go down as well as up. However, in the UK, the argument is that rents are as high as mortgage payments, so you might as well get a mortgage cos after fifteen years, you might get something back.

To me, consumer credit given on the basis of a mortgaged primary home is like borrowing against your own debt. But it has become the norm now.And this is what I am seeing everywhere. Married couples with kids, a mortgage and credit card debt who are just surviving. Interest rates go up anymore, even a rise in household bills, and these people are gonna go under.

Now I am not advocating a Japanese approach of 'save everything until your consumer spending gets so low, the bottom falls out of your economy' but this debt phenomenon is unrealistic. And dangerous.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

There has been talk over the last six years that Brown fended off a serious recession by encouraging consumers to fund spending using their homes as assets they could borrow against.

I can well believe that. Its a lose-lose situation really, without consumer credit there would be a lack of consumer demand and therefor an economic slump, and with consumer credit personal debt just keeps going up and up.

It seems that the case for abolishing surplus value (which from my humble understandings of economics is the root cause of over production. maybe some economic boff can correct me on that pont?) is stronger now than it has been for a long time.

 

[durruti02]

Right, I don't want to bang on about this because you raise some good points, and several other good points have been made in the thread. But I must be missing something. I do think I know what you mean by real/unreal revolutions, and as far as I understand I agree. The thing I'm interested in is the bit about those who have enough. Who are they, and why are they the drivers of change?

You seem to say the Russian revolution (as an example) failed because those who rose up had nothing. That's not an analysis I'm familiar with, and I'd like to hear more about it. I have to say that my initial reaction would be to disagree, but it intrigues me, so I'd like to hear more before I judge. Would another thread, maybe in theory, be a better place to discuss that aspect?

cheers danny .. yes i do mean that .. it was a revolution based on despair .. with a leadership infatuated by prussian and american capitlaist production techniques

so in a way when food gets put on the table most people are satisfied .. it didn't deal with power to a large extent .. yes absolutely people had more power ( and freedoms/cultural expression at least initially ) under the bolshviks than the tsars, but it was still essentially an oligarchy ..

so i am saying that poverty/war/desperation does not make a revolution .. it makes revolt .. that can be misdirected

what will make a revolution is people who are ok BUT still lack power as we almost all in this society do .. that revolution can not be mislead .. as it is actually about power ..

does that make sense .. also see reply to tj below ..

 

[durruti02]

In the past the exploited poverty-striken masses were located side-by-side with the well-off in British cities.

In a far more globalised world the exploited poverty-striken masses are overwhealmingly in poor countries.

Anyone who calls themself a socialist or left-wing must be utterly deluded if they think that 'there are very few people in real poverty nowadays', unless their socialism or left-wingedness only extends as far as their own countries borders, in which case I would suggest that it is shallow and in fact petty nationalism not socialism at all.

durruti02, I would suggest you go and have a long, hard look at yourself and your 'ideology'.

this post sums up how the left have it all wrong .. you honestly don't get it ..we all have to 'think global BUT BUT BUT act local' ..

of course my analysis relates to this country .. it is nonsense to create global politics without local base as you have suggested ..

you condemn every trade unionist who fights for better terms and conditions for their workplace , every tenants/residents association who fight for better housing conditions for THEIR estate with your same childish 'nationalist' brush

marxism/socialism/w/c anarchism starts at home on the street at work ..

it builds from the base ..

it uses the idea of solidarity at the small/local scale to help create soldidarity at regional and then global level ..

yes it thinks global but if it does not act local it is empty and meaningless and will acheive nothing

 

[treelover]

Can we get back to exploring futures?, what DJ and VP have posted is very interesting, as someone who is about to be 'social cleansed for my area as the yuppies take over, i have a vested interest in any market collaps!

 

[durruti02]

There's the rub - these communities, all communities really, have been eroded for the last 50 years. With the casualisation and free movement of labour (seperate issues btw), there are now less and less ties to hold communities together. Even the family is disintegrating. Time was when there'd be 3 or 4 generations under one roof, or at least in the same road. The baby-boomer's "everything, for me, now" attitude has ridden rough-shod over the majority of community solidarity that used to exist.

Some people might say that this has been the result of a concerted plan by those in power, others might say it's the natural outcome of global capitalism, others might blame freud for unleashing 'the individual'. Whatever the reason, it sucks, and is the major obstacle in the path of any potential mass revolution.

top post mate .. ( amongst other top posts here )

and it is indicative the the left do not see community as an issue .. and i belive it as it does not fit in with their power analysis

 

[durruti02]

Can we get back to exploring futures?, what DJ and VP have posted is very interesting, as someone who is about to be 'social cleansed for my area as the yuppies take over, i have a vested interest in any market collaps!

can we start a new thread on that please? .. it is VERY interesting area .. times on tuesday ( i was on a train! ) had whole page on possible coming crash in the states .. relating partially to debt etc

p.s. i DID start a thread on buy to let ..which is all part of it but was told by posters its no big deal :-D

 

[Bernie Gunther]

With regard to the original topic, perhaps the roll-back of social progress has reached a point where it makes sense to go back to the beginning and start building a community-based survival net from the ground upwards again.

 

[colacho]

Just a middle-class fantasy of freedom, then. "Those that have"- the middling beneficiaries of capitalism. Hardly likely to start any kind of revolt, let alone revolution. Which is why the UK is ruled by Blair, FFS... The narcotised Waitrose shopping "masses". Yeah. Right. Go back to sleep.

of course my analysis relates to this country .. it is nonsense to create global politics without local base as you have suggested ..

you condemn every trade unionist who fights for better terms and conditions for their workplace , every tenants/residents association who fight for better housing conditions for THEIR estate with your same childish 'nationalist' brush

marxism/socialism/w/c anarchism starts at home on the street at work ..

Teejay (and I can't believe I agree with him for once) never once suggested that politics should be without a local base. But he pointed out that social formations are not contained within the phony national boundaries that capital produced in the first place to suit its needs.

And he certainly didn't condemn trade unionists who fight for better terms and conditions for their workplace- he just reminded you, with your patronising comments about poverty, that without understanding the international dimension of capital your home grown trade unionist lives in a two dimensional world, unable to begin to understand the mechanisms of the capitalist institutions he fights to reform (though generally, these days, not to overthrow).

 

[durruti02]

Just a middle-class fantasy of freedom, then. "Those that have"- the middling beneficiaries of capitalism. Hardly likely to start any kind of revolt, let alone revolution. Which is why the UK is ruled by Blair, FFS... The narcotised Waitrose shopping "masses". Yeah. Right. Go back to sleep.

Teejay (and I can't believe I agree with him for once) never once suggested that politics should be without a local base. But he pointed out that social formations are not contained within the phony national boundaries that capital produced in the first place to suit its needs.

And he certainly didn't condemn trade unionists who fight for better terms and conditions for their workplace- he just reminded you, with your patronising comments about poverty, that without understanding the international dimension of capital your home grown trade unionist lives in a two dimensional world, unable to begin to understand the mechanisms of the capitalist institutions he fights to reform (though generally, these days, not to overthrow).

for starters any one who in a debate about creating revolution in the UK .. or to me london ... starts on about third world poverty has their head up their arse .. and of course capitalism is fking global .. but we, here, deal with what we have, here .. he was clearly NOT doing that and p.s. on thread after thread he has condemned the idea of w/c trade unionists fighting for basics as narrow sectional nationalists

you, yet again, show the utter contempt (that so typifies the m/c left and especially many @'s) of ordinary people getting on with life, bringing up kids ( bet you've not done that yet ) , looking after their parents, trying to keep their head above water etc etc, with your scummy talk of "..The narcotised Waitrose shopping "masses".." and the stupid trade unionist in his one dimensional world

just try to read the OP again and try to understand it .. try to understand what it is saying .. that the rev the w/c have NOT bought into is maybe a bullshit one perpetuated by the TJs and SWPers of this world?? .. and maybe THAT is why they do not buy it ??

just think maybe if we talked of another rev ( what the OP is about) .. maybe just maybe that would actually make more sense to people ..

 

[brasicritique]

Surely the question should be why should anyone bother?

 

[brasicritique]

Or more specifically why should anyone who does not use these boards bother?

 

[durruti02]

Or more specifically why should anyone who does not use these boards bother?

sorry but is this a very good/deep point .. that i have missed .. or just a daft one?

 

[tbaldwin]

Really good thread. Durruti you should do the website you talked about.

 

[durruti02]

yes was a good thread .. didn't last long though did it

i think it should be read with this one too

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=246188which again started off really well .. then deteriated rapidly

 

[treelover]

Durutti, i have been thinking for while now, you should write a book or at the very least a pamphlet on your ideas, etc, you have some quite profound and fully formed thoeries, praxis, etc there is a big political vacuum and such innovation is surely needed, tho I am personally not a revolutionary.

Left Luggage may need you

 

[treelover]

Oh noes, i've just clocked its a thread from the dead!

 

[brasicritique]

sorry but is this a very good/deep point .. that i have missed .. or just a daft one?

It is IMO a very good/deep OBVIOUS point that you all keep missing. In the OP you say no one suffers real poverty. That was a very arrogant glib thing to say and it is no suprise to me that no one picked you up on that. And thats part of the problem with a lot of you so called political progressives and the left.You take the gaurdian line on poverty that becuase people are not yet living in shanty towns and are scarping by on benefits or the minimum wage that there is no poverty in the uk. IMO on top the areas other posters have covered i would say , as i have said many times before issues like the end of social mobility and the end of education, or rather the exclusion of many from REAL educational opportunity and its replacement with 'policing' in schools all add up to a timebomb . And this is before we even talk abaout globalisation . The current economic crisis is in fact part IMO of a restructuring of society one in which those at the bottom or just above the bottom of it are moving down. And then when your from the bootom of society you come to a place like urban you either deal with snobs or when you comment on the ideaological stagnation of say anarchism what do you get ? Have any of you read occupied london ?WTF has that got to offer anyone ? how does that engage REAL wc people and address the issues they face? And that demo yesterday WTF members of the church! how much stock and shares have they got! how much land do they own!
Why was the demo arranged for a day when the national football teams playing. WTF A lot of you just have not got a clue. If this is the place where radical political leaders meet to try and develop ideas to try and change things then we are all fucked

 

[durruti02]

It is IMO a very good/deep OBVIOUS point that you all keep missing. In the OP you say no one suffers real poverty. That was a very arrogant glib thing to say and it is no suprise to me that no one picked you up on that. And thats part of the problem with a lot of you so called political progressives and the left.You take the gaurdian line on poverty that becuase people are not yet living in shanty towns and are scarping by on benefits or the minimum wage that there is no poverty in the uk. IMO on top the areas other posters have covered i would say , as i have said many times before issues like the end of social mobility and the end of education, or rather the exclusion of many from REAL educational opportunity and its replacement with 'policing' in schools all add up to a timebomb . And this is before we even talk abaout globalisation . The current economic crisis is in fact part IMO of a restructuring of society one in which those at the bottom or just above the bottom of it are moving down.

brass .. i wrote this "..there are VERY few people in real poverty nowadays.." so i did not say what you say i said .. though i maybe accept what you mean .. i suspect it is definition .. look i have lived in east london for nearly 25 years, i have not been in any way well off and have lived next too and worked alongside ( i work on housing estates ) enough what i guess you would call poverty to know what you mean .. but there is little poverty where people are really really struggling to put food on plates ( yes there is some ) or have heating ( for some old people yes) .. almost all people have housing with tvs and mobiles etc and a bit of money coming in from somewhere .. there are numbers of people who thru drug and alcohol are living in really fucked up places .. i see plenty of crackheads and junkies

in fact what you refer to .. lack of social mobility, education .. is kind of what i am on about tbh .. issues that affect the majority

btw i have no idea what line the guardian spouts on poverty .. in fact i would have guessed it thought 30% of the pop was in poverty in its patronising way .. and so justifying all those well paid jobs it advertises

but you seem to have missed the whole point of the OP tbh

that however angry people in these shite situations get whether i take your definition of poverty or you mine, that this breeds revolt and rebellion ( and hence maybe fascism ) not revolution or fundamental change

 

[badco]

One of the things that come thru these pages is that so many of the left while spouting about revolution and all,actually when there are real issuesto be dealt with DENY to people their right to make decisions on the basis that it will be reactionary/racist etc etc

equally they utterly fail to understand that much of todays unrest e.g. re immigration is due to the fact that people are impotent /powerless in front if capital and it compliant state ..

AND that the left instead of sympathising with the people CONDEMNS them for being reactionary and nationalist and little englander ..

So you say but the majority/middle england are NOT interested in revolution .. well thats because both the state and the left wing have told people that the left are not interested in them .. and it is true .. the left are not interested in the ordinary person ..

The left is still obsessed finding some holy grail in some shat upon minority. This will never work .. those shat on are actually most likely to except crumbs off the table .. It is those who have enough who will make a REAL revolution. .. so they lurch from one minority to another .. currently the 'opressed ' muslims ( like muslims are fking oppressed in this country!)

but if we look outside we see an enormous dissatisfaction .. not one related to poverty ( there are VERY few people in real poverty nowadays) .. not too oppression .. BUT to a lack of control over our lives ..

it comes out in arguments over cars / cameras / immigration/ europe / smoking / flying the flag / closed shop / sons and daughters / paedophiles

and almost EVERY times the left lines up behind the state condemning those who protest those who demand a say as reactionary / behind the times etc etc .. it is tragic

the @ and sensible left have a massive captive audience is this area .. the bnp can NEVER claim to be in favour of giving control back to people as theybelieve in a strong state ..

and ah ha .. thi is the crux .. of course the orthodox left believe in a strong state too .. so they are scared of the idea of giving people power over local affairs/law/justice

time for them to move on ..

choose life,choose a fucking big television........

 

[durruti02]

Oh noes, i've just clocked its a thread from the dead!

its a zombie thread!

 

[Shevek]

One of the things that come thru these pages is that so many of the left while spouting about revolution and all,actually when there are real issuesto be dealt with DENY to people their right to make decisions on the basis that it will be reactionary/racist etc etc





but if we look outside we see an enormous dissatisfaction .. not one related to poverty ( there are VERY few people in real poverty nowadays) .. not too oppression .. BUT to a lack of control over our lives ..

..

I stood as Lib Dem candidate in the local elections in May 2008. When I was out and about canvassing it was amazing the number of people who blamed immigrants for their problems. I think this view is wrong and misguided but how do you get that message through to people who are convinced immigrants are the downfall of society and they are all getting free houses, driving lessons, cars and the like.

I feel that the some people on the left are far too preachy when it comes to issues like race. Peoples opinions do not come fully formed. I take a softly softly approach. I would criticize racism by trying to point out the logical flaws in the point of view. I wouldnt attempt to vilify the person. The reason I think this way was because I grew up in a racist household and only shed these view gradually through my time at university and mingling with various people. I learned the error of my ways but when I was a kid I was a racists thathcherite little bugger.

I know I stood as a Lib Dem (make of that what you will) but I am also deeply affected by the ideas of anarchism. Chomsky is a thinker who I keep coming back to. I have not had much contact with the anarchist movement and to be honest I am a bit intimidated from joining them. This is only a crass generalisation but I dont really think squats and protests are going to lift the conciousness of the nation. I think building in workplaces consistently and powerfully is the way ahead. I think anarchism has to offer something more than bland consumerism as Durrutti I think implies. Anarchism/Libertarian Socialism (who would want authoritarian socialism) must offer more choices for people. It must offer control over the organisation and management of work and allow people to explore skills and abilities in their lives that they could never otherwise experience. I believe everyone has the right to creative fulfilling work (everyone must share some of the shite work). I know some might criticize my focus on work, maybe it is latent protestant work ethic but I think it is one of the central arenas of life and needs to be liberated. Democracy in the workplace!

 

[durruti02]

hi shevek .. just a quick point re immigration .. imho one of the major aspects of peoples problem with immigration is that pople say and feel that 'they weren't asked' .. immigration illustrates perfectly how people have become and feel totally disempowered in modern capitalism .. btw i have never seen any left group mention this ..

btw sorry but that was an interesting post ^^^

yes i can understand the @ movement appears 'intimdating' from the outside with its prickly exterior and many faces .. yet you will find many who agree with what you are thinking .. re work in either the Wobblies/IWW or Sol Fed .. my interest is more in the community where groups like Haringey Solidarity Network is a good example

 

[tbaldwin]

hi shevek .. just a quick point re immigration .. imho one of the major aspects of peoples problem with immigration is that pople say and feel that 'they weren't asked' .. immigration illustrates perfectly how people have become and feel totally disempowered in modern capitalism .. btw i have never seen any left group mention this ..

Which is one huge problem in connecting to many people and undercutting any support that racist parties like the BNP get.

That is one of the reasons id like a more honest approach from dissident left wingers eg ( people who want social justice and a more democratic society not people who believe in Socialism from above like the SWP etc etc)

Economic migration needs to be explained to people who wrongly blame individual migrants as well as explained to people who think for some strange reason that really its all quite good!!!!!

 

[brasicritique]

right lets take you apart Crudass, well as much as i can be bothered given where your at.

brass .. i wrote this "..there are VERY few people in real poverty nowadays.."

Utter rubbish. What do you define as 'Very few in 'real poverty? like i said your taking the gaurdian/ middleclass third world NGO line on poverty in the west. If people were all rich then unemployment would not be rising and the avergae wage would not be 23k .You see I know you are conceptualising poverty in context of the usual 'relative poverty' , as i have stated above. Well historically speaking even the fucking victorians percieved poverty as more than a problem stemming from a lack of material goods.

so i did not say what you say i said .. though i maybe accept what you mean .. i suspect it is definition .. look i have lived in east london for nearly 25 years, i have not been in any way well off and have lived next too and worked alongside ( i work on housing estates ) enough what i guess you would call poverty to know what you mean ..

embolded words= your use of a PAST tense, italicsised = contradiction

but there is little poverty where people are really really struggling to put food on plates ( yes there is some )


or have heating ( for some old people yes) ..

There are currently 8 million people on benefits/economically inactive and this figure is rising sharply. The idea that only old people are experiencing poverty which you refer to in your post is just you using pensior poverty for the sake of posturing politically.Indeed it brings to mind the whole recent return of the terms ' undeserving and deserving poor'

almost all people have housing

Almost all and where did you get the statisiscal information to use the term 'all'. So there are no council waiting lists, we dont need charities like shelter, and there is no lack of social , council or affordable housing, people are not getting evicted as they get there homes repossessed. There are no massive problems in rural areas with regards to the lack of housing .Oh and people are just voting far right to be spitefull as the lack of housing , and tensions the far right play upon within communitees centred around the issue of the lack housing are all an illusion

with tvs and mobiles etc

Have you heard of 'pay as you go'. Have you never heard of 'catalogues' or HP. The above point is so glib the most i can say about it that it is verging on 'troll'

and a bit of money coming in from somewhere ..

ahh yes this bit of your argument seems to have been taken from the pages of the daily mail itself .Where do you think this 'bit of money coming in from somewhere' is coming from then. Come on your the man on the estates

there are numbers of people who thru drug and alcohol are living in really fucked up places .. i see plenty of crackheads and junkies

Really? There are plenty of people who are living in fucked up places who are not fucked up through drugs. Your inability to SEE this, taken in context with your above point , and preceeding points you have made reveal that

A)you do not know what you are talking about

and

B) you are dealing in the politics of media stereotypes.

and

C) We can also see how you do not live on a housing estate, which with regards to your argument that junkies live in fucked up places further undermines your own professed politcal persuasion

in fact what you refer to .. lack of social mobility, education .. is kind of what i am on about tbh .. issues that affect the majority

No its not. Your OP made no mention of them.These issues do not affect the majority in the sense of the majority which are in control of society.

btw i have no idea what line the guardian spouts on poverty .. in fact i would have guessed it thought 30% of the pop was in poverty in its patronising way .. and so justifying all those well paid jobs it advertises

Now thats odd. Personally speaking i like to try to take in as many POVS on issues as possible.

but you seem to have missed the whole point of the OP tbh

actually you should change the use of 'tbh' . to tbd or 'to be disingenous'. My post was blatanlty in keeping with the OP. Even the last points regarding the demo and anarchism are fucking obviously tied in that they relate to

1 control. why have a demo the same day as national football teams are playing. hmmmmm who made that tactical choice.

2 Power who has power. where did the power in this demo reside. In the organisers ?in the people taking part , who showed how powerfull they were by collectivly booing?

3 And how the revolution can and will come from the majority

The demo did not reflect any majority just as you dont.This i swhy revolution ill not com efrom the majoirty as you percieve it.

The demo and anti g20 protests are part of the fuckign process by which power maintains control. I can imagine a lot of you lot going along, the ed selling urban, the anarchists selling anarchism, the swapies selling swapyism even attica selling pratsays. You see you all make the same and continual fundamanetal errors, which i really cannot even be bothered to point out anymore. There just so fucking glaringly obvious. Heres a clue ; its the point i make second from last at the bottom of this whole post.

that however angry people in these shite situations get whether i take your definition of poverty or you mine, that this breeds revolt and rebellion ( and hence maybe fascism ) not revolution or fundamental change

So then why are you bothering as you have already conceeded defeat?
Lets assess your use of the word 'majority'. We already have majority rule. Anyone familar with the political process in this country or susccessfull radical political campaighns can see you do not need a majority to achieve change just as you do not need out dated swapy vangaurd concepts, self indulgent teenage anarchism or eco-nazism. What you need is to build a solid political base on issues that are politically relevent. Waving a placrd with troops out of afganistan and listen to church leaders POV's on poverty is just a sick joke.There is nothing in your OP and subsequent reply to my earlier post that seperates you from current government thinking. Your more 'media stereotype' politcal rhetoric at the moment Duruti2. 'Little real poverty' indeed


For those of you that went on that demo you put all your time and effort into taking politics past downing street. Not to the people. And thats why power prevails.

Duruti2 : you are john crudass and i claim my £5 , and i look forward to the spirited defence yourself and others on these boards will make with regards to water meters.