Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Rip it up and start again

I think parties in the old leninist conception have had their day. Any new movement has to be a grass roots one that it is routed in communities and workplaces, has as few bureaucrats as possible and is based on empowerment of people rather office seeking as the last 100 years of the social democratic parties has shown that the logical conclusion of this is Tony Blair/Gerhard Schoreder.
 
Hmmm, let's see. We're going to abandon the traditional left and start again. So you are we going to be talking to then?

It's funny, it's the old sectarian impulse in a new set of clothes. Get rid of all the others, they're the problem, they're just holding everybody back.
 
Well given that state communism imploded under the weight of it's own corruption, social democracy (in the UK at least) ended when Callaghan adopted the IMF prescription in 1977 and the trot groups are now populated mostly by students going through a "radical phase" then starting again sounds like a good idea. Especially now the world has changed so much over the last few years and the traditional trade unions are actively acting as an arm of the bosses to stifle industrial action i think we really need to dump the old baggage of the past and learn from all the mistakes made.
 
If you "dump" everybody else then you're simply playing on your own: you'll spend all your time denouncing the old left and fantasising that a new way of doing things will magically appear.

It's exile politics really - people who have been defeated frantically rushing around denouncing one another.
 
Well the point is that hardly anyone follows the labour party anymore, the trot groups are a withered husk and the trade unions are politically weak so most people are not actively involved in any kind of political activity at all. My point is that if we are ever going to change things for the better and gain control over our lives then we have to rethink our approach and try to take the struggle on in ways which don't involve vanguard parties, messianic leaders or sectarianism. Thats why i don't believe in parties.
 
But without parties you're just small groups of people running around doing your own thing. No parties, no relationship to the population at large.

Is it not possible that actually there are deeper reasons why the left appears to have dried up in much of the Western world, not connected so much with their particular approach but with social developments and the lifestyles of people in general?
 
Donna Ferentes said:
Is it not possible that actually there are deeper reasons why the left appears to have dried up in much of the Western world, not connected so much with their particular approach but with social developments and the lifestyles of people in general?
This itself would necessitate a new approach, though, surely?
 
A changed aproach rather than a new one, perhaps

You yourself said something interesting a few months ago (before you ballsed it up with the habitual ultra-pessimism) about - if I followed - traditional socialism perhaps being a temporary, historical phenomenon of people who are exploited by capitalism and therefore look back to a time without it. Did I interpret you correctly?
 
Donna Ferentes said:
A changed aproach rather than a new one, perhaps

You yourself said something interesting a few months ago (before you ballsed it up with the habitual ultra-pessimism) about - if I followed - traditional socialism perhaps being a temporary, historical phenomenon of people who are exploited by capitalism and therefore look back to a time without it. Did I interpret you correctly?
I'm afraid I can't remember the instance in question. Can you provide me with more on what I said? Or maybe it was someone else who said it? :confused:
 
I wanted to say, I think, that for more than a century it was taken for granted by nearly any young leftist that what they were doing, and saying, had a great deal to do with organised labour: and that this was because that was both the basic audience for these ideas and the potential means by which they might be achieved. Mine was possibly the last generation - in the UK, anyway - for which this was the case.

The problem is that ideas of working-class solidarity, which were widespread all through this period, are now basically believed in only by a small and shrinking minority and an ageing one at that. It's striking, for instance, how little younger people think or care about trade unions and how old gatherings of Old Left types like me actually are.

Now we could blame this on New Labour, the far left, anticapitalists or who we want, and find fault with any of them. But I can't be bothered, for any number of reasons, but partly because the left is the left and any attempt to make it into a certain shape, all the undesirable bits cut out, is doomed and stupid. You can't have a broad movement that's narrowly defined and you nor can you have it without mistakes and foolishness of all kinds. If we have to get it just right then it's a waste of time.

We could also blame it on the defeats of the Eighties, and it's a fair point - or on the absence of PR (which militates against leftist parties) or anti-union legislation or whatever. But to be honest, I'm a historian by nature and I look at long-term causes most of all. And it seems to me that once the productivity of labour reaches the point where people can secure themselves a decent living - if no doubt an insecure one - by their own efforts, without the need for the difficult and draining efforts of collective labour, then at least one of them effects, at least for a while, will be an increase in individualism and a decline of interest in organised labour. Nothing to do with this party or that party taking this or that line, nothing to do with there being anything wrong (or right) about parties as such. It's just a historical phase, while society remakes itself, as it always does - and while that doesn't mean everything has changed, we need time itself to show us what happens next and how the old struggle of us and them will also remake itself, as it always does.
 
Good points. The question, then, is how we appraoch this scenario?

Or, to paraphrase; you've interperated the situation - the point is to change it! ;)
 
So it is. But I don't know the answer, nor does anybody else. So, for the while, I tend to think defensively - in terms of defending egalitarian ideas, public services, comprehensive schools, that sort of thing: generally in keeping the flame alive, not falling into denunciation and stupidity.
 
At last a good thread

Who cares what a 19th C man with a beard said, imo, thats part of the problem, 'text-dwelling'

Exactly


http://www.ocap.ca/

V Good

http://www.telcocitizens.org.uk/

bad for obvious reasons

Random thoughts

To make a fresh start would mean MC people coming to terms with the fact that WC people are just as capable and intelligent as they are.

Any movement would have to be based on merit and not education which is a part of the problem in terms of the decline of the left.

So perhaps what is needed first of all is a change by people from within (which is scarey for those old left wing dinosaurs who cling to marx like toxteh o gradys bogey.)

What are also needed are national campaigns that are both heavy on social justice and realisitc ie not Mark thomas left wing bollox

The local has to come beefore the national and
the national has to come before the international if chavez of che had been international first national second where would they have got to?

we live in a consumer society so campaigns should be aimed at keeping the poor in pocket. Ie a campaign to abolish the BBC liecence fee might seem simplistic put is it really fair that in the 21st century we have such a retrogresive tax? just a thought

There would need to be a media strategy/Anti media campaign

There would need to be a direct action wing.

It would have to have realisitc aims

And judging by the IWCA website someone who could build a GOOD website would help. now theres a job for the editor if he is not busy enough as it is
 
fuckin hell, i was too cynical to read this thread but it was one of those beautiful moments of rare agreements and optimism! until DF came and pissed reality onto the bonfire of idealism.
 
.....what there is to conquer
By strength and submission, has already been discovered
Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope
To emulate—but there is no competition—
There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.
 
i know a song that'll get on your nerves get on your nerves get on your nerves i know a song that'll get on your nerves get get get on your nerves:rolleyes:
 
brasicattack said:
we live in a consumer society so campaigns should be aimed at keeping the poor in pocket. Ie a campaign to abolish the BBC liecence fee might seem simplistic put is it really fair that in the 21st century we have such a retrogresive tax? just a thought
Quite. But everytime anyone says that, they get recieve screeching accusations of being a fox-tv supporter. :rolleyes:
 
Donna Ferentes said:
Because if you lose the BBC
Then Fox TV
Is what you'll get, you see.

The "you don't want mr Jones to come back, do you?" school of argument.

Better slam a few more poor people in prison for non-payment, then. :rolleyes:
 
poster342002 said:
The "you don't want mr Jones to come back, do you?" school of argument.

Better slam a few more poor people in prison for non-payment, then. :rolleyes:

well, if you can show me a way that it won't go that way then i'll take your view point.

in the meantime i'll carry on supporting the licence fee AND campaigning for methods of alleviating poverty that might actually make any difference.
 
In fact, this issue alone is an example of why the left fails to gain much support amongs the poor; it's percieved as being in favour of many of the very things that cause hassle for them.
 
Frankly, how is the BBC any better than any of the commercial channels? And why does it need to be paid for with a flat tax like the license fee, if it is necessary?
 
Donna Ferentes said:
The school of thought
Which values institutions more than slogans:
The trouble being that you appear to value the reputation of institutions more than what they actually do.
 
Back
Top Bottom