Shouldn't the Left benefit from poor state of the economy?

[likesfish]

communally running a slum and a 21st century state are very different things.
I like having clean water power the net a justic system etc etc etc.
peoples courts fill me with dread

 

[CyberRose]

0/10 for comprehension

Ah come on even you can see the funny side to it can't you!?

The best example to the kind of society (ie how decisions are made) you would like are Latin American slums, hardly the greatest of advertisements is it?! You even claim that these examples prove the kind of communal based society can , and I quote, "successfully operate"! Now, maybe I'm biassed as I've been brought up in an advanced western nation, but Latin American slums are the last place I'd use 'successful' to describe them.

Anyway, which revolutions resulted in the kinds of societies you'd like to live in, and what guarantees can you give that a revolution in this country would produce such results, rather than produce either the society we live in now, or produce a descent into totalitarian dictatorship, which combined I would say account for 100% of all products of revolution (altho that may go down to 99.9% after you tell me of these successful revolutions)

 

[likesfish]

US revolution worked pretty well unless you weren't a black or a redskin but then they were in the shit before so at least they weren't any worse off.
Not sure but back in the 1700s did they count as people?
Genuine question not defending slavery or extermination but did the average American think black slaves or Indians were the same knid of people as they were.

 

[poster342002]

I was of the impression that fascism adhered to a fairly centralised (ish) economy, which would put it to the left of Labour economically

Isn't there an argument that Chile's ultra-freemarket military regime in the 1970s was a form of fascism?

 

[CyberRose]

US revolution worked pretty well unless you weren't a black or a redskin but then they were in the shit before so at least they weren't any worse off.
Not sure but back in the 1700s did they count as people?
Genuine question not defending slavery or extermination but did the average American think black slaves or Indians were the same knid of people as they were.

Personally, I'd have the French and American revolutions as "successful" (eventually anyway), but they didn't lead to the kind of society proposed by Uberdog so don't think they can count

 

[CyberRose]

Isn't there an argument that Chile's ultra-freemarket military regime in the 1970s was a form of fascism?

I don't know. I'm not an expert on political theory but I was just under the impression that fascism was based on a fairly centrally planned economy (but not completely). It's possible that may only have applied to Nazi (national socialism) Germany? Anyway, Wikipedia says fascists opposed laissez faire economic policies, so it must be true!

 

[Karamazov#1]

Pinochet ran a military regime. He wasn't a fascist in the sense of Mussolini or Hitler but was the latest in a long line of latin American strong men whose power was based on the military rather than a mass movement of the Italian or German variety.

On the subject in hand though. I think the resurgence of left wing politics in Southern/Central America shows that the ideals of Socialism are not dead but one can't really compare the situation in somewhere like Venezuela or Bolivia to here. There the movements of Chavez and Morales are based on the mass of people who have absolutely nothing to lose as they had been systematically persecuted and excluded by the white ruling cliques since the Spanish first landed there five hundred years ago. With the attention of Bush and the CIA elsewhere democracy broke out after being much delayed by the cold war.
The main problem that left wingers face is that we have no mass movement based within working class and poor communities in this country as even some western european states do (dei links partei in Germany, RCP in Italy). But these movements are based at least in part on still significant trade union movements. To put in bluntly the only people who will benefit from a severe economic crisis in this country will be the SNP in Scotland and the BNP (or their successors) in England.

 

[butchersapron]

He was an example of pure primacy of economics over politics )and the linmits inherent in that apparoach). In that sense i don't think his regime can be described as fascist, fascist regimes usually being about the primacy of politics (hence incapable of sustained social reproduction).

 

[poster342002]

The Chile thing came to mind as I had heard one definition of fascism being the total smashing of all forms of working class organisation - political and economic.

 

[likesfish]

well respect have got the bloke across the road and I voted for them cause they asked and seemed churlish to refuse to nominate the bloke
so thats 2

 

[Blagsta]

Would that be economically or politically? I was of the impression that fascism adhered to a fairly centralised (ish) economy, which would put it to the left of Labour economically (hence their appeal predominantly to the working classes, way more so than the far left's appeal to the working class), but obviously their political beliefs are on the far right of the spectrum

Historically fascism appealed to business and the petty bourgeoise as it served to protect their interests from socialist revolution.

 

[Das Uberdog]

The example of self-governing slums wasn't an advocation of squalor and slum lifestyles - just a vindication of the possibilities of self-autonomy.

I was obviously suggesting that I believe it possible to transfer similar governing procedure into advanced Western societies.

 

[CyberRose]

The example of self-governing slums wasn't an advocation of squalor and slum lifestyles - just a vindication of the possibilities of self-autonomy.

I was obviously suggesting that I believe it possible to transfer similar governing procedure into advanced Western societies.

How would that kind of system be compatible with an advanced western society? Maybe if we were all as poor as those in the slums of South America, but not when you have a middle class the size it is in our country. Political systems only work when they have the acceptance of the vast majority of the population, otherwise they polarise the population and that can lead to civil war or, as history shows us, more likely will lead to a descent into authoritarianism (which is why every single attempt at communism failed). Parliamentary democracy is accepted by the vast majority of our population, but the system you propose would not be accepted by too many people for it to work (and to force people to make it work you'd need an authoritarian rule). Centre politics appeals to the majority of people, extreme politics only appeals to a few, so no matter which system you chose to rule ourselves, extreme politics always fails.

Now don't get me wrong, the system we have today could be much further to the left, and that would certainly be in a position to help the poor people in this country through hard times, but none of these leftist groups will ever be in a position to steer the country in that direction because they will never be in power as half of them refuse to accept parliamentary politics and the other half that do somehow transformed themselves from a socialist to an Islamist party. As much as it will pain most U75ers, your best bet would be to hope for a reformed Labour party to the left of what it is today...

 

[Das Uberdog]

So what you're saying is that it won't work because people don't want it. I agree, in that I don't think it's going to work tomorrow. Do you think I became a communist because I thought everyone already agreed with the principles of communism? I didn't, I became a communist because I was rationally convinced of the arguments surrounding the state of human nature, the true nature of liberty and the dehumanising effects of capitalism.

 

[likesfish]

My trouble with communism is the eastern bloc that proported to be communist
was crap. so crap it had to kill people who wanted to leave.
I remeber the inner German border the claymore mines were angled to kill people trying to leave. First time in history a state designed border defenses to keep the population in
Deeply evil on a fundamental basis probably surpassing Hitler on the genocide scale
Not even very good at supplying the basics to its citizens had to import wheat form the US.
big shortages all the time.
3rd or 4th rate consumer goods when you could get them.
I can't see how with that history behind it you could consider communism even worth a go in theory.
At least the Nazis had spiffy uniforms not that that implies fascism is any better.

 

[CyberRose]

So what you're saying is that it won't work because people don't want it. I agree, in that I don't think it's going to work tomorrow

Ever. It won't work ever. For any political system to work as intended, it must have the backing of the vast majority, not just a simple majority. The way we organise ourselves today, either locally or nationally, has the acceptance of the vast majority, so, despite its many failings, it works and is stable. Communism would be opposed by too many people for it to evolve into anything other than authoritarianism, as evidenced by every single attempt at communism there has ever been. When a large portion of the population oppose a political system, that system will either be changed into something acceptable to the vast majority, or those controlling the system will be forced to coerce the population into accepting it (hence dictatorship). Like I said earlier, maybe in Marx' time when the working class made up 90% of the population it might have worked. But today, when the middle class is so much bigger, and movement between classes much more easier, the amount of people set to lose out by communism is far too big for it to ever be accepted. "Old" Labour was considered to far to the left to be elected within our current political system, so I fail to see how replacing that political system with one much further to the left than 1980s Labour would be in anyway shape or form acceptable to the British public

Do you think I became a communist because I thought everyone already agreed with the principles of communism? I didn't, I became a communist because I was rationally convinced of the arguments surrounding the state of human nature, the true nature of liberty and the dehumanising effects of capitalism.

I think you became a communist because you liked the look of the end product, but got so entrenched in political dogma/theory to be able to look outside your window and see the real world outside...

 

[Fruitloop]

Is the middle class so much bigger? I would have said it was shrinking pretty rapidly, and a lot of people in former m/c professions were really feeling the squeeze. Barbra Ehrenreich is pretty sound on this, I remember a quote from her recently saying that whereas the title of her 70s book on the middle-class was 'fear of fallng', if she had to use a phrase to describe today's Western m/c it would be 'free fall'. Her latest book 'Bait and switch' goes into the whole issue in some detail.

 

[CyberRose]

Oh yea, there is a point to what I said above and earlier!

I'm referring to you suggesting nothing can help the working class through economic hardship other than revolution. I think that's wrong and I think help can be given to them through our current political system. Waiting for a revolution that will never happen means, imo, merely giving up on the working classes. I think the left has become infiltrated with middle class ideals, such as anti war or civil liberties, and neglect working class issues such as those that have been taken up by the far right (see, tied it back to the OP!). The OP asks why the working class are not turning to the left in times of economic difficulties, and imo it is because the left are either too busy campaigning for Muslims, civil liberties or against wars, otherwise they refuse outright to become involved in our current political system, because their books say that system is wrong.

 

[CyberRose]

Is the middle class so much bigger?

Don't know how big it is, or exactly how to describe it, but it has to be much bigger than the 10% of Marx' time. Also, add to that what gets referred to as "lower middle class" and you could have anything up to half the country?

Either way, it's big enough for communism to be rejected by the population

 

[Fruitloop]

Yeah but are those people middle class in the way that Marx thought of the middle classes (i.e the bourgeoisie)? I don't think that all that many are. I reckon these days you have to be a stockbroker or something to exert the kind of economic dominance that Marx had in mind, not some lower-management pipsqueak that thinks they're middle class 'cos they earn more than thirty grand.

 

[CyberRose]

Yeah but are those people middle class in the way that Marx thought of the middle classes (i.e the bourgeoisie)? I don't think that all that many are. I reckon these days you have to be a stockbroker or something to exert the kind of economic dominance that Marx had in mind, not some lower-management pipsqueak that thinks they're middle class 'cos they earn more than thirty grand.

No they wouldn't be bourgeoisie as in classical Marxism, but that's not really important. What's important is the wealth they command. I'd say that altho we're going through a rough patch, most people from "lower" middle class up to the top will be able to cope fairly comfortably, altho those at the bottom of this spectrum may struggle along with the working class.

However, the above is by and large irrelevant and probably somebody will come along to correct it and/or swear at me. My point is, there are too many people in this country who would not benefit from a communist system for it to be accepted. It would either be replaced straight away were the people free to choose, otherwise those who implemented the system would have to resort to authoritarianism to prevent the people from replacing the communist system, which is what every single communist regime throughout history has had to resort to...

Nutshell: Communism won't work so why waste your time with it?

 

[dennisr]

just like moaning.

so you have something in common then?

 

[dennisr]

Am also interested to see if we get any leftwing policies from labour during their remaining time in office. Tomorrow there is supposed to be an announcement about housing, lets see if the policy is more of what we are used to in recent decades, or something a little stronger.

they are gonna nationalise the banks, power supply companies and begin a massive programme of social house building?

would be nice - I could even forgive most of their previous faux paux (?spelling...) in this basis

 

[Fruitloop]

No they wouldn't be bourgeoisie as in classical Marxism, but that's not really important. What's important is the wealth they command. I'd say that altho we're going through a rough patch, most people from "lower" middle class up to the top will be able to cope fairly comfortably, altho those at the bottom of this spectrum may struggle along with the working class.

However, the above is by and large irrelevant and probably somebody will come along to correct it and/or swear at me. My point is, there are too many people in this country who would not benefit from a communist system for it to be accepted. It would either be replaced straight away were the people free to choose, otherwise those who implemented the system would have to resort to authoritarianism to prevent the people from replacing the communist system, which is what every single communist regime throughout history has had to resort to...

Nutshell: Communism won't work so why waste your time with it?

But the bottom 50% of people in this country control only 5% of the national wealth, somewhere between a fifth and a quarter of that controlled by the top 1%. That figure hasn't been improving over the lst decade, rather it has steadily been getting worse, which is unsurprising since the function of capitalism is to maintain the social structure that allows such an enormous disparity to exist in the first place.

 

[CyberRose]

But the bottom 50% of people in this country control only 5% of the national wealth, somewhere between a fifth and a quarter of that controlled by the top 1%. That figure hasn't been improving over the lst decade, rather it has steadily been getting worse, which is unsurprising since the function of capitalism is to maintain the social structure that allows such an enormous disparity to exist in the first place.

My point was never about the nitty gritty details of the makeup of the middle class, I don't consider that relevant, I only wanted to say there are too many people who would be opposed to a communist system of government for it to become accepted, and therefore work.

 

[dylanredefined]

that will be anyone who eats regulary &aspires to anything better than being a slave for the party bosses.Tories at least think they can make peoples
lives better

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, many leftists like myself are interested in playing a rather long game and explaining to the many people who would benefit from a change to the existing system why we think that particular types of society would be a reasonable thing to aim for. Behind this though is the conviction that capitalism is not the final stage of development, it is still an alienated social relation that gives power and wealth to a few and disenfranchises millions.

The fact that workers here are better off than in many capitalist countries (ones that I would consider to be more representative of the inherent tendencies of capitalism to be honest) is a matter of historical circumstance. Many of the gains won in the past are in the process of being dismantled though, and I reckon over the next twenty years you will see Britain coming more and more to resemble the 'general picture' of life under capitalism.

The current low status of revolutionary thought in this country is due partly to the post-war affluence described above, and partly due to concerted efforts to stamp it out as much as possible. The fact that the flame hasn't gone out entirely even here is indicative of the tenacity of revolutionary ways of thinking, which in turn bears witness to the ongoing struggle between the classes, disguised behind distortion and propaganda though it might be.

 

[CyberRose]

What standard of living are you aiming for and how many people do you aim to bring up to that standard? Those are the people that will benefit under communism (should it work as planned). However, if there are a significant number of people above that standard, that perhaps will have to get used to a lower standard of living (as comfortable as that might be) then they will reject communism then you have the choice whether to resort to authoritarian measures to prevent them from changing the system, or you give people a choice and risk them choosing the old style of system.

Just give me an idea, in terms of £££s/year (salary, individually), what the standard of living you believe communism will give everyone?

 

[Fruitloop]

I can't see how such things could possibly be predicted with any accuracy. I mean when are we talking about this happening, under what external circumstances and after what sort of transition? To what extent might capitalism have got us into a tight place as regards climate, hydrocarbons, monoculture or any of those other things? Are we talking about a worldwide transition, or some kind of socialism in isolation? All of these things would make an enormous difference to the outcomes, not to mention that profound economic change might render a salary in today's money completely meaningless.

However, I think in a situation where you have 1% at the top controlling something like 23% of the wealth of the country, while the whole bottom half - 25 million odd of them - live on only 5%, you are going to have to cock it up pretty badly for the broad mass of people to come off worse. I mean you could improve the lot of the bottom half quite considerably just by taking more from the very top, who necessarily will have to cease to exist as a class if any revolutionary change is to be successful, rather than in the main providing what little help there is available to the people at the bottom of the heap by taking from those only slightly above, as is largely the case at the moment.

 

[CyberRose]

Well good luck trying to convince the masses to support you if you can't even give a half decent answer to somebody who understands a bit about politics!!

(btw: There is no reason whatsoever why we need a communist system to carry out what you talk about in your second paragraph, that could very easily be done by simple alterations to our current income tax system)