The evolving nature of the P&P Boards

[TremulousTetra]

Louise Mac wrote on one of the other posts about the former pack mentality of the P&P boards. It was one of the reasons why it took me 2 years to sign up to U75 - I didn't want to put things into the mixer knowing that unless (and even if I did) sign up to a certain far-left school of thinking, I would get torn to pieces.

The pack mentality seems to have gone down on these boards - ironically as it has gone up in the mainstream media, and thus we seem to have slightly more informed and productive debates than before.

Have others noticed the changes? Why do you think this has happened? (Decline of old-skool? New people with more mainstream opinions? Lack of successes wth far-left organisations? Factionalism within the far left? People getting bored with the same old arguments?)

I've been pleasantly surprised at the lack of insults coming my way - though I guess half of that has been making clear that I don't do personal insults on internet boards and that when people do, it's a sign of them losing the argument. (They do it in mainstream politics too.)

Listen here you fucking ignoramus, I never personally insult anyone, or threaten anybody, and if you say I do I will punch your lights out.

PS. I don't think it was Louis who said that. Do you think the pedanticism is also on the decline?

 

[dennisr]

This isn't a wind up a la Chuck Wilson style is it?

no mate - honestly

I agree with most of the general point you are making - just being pedant.

I think thre is a danger in overstating of the role of the economy alone as the cause of a downturn in class struggle which would be as wrong as depending on some catastrophic collapse of the economy as being the kick start of some new wave of struggle.

most other folk looking on this conversation are probably thinking what the feck are those two loonies going on about now..

 

[cockneyrebel]

I think thre is a danger in overstating of the role of the economy alone as the cause of a downturn in class struggle which would be as wrong as depending on some catastrophic collapse of the economy as being the kick start of some new wave of struggle.

Agree with this. Look at the 1960s for a start where the global economy was doing well but there was loads of struggle. The difference then being a far stronger organised working class and a far stronger revolutionary left (and far stronger left reformist movement for that matter as well) and the stalinist states.

most other folk looking on this conversation are probably thinking what the feck are those two loonies going on about now..

That's what I was just thinking

 

[dennisr]

Because globalisation has shifted lots of the nasty end of capitalism overseas, there's less shit on the doorstep of your average westerner to get angry about.

to play on that idea:

but then working class westerner's skills are no longer required. with weakened bargaining power, wages are forced down, along with living conditions and standards by upper class westerner. so the backwash of shit begins to drown those on the lower rungs of the westerner ladder.

The biggest immediate problem we face is those halfway up the ladder - the ex-labour representatives and trade union bureaucrats who are busy waving at us in a 'matey' manner while kicking their feet to keep us from climbing upwards

 

[cockneyrebel]

but then working class westerner's skills are no longer required. wages are forced down, along with living conditions and standards by upper class westerner. so the backwash of shit begins to drown those on the lower rungs of the westerner ladder.

But the increase in profits mean that there is leverage for the ruling class to "buy off" sections of the working class. There can be no doubt really that may in the teaching sector, NHS etc have had real wages increases under Blair, as have other sectors. That's not to say there aren't other layers that are being fucked over, but that's always been the nature of reformism.

Also while there have been the privatisations and welfare attacks there have also been huge sums put into the NHS, again because of the economy.

The biggest immediate problem we face is those halfway up the ladder - the ex-labour representatives and trade union bureaucrats who are busy waving at us in a 'matey' manner while kicking their feet to keep us from climbing upwards

That is a problem as well.

 

[kyser_soze]

Look at the 1960s for a start where the global economy was doing well but there was loads of struggle. The difference then being a far stronger organised working class and a far stronger revolutionary left (and far stronger left reformist movement for that matter as well) and the stalinist states.

Are you also considering historical proximity to the last great 'crunch' of capitalism, WW2, which most of that organisation of the W/C, plus the reformism of the welfare state, happened? 50 years of (comparative) local peace, for many, many people 10, 15, 20 even 30 years of security and material comfort spread far, far wider than at any time in history?

Coupled with the 'victory' of the capitalist states over the USSR, China's cap-in-all-but-name, both the perceived and real failures of trade unionism in the UK...there's not even agreement over the definition of what poverty (or indeed, poetry if you're a philosopher on the evolutionary strategy thread ) is anymore FFS!

There is a crisis facing capitalism and it's as imminent and as far awa yas it's ever been, because above all capitalism is based on the PERCEPTION of it's effectiveness - if everyone woke up from false consciousness tomorrow and realised that money, interest rates, inflation were an illusion it would fail just as much as it fail ni 1000 years and everyone woke up to the same realisation.

 

[dennisr]

But the increase in profits mean that there is leverage for the ruling class to "buy off" sections of the working class. There can be no doubt really that may in the teaching sector, NHS etc have had real wages increases under Blair, as have other sectors. That's not to say there aren't other layers that are being fucked over, but that's always been the nature of reformism. Also while there have been the privatisations and welfare attacks there have also been huge sums put into the NHS, again because of the economy.

True enough BUT as movements in the world economy bite - those upper class westerners will widen their attacks on the already weakened group of working class westerners. In practice they already are - the privatisation programme of education and health, attacks on the civil service

In addition I would argue that what 'reforms' have come about are mainly the result of jiggling-about and re-distribution of the theft (called taxation) of those working class westerners rather than from richer to poorer

That is a problem as well.

And one compounded by an increasing awareness and acceptance of thier actual role by many of these middle layers. Ideologically they see no other solution so go with those above them - many are no longer even 'reformists'

This way of arguing a case is more fun than the usual - sort of basic socialist theory meets folk tales

 

[cockneyrebel]

True enough BUT as movements in the world economy bite - those upper class westerners will widen their attacks on the already weakened group of working class westerners. In practice they already are - the privatisation programme of education and health, attacks on the civil service

They will but in my view that's not why they are carrying out attacks now. They are doing from a point of view of strength, not weakness. The world economy is booming but because the organised working class and left is so weak they can afford to simultaneously attack conditions, while being able to have leverage if fight backs get too severe (like in France).

In addition I would argue that what 'reforms' have come about are mainly the result of jiggling-about and re-distribution of the theft (called taxation) of those working class westerners rather than from richer to poorer

In some cases, but if the economy was doing badly then the amounts that have gone into the NHS couldn't have happened. And Chavez certainly couldn't do his left bonapartist act.

This way of arguing a case is more fun than the usual - sort of basic socialist theory meets folk tales

That's what the "State of the British Working Class" session was like at the PR weekend event (which wasn't bad by the way, about 70 odd people there and a few new members, which ain't too bad for a group as small as ours).

 

[mk12]

Can agree with wishy washy liberalism bit (as above), but lefty activist politics? Most people on here are do nothing keyboard warriors who cyncially take the piss out of left organisations.

The protest/activist section of the boards used to be very lively with a lot of stuff on it, now they've got very little on them and even when they have it's usually some two man and his dog affair. I think belboid is right that the changes are partly because of the decrease in radicalism in the last 2-3 years.

Any activity for the sake of it doesn't mean good activity though, i'm sure you'd agree. People like In Bloom (for example) criticises this mentality, and he gets shot down for it. In the past, there was a far more critical atmosphere on here relating to this mentality, which is a good thing. We'll obviously disagree though.

 

[mk12]

4,996posts v 5,573posts...you hypocrite!

It's also a fact that despite 2 million on the streets the far left has actually declined in numbers rather than grown. I think the explanation for this lies in the underlying economic factors that are keeping industrial/class struggle dampened. As said I'm not pessimistic about things at all, I just think reasons have to be given for what is going on.

So the left doesn't have to do anything different? It just has to wait until the economic factors are 'right', and people will flock to them?

 

[cockneyrebel]

4,996posts v 5,573posts...you hypocrite!

Sorry mk12 I was aiming anything personally at you!!

Anyway my posts per day is only 3 compared to your 5

Any activity for the sake of it doesn't mean good activity though, i'm sure you'd agree. People like In Bloom (for example) criticises this mentality, and he gets shot down for it. In the past, there was a far more critical atmosphere on here relating to this mentality, which is a good thing. We'll obviously disagree though.

No I agree as it goes. I'm just saying that I don't think most people are "hyper activists", I actually think there are far more people on here who do very little activity at all. In Bloom makes some good points, but as said while those points might be relevant to some on the left I don't think they apply to many on here, who simply do nothing much at all.

So the left doesn't have to do anything different? It just has to wait until the economic factors are 'right', and people will flock to them?

It depends what you mean by do anything different. The left hasn't exactly got the greatest image, and stalinism hasn't exacty helped either. There are many things the left could do better and differently.

But whatever the left does the underlying economic factors are still extremely important. In amongst stuff I disagree with I think LLETSA sometimes makes some interesting points on that, even if from a very negative/pessimistic perspective. Why doesn't LLETSA post on here?

 

[wobbly]

Anyway my posts per day is only 3 compared to your 5

Jeez, how do you guys manage it?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Jobs with a lot of time on the net.

If you think that's bad there's a poster on another board with about 60 posts a day.....

 

[wobbly]

So, your idea of organising workers in your workplace is to post umpteen messages to Urban75?

No wonder the bureaucratised unions are going down the pan. For a union organised by rank and file workers check out the IWW.

 

[belboid]

i think you'll fnd there are wobbly members with more than a 5 post per day average!

 

[Crispy]

Jeez, how do you guys manage it?

I made at least 60 posts yesterday
I am shamed about this.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

No wonder the bureaucratised unions are going down the pan. For a union organised by rank and file workers check out the IWW.

I think you'll find that the TUC unions are doing rather better than the IWW, with its global membership of a couple of thousand.