The future of working class politics?

[zion]

I agree. I'll start a thread on the World Politics forum on the US welfare system, since there seems to be interest in having a separate discussion of that. On this thread, we can stick to the future of working-class politics in Britain.

On that subject, my difficulty is exemplified by Rhys's identification of not having had an economic slump as a problem for working-class people.

It seems to me that a working-class political movement can be one of two things. It can take a traditional Marxist form, where the aim is to raise the consciousness of the working class as a whole in an attempt to secure a proletarian revolution - in which case, the aim is actually in the short term to make working-class people as impoverished, resentful and desperate as possible, so that they will be ripe for revolution. Or it can take an Americanist form (to use Marx's phrase), where the aim is to promote social mobility and the material betterment of individual working people within the current social system.

I want to look ahead a little, and to ask whether societies that have professed to be worker-run have in reality been better for the working class than societies that do not profess to be worker-run. It seems to me, having travelled extensively in countries that have experimented with Marxism, that every attempt across the world for a century that has led to a proletarian revolution has resulted, in the long term, in the material impoverishment of the workers, and power shifting out of the hands of plutocrats into the hands of bureaucrats and soldiers. That's not a society I would be willing to work towards, and I want to understand how it could be avoided.

It seems also to me that traditional Marxist working-class politics suffered a death-blow from the collapse of the Soviet bloc in 1989. At that time, I was having regular weekly discussion sessions with members of Workers' Fight, who would tie themselves into knots arguing that no communist state that has ever existed has really been communist, but that a hypothetical communist state of their imaginings would avoid the mass starvations, prison camps, political repression and bureaucracy that characterized those states. I find it very hard to buy that bill of goods, and I think that most British people would also find it hard. Perhaps if I understood better what the eventual aim of a traditional working-class political movement would be, then I and other British people would be better able to support it.

 

[rhys gethin]

On that subject, my difficulty is exemplified by Rhys's identification of not having had an economic slump as a problem for working-class people.

It seems to me that a working-class political movement can be one of two things. It can take a traditional Marxist form, where the aim is to raise the consciousness of the working class as a whole in an attempt to secure a proletarian revolution - in which case, the aim is actually in the short term to make working-class people as impoverished, resentful and desperate as possible, so that they will be ripe for revolution. Or it can take an Americanist form (to use Marx's phrase), where the aim is to promote social mobility and the material betterment of individual working people within the current social system.

I want to look ahead a little, and to ask whether societies that have professed to be worker-run have in reality been better for the working class than societies that do not profess to be worker-run. It seems to me, having travelled extensively in countries that have experimented with Marxism, that every attempt across the world for a century that has led to a proletarian revolution has resulted, in the long term, in the material impoverishment of the workers, and power shifting out of the hands of plutocrats into the hands of bureaucrats and soldiers. That's not a society I would be willing to work towards, and I want to understand how it could be avoided.

It seems also to me that traditional Marxist working-class politics suffered a death-blow from the collapse of the Soviet bloc in 1989. .

Miserable poverty doesn't make for revolution usually - you need class-consciousness and organisation coinciding with some such crisis as the First World War to set it off. The result of there having been no major slump for a long time is that workers grow less class-conscious, and that consciousness comes to have less and less to do with their real class-interest. Clearly the rise of SOME people to wealth (which even in the States is actually pretty rare) does nothing for other workers, very often actually reducing their standards of living. Despite the dreadful psychological and cultural effects of capitalism people might live with it if it actually WORKED, but it doesn't: slumps and wars are inevitable, whatever the propaganda.

Since I never believed state capitalism was socialism, the decline of the Stalinist system doesn't bother me, nor that such states 'professed' to be worker-run. That is the same as 'professing' to be Christian or Muslim - it doesn't convince christians or muslims who are serious, or serious socialists

There have always been people impressed by capitalist booms as somehow answering all the problems presented by the slumps they were told about, or remembered. Then comes the next slump, and away they go! What's more, the stakes are getting higher - in the old days the choice was between socialism and barbarism: now it's between socialism and continued existence, I reckon, and probably quite soon.

 

[zion]

Miserable poverty doesn't make for revolution usually - you need class-consciousness and organisation coinciding with some such crisis as the First World War to set it off.

Oh, great. That makes me feel so much better. You don't want just a slump, but a slump and a war and a group of organizers peddling revolution at the same time. I can just see the working classes going for that plan.

Clearly the rise of SOME people to wealth does nothing for other workers, very often actually reducing their standards of living.

Have you studied economics? Are you familiar with what economists call the "fixed-pie fallacy"?

"Since I never believed state capitalism was socialism, the decline of the Stalinist system doesn't bother me, nor that such states 'professed' to be worker-run."

It boggles my mind that you would describe the Stalinist system as "state capitalism". This goes to show the lengths to which socialists will go to prove that there is still life in these tired, unworkable dogmas. Let's sum up.

- Every time someone like you has come along preaching revolution, the workers have gotten screwed.
- You maintain that you're different from all previous revolutionaries who preached the same sermon, and that this time it will work and be "really worker-run" by "serious socialists".

Excuse me if I don't swoon with anticipation.

 

[118118]

"Every time". Now what is more optimistic, that people can craete a better world, or that the poor can work their way out of poverty. Seems about equal, to me

 

[treelover]

ZIon, i actually thought you were a left wing person who just believed in charity instead of welfare provison(the default US Position), now i realise you are just a fence sitting liberal with republican(the party) values

 

[rhys gethin]

[QUOTE=zion

'Oh, great. That makes me feel so much better. You don't want just a slump, but a slump and a war and a group of organizers peddling revolution at the same time. I can just see the working classes going for that plan.'

You are doing your glib bit again. I don't want rain, but I need water to live. Nobody 'peddles' revolution - we are not capitalists. If humanity is to survive at all, revolution is necessary. People like you hardly would 'see the working classes going for that plan' - and ideology is of course immensely powerful. But the only other choice, unfortunately, is species-death.

'Have you studied economics? Are you familiar with what economists call the "fixed-pie fallacy"?'

To some degree - and it has nothing to do with fixed pies. Wealth is increasing hugely, but workers wages are static or falling.

'It boggles my mind that you would describe the Stalinist system as "state capitalism". '

Boggle no further. 'Socialism in one country' within a capitalist world market means - obviously - that the state becomes a capitalist firm.

'- Every time someone like you has come along preaching revolution, the workers have gotten screwed.'

Well, actually, the fact of very violent capitalist intervention AGAINST the Revolution, enforcing military resposes, has rather a lot to do with this problem. When we say they put profit before human life, that is a major understatement. It seems to me that the chances are that you people will make the world uninhabitable before we can stop you, but we have to do our best still.

 

[kyser_soze]

I think the first thing that needs to be done is to establish literacy, numeracy and nutriotional education programmes in the poorest communities so that people can start meeting some of the most basic standards for survival skills in our society - poor communities also have the highest rates of illiteracy and innumeracy of anywhere in the country. Before talking about raising class consciousness and the rest of it, maybe start somewhere simple like teaching people how to feed themselves properly and healthily, and read, write and count - basic survival skills that can also serve as an empowering element in people's lives.

Back in the real hayday of w/c politics it was issues like this that encouraged the formation of working men's clubs etc where, instead of being fed beer and racist humour, the idea of 'bettering' oneself to help others better themselves and the rest of society were prevelant.

I do think that we need to look back to Victorian Britain for the models tho - I think one of the problems we have now is that we expect someone else to do stuff, to make it convenient - from our food to our politics, there is this expectation that it's 'their' responsibilty to 'do something' about issues. This I believe is the true 'dependency culture', and it crosses classes - it's a combination of abrogating responsibility upwards that is done partly because it's the path of least resistance, and partly because it's encouraged by 'the system'. Say what you like about the US system, but that fact that Zion's CDC funding comes from local, private sources instead of the government but at least it's not based on asking a central state for money, thus conferring MORE power to that state over people's lives. But back to my point, I think it's the powerlessness that many people have over their lives - from basic stuff like poor literacy/numeracy/nutrition to control over housing, income etc, that is the first problem that needs to be identified, and overcome. You could come up with some great ideas for devolving power to the poor, but it won't be for shit unless you devolve that power to people who are capable of using it.

This isn't a bash-the-poor statement - I'm certainly NOT saying that everyone poor is illiterate, unable to feed themselves or are incapable of managing their lives, but these things ARE more prevelant amoung the poor and need to be addressed before anything else.

 

[tbaldwin]

Good OP!
The only way that you can have progressive working class politics is if the views and aspirations of working class people are respected. The Left needs to stop trying to be clever and get back to basics. Eg being a voice for the views and aspirations of the majority of people in the UK.

The orthodox left is a dead end because they represent only self righteousness and miserablism.

 

[likesfish]

er true the old stylee working class self improvement route get people eating right then they will start thinking. not sure how popular hard work and hard thinking will be.

 

[tbaldwin]

Interesting contribution by kyser...I think one of the things that has happened with the welfare state is that it has kep people poor. I agree with the ideas of a helping hand not a hand out....I know its all very new labour and they wont actually do it....But essentially the soundbite is right and connects with what most people want.

 

[zion]

Treelover,

now i realise you are just a fence sitting liberal with republican(the party) values

Listen, I know that it is confusing to deal with someone whose political assumptions are (largely by now) part of a different culture. I am a Democrat. I wouldn't describe myself as left-wing, but I oppose the Republican agenda pretty much wholesale. My values are not Republican or Democratic but pretty much mainstream American values, based on a belief in equality of opportunity, social mobility, local democracy and civic support for the poor.

Rhys_Gethin,

If humanity is to survive at all, revolution is necessary ... the only other choice, unfortunately, is species-death.

Are you advancing an environmental argument now? You make these gargantuan declarations and then advance no evidence as to why I should believe you. All I can say is that socialist economies have not been noticeably better at addressing environmental concerns than capitalist economies.

Wealth is increasing hugely, but workers wages are static or falling.

Correlation does not equal causation. The increased wealth of society does not necessarily entail that that wealth has been exploited from off the backs of the workers. Increased utility derives from trade between a willing buyer and a willing seller.

the fact of very violent capitalist intervention AGAINST the Revolution, enforcing military resposes, has rather a lot to do with this problem.

So, let me summarize: no socialist revolution has ever resulted "true socialism" because the evil capitalists have prevented it from happening?

Wrong again. Lenin and his cohorts were not good people, and the state they created would have been highly repressive and unjust even without pressure from capitalist nations. Have you read Solzhenitsyn?

"you people will make the world uninhabitable before we can stop you"

Who are the "me people"?

Kyser_soze & Tbaldwin,

I agree 100% with everything in your posts.

 

[audiotech]

Good OP!
The only way that you can have progressive working class politics is if the views and aspirations of working class people are respected.

Implicit in that sentence is a top down approach to politics, but from an avowed authoritarian that's not surprising baldwin. Interesting enough kyser soze puts forward a similar argument, but, if you don't mind me saying, more eloquently than yours. Although, his/her talk about returning to Victorian values and suggestions along the lines of a deserving and undeserving poor sends shivers down my spine and reminds me of the Thatcher years.

Progressive working class politics is about workers doing it for themselves, not others doing it for them and giving respect, or anything else for that matter.

 

[zion]

Ah, MC5, that's a good point - when we do organizing work we always have to be careful to make sure that the ideas come from low-income people themselves rather than from people who believe they know what's best for said low-income people!

 

[rhys gethin]

Rhys_Gethin,

If humanity is to survive at all, revolution is necessary ... the only other choice, unfortunately, is species-death.

Are you advancing an environmental argument now? You make these gargantuan declarations and then advance no evidence as to why I should believe you. All I can say is that socialist economies have not been noticeably better at addressing environmental concerns than capitalist economies.

I didn't think I was having an argument - just stating the obvious, really. When was there a socialist economy - during the Commune? In war-time conditions in the USSR, Hungary, Bavaria and (just conceivably) the anarchist districts of Spain during the War there? You are arguing with some other bloke here.

Wealth is increasing hugely, but workers wages are static or falling.

Correlation does not equal causation. The increased wealth of society does not necessarily entail that that wealth has been exploited from off the backs of the workers. Increased utility derives from trade between a willing buyer and a willing seller. .

I didn't say it did. Except where labour is scarce, wages are pushed down, because it is not a human concern but a business cost - obviously.

no socialist revolution has ever resulted "true socialism" because the evil capitalists have prevented it from happening?

Wrong again. Lenin and his cohorts were not good people, and the state they created would have been highly repressive and unjust even without pressure from capitalist nations. Have you read Solzhenitsyn?.

Suddenly we are into moralism! It doesn't suit you. Capitalism is an evil system - I leave the moral position of individual human beings to God-botherers and whatever they bother myself, unlike Solzhenitsyn, whom I have of course read. Like Tolstoy he tells me a good deal about the effect of capitalism on religious Russians, but doesn't seem particularly relevant here.

Who are the "me people"?.

The sort of people who have been making the same arguments for their system since the late Eighteenth Century - whenever it seemed actually to function! When it doesn't they are stuck with religion, fascism and 'you can't change human nature'. Keeps us all busy, I suppose.

 

[zion]

When was there a socialist economy - during the Commune? In war-time conditions in the USSR, Hungary, Bavaria and (just conceivably) the anarchist districts of Spain during the War there?

OK. Let's take wartime conditions in the USSR as an example. What makes you think that the Soviet government cared a damn about the environment during that period (or indeed any other period)?

What I really don't get is why I should believe that your proposals would lead to a more just society. I can see the very comprehensive material benefits brought by capitalism over the last two centuries, but you ask me, on the grounds that no real socialist economy has ever existed, to take it on faith that a socialist economy would be better. It's not enough just to assert that a socialist economy would not be based on exploitation: how do you propose to set things up so that they are not?

where labour is scarce, wages are pushed down

No, when labour is scarce - or more accurately a particular skill that is in demand in the workplace - wages to pay for that skill are pushed up.

 

[tbaldwin]

Implicit in that sentence is a top down approach to politics, but from an avowed authoritarian that's not surprising baldwin. Interesting enough kyser soze puts forward a similar argument, but, if you don't mind me saying, more eloquently than yours. Although, his/her talk about returning to Victorian values and suggestions along the lines of a deserving and undeserving poor sends shivers down my spine and reminds me of the Thatcher years.

Progressive working class politics is about workers doing it for themselves, not others doing it for them and giving respect, or anything else for that matter.

Yes i am an authoritarian.....But no id ont have a top down approach......
But if the Left want to play any meaningful role they have to listen to the views and aspirations of ordinary people and thats what i was saying.

The orthodox left are completely fucked,not only the groups but the individuals like you who reject the views and aspirations of ordinary people.

 

[rhys gethin]

Zion

was there a socialist economy - during the Commune? In war-time conditions in the USSR, Hungary, Bavaria and (just conceivably) the anarchist districts of Spain during the War there?[/I]

OK. Let's take wartime conditions in the USSR as an example. What makes you think that the Soviet government cared a damn about the environment during that period (or indeed any other period)?.

Wrong war. No - of course it didn't care, nor did anyone else in 1917 - 1920.
The Working Class, like everyone else, deals with the problems of which it is aware.

.

What I really don't get is why I should believe that your proposals would lead to a more just society. I can see the very comprehensive material benefits brought by capitalism over the last two centuries, but you ask me, on the grounds that no real socialist economy has ever existed, to take it on faith that a socialist economy would be better. It's not enough just to assert that a socialist economy would not be based on exploitation: how do you propose to set things up so that they are not?

Depends what you think of people, ultimately. The present system is under nobody's control; I want one that people control democratically. What is a JUST society when it's at home? Capitalism produces huge amounts of stuff, as Marx pointed out - which is why it is a necessary stage in human development.

I said 'EXCEPTwhere labour is scarce, wages are pushed down'.

 

[audiotech]

Ah, MC5, that's a good point - when we do organizing work we always have to be careful to make sure that the ideas come from low-income people themselves rather than from people who believe they know what's best for said low-income people!

I was talking about the working class and their ideas. i don't want some clever dick like yourself telling me how to live my life thanks.

 

[audiotech]

Yes i am an authoritarian.....But no id ont have a top down approach......
But if the Left want to play any meaningful role they have to listen to the views and aspirations of ordinary people and thats what i was saying.

The orthodox left are completely fucked,not only the groups but the individuals like you who reject the views and aspirations of ordinary people.

Admiitting that you are an authoritarian, but don't have a top down approach is a contradiction in terms.

I have never rejected the views and aspirations of ordinary working class people baldwin - the very same class I was born into and btw was told on many occasions by my so called educated "betters" that I would do nothing and become nothing.

 

[kyser_soze]

kyser soze puts forward a similar argument, but, if you don't mind me saying, more eloquently than yours. Although, his/her talk about returning to Victorian values and suggestions along the lines of a deserving and undeserving poor sends shivers down my spine and reminds me of the Thatcher years

Jesus, talk about misunderstanding what I said (or wilfully misrepresenting it)

As for the top down stuff, I couldn't give a toss WHERE the organisation comes from - just that all the things I talked about (illiteracy, poor nutrition etc) affect the poor more than any group and that resolving those issues first would do more immediate and long term good than any number of speeches.

As for 'return to Victorian values' - when those values were those of the men and women who started the Labour movement - which included the idea of bettering oneself through education - I see no problem with them. And where do I say there's an 'underserving poor' - I believe, and always have believed, in universal welfare provision so don't take the view of an 'underserving poor' - again, wilfully misrepresenting what I've said.

I was talking about the working class and their ideas.

But...aren't we all working class MC5? Isn't that the whole point? I don't own any means of production, nor am I in a profession - I'm a wage slave just like millions of others, so from what I know that makes me w/c.

 

[audiotech]

You could come up with some great ideas for devolving power to the poor, but it won't be for shit unless you devolve that power to people who are capable of using it

Tick boxes is it? And those you deem not capable?

It was mostly men who "started the Labour movement" who, alongside the bourgeoisie, implemented controls on the working class, who they thought were debauched and needed discipline.

Sounds condescending and reactionary to me.

Yes, the majority are working class.

 

[zion]

Say what MC5? At what point did I tell you how to live your life?

 

[kyser_soze]

Jesus you're bitter and twisted - and creating a strawman as well.

Altho I would imagine that from your POV having a large section of the population that can't read, write or feed themselves adequately is a perfectly OK situaiton to be going on with, clearly.

Where do I say that 'discipline' is needed? The only thing I'm saying is that in order to allow people to empower themselves, there are certain pre-conditions that need to be met first, and that for all the talk by the class warriors, and TU types, and anarkids and the rest of them, no one appears to be helping poor people with even that.

But hey, keep 'em poor, stupid and unfed!

 

[audiotech]

Jesus you're bitter and twisted - and creating a strawman as well.

Altho I would imagine that from your POV having a large section of the population that can't read, write or feed themselves adequately is a perfectly OK situaiton to be going on with, clearly.

Where do I say that 'discipline' is needed? The only thing I'm saying is that in order to allow people to empower themselves, there are certain pre-conditions that need to be met first, and that for all the talk by the class warriors, and TU types, and anarkids and the rest of them, no one appears to be helping poor people with even that.

But hey, keep 'em poor, stupid and unfed!

Nobody, including me is suggesting the above. It is because workers have at present no political power (how do people who have no power "empower" themselves btw?) that we have a situation where significant sections of the population have poor literacy, numeracy and suffer poverty. It is only by ridding this world of the class system that perpetuates the situation you describe that progress can be made to end this blight on the world.

I am neither 'bitter', nor 'twisted', but I admit I'm bloody angry.

 

[durruti02]

seems op has been a bit derailed .. would really like to see belboid and mc and others actually reply to hawkeye and us all have a positive thing instead of negative like i, and most of us, do ..

again not enough time to reply except to say


confidence.i have always thought confidence is key .. i find most people left wing .. in bar room terms .. but they just don't think anything can happen .. how do we get around this? .. as people know i am in a IWCA offshoot .. i think IWCA are of massive importance .. check out the website .. i/we just have some tactical differrence ( i am not going to discuss them here ) .. but the key to our activities is by small actions helping people develop confidence .. is this top down? to an extent .. i think it is more side by side than leninism

? .. also i think we need to look more at the community/moral/spiritual thing (ps ido not belive in spirituality .. i am an avowed beliver in science).. clearly though there is something missing in peoples lives .. we have killed god and the extended family and to an extent community ... capitalism has turned everyting and us into a commodity .. we are,in the marxism philosophical sense,alienated .. we have sold our communities families etc for mammon .. people can not help themselves as we see no alternative but we know we have lost something .. i think doing something in this area could be key to a communist revival ..

 

[audiotech]

Say what MC5? At what point did I tell you how to live your life?

Alright, not specifically, but you believe in elites controlling people's lives do you not?

 

[audiotech]

seems op has been a bit derailed .. would really like to see belboid and mc and others actually reply to hawkeye and us all have a positive thing instead of negative like i, and most of us, do ..

The op tells us nothing new.

It starts off in typical fashion, then a simple history lesson (btw, the Labour party has not just become a bourgeois party. It's always been a bourgeois party with workers in it). Then finally comes the familiar attack on Galloway and Respect, who ironically, considering the op's main question, are trying to find a way forward for the left.

Apparently, according to figures given on a TV programme produced in Australia, over five million listeners tune in to Galloway's weekend shows every week. Now, if true, that's what you call "massive" durruti2.

That would suggest a large audience for his ideas and an opportunity to offer a significant amount of people (of all backgrounds) something more than "absolutely nothing", "pious lectures" or, "empty sloganeering" that Hawkeye Pearce argued don't you think?
.

 

[The Black Hand]

seems op has been a bit derailed .. would really like to see belboid and mc and others actually reply to hawkeye and us all have a positive thing instead of negative like i, and most of us, do ..

again not enough time to reply except to say


confidence.i have always thought confidence is key .. i find most people left wing .. in bar room terms .. but they just don't think anything can happen .. how do we get around this? .. as people know i am in a IWCA offshoot .. i think IWCA are of massive importance .. check out the website .. i/we just have some tactical differrence ( i am not going to discuss them here ) .. but the key to our activities is by small actions helping people develop confidence .. is this top down? to an extent .. i think it is more side by side than leninism

? .. also i think we need to look more at the community/moral/spiritual thing (ps ido not belive in spirituality .. i am an avowed beliver in science).. clearly though there is something missing in peoples lives .. we have killed god and the extended family and to an extent community ... capitalism has turned everyting and us into a commodity .. we are,in the marxism philosophical sense,alienated .. we have sold our communities families etc for mammon .. people can not help themselves as we see no alternative but we know we have lost something .. i think doing something in this area could be key to a communist revival ..

Hobsbawm said that capitalism took the pre-capitalist social conditions/beliefs (including religious) for granted when it was making profit. Now those have finally died out (cultural lag) they are learning that a new social disciplinary project is necessary. So its neo liberal economic policy and neo-con social policy that the major parties are competing over implementing the best...

The key to the future lies in working class self help with working class dignity, norms of solidarity that can be recognised in a different area of the country... It is not dual power with a capital D, but it is a competing social power that can exist in the economic conditions of today. Its not 'selling out'; but rather it knows when to be silent, or/and to retreat, when to act ordinarily, when to press, and be loud, and so on.

 

[The Black Hand]

Tick boxes is it? And those you deem not capable?

It was mostly men who "started the Labour movement" who, alongside the bourgeoisie, implemented controls on the working class, who they thought were debauched and needed discipline.

Sounds condescending and reactionary to me.

Yes, the majority are working class.

Sorry, I do not recognise the historical period you are talking about.
The 19th century belonged to the Tories and Liberals, and this period fits your 'debauched' description the best.

The Labour party didn't get into govt till 1924 (maybe a yr or 2 out) and even then it was never a majority govt, the unions didn't have legal protection till the Taff Vale judgement in 1906, and perhaps had competing social power only in the 1920s. The first majority Labour govt was after WW2 i think.

 

[The Black Hand]

Tick boxes is it? And those you deem not capable?

It was mostly men who "started the Labour movement" who, alongside the bourgeoisie, implemented controls on the working class, who they thought were debauched and needed discipline.

Sounds condescending and reactionary to me.

Yes, the majority are working class.

Sorry, I do not recognise the historical period you are talking about.
The 19th century belonged to the Tories and Liberals, and this period fits your 'debauched' description the best.

The Labour party didn't get into govt till 1924 (maybe a yr or 2 out) and even then it was never a majority govt, the unions didn't have legal protection till the Taff Vale judgement in 1906, and perhaps had competing social power only in the 1920s. The first majority Labour govt was after WW2 i think.