TUC...Form a new party?
- Thread starter jiggajagga
- Start date
Well, Ok, then, your politics aren't unrealistic, you just advocate vaguely self-organising, and resisting, or something of the sort? But you acknowledge that as the government's going to continue doing what it does, and the system will chug on in its contented way, regardless of the discontent of the people who have to make it work, you'll be completely ineffective.
Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, I probably don't understand where you're coming from. But, in what way do you think it's possible to make things better other than people getting together to complain about them.
I thought anarchists wanted no central government. You said you were an anarchist, so I concluded that you had a problem, - that you want the government to go away and at the same time don't want to get involved in parliamentary politics, and think that attempts to do so are self-defeating.
But as you point out in the bit I quoted, the government's not going to go away just because we want it to, and neither will the system that makes people fear for their place to live if they don't keep working go away either.
So I don't really understand what you advocate.
It sounds like -nothing-.
Now THAT is a sensible suggestion. I must admit these days when I hear the word socialism I reach for the proverbial revolver.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
I don't advocate people getting together to complain about government.
What I advocate is people getting together to do practical things in their own communities to help themselves.
It is my belief that while the system stands (which is certainly the forseeable future), governments will go on governing. Some things they do will need to be opposed. Other things they do might conceivably deserve to be supported.
There are currently two parties with a realistic chance of being the government; they both represent the same interests. Whichever gets in will be bad news for the working class. Should a social democratic party be in a position to be in government in the future, then I will very probably support a lot of its programme. There is currently no such party.
You're right that I do want rid of government. But I don't think it's going anywhere in a hurry.
Well, exactly, - but it will never go anywhere at all, unless some group of people get organised enough to get elected and once elected use the apparatus of the state to dismantle the state.
You seem to disapprove of trying that project in principle, which as far as I can see makes your counsel one of despair.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
What project? Parliamentary road to socialism? Nope, go for it.
I'm not going to get involved, though. I'll spend my energy doing what I can by means of direct action.
Yes I agree there. Seen so many of them and each one has been a failure. Mostly IMO because they don't have broad appeal to more than just the committed activist types.
Another point I concur on with you. If there was a party that reflected the views of the majority of the people in this country rather than just the small number of voters in marginal consituency. I don't think a party that proposed revolutionary socialism stands an earthly chance. What is needed is a party that isn't 'socialist' or at least welcomed non socialists but is progressive economically, and socially democratic and allows enough personal and business freedoms for society not to stagnate. Its a balancing act. This is what we are missing in the big three parties at the moment. All of them have signed up to the current recieved wisdom of unfettered markets.
The big worry for me for personal reasons is the growth of the extreme right. If there isn't a broad appeal party that looks to the health of the majority of the country as a whole then many people will not choose 'nothing' but will choose something awful, despite historical precedents saying it could 'never happen again'.
Thats just attacking a lion turd and thinking that you've vanquished the lion. Pointless.
I don't think that there is any alternative to working within democratic parliamentary structures. The alternatives just lead to death, destruction and a desire for the comfort blanket of reaction.
If a broad appeal party that favours the majority who are workers comes about then its appeal can be tested in open peaceful debate.
I think that much of the problem lies with the disengagement of people from politics and it will be getting over that hurdle and making such a broad appeal party credible will be the difficult job. Politics is seen as a punch and judy show done by drunken, corrupt puppeteers and this inertia amongst voters must be beaten for such an organisation to thrive.
But no one person can go for it. It takes everyone to get together and back some person. You lot in Brixton could give it a try, I mean isn't Tessa Jowell a candidate in those parts. I bet if a good bunch of people tried to spread the word to vote for some person in Vauxhall, and did a bit of flyering, and so on, you'd have chance of putting Jowell out, because she can't exactly be popular. All it would take is for people to believe that they can make a difference by voting for someone different, after all, loads of people round there probably won't vote at all otherwise. And if you did get someone into parliament, you'd have a base, and an income, and a voice on the TV.
Maybe it's a bit late now. But, if I thought things were going to go on like this until something changed, and I thought I knew enough people to make a go of it, I'd do something about it.
I reckon with a bit of dedication, you could almost guarantee winning just by collecting expat proxy votes and using them all in the same constituency. But I'm certain that no one person could ever unseat a mainstream party candidate without a lot of help.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
There are plenty of people who can't conceive of political activity outside of the parliamentary arena, so you're not alone. I think you're wrong though, and I think people aren't "disengaged"; I think they have correctly identified the problem with parliamentary politics.
I'm sure there's more than one person still interested in the parliamentary road to socialism. They are more than welcome to keep trying.
However, I don't think you can ignore the last 100 years.
That isn't to say I won't support good socialists making honest efforts. Here in Scotland we had (until the sorry affair of Tommy's ego) a bunch of people making an honest go in the SSP. I had a lot of respect for them at the time.
It is, however, my opinion that telling people parliament is the only way to achieve anything is in effect telling them: "You can't do anything for yourself. You need someone to do it for you." Whereas I think there's plenty people can do themselves.
And the more we're used to doing thing for ourselves instead of applying to powerful people to do it for us, the more we'll be ready to put those skills into place when a revolutionary moment is at hand.
I don't think that people are disengaged from wanting positive change by peaceful democratic ways but what they are disengaged with are the current parties.
This is where you and I differ, I hope that there isn't a revolution as these inevitably degenerate into bloodshed, emnity and oppression. I know and share the desire for a peaceful and just time for humanity, its a natural co operative human trait, but I have more sympathy with those who desire a divinely inspired Moshiach as the socialist revolutionaries ended up as just mobs with guns and do not generally bring about peace and justice.
dennisr
the acceptable face
I would agree with that. I think danny tries to attach a positive reasoning to the disengagement we all agree exists. But its not the real reason. Too many binaries (disengagement from boss parliament = good, voting in elections = having illusions) and in the same way the idea that being involved in parliamentary elections is presented as inevitably having illusions in electoral politics on its own. its simply not so. i think we have to get our hands dirty - engage people where they are 'at'.
The problem is the present lack of revolution is not exactly peaceful and non-violent. I think it was sartre who said something like: "if the violence had only started yesterday then maybe we could with justification refuse to use our own violence against others - but when that violence has gone on for hundreds of years, when the violence fills every crack and hole with blood". This is a violent system - iraq - however many tens of thousands killed - was economics.
Thats not me calling for violent revolution as the only solution to our problems - but we had better prepare to defend ourselves. If everyone moved at the same time, a transfer of power from old to new orders could be completely peaceful. 'Revolution' just means change to me and change seems to be the only big scale inevitability. its those in power who present 'revolution' as violent bloodshed - while their own hands are covered in blood, tooth and claw.
revolution is just reform - permanent reform
I'll have to google Moshiach i am afraid...
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Absolutely.
The same "common sense" which says the working class challenging inequity is old-fashioned and chippy, also says that the workers repelling their force is unacceptable violence while their violence is law and order.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
I've actually been saying this for years: revolutions needn't be bloody. The Age of Enlightenment was a revolution in the sense that we largely abandoned superstition. Unfortunately people like Sarah Palin would like to roll back the years to pre-Enlightenment times.
I wouldn't say the Age of Enlightenment was a revolution. More a period of intellectuall and theological reform over a long term.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
No, I don't suppose you would agree, would you?
The effect of the A of E was a revolution in thought which had knock on consequences for other areas but I would define a revolution as a short term massive change in circumstances and the A o E and its effects went on much longer than that.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
More hair-splitting...or is simply the case that you're merely disagreeing for the sake of it?
A revolution in thought is a revolution. Long term changes can come about in the aftermath, so what?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Please do, it should offer a clue...
I'm not disagreeing for the sake of it I just feel that revolutions tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Russia would have been a lot better off if it had evolved into social democracy rather than having the Bolsheviks take over.
The ideas of the A of E were tested in debate not imposed by the barrel of a gun. We accept ideas of equality and democracy and the right to criticise but it came about because these ideas were tested and found to be beneficial.
The collectivisation of farms in the Soviet Union was not a tested idea and was imposed at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
I should have translated it means Messiah.
Part of the reason why I abandoned organised leftism was this desire for a revolution in the future did strike me as messianic in outlook.
There is very little difference between having this desire as part of a religion for example the christian desire for the 'second coming' and the longing for a revolution by the left. They are very similar indeed.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
I wouldn't say I present voting in elections as "having illusions". Indeed I have voted in elections myself, and I am actually more likely to vote the more local the election is.
In fact in 2003 I was part of a campaign of tactical voting for the Scottish parliament elections. Myself and a group of then colleagues worked out a formula for each area which would allow people to vote in the best way to punish pro-Iraq war candidates. The information was made available on a website, and we were interviewed on Newsnicht.
I was pleased then that the outcome of that election was a Holyrood with increased SSP and Green representation (although we don't take all the credit, obviously), because I hoped that this would mean some benefits for working-class people.
I'm well aware that parliament(s) is/are not irrelevant. However, I do caution against them being seen as a possible vehicle for revolutionary change (ie socialism). I think that's structurally improbable. But, as I've said, there is no reason why social democratic reform cannot take place given the necessary conditions.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
In which case your definition of the word "revolution" is both narrow and limited.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
This doesn't make much sense, sorry.
I have mates who are socialists , anarchists, and many who share similar ideas to myself but who don't class themselves as anything, i even know the odd misguided closet fascist who certainly wouldn't be that way if things were better economically
you fucking idiot let the pensionsers freeze to death to keep the electoral system in tact you spinless nushamebore fuckwit hack the tories and nationalists look like they will be getting in everywhere anyway and if you dont think so them get ready to choke on your latte in 2010 thanks to the policies of your beloved party i have no idea why you post on here like some sort of newshamebore demented gollum
I shall try to expand.
The desire for (usually violent) revolution on the part of many socialists is very similar to the desire by Christians for a (usually violent) return of their Messiah.
Good point. You can be in favour of progressive policies but not feel you should call yourself a socialist especially when like me you've mixed with socialists and found them and the holy books of socialism very much wanting.
I still want that fairer society but I'm not prepared to sign my life away to a party or a cause to do that.
its always better to join a cult with 'free love' imo and then leave prefbly before they start talking about 'riding meteorites...'
Similar threads
