Why is the left so marginalised?

[likesfish]

capitalism works communism didn't its not fair or just but it works.
you might wish it was different but you have to see the world as it is not how you'd like it to be.

People want to be rewarded for what they achieve. people like individual liberty.
people don't like being told what to do.
private firm produced the vw golf
communists produced the trabant
people are not ants and won't all work together for the greater good they are going to ask Whats in it for me?

 

[treelover]

what an excellent thread, more like it on p/p please

one point, i think it would be advantageous to the discussion to extent the notion of the left a bit wider than the 'revolutiuonary left'

Re Eoin's point, Govt intervention, dirty tricks, etc, there was book written in the 80's published by Pluto Press, 'What Went Wrong', which discussed how across Europe, the desire for change, a popular radicalism, the hope and optimism and self belief engendered by the mass wartime resistance movements were gradually undermined by the US, UK, Churchill through a variety of means.

anyone know of it?

 

[michael1968x]

My post on the 'Mark Steel and the SWP' thread appears relevant here. So here it is:

I agree with poster342002 that much of the left misunderstood the reasons for the election of the Blair in 1997. They wanted to believe that it marked a shift to the left in terms of what voters wanted and expected from the new government. The electorate were certainly to the left on a number of key issues (especially on the privatisation of rail, redistributive taxation, wealth inequality and spending on public services).

But much of the radical left saw voter opinions on these issues as evidence that the electorate had moved to the left in a more general and profound sense and wished the incoming Labour govt to reflect this. A perspective common on the radical left was that once New Labour failed to meet these expectations there would be widespread support either for a revival of the left inside the Labour Party, or for a new political party to the left of Labour.

Neither of these perspectives have been fulfilled because the reasoning upon which they were based was fundamentally wrong.

The mood in 1997 was primarily an anti-Tory mood with highly selective and sharply bounded support for some marginally more leftwing policies in particular areas.

There was no popular radicalism (such as existed in 1945, or to a lesser extent in the early 1970s). The harsh truth was that in terms of their ability to mobilise and build significant electoral support (including among many trade unionists) the left had been defeated.

The bureaucratic Keynesian statism that was being offered by the much of the left (and which constituted ‘socialism’ in the popular consciousness) was rejected in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992. By the mid 1990s the necessary social and political foundations on which such a left-wing alternative could be built and offered as a credible alternative to Major and Blair had simply ceased to exist on an electorally significant scale. The left had become divided, demoralised and demobilised – not by rightwing trade union and party leaders – but by the increasing indifference and hostility of increasing numbers of workers to a politics that appeared to offer few credible solutions to their very real problems.

This need not always be the case. But to recover the ground that has been lost in the past 30 years will take much hard and patient work. There are no shortcuts to building support for socialist ideas in a manner that relates directly to what people want and think is feasible – and taking advantage of political opportunities as and when they arise without indulging in hyperbole, sectarianism and adventurism. Not easy to do – as much of the radical left demonstrate on an almost daily basis.

 

[michael1968x]

o

 

[Steve Booth]

Thinking the unthinkable

Suppose for a moment that there really was a big leftist movement able to make a difference to the way society is?

What would it look like? How would it operate? - It might be like a group of trade unions, a campaign for justice or a political party.

It would be strong enough to counteract the inevitable media slurrs, personality assassinations of the leaders, and state manipulations.

It would carry clout because it would have enough members and influence to be able to counteract, for example, hospital cuts or job cuts.

OK, I think everybody posting on this thread can imagine what this would be like, and come up with a lot better ideas about this than the few points I've put up here.

So people formulate their vision of how it would be and what its goals are etc, the ways it would achieve them, and then the question becomes: How do we get from where we are now to there ?

I think this is more of a practical than a theoretical question.

 

[urbanrevolt]

This need not always be the case. But to recover the ground that has been lost in the past 30 years will take much hard and patient work. There are no shortcuts to building support for socialist ideas in a manner that relates directly to what people want and think is feasible – and taking advantage of political opportunities as and when they arise without indulging in hyperbole, sectarianism and adventurism. Not easy to do – as much of the radical left demonstrate on an almost daily basis.

Agree with this and a lot of what people are saying in this thread. It is hard but I am inspired by the campaigns I've been involved in- e.g. went on the Reinstate Karen Reissmann demo today- about 12-1500, good demo with trade union banners from Manchester, London, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds among others.

Talking to some of the strikers as well they're up for all sorts of things- not being told what to do certainly but up for a discussion of tactics and strategies to win.

Part of the problem of course is that the union bureacracy are always ready to sell out strikes and there is no rank and file network of activists ready to fight on these sort of things but there are plenty of people out there ready for this sort of fight.

At the moment they're a minority, a militant minority, but one that can begin to organise itself.

This is at least part of answering Steve Booth's excellent question, "How do we get from where we are now to there ?"

I agree with what likefish says that people are not ants and we love liberty and indeed many people work for self-interest at least primarily- nothing wrong with that. However, collective action is in all our self interest and real socialism (not the barbaric dictatorship of Stalinism) is about freedom and equality.

We need I think to link the struggles taking palce already, work together and make the connections but a lot more than that also. Agree with Steve Booth that a lot of these are practical questions and it would be good to share some practical answers as well as more theoretical ones.

 

[audiotech]

capitalism works communism didn't its not fair or just but it works.
you might wish it was different but you have to see the world as it is not how you'd like it to be.

People want to be rewarded for what they achieve. people like individual liberty.
people don't like being told what to do.
private firm produced the vw golf
communists produced the trabant
people are not ants and won't all work together for the greater good they are going to ask Whats in it for me?

Perpetual status quo sounds sooooo boring.

Most people here, never mind the majority of the world's population who live on subsistence levels of 'rewards', never have the opportunities set by capitalism to achieve their goals.

The vast majority of people under capitalism are bullied and told what to do every day of their lives, which can be a long one for significant amounts of people - whole countries in fact.

Communists produced a lot more than just the Trabant (the word ant is in there, but that doesn't mean they were produced by a swarm of insects btw).

The comment that 'people are not ants' has not been the most insightful comment I've read on Urban75 so far.

People have worked together for a very long time now. It's unlikely the human race could survive without co-operating together.

Now, I suspect that co-operation by people is more how the world actually is than the 'what's in it for me' world you inhabit.

 

[rauscher]

The decisive battles for the left took place 70 or 80 years ago - Russia, Germany, Spain and to a lesser extent England. In each case the left lost decisively (in Russia after the revolution).

Marx did not see the proletarian revolution resulting from the correct tactics or a well-written leftist newspaper. He believed that capitalism would inevitably collapse into terminal crisis as a result of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and that socialist consciousness (the idea of a class "for itself") would develop from the proletariat being forced into ever larger units of production whilst its living standards were driven down to feed profits.

For Marx the precise role of revolutionary politicians was never resolved. Lenin was either a development of, or a break from, Marxist politics.

If they don't teach you this stuff in PR it's because history has falsified the predictions.

Now as Marxists or Trotskyists you are faced with the task of elaborating a new leftist theory that takes into account the simple reality that the old theories have been falsified.

The old left faction that became WP and subsequently PR attacked the SWP for the crime of "economism" ie the belief that workers struggling in defense of their economic conditions would develop revolutionary political ideas. But, UR, isn't this basically what you are arguing? With the addition of a few comments about the importance of democracy.

Militant trade unionism does not lead to revolutionary socialism no matter how bitter the struggle - reference Miners' strike 1983-4. Other examples 1970's Britain, 1960's France.

Also now the working class barely exists in the form it did 30 years ago.

So what can you do? You can build groups for example in the clothing industry that oppose the third world sweat shop conditions that produced the clothes. Or build groups in pharmaceutical industries that fight for drug production that helps the poor. In other words build politically rather than along traditionally selfish economic lines.

It requires a radical rethink but trade unionism has had its day and lost. So what do you have to lose?

 

[urbanrevolt]

Good points by rauscher in the main. I'm not simply arguing for militant trade unionism at all but am happy to make that more explicit.

I'm not sure if all the decisive battles were fought and lost 60 or 80 years ago, though. There are plenty of other more recent examples of revolutionary situations in Africa, Latin America, Asia.

But I do agree with the general point that a radical rethink is needed and explicitly political solutions, building from the bottom up.

For example, in the Reinstate Karen Reissman this isn't just about defending economic interests but about political questions- where does the money go? Who should be in charge of health provision? Health bosses working to a articificial private market mechanism or workers and users? How can we have helath services led by users and preventative and positive mental health services?

I don't think though you can reduce the points about the centrality and decisve transforming nature of workers' democracy into "With the addition of a few comments about the importance of democracy."

It's about who should be in charge- the great mass of people ourselves, in charge of our own struggles or an elite in society and the elites in unions.

If the mental health workers and users were in charge of how to conduct the strike I think we could see a lot more of a political struggle and making the links between this struggle and the struggle for democratisation of services in general- exposing the corruption and waste at the heart of Brown's neo-liberal capitalism and the cowardice complicity of the union chiefs.

In the school library example I gave above again this would involve asking what schools and libraries are for, who runs them, who should run them?

Who should decide what is taught and when? And bring in explicit politics e.g. about antideportation campaign about global trade, wars for diamonds and coltan and let the students bdecide on what the responses should be

"
So what can you do? You can build groups for example in the clothing industry that oppose the third world sweat shop conditions that produced the clothes. Or build groups in pharmaceutical industries that fight for drug production that helps the poor. In other words build politically rather than along traditionally selfish economic lines. "

Good suggestions- let's have more of them. You can also get young and may be not so young people involved in direct action- occupations of shops like GAP.

I'm sure others can come up with lots of ideas and we can begin to get somewhere

 

[jargs]

You're joking UR. Seriously are you having a laugh? Good points by Rauscher! Get off it. What about;
"Also now the working class barely exists in the form it did 30 years ago." Crap. The working class is larger than it was 30 years ago, more concentrated and more based in manufacturing industry. Just not in the advanced capitalist countries.
He says the "old theories have been falsified". He doesn't bother to explain how or why they've been falsified. And there's a good reason for that they haven't. The old perspectives have been falsified.
Certainly they need re-elaborating, but not on the basis of abandoning Marxism and the working class, in other words by using the "old theories" not by abandoning them and by implication the working class. What else does;
"In other words build politically rather than along traditionally selfish economic lines."
Mean? It means abandoning the economic i.e. class basis of Marxism, which is absolutely based on the "selfish economic lines" of supporting working class interests against capitalist ones.
Fine UR you want to look at these issues afresh, but that doesn't mean accepting the word of every washed up ex-socialist who happens to write on urban75.

 

[rauscher]

There are plenty of other more recent examples of revolutionary situations in Africa, Latin America, Asia.

Revolutionary situations yes, but the not revolutionary situations that could have produced a workers state in the marxist sense - maybe you disagree, please give examples.

In general I think it's important to forget the slogans and simply make concrete points about money being wasted, resources squandered, very rich people and very poor people (although the excesses of sport make this normal), examples of suffering etc.

We need to return to the traditional forms of propaganda employed by the 19century syndicalists who identified injustice concretely - five mens' lives in a mining accident worth less than a royal wedding ring - or now, how many lives are lost in cancer ward for lack of a machine that costs less than 5% of Brad Pitt's fee for a movie?

We really do need to get this basic.

 

[rauscher]

He doesn't bother to explain how or why they've been falsified. And there's a good reason for that they haven't. The old perspectives have been falsified.

And the difference between the old theories and the old perspectives is what exactly?

 

[jargs]

Exactly that's my point. You think they're both washed up. I don't.

 

[urbanrevolt]

You're joking UR. Seriously are you having a laugh? Good points by Rauscher! Get off it. ...Fine UR you want to look at these issues afresh, but that doesn't mean accepting the word of every washed up ex-socialist who happens to write on urban75.

To be fair, I did say good points in the main- I agree with rauscher that economic struggles need to be made explicitly political. That doesn't mean abandoning or downplaying economic struggles- far from it- but politicising them.

As for Marx being wrong on immiseration of the masses- it's a fair point that there is mcuh larger, much denser working class than some thirty years ago, and a much more migration as well. However, the working class has changed and I think it may be fair to suggest that Marx did not expect capitalism to be so long-lived.

However, class and organisation remain absolutely central- but we need to rebuild working class organisations- unions, tenants' groups, community campaigns, antiracsit, anti-imperialist groups etc use new language, new points to win new activists and also a revolutionary organisation- a paryty or whatever you want to call it- to pose the question of how society is run, who runs it, who should run it. We should be for the ripping up of the insitutions that currently dominate our lives, against capitalist managment, for workers' control of production and workers' control of our lives- for the most radical democracy possible.

 

[rauscher]

Exactly that's my point. You think they're both washed up. I don't.

Is this supposed to be an answer? It's an example of why the left is not taken seriously.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

We need to return to the traditional forms of propaganda employed by the 19century syndicalists who identified injustice concretely - five mens' lives in a mining accident worth less than a royal wedding ring - or now, how many lives are lost in cancer ward for lack of a machine that costs less than 5% of Brad Pitt's fee for a movie?

We really do need to get this basic.

Can't disagree there. The left needs to be more populist in its propaganda.

The left of Marx, Revolutionism and Trotsky and other dead revolutionaries is as dead as Monty Pythons parrot. It has no relevance and wishing for situaitons ordinary workers to degenerate so that they see the value of revoltuionis heartless and inhumane and the work of those who think but don't feel.

 

[N_igma]

People are happy to sell their Labour in their billions,N igma.
And most people in Europe at least, do have some control over what they do with their Labour and Time. Apart from people in forced prostitution.

You really think people are happy giving their time and labour away.

Well, they are forced to, you don't work you don't get money. Of course there's the welfare system but it's extremely unfair too.

 

[treelover]

U/R, I dont want a new or otherwise proscriptive 'revolutionary party', I want to be part of a broad based social formation which focuses on say, inequality, rather than an obsession with class, etc. If the events of the day lead to something more radical then good, but to me its not a starting point

btw, what do people know about the Dutch Socialists, they seem to be making headway?

 

[mk12]

The cynics on here who write off the possibility of human emancipation massively underestimate the transformative power of working class - ie. ordinary people, the billions not the billionaires- creativity.

Not sure there are many on these forums that are cynical about that. Just cynical about some of the ways the left are trying to achieve that.

 

[mauvais]

U/R, I dont want a new or otherwise proscriptive 'revolutionary party', I want to be part of a broad based social formation which focuses on say, inequality, rather than an obsession with class, etc. If the events of the day lead to something more radical then good, but to me its not a starting point

Bingo.

For me, France is a good example of how the left can do better. It's certainly not socialist per se, especially not now, but you might be forgiven for thinking it was. It has a stronger right than the UK, but there's not so much of an apathetic middle.

People have practical, accessible groups they can turn to, and means of demonstrating, but that's only the individual's problem solved. Critically, they support each other too, across what we'd see as disparate causes, whereas the British might turn out for their own particular cause but little else. The same, as far as I can see, applies to Germany and unions like IG Metall, who at a company I indirectly work for, have just defeated a set of the same kind of redundancies we'd have thought inescapable here.

I'm no sociologist or expert in European politics, so I couldn't tell you why exactly this is, but I don't believe it's a impossibly different set of values. Probably you need stronger less insular communities before this works so well, but IMO it's a suicidal fallacy to say 'oh that could never happen here'.

 

[urbanrevolt]

messed up

 

[urbanrevolt]

France is a good example of how class struggle is far from dead. Of course it is partly because the French have not suffered the defeats of the British workers but it is possible to recreate that here.

U/R, I dont want a new or otherwise proscriptive 'revolutionary party', I want to be part of a broad based social formation which focuses on say, inequality, rather than an obsession with class, etc. If the events of the day lead to something more radical then good, but to me its not a starting point

I understand treelover's points and in fact I think they're key which is why I've quoted them again here.

I agree we don't want a presrciptive party or group that tells people want to do but instead involves people in a fundamental discussion about what sort of society they want and how they want to run their struggles and their lives.

A lot of damge has been done by top-down groups whether the Communist party or the SWP's hyper-centralist hyper-controlling mode of doing politics- there are a lot of good SWP members but as the largest group the bureacratic way they've been run since the mid 70s has something to blame. But obviously it is a lot wider than the British SWP - it is part of Stalinism and the Stalinisation of even the Trotskyist left. It may even go back further than that- though I think if you look at the Bolshevik party it was actually run a lot more freely and democratically- however, fascinating though such a debate may be to some (and I've seen it tens of times and even participated a few times myself) I think what is needed fisrt is not so much a picking over the history of where it went wrong but some ideas about how to improve it.

So to all those who say we need more democracy, less prescription, more involvemnt, new language, new thinking, new ways of doing and that this is absolutely key- I agree.

There is however a but and a big one at that.

The but is the necessity as I see it of having a revolutionary organisation- an organisation that poses the need for society being run on completely different grounds- that far from being prescriptive, argues that people should run society ourselves and struggles ourselves.

It is a model which says le's take power ourselves and not let struggles be misled by the bureacrats, let's harness the creativity and imagination of ordinary people. We can put forward suggestions, ideas, tactics- not as prescriptiuons but as possibilities.

If there's a war then popular mobilsation, direct action, walkouts from work, strikes parituclarly in mun itions and their transport, mass civil disobdience.

Againt racist attacks- mobilisation of the community, organised mass defence, discussion of all aspects of local problems, for the local working clas scommunties to decide how resources are run and demand both the budget and control.

These are the sort of suggestions that are necessary I think- but they are only suiggestions, ideas up for discussion, nothing more.

But they are based on the idea of people running things for ourselves- the essence of socialism and revolution.

There are I think a couple of problems with 'broad based social formation' The first is its vagueness. Do you mean by 'boroad' lots of people with deep roots in different communites? I'd agree. Or do you mean including different social classes, like thinking business owners and workers can have the smae iterests in which case I'd disagree.

A more fundamental point I think is that we need within such mass movements a revolutionary perspective that says society can and should be run in a totally diffferent way.

After all the recent problems with Respect and the SSP aren't all down to top-down nature of the groups within it (though both sides of Respect did operate like that) but the way in which socialists totally fiudged political questions and opposed even discussing revolutionary answers to society's problems such that a lot of ordinary people new to left politics actuially end up having far more radical and creative ideas on how best to proceed than the groups who hand down a line part of which is never talk about revolution or the need for running society in a totally different way.

Which brings me back to France. Will the workers' asemblies be allowed to continue to direct the struggles there, are they in control still? Will they draw in new people- not just the minority of French workers in unions and fight not just for defence of pensions but for the intrests of the majority? Those are the questions posed there.

The left needs to get over its arrogance but as individuals and groups on th eleft perfectly prepared to listan and to positively encourage debate, discussion, disagreement we need to have the confiodence to put forward our politics- of a completely different and radically democratic society.

 

[mk12]

France is a good example of how class struggle is far from dead

Class struggle is never dead though?

 

[urbanrevolt]

Not sure what you mean by this- probably never dead unless we're all killed in some kind of apocalypse or whatever but the point is it is uneven. Britain is at a very low ebb of class struggle at the moment, France less so etc.

Though there was the rather impressive demo in Manchester yesterday 12-1500 on the streets to demand the rianstatement of Karen Reissmann.

But it's going to take an almighty fight in Unison, the labour movement in general and the working class as awhole to resist the privateers and sackers.

An initial step might be linking the different strikes such as the Newham, Manchester, Barnett and Glasgow Unison strikes, via a rank and file network and linking all this with mobilising communities for a public health service under users' and workers' control instead of the fat cats ripping us off- open the books and computer accounts! Show us where the money is going.
Link the struggles etc.

The left should unite in action around struggles like this, demand that the strikers and users lead the struggles and debate how we can actually win.

 

[kyser_soze]

I think comparing class struggle in France and the UK is a non-starter TBH - culturally the relationship between people & state are very, very different.

First off, everyone is talking about the 'working class' - are we talking about that in a strictly Marxist sense, or another way of looking at it? Cos if you're talking strictly Marxist, you have to get away from the classical concepts of w/c - factories, mines, steel etc - and start thinking pubs, call centres, amazon warehouses, white van drivers and non-managerial office workers. You are talking about the Ibiza hordes, or the families who fly down to Florida on cheap Disneyworld tickets.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned identity politics TBH - personally I think that's what sunk the left locally (in the UK) - splitting out from strong class identity into separate specialisms like race, sexuality, gender etc, and the Marxist left being unable to keep all these splinters in the same tent...and also because many of these issues have fractured w/c support - I mean come on, during the 'glory days' of the 1970s, how progressive were the union movements on women in the workplace, homosexuality and race issues? For that matter, how unified on those issues are the w/c today?

The thing is, people here are saying 'media blah blah blah' but cap didn;t really do anything - the left imploded of it's own accord, with militancy coming from all corners of what should be unified struggle. Feminism is a clasic example of this: how many m/c, university educated feminists could actually relate to the life experience of a w/c woman? YEt feminism could have offered a great opporunity to unite men and women in a way not before seen - but I doubt some bloke working in a mine in the 70s was an early version of the 'new man', do you?

 

[urbanrevolt]

surely the classic marxist concept of class isn't to do with the types of jobs- factories, mines, steel etc- but having no ownership of the means of production, selling your labour etc in which case workers in call centres, amazon warehouses, pubs whatever are still covered by the marxist term- though there are of course different ways of organising needed.

I'm not sure who;s sayimg media blah blah etc. think the left may be did implode of its own accord and not being able to offer enough to stop strategic defeats of the working class in Britain or internationally and not being able to sufficiently yet adapt to the new tasks ahead

 

[kyser_soze]

surely the classic marxist concept of class isn't to do with the types of jobs- factories, mines, steel etc- but having no ownership of the means of production, selling your labour etc in which case workers in call centres, amazon warehouses, pubs whatever are still covered by the marxist term- though there are of course different ways of organising needed.

No, but the left's perception of the working class, it's imagery etc is still, AFAICS, rooted in the past of heavy, manual labour. It's easier to romaticise someone working in a mine or in a big factory than the lot of a call centre worker. The left has never really updated it's mythology to incorporate the changes that the w/c has been through.

I'm not sure who;s sayimg media blah blah etc. think the left may be did implode of its own accord and not being able to offer enough to stop strategic defeats of the working class in Britain or internationally and not being able to sufficiently yet adapt to the new tasks ahead

Well at least 4 people on this thread have mentioned mass media, so I'll add inablility to read other ideas onto the list!

Someone on here, a since left poster, once pointed out the divide and rule nature of capitalism - keep any opposition at each other's throats, keep them fighting each other for resources etc, and that;s exactly what's happened.

 

[Steve Booth]

Kyser Soze makes a good point (#55 above) about the character of the jobs changing away from mines and factories towards call centres and white vans etc.

Perhaps though the fundamental character of thing has changed - the world of work and the conditions people live under. I'm thinking of the Nineteenth Century pattern of workers in Lancashire cotton mills eg where the pay was very poor and the hours long, living conditions cramped and unsanitary, children working in the factories, very little time off eg Wakes Week when the whole town decamped to Blackpool while they cleaned out the boilers in the steam engines that drove the machinery, and every day the factory gates closed at 8: O' clock in the morning and anyone who was late lost a day's pay etc etc etc.

I think there is a qualitiative shift between that and how things are now for people in the West.

Perhaps we could think of people here as consumers. People consume goods made in Third World sweatshops. People consume media. Before the emphasis was on physical goods, but now it is more cultural and conceptual. It is more intangible. The relationship between the individual and capitalism or the state has altered.

[edit insert here - it is also about credit, I think this is a big difference between now and the Nineteenth Century)

By and large, the state / system / capitalism can take for granted the passivity of the majority of people, but even if this was not true, how can people revolt against a cultural / conceptual thing? It's not the factory gates without, or the machinery; it is more the media structure itself, the shopping mall, the barbed wire inside their own heads.

 

[yield]

(urbanrevolt, thanks for clarifying the Nash thing.)

No, but the left's perception of the working class, it's imagery etc is still, AFAICS, rooted in the past of heavy, manual labour. It's easier to romaticise someone working in a mine or in a big factory than the lot of a call centre worker. The left has never really updated it's mythology to incorporate the changes that the w/c has been through.

Another change is that in many of the old industries people worked and lived together.

Someone on here, a since left poster, once pointed out the divide and rule nature of capitalism - keep any opposition at each other's throats, keep them fighting each other for resources etc, and that;s exactly what's happened.

Definitely. But the bosses call it Hearts and Minds.

 

[_angel_]

No, but the left's perception of the working class, it's imagery etc is still, AFAICS, rooted in the past of heavy, manual labour. It's easier to romaticise someone working in a mine or in a big factory than the lot of a call centre worker. The left has never really updated it's mythology to incorporate the changes that the w/c has been through.



Well at least 4 people on this thread have mentioned mass media, so I'll add inablility to read other ideas onto the list!

Someone on here, a since left poster, once pointed out the divide and rule nature of capitalism - keep any opposition at each other's throats, keep them fighting each other for resources etc, and that;s exactly what's happened.

There's a good point there. Some people need to take their heads out of their arses and stop defining their class as by what their father did. For example.