The Old Politics Thread

rio · **Posted:** Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:52 pm

traptunderice wrote:

rio wrote:

The English revolution is a very interesting subject IMO; not least because of the question of whether it actually was a revolution or not etc. But it seems like there was a whole host of proto-communist activity and belief that has been swept out of mainstream history. History being written by the victors, I guess.

Oddly my history course two years ago mentioned a large socialist movement being involved in the English revolution. However socialists were never mentioned in describing the early 1900 union worker revolts in the US.

Haha, crazy. It's hard to say how you would classify the pre-socialists in the English revolution, if they were really that. Some (i.e. Winstanley and the Diggers) were quite clearly a communist movement whereas a lot of other people just seemed to be insubordinate party animals who didn't want the bible telling them what to do (e.g. the Ranters).

Anyway, it's a shame that the socialist movement does not feature more heavily in histories of the US, although not too surprising of course.

Dead Machine · **Joined:** Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:24 pm **Posts:** 2527

speaking of socialist movements, who wants to see the retarded side?

i was considering joining this party, the PSL - Party for Socialism and Liberation, when I saw on their website that they supported the DPRK. I assumed this was a phonics error on my part and applied anyway, asking a question about that position in my application. When I received a callback, the person on the other end told me in no uncertain terms that yes, the Party for Socialism and Liberation -does- support the DPRK, and directed me to this article.

yeah, even if all the things the article quotes from the official DPRK website are true then i still don't think Marx was of the opinion that the leadership of socialist governments should have multiple houses and 30,000 movies and private armored trains. for fucks sake, the DPRK is an example of a successful socialist revolution like deep-fried glass bottles filled with cyanide are an example of health food.

take a gander at this shit: http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6178&printer_friendly=1

in summation: political parties suck, just be a fringe radical

rio · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:18 am

Yeah we have people saying that here as well. Pretty depressing.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:08 pm

That just plays into the bullshit that all socialists should stick together even in name only which is idiotic. Zizek advocates the politics of inactivity. Pulling out of the system entirely is better than just going through the motions which produce nothing.

rio · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:54 pm

For Goat: The SWP line on liberal hero Vince Cable

Quote:

Cable: another whig in a suit. posted by lenin

Just a moment of your time, if you would. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm rather disturbed by this horrid rumour going around that Vincent Cable is anything other than an establishment bore. Anecdotally, I note that editorials can't seem to get enough of him. His last appearance on Have I Got News For You was probably one of the few in which the politician guest was fawned over. And John Harris reports that he received a rapturous reception at the Hay Festival. Oh, and the pundits apparently love his book about the credit crunch (the cover of which features him looking typically nondescript while an unlikely messianic halo blazes around his bald skull). He is being presented as an 'honest john' who saw the problem coming and knows how to fix the recession. This is sick. Vincent Cable is one of these ghastly 'Orange Book' liberals who was, prior to the recession, looking to privatize everything in sight: everything from the prison system to the Royal Mint and the child trust fund. What is worse, his favourite form of privatization was this immensely costly 'private finance initiative' wheeze, and he had the temerity to claim that this would save the taxpayer money. His political background is in the SDP generation, that group of saboteurs who bear some considerable responsibility for ensuring Thatcher's hegemony in the 1980s as well as for helping destroy the Labour left. His economic background is nothing special: when he wasn't advocating free market economics for the SDP and then the Liberal Democrats, he was working as Shell's chief economist (oh, right about the time it was laden with all those scandals, I'm sure you remember). His instincts are impeccably neoliberal, and his gut reaction is always to move to the right. And he has always, always been devoted to precisely the policies that brought about an economy based on speculation and debt. His solution to shortfalls is to cut public spending. His answer to public sector discontent is to ban strikes in key services. His solution to the credit crunch is to lightly regulate the City and look forward to 'globalisation' sorting out the rest. He's a right-wing quack, in other words. The sight of him going round pretending to be a fucking economic whizz, and the spectacle of so many apparently sane people agreeing with this horseshit makes me ill. I'm just saying is all.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:02 pm

rio wrote:

For Goat: The SWP line on liberal hero Vince Cable

Quote:

Cable: another whig in a suit. posted by lenin

Just a moment of your time, if you would. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm rather disturbed by this horrid rumour going around that Vincent Cable is anything other than an establishment bore. Anecdotally, I note that editorials can't seem to get enough of him. His last appearance on Have I Got News For You was probably one of the few in which the politician guest was fawned over. And John Harris reports that he received a rapturous reception at the Hay Festival. Oh, and the pundits apparently love his book about the credit crunch (the cover of which features him looking typically nondescript while an unlikely messianic halo blazes around his bald skull). He is being presented as an 'honest john' who saw the problem coming and knows how to fix the recession. This is sick. Vincent Cable is one of these ghastly 'Orange Book' liberals who was, prior to the recession, looking to privatize everything in sight: everything from the prison system to the Royal Mint and the child trust fund. What is worse, his favourite form of privatization was this immensely costly 'private finance initiative' wheeze, and he had the temerity to claim that this would save the taxpayer money. His political background is in the SDP generation, that group of saboteurs who bear some considerable responsibility for ensuring Thatcher's hegemony in the 1980s as well as for helping destroy the Labour left. His economic background is nothing special: when he wasn't advocating free market economics for the SDP and then the Liberal Democrats, he was working as Shell's chief economist (oh, right about the time it was laden with all those scandals, I'm sure you remember). His instincts are impeccably neoliberal, and his gut reaction is always to move to the right. And he has always, always been devoted to precisely the policies that brought about an economy based on speculation and debt. His solution to shortfalls is to cut public spending. His answer to public sector discontent is to ban strikes in key services. His solution to the credit crunch is to lightly regulate the City and look forward to 'globalisation' sorting out the rest. He's a right-wing quack, in other words. The sight of him going round pretending to be a fucking economic whizz, and the spectacle of so many apparently sane people agreeing with this horseshit makes me ill. I'm just saying is all.

Sounds like 'waaah why is no-one listening to meeeeee' mostly.

I mean, WOMFG, he's a Lib Dem who is politically centrist! Oh, wait, he's a Liberal. Democrat. Not a Socialist. :rolleyes:

I love how Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party's answer to our economic woes is 1. destroy Capitalism and 2. withdraw from Europe. The former will not happen in our lifetime, the latter is a bad idea. Of the main parties, the Lib Dems are the most lefty at the moment, as well as the most clean-nosed in terms of expenses, and being nice to them would do the SWP more good than... whatever the SWP actually does.

rio · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:07 pm

Well, the SWP punches above its weight, in that it has about 3 members but has still managed to be the driving force behind the biggest popular movement possibly ever in Britain (i.e. the anti-Iraq War movement). But the Lib Dems punch below their weight, in that they actually have quite significant parliamentary representation but achieve precisely nothing.

According to the Greens, they are going to overtake the Lib Dems in some areas, which would be heaven, although seems terrifyingly optimistic.

I shall probably be voting No 2 EU... although the word is doing so would split the left vote and enable the scum to slither through the middle.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:11 pm

rio wrote:

Well, the SWP punches above its weight, in that it has about 3 members but has still managed to be the driving force behind the biggest popular movement possibly ever in Britain (i.e. the anti-Iraq War movement). But the Lib Dems punch below their weight, in that they actually have quite significant parliamentary representation but achieve precisely nothing.

According to the Greens, they are going to overtake the Lib Dems in some areas, which would be heaven, although seems terrifyingly optimistic.

I shall probably be voting No 2 EU... although the word is doing so would split the left vote and enable the scum to slither through the middle.

My postal vote's already gone off: Green Party. And I'm not supporting the LibDems that much, this makes for interesting reading:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... reen-votes

As a commenter says, the Lib Dems stand for whatever seems popular at the moment.

Yeah, the Greens doing well would be excellent, the more MEPs they get the better.

Quote:

I shall probably be voting No 2 EU...

What on earth for? :blink:

rio · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:18 pm

Because they are a working class party formed by trade unionists and charities with a genuine left agenda.

http://www.no2eu.com/

The Green Party, preferable as they are to most, are still a bourgeois liberal party and would probably sell any egalitarian/anti-capitalist policies down the river in exchange for some cursory environmental commitments.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:25 pm

rio wrote:

Because they are a working class party formed by trade unionists and charities with a genuine left agenda.

http://www.no2eu.com/

The Green Party, preferable as they are to most, are still a bourgeois liberal party and would probably sell any egalitarian/anti-capitalist policies down the river in exchange for some cursory environmental commitments.

From their website, no2eu seem like UKIP but with some cursory lefty stuff added in. Heck, they're not even going to take their seats, so what use will they be? The Greens plan to reform the economy around the climate problems, which seems more sensible than some whining because the socialist revolution hasn't happened yet. All very well predicting that the Greens will sell out because they haven't got a "People's" in their name, which is a ridiculous accusation if you ask me.

The extreme left's problem is, as ever, that it isn't united. One big group might stand a chance, all these little ones never will.

rio · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:08 pm

What nonsense

a) It's not an "extreme left" party; it's a front of trade unions and charity groups which is prioritising workers' rights. The fact that that is considered "extreme left" is pretty much an indictment of what liberals have done to the world.

b) It doesn't have "peoples" in its name...... ??? it has a goofy txt-spk populist name which sucks, but is not the most important thing.

c) Sounds like UKIP? Come on, man, read up on UKIP... they are both Euro-skeptic, and that's it. In fact, No 2 EU isn't even that. It is against the current form of the EU, not Europe per se. It seems to have a fairly Tony Benn-position on the matter.

d) It's not a question of "selling out", it is simply that the Greens are committed to a moderate liberal social reform agenda with a big eco priority; not an active pro-labour one. From the perspective of a serious worker rights platform, there's not that much to sell out in the first place.

e) It's clearly not a "socialist revolutionary" party, that's silly. As far as I know the actual revolutionary socialists want little to do with it.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:20 pm

rio wrote:

What nonsense

a) It's not an "extreme left" party; it's a front of trade unions and charity groups which is prioritising workers' rights. The fact that that is considered "extreme left" is pretty much an indictment of what liberals have done to the world.

b) It doesn't have "peoples" in its name...... ??? it has a goofy txt-spk populist name which sucks, but is not the most important thing.

c) Sounds like UKIP? Come on, man, read up on UKIP... they are both Euro-skeptic, and that's it. In fact, No 2 EU isn't even that. It is against the current form of the EU, not Europe per se. It seems to have a fairly Tony Benn-position on the matter.

d) It's not a question of "selling out", it is simply that the Greens are committed to a moderate liberal social reform agenda with a big eco priority; not an active pro-labour one. From the perspective of a serious worker rights platform, there's not that much to sell out in the first place.

e) It's clearly not a "socialist revolutionary" party, that's silly. As far as I know the actual revolutionary socialists want little to do with it.

I can't be bothered arguing, frankly, but you ignored my point about the left's fragmentation. Any group that promotes workers' rights nowadays is on the far-left; such is the world. And the average thicko Brit seems more likely to be taken in by the Tories at the moment rather than vote genuinely progressive... there will not be a massive change in the political system, but lots of small ones, and until fringe workers' rights groups realise this they're destined to be on the fringe. The Greens have the best idea for change atm according to my thinking, with the LDs coming up behind (I might have voted LD if it was local, they do a good job at council level).

rio · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:25 pm

There is huge backing for a workers' rights-orientated party. Why did Labour get in with a landslide, and why has their vote decreased at the same rate at which they have moved further away from a workers' rights platform.

If the BNP do have a breakthrough, it will be because they have managed to frame the race issue as one of workers rights. Racial politics never gets anywhere on its own.

Well, the fractured left, of course, this is sad but true. No reason not to vote for a left party though.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:35 pm

rio wrote:

There is huge backing for a workers' rights-orientated party. Why did Labour get in with a landslide, and why has their vote decreased at the same rate at which they have moved further away from a workers' rights platform.

If the BNP do have a breakthrough, it will be because they have managed to frame the race issue as one of workers rights. Racial politics never gets anywhere on its own.

Well, the fractured left, of course, this is sad but true. No reason not to vote for a left party though.

Do you really want me to answer that first point? England voted NuLab in because Blair was a fresh face and toned down the socialist "Labour" stuff into a more general centre-right format that the average man could vote for. They got a landslide because people thought they genuinely offered something different, and their vote decreased as people moaned about the relatively small things - Iraq, corruption, the tabloid treatment David Blunkett. You have a better opinion of our countrymen than I do. If there was a general election now and the expenses thing never became a big issue, Cameron would win a landslide because of the same reason - slickness.

As for the BNP, I can't see Griffin winning that coveted seat considering, like someone in el Guardiano said, how such a fuss was made over the invitation to the garden party, and how every other party is saying 'vote for us, so the BNP doesn't get in!!11' I sometimes think it'd be better if he did win and the lines were drawn more clearly, just to bring the left together and we didn't turn completely into America with their Democrat vs Republican stuff. Which is why I voted left with the Greens, a lefty party!

Cú Chulainn · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:36 pm

I hate it when you two discuss British politics, I don't know anything about it and can't participate :sad:

rio · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:49 pm

Well, absolutely, the Greens are much better than most.

Labour's core demographic has always cared first and foremost for workers' rights and only now is that starting to eventually look elsewhere. Even during the worst years for labour in the past, it has always polled a very significant percentage of the vote. Now is the first time in history labour has abandoned the worker rights platform, and this is the lowest they've ever been.

Obviously, saying that someone like No 2 EU is going to hoover those up is another thing entirely, though.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:55 pm

rio wrote:

Well, absolutely, the Greens are much better than most.

Labour's core demographic has always cared first and foremost for workers' rights and only now is that starting to eventually look elsewhere. Even during the worst years for labour in the past, it has always polled a very significant percentage of the vote. Now is the first time in history labour has abandoned the worker rights platform, and this is the lowest they've ever been.

Obviously, saying that someone like No 2 EU is going to hoover those up is another thing entirely, though.

Dude, NuLabour has cared more for the rich than workers rights since they got in. Do they have a core demographic any more? The Conservatives are as likely to hoover up working class votes as the prog parties, unless we're speaking about the truly-left-wing, who are going to vote fringe and be swallowed by the general Daily-Mail reading masses. I really think you have rose-tinted goggles on... workers' rights as an issue does not automatically translate to left-wing votes any more.

rio · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:16 pm

But that's because of the erosion of the Labour party, not because it's disappeared as an issue.

Like I said above, if the BNP breaks through, it will because they've managed to scam their way as a party of workers' rights.

No rose-tinted glasses here, I think what I say is simply true. I'm under no illusions about the prospects.

There is a very significant core that will always vote on labour rights and related issues. But sure, thanks to the demise of the actual Labour party, there is no telling where those votes will go. Just because people switch to Cameron in despair at Brown doesn't mean those issues are off the table.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:19 pm

rio wrote:

But that's because of the erosion of the Labour party, not because it's disappeared as an issue.

Like I said above, if the BNP breaks through, it will because they've managed to scam their way as a party of workers' rights.

No rose-tinted glasses here, I think what I say is simply true. I'm under no illusions about the prospects.

There is a very significant core that will always vote on labour rights and related issues. But sure, thanks to the demise of the actual Labour party, there is no telling where those votes will go. Just because people switch to Cameron in despair at Brown doesn't mean those issues are off the table.

You see the situation as party-led, the people changing their votes according to the party. I think it's different, however, the party changing their principles depending on what they think the people think, hence the Conservatives getting Cameron in. If people really cared about workers' rights they'd never consider voting Conservative... that the Tories have such success in the polls after an image-change speaks worse for the voters than it does for them.

rio · **Posted:** Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:26 pm

I see a dialectical (shit have suddenly been using this stupid word a lot recently) relationship between political parties and the voters, mediated by the media. Voters lead the parties and the parties lead the voters in a continuously shifting reciprocal relationship. The situation of parties and policies is therefore in a continual state of motion. So ultimately, party allegiance can't tell you that much about what people believe.

What is more solid is the basic principles that inform people's beliefs. As long as there are people actually doing work in this country, there will be a demand for workers' rights-orientated parties. Even now the Tories are only at 40% or so.

Metal Reviews

The Old Politics Thread

Who is online