Social democracy unravelling

For many years we took it for granted that the public was to the left of the government, not any more. Since the beginning of the depression the British Social Attitudes survey has shown a clear right-ward shift in public opinion. According to this piece it has been driven by Labour supporters. 

According to the survey there has been a particular breakdown in social solidarity. In 2011 47% of Labour supporters agree with the statement “if benefits were not as generous people would learn to stand on their own feet”, up from 11% in 1987. Thirty-one percent of Labour supporters now think welfare recipients are “undeserving”. Twenty-seven percent of supporters think poverty is primarily about social injustice, down 14% from 1986, while 22% think it’s a matter of individual weakness, up 9%.

There is no one else to blame except the last Labour government. This is the end result of twenty plus years of triangulation, of the Labour party pointedly neglecting its base, but also trying to square the circle of achieving social democratic results through neo-liberal means.

The most concerning statistic is the one about the source of poverty. It means not only have people shifted to the right but they have lost the ability to rationally calculate their material interests. A majority of people support action to relieve child poverty yet a majority of children in poverty live in households that have work and poverty is supposed to be a personal failing. How does that make sense? 

Unemployment  figures have been well over two million for several years now. This is not a problem of strivers versus skivers (the recession was not caused by 2.5 million people suddenly deciding they couldn't be bothered). Long term unemployment (and underemployment) is a problem for everybody, the entire working class. It creates insecurity, helps suppress wages and overall effective demand.

The way out is not more sado-monetarism but ample jobs at a living wage. The recession is precisely notthe responsibility of the unemployed but the capitalist class.

This breakdown in class consciousness is why it’s not kicking off everywhere. Social struggles in Britainnow start from an even weaker basis than existed pre-2007. It will take years to turn political questions such as the above around, after all it took the Labour Party leadership nearly thirty years to convince the Labour voters they were more right wing than they realised.

On a much smaller level, I think this is why Left Unity is right to try to stop the 57 Varieties of Socialism from overwhelming the party before it’s even properly constituted. British politics has an excess of revolutionary socialist groups. They have sheltered for years under a giant social democracy. That social democracy is no more. If sectarianism could be indulged before it can be no longer.

The future and the past

In ten years time almost everyone who remembers the relief at the end of the war, the triumph over fascism and the refounding of society afterwards will be dead, as will most social provision. Then we will back at square one. It makes me truly sad and ashamed to think we will probably never see such days ourselves.

John Rae" (later headmaster of Westminster School), waiting on Bishop's Stortford station in July 1945 with his trunk. "My man," he called to the porter. "No," came the porter's firm reply. "That sort of thing is all over now."

Now that's what I'm talking about.

Thoughts for the Brain - the measure of time

We live in time, whether we realise it or not. Time is ultimately the product of entropy. The universe is a closed system travelling from perfect order to perfect disorder. The unevenness of the universe at its earliest known moments is what produced history, we have galaxies, stars, planets and people. The Earth itself is an open system so, within this small context, we experience counter-tendencies, such as the origin of species or the rise of human civilisation.

The experience of time is relative, either to entropy or counter-entropy. In the case of humanity it seems scientists are homing in on a theory of time based on the repetition of actions against the activity of oscillator cells in the brain. A well-developed mind is actually very good at estimating time, at least in certain contexts say catching a ball, playing a piece of music, driving a car and so on. 

The idea that time is relative is less interesting than the suggestion that the estimation of time is based upon practical activity: the role of labour in the development of time. Although it must be said there is a conflict between the relative nature of time and the capitalist prerogative to homogenise and quantify time. The meaning of time changes through different epochs, changes with the application of new technology. Perhaps mostly importantly the perception of time is different for different classes; different classes are different sets of relationships within the world of work.

Generally speaking instant communication has decentralised work. Some (not exhaustive) observations:

1)    The difficulty of commuting between home and work has led to the rise of flexitime. This combined with mobile communication has eroded the traditional sense of time.

2)    The laptop allows much white-collar work to be done on the move.

3)    Manufacturing, especially high-end manufacturing, often takes place in (spatially) long chains. Firms save money by improving freight and communication at the expense of stockpiling, in other words by using just in time delivery.

4)    This does not overcome the labour/capital antagonism, it just reorganises it. While under late capitalism whole swathes of our society are no longer dominated by large factories (the traditionally recognised concentrations of workers), this means, from our point of view, different and sometimes new sections of the working class have sectional strength. In this case communication, freight, IT and so on. Small sections of workers in the chain of production can also have an impact, as can workers in primary input industries.

Thoughts for the Brain: Miliband

The left-commentariat (for want of a better description) is quite pleased with Ed Miliband’s Labour conference address. One of the exciting things about the speech (apparently) was the audacious theft of Tory One-Nation rhetoric and the invocation of Benjamin Disraeli.

There is an article in the Grauniad explaining all this jazz:

Disraeli was devoted to social justice and social cohesion, at least in Britain, in a way that the current Tory crop has never attempted. He loathed the growing exploitation of the workers as the Industrial Revolution burned on and he attempted to "gain and retain for the Conservatives the lasting affection of the working classes".

He established his philosophy in his novel Sybil, where he wrote that England was "Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws … the rich and the poor".

Disraeli was supportive of the Chartist movement also apparently. Actually not quite true, he was supportive of the moral force of Chartism, the side that sort to persuade enfranchised opinion to allow universal suffrage. This is consistent with who Disraeli was and what he represented after all. 
 
One Nation Toryism was also known in its time as the Young Englandmovement . Someone we know very well had something to say about this movement:

Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French Revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation, these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political struggle was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.

In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus, the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new masters and whispering in his ears sinister prophesies of coming catastrophe.

In this way arose feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.

The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.

One section of the French Legitimists and “Young England” exhibited this spectacle.

 
The Labour Party conference poses the question, what is the Labour Party for? It is clearly seen as a party of reform. But that leads to the further question, what is reform for, and who is it for? In the case of Young England/One Nation Toryism there were two purposes. 
 
In the initial period of capitalist growth there was lots of plunder. One aspect of this was plunder of the rural population, which was driven out of the countryside, into the city, into the factories. If life expectancy was short and individuals were used up like coal in a furnace, well there was plenty more where that came from. As time passed there was not the same superabundance of labour. While capitalists might have wanted cheap labour from the shires the capitalist class needed hereditary proletarians born and raised in the cities. The capitalist class had to come to terms with the working class, and not just as pitiful victims, but a class with power and “affections” of its own. 
 
The trouble was the shared class interests of the aristocracy and bourgeoisie meant:

 In political practice, therefore, they join[ed] in all coercive measures against the working class; and in ordinary life, despite their high-falutin phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter truth, love, and honour, for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits.

 
Something similar is true today. Some of the rhetoric of Miliband’s speech was excellent and to the point. The population of Britain is very much divided. Many of us live in Poundland, a world of austerity and ‘tough choices’. The select however live deliriously happy in the Land of Chocolate. 
 
Miliband’s rhetoric is to bind people like you and me to his political project. But what is his project? The Labour Party is a capitalist workers party, committed to the system. In practice this means a pay freeze for millions public sector workers (setting the benchmark for the private sector), a cap for those claiming benefits, thinly veiled union baiting and no return of public services carved up by the current government, services people rely on. 

As with One Nation Toryism, we are being bound to a hostile project.

What does the Labour Party stand for...?

Ed Miliband won’t break the public sector pay freeze. Ed Balls meanwhile won’t promise to reverse public service cuts and says hard times will last longer than people had hoped (which begs the question, how long do you ‘hope’ hard times will last for?). 

While my living standards are being driven down and down in order to pay for Bankers in Need, I would be a fool to expect any help or hope from the Labour Party (and the same applies to my family, friends, co-workers, comrades and class). Miliband’s party does not standfor sectional interests, and by 'sectional interests' he means my interests. 

So who does?

Here's the deal, folks

Ken Livingstone getting elected will be a good thing because he will do some good things while in office. It will not transform the direction of national politics however. This government does not have a democratic mandate and does not need a second term to complete its mission. 

This government's mission is to destroy all currently existing bases for working class resistance. It is doing three key things (1) curtailing working class access to higher education (2) destroying the public sector unions as an effective force (3) gerrymandering constituencies and destroying public housing simultaneously through social cleansing.

Two things can stop the government. One is the hacking enquiry, the other is massive civil unrest centred around strikes. We cannot bring the first to any conclusion, and the ruling class is not going to destroy the police, the mass media and the three main parties at a time like this. The second we can bring about.

If we don't, regardless of who wins any election, we will get another generation of right wing governments.

SPONTANEOUS PHOTO. UNFORCED LAUGHTER. EFFECTIVE OPPOSITON.

VOTE LABOUR. VOTE PIES.

How many Labour front-benchers does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. We have to accept darkness is only game in town.

Shh - it's the Labour Party

Ed Milliband reckons our society is going through a 'quiet crisis'. Why should it be quiet I wonder?

Well, in 1998 Tony Blair promised to lead a quiet revolution (What do we want? Shh. When do we want it? Shh.). In the year 2000 he led a quiet mission to Africa. He was still being a quiet diplomat in 2011, and he was always the Quiet American.

The Labour party meanwhile underwent a quiet revolution in 2006, then again so did the city of Manchester in 2005. In 2009 Tony Blair said British attitudes toward homosexuality had undergone a quiet revolution too.

You've got to have sharp ears to be a Labour party member. Quiet down the back!

[Roobin's addition] Even Gordon Brown, in his short and troubled period at the top, got some time in for quiet revolutionising.

Hard times

In times like these its hard not to cling to the flimsiest of hopes. The most ragged is surely the most persistent, that a Labour government will make it all better. Well Ed Balls is trying to shake that idea off.

The Shadow Cabinet has been banned by Ed Balls from promising to reverse any of the Coalition Government's spending cuts as part of Labour's attempt to regain credibility on the economy.

A mildly interesting notion; does Ed Balls run the Shadow Cabinet?

In an interview with The Independent, the shadow Chancellor said: "No matter how much we dislike particular Tory spending cuts or tax rises, we can't make promises now to reverse them. I'm clear that I won't do that and neither will any of my Shadow Cabinet colleagues."

It seems reasonable, anti-demagogic. The only problem is that pesky democratic deficit. If you are a student facing sky-high fees, if you are unemployed and facing the grisly prospect of 'the work programme', if you are a young parent watching Sure Start centres being closed, if you are a pensioner coping with mounting heating bills, if you are a public sector worker being forced to hand over a day's wages (in the form of increased pension contributions) to pay for bankers in need... if you are any of those people and more besides, who speaks for you, you stands up for you in parliament? At the moment no one does. What's wrong with the Labour Party standing up for them? What's wrong with the Labour Party standing up for them and even losing?

We have come to know the Labour Party is not an agent of change. It has accepted the broad political, ideological and economic consensus, however arrived at, whether it has been Keynesianism or Neo-Liberalism. The myth of Labour radicalism was built on the back of a general radicalisation during World War Two. The Attlee government, great as it was, merely received the movement's momentum.

What can change the situation? The proposed strike of 3 million workers on November 30th can start. Get the ballot on, win the ballot, prepare for picketing, organise a demo in town; if you are not being called out do your best to support those who are. There does need to be more action after this day however, a one-day strike of a few thousand people in particular sector is a token gesture, 3 million strikers is not a token, it's a declaration.

Public sector workers will fight and they will not be alone.