Two week holidays in Thailand. Forty-two inch plasma screen high definition televisions with built-in DVD player. A decent pair of jeans for four quid.
Anyone advocating radical social change to a system that has put all that within reach of the majority of the UK population better have a bloody good reason.
The Tories won the 1959 election on the back of Supermac's 'you've never had it so good' slogan. That's famously the favourite phrase of those who've always had it better, of course. But factually he wasn't wrong. And what's more, living standards for the bulk of the working class have increased exponentially over the last half-century.
They are now way above anything my parents - a railwayman and a housewife who did part-time cleaning jobs - could have aspired to when I was growing up in the 1960s, when a telephone and wall-to-wall carpets would have been luxuries. Higher, too, than anyone on the left would have thought possible under capitalism when I first became politically active in the early 1980s.
There is simply no comparison with the world described by Manchester textile factory owner Friedrich Engels in his classic 1844 volume, The Condition of the Working Class in England, pictured left.
This has not been achieved by paying workers more. Indeed, last time I saw any stats, the share of wages in UK GDP has been in secular decline in recent decades. Instead, these goods have declined dramatically in value, as measured by the Marxian standard of socially necessary labour time. It's a neat conjuring trick.
The contrast with the relatively recent past is dramatic. If you're in a steady job, you can eat out routinely. You can afford to drink far more than is good for you, and still get high at the weekend if you want to.
It seems to me that the left - especially that section still trying to sell the classical Marxist vision of an alternative society of material abundance - hasn't thought a lot of this through.
The current lack of combativity and consciousness of British workers is all too often attributed simply to the labour movement's failure to overcome the legacy of defeat following the miners' strike of 1984-85.
But that was now a generation ago. The younger portion of today's workforce either wasn't born at the time, or cannot remember the period. So isn't increased affluence pretty likely to be one of the factors at work?
There are differences of opinion in just how far Marx regarded the 'absolute immiserisation' of the proletariat - a theory he inherited from Ricardo - as a key driver of revolutionary change. But the evidence is that, in the advanced capitalist countries, it ain't happening anyway.
Of course, the notion of what sociologists call 'embourgeoisement' dates back to before the first time a prole installed a washing machine, paid for on the never-never, in her council flat.
Twenty years ago,Neil Kinnock, rhetorically asked the 1987 Labour Party conference what should be said to dockers earning £400 a week and in possession of a holiday home in Spain. The punchline, delivered in an embarrassing mockney accent, was this: 'You do not say "let me take you out of your misery, bruvvers".'
Two years later, the Tories abolished the National Dock Labour Scheme and effectively recasualised the job. So much for that point.
OK, maybe I should get out more. There surely is plenty of poverty across Britain. As someone who regularly visits major cities worldwide, but has never been to Preston, Carlisle, Swansea or Derby, it might be that I am just not seeing it.
On the other hand, there's a large council estate visible from the window of the room in which I write this post. But even there, plenty of satellite dishes are in evidence. However attenuated our welfare state, life on benefits isn't destitution and it isn't the workhouse.
Those excluded from Good Time Britain 2007 are a substantial minority. But the operative word is 'minority'. Welcome to the two-thirds/one-third society.
Again, social inequality is on the increase. The super-rich are getting obscenely super-richer. But that does not seem to inspire the moral outrage it rightly should. Most ordinary people seem to accept this as the way of the world, so long as capitalism continues to deliver the fast-moving consumer goods.
Some questions, then. Can the Marxist left still campaign on the basis that our idea of socialism means a higher standard of living for the majority of the population, and is therefore in their direct self-interest? If not, how should we pitch revolutionary socialism?
And is it possible instead to appeal to altruism, to stress that 'free' mobile phone/camera/MP3 players with radio and bluetooth and G3 technology are only made possible by sweatshop labour in China?
Or should the appeal centred on environmentalism? Or have I got all this plain wrong anyway? Responses in the comments box, please.
Comments (71)
Two week holidays in Thailand. Forty-two inch plasma screen high definition televisions with built-in DVD players. A decent pair of jeans for four quid. Why advocate radical social change to a system that has put all that within reach of the majority of the UK population?
You do realise that all three of these rest on super-exploitation of labour in the Third World. "living standards for the bulk of the working class have increased exponentially"? In the immortal words of St George, not counting niggers.
At the same time, I think you're missing the trend towards ever-greater casualisation, including outsourcing and 'offshoring'. Twenty-first century British workers may not be on the breadline, but neither do we have the stability & security which were the norm thirty years ago.
Can the Marxist left still campaign on the basis that our idea of socialism means a higher standard of living for the majority of the population, and is therefore in their direct self-interest?
There's the rub - what is your "idea of socialism"?
The abolition of private property? Not likely to be a crowd-puller in any century soon.
But the Marxian humanist vision - that of a fully realised individual as free as is possible from the "realm of necessity". Then, yes, that remains an historical necessity.
Social democrats have done better because they accept the second and reject the first. So long as the left adheres to the first it is on a hiding to nothing - not least because all attempts at abolition of the commodity form through the abolition of capital have ended in butchery.
Frankly, the workers are not suffering from false consciousness when they reject the revolution. It is the revolutionaries who need to get a grip.
I wouldn't read too much into the significance of the workers having nice jeans and satellite dishes, but I agree that certain elements need to get with the times and ditch the 19th century-style hyperbole.
In his last ever speech in 1959, Aneurin Bevan called it the "meretricious society."
"I have enough faith in my fellow creatures in Great Britain to believe that when they have got over the delirium of television, when they realise that their new homes are mortgaged to the hilt, when they realise the moneylender has been elevated to the highest position in the land, when they realise that the refinements for which they should look are not there, that it is a vulgar society of which no decent person could be proud ... when they realise all the tides of history are flooding in our direction, that we are not beaten, that we represent the future: then, when we say it and mean it, we shall lead our people to where they deserve to be led."
I think the radical left today could learn a thing or two from this 1950s social democrat in terms of how to inspire, inform and educate without resorting to tired cliches which sound out of place in the 21st century. It's not just an appeal to altruism – some detailed explanation is in order, namely of how the "meretricious society" has a dark underbelly which makes the achievement of plasma TVs for all pale into insignificance: social inequality, job insecurity, rising stress, depression, alienation, a large and often violent underclass etc etc.
Sadly, the neoliberals have the right-wing populist press at their disposal to explain away such problems in terms which ensure that the real root causes are removed from the sensible parameters of debate. But all is not lost, because I know for a fact that there are people crying out for a credible left-wing case to be made. My faith in the existing radical left parties to make such a case isn't exactly strong.
It always strikes me that all the internet and mobile phones have done is made it easier for men to access pornography and to swindle each other. OK, that's an exagerration, but it does feel like that. Capitialism encourages all the basest appitites and drives of people so that someone can make money out of them. I agree that it's difficult to argue with ordinary people that they shouldn't allow themselves to be bought off for trashy goods or labour saving devices, as they will quite clearly think you are mad for saying so, the present moment is the only thing that most people have and they want to live it to the full. I suppose pointing out that the immiseration of the third world and the looming ecological catastrophe is worth pointing out, and I think it is a very strong argument foe socialism. Imperialism has no interest in 'saving the planet'. They just want to extract their pound of flesh.
I just wrote the above and then I remembered about the saving and loans crisis in America, where millions of people have apparently had their houses repossessed, THere is also an enormous debt burden carried by ordinary people in the USA, so those baubles come at a price. Plus of course drugtaking and general lawlessness. Socialists need to return to basics such as the right to an up-to-date health system with on regional differences, the right to an education that will equip a person for life and proper (ie not Mickey Mouse training), the right to homes and access to open spaces etc etc I don't think that many of the earlier basic demands have been satisfied and as time goes by are being met less and less.
I think the trend to agency labour and casualisation is important. I've lost count of the number of (serious, bourgeois) German radio commentators who, when talking about British capitalism after 10 years of Blair, like to mention "the return, for a certain, not insignificant section of British society, of 'Manchesterkapitalismus'", 'Manchester capitalism', German short-hand for the conditions described in Engels his work pictured above.
I'd disagree with Dave when he says that 'our idea of socialism means a higher standard of living for the majority of the population' - is that only what the big S is about? Isn't it about a fairer society, a society without exploitation of people by people. The facts about sweatshop labour are part of propaganda for socialism too, and above all, the facts about capitalism. The same goes for the environment. But if socialism is only based on an appeal to the working class that it will inevitably lead to a higher standard of living - or, more exactly, if this 'higher standard of living' really refers to 'more, 'better', cheaper consumer goods for you' - as Dave suggests - it's just empty. Peace, land and flat screen tellys. Life's about more than that, surely, comrades? Any vision of an alternative society must have a different starting point - as, if we're going to be honest about it, any more equal distribution of wealth won't mean we'll all be living like royalty; instead, they'll be more living like the rest of us. At the same time I think housing would be a better place to start than consumer goods. We need to create a vision of a different society and make it sound credible. With the smashing of the TU movement under Thatcher the basic ideas of solidarity are anathema to a whole generation, and little more than something that once happened a long time ago to the rest. Isn't that the main problem?
Again, this affluence - not equally distributed, I hasten to add - is at the expense of workers in the 'developing' world. The status of the UK as a consumer economy is not sustainable, morally or ecologically.
Even with all the gadgets, it is possible to have spiritual poverty, to feel and actually be powerless. Choice of washing powder, but no power in the workplace. Two weeks in the sun, but stuck in a rut for the rest of the year.
"Again, this affluence - not equally distributed, I hasten to add - is at the expense of workers in the 'developing' world. The status of the UK as a consumer economy is not sustainable, morally or ecologically."
Or economically.
Sooner or later economies have to sell stuff people want to buy.
Some good points, but surely discussions about social change, working class, etc should be moreimportant than the sucess or otherwise of tiny
trot led political party, 60 posts and counting!
oh and btw, sorry to be a bit personal Dave, but I think you have come a long way from your time in unemployment.
For many hundreds of thousands/millions on welfare life is very very difficult indeed. Its not just the rates of benefits it is the degrading,neo-victorian style humiliating and stressful routines you have to go through to get them: DWP doctors lying on their medical forms, adverts everywhere telling you defacto you are a benefit fraudster, 40 page claiming forms. tribunals that place physical obstacles in your way, so they can say you have ok mobility, once you remove them. Only today, the Observer reports that the DWP is planning to use lie detectors on claimants! if this was any other group the left, liberals, etc, would be in uproar, but just like the silence on the welfare reform act, this 'hierarchy of oppression' means that those on benefits, etc, millions of people in fact continue to get shat on and the left just looks on...
have a look at the sheffield welfare action network website, we/they held a conference a while and got testimonials about peoples experience on benefits, it wasn't pleasant.
www.swansheffield.org.uk
As a matter of interest: how much did the bar girls cost in Thailand?
To be serious Engels discusses the collapse of the working class family, as was then thought a real possibility in Britain, and the fate of many women driven to prostitution as a result. The same tendency can now be seen on an international level with sex tourism to places such as Thailand. A trade some fools on the left, I do not suggest this means you Dave, make concessions to by seeing prositution as an occupation no worse than any other.
Environmentalism is, by the way, a pernicious nonsense.
By the way what are you doing t offset your carbon footprint after visiting the fleshpots of Bangkok?
Those workers barely existing in Manchester garrets one hundred and sixty years ago knew life was hard.
But they also knew where their parents had come from - mean moorland villages or penury in the Peak District or Pennines. It was grim in Gorton, but it was progress.
Today many a worker on Stockport or Salford no longer has to spend a cold week in Morecambe or Blackpool for their holiday as their grandparents, the grandchildren of the subjects of Engles writing, had to do before the war.
Indeed today’s Mancunians can visit Madrid and Barcelona for their holiday. They will also only need to pay for prescriptions instead of falling back on hospital charities (as well as paying a nightly ‘hotel’ rate) if they should need to be hospitalised.
If unemployed, the modern worker will get enough to live on (very modestly) and without the Board of Guardians visiting and forcing him to sell his TV or live off the equivalent of a jar of treacle and bread or the like.
The material welfare of the average British worker has increased immensely.
So did the grandchildren of Engel’s subjects say, in the 1920s, say ‘Well, thank god, it’s not like the 1840s now - we can rest on our laurels with our bakelite radios, Sundays off work and charabanc trips.
No, of course not. Some formed the Communist Party, elected the first Labour councils and held the General Strike.
If you want am example of the political bankruptcy of where LP membership leads you, this post is it. Why would you think workers sights are set so low other than by swallowing the Labour hogwash about how well off – and that’s both the 1/3rd and the 2/3rds - in Brown’s updated versions of Supermac’s claim?
I think many socialists see their politics as ‘moral’. It’ll be nice to break the oppressive changes of the class that rules over us. It would be good to see an end to ‘sweatshop labour’. It will be pleasing if the starving mites of Africa are fed. I suppose I agree with all the above but I don’t really care that much, to be honest.
I look for a socialist society with the hottest consumer goods imaginable, opulent food on everyone’s plate and the coolest cars for us all to cruise around in.
So ‘Dear fellow workers. After a few hundred years of progress, I know you are not going to give up now.
But why should we wait for slow progress. Let’s combine and rob the rich – there’s a lot more of us than them.
I mean, do you want just six weeks holiday a year or do you want to work to work six weeks in a year with no loss of pay? Do you want to spend two weeks wages on a 42-inch plasma screen or a 72 inch? Do you want capitalism or socialism? ‘
I also think socialist propaganda should always feature shots of high-end cars, cosmetically enhanced women, luxurious kitchens and fancy gadgets so we can show what we are fighting for.
And yet - luke Akehurst [posted last week the figures for qualification for free school dinners in london, Camden and hackney had close to 50% of kids qualifying - if that doesn't indicate terrifying levels of poverty I don't know what does. Some people are being left far far behind, and it is simply clear that market economics cannot abolish poverty.
We also need socialism/Marxism to fight the rise and spread of superstitious nonsense that is destablising the world. Often this bollocks is spread by governments exporting their own internal dissent and threatens liberties that the workingclass has had to struggle for over hundreds of years: equality, workers' rights, freedom of expression and so on. Libralism has shown itself unable to combat aggressive nastiness and at the end of the day it is only the workers' movement that will be able to protect itself.
I also think socialist propaganda should always feature shots of high-end cars, cosmetically enhanced women, luxurious kitchens and fancy gadgets so we can show what we are fighting for.
I like reading SPP's stuff. I'm surprised the majority take (a fair amount of) it seriously though. Aren't you on holiday?
The super-rich are getting obscenely super-richer. But that does not seem to inspire the moral outrage it rightly should. Most ordinary people seem to accept this as the way of the world, so long as capitalism continues to deliver the fast-moving consumer goods.
Moral outrage does not appear to be a means of achieving sustainable economic and political change.
The last time it appeared to have an effect was possibly against the Poll Tax. People rallied on the streets. It was replaced by the Council Tax - another regressive tax - enabling the Super-rich to pay a fraction of the local tax payable by anyone on average earnings.
Mobilising around 'issues' might be the future, viz 'slave wages', child labour, living wage, energy efficiency and so on - with the emphasis on 'mobilising' and how to nail down professional politicians.
Sorry to give the standard capitalist response, but why is everyone accepting that workers in the third world are being 'exploited' in making cheap jeans and tvs?
They aren't forced to work there - they choose to because the money is much better than they can otherwise make. You know, mutually beneficient trade and all that.
Why is it a bad thing if western demand for consumer goods is fuelling a 10% annual growth in the Chinese economy - lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the process?
"Can the Marxist left still campaign on the basis that our idea of socialism means a higher standard of living for the majority of the population, and is therefore in their direct self-interest? If not, how should we pitch revolutionary socialism?"
You could stop pitching revolutionary socialism altogether and try the democratic kind.
Peter Kenyon, the poll tax was beaten by tax avoidance more than any moral outrage or even rallies on the street. All of the polling evidence showed that the avoidance was knocking tory voters off the electoral register.
mean moorland villages or penury in the Peak District or Pennines. It was grim in Gorton, but it was progress.
Who was this for - Northwest Tonight? It's nonsense, anyway - the industrial revolution created much of the penury it alleviated, for instance by driving hand weavers out of business. There was starvation in Wigan (I don't know about Stalybridge) but only after the machine looms arrived.
why is everyone accepting that workers in the third world are being 'exploited' in making cheap jeans and tvs?
I can't speak for 'everyone', but I used the word in the first place because of the huge disparity between the value of those people's labour and their payment for it. Nothing to do with absolute poverty or compulsion.
As a general rule, KMS, the stuff you may think is meant lightly is generally said with complete seriousness. I am on holiday but there are only so many idle hours one can waste.
And whilst on holiday I was talking to a guy who was trying to bend my ear about trains. He may have had something interesting to say (something about improvements on a local line) but he was a ‘train enthusiast’ and peppered all his talk with that of the train spotter. I looked for the door. He had no idea how to engage anyone not interested in his hobby.
And so with the Left and the way it presents itself. I can’t think of the number of women I have been out with who have hinted, or even said outright, ‘let’s not go out for the evening with you leftie mates. Many of them are social inadequates and weirdos.’ I could have added ‘train spotters’ as well.
Instead of acting (and looking) like superannuated students, the Left needs to adopt the life outlook (and sartorial standards) of a sharp-suited mobile phone salesman because the sales prospect for the Left is simple
And, despite the argument of the main article, is also very attractive to even the most apolitical of people - Do you want more holidays or less? Do you want to elect your bosses or put up with the current bunch? Do you want to pay £150 or £20 for a turn up and go return on the train from London to Manchester?
Do you think it will be better to have one combined organisation searching for a cure for Aids and without a profit motive diverting their work or several companies duplicating each other’s work in a race to be first where the winner will sell the cure at a level many people will never be able to afford. Nah, on second thoughts too complex. Drop that one.
As self appointed sales manager of the Left I’m not taking any excuses from you that people have their fill of old mobiles or they’re not interested in our extraordinary deals. We’ve flogged loads before and do well in other territories.
And what we are offering pisses on the competition e.g. ‘democratic’ socialism - one election every five years and inbetween they do what they like - v - immediate recall of representatives.
And try and remember what you were taught on your ‘Making The Sale’ induction course. We’re not selling 'high falutin' bollocks like ‘constant phone availability’ or ‘freedom of expression / no censorship’ but practical and popular stuff like ‘uncensored and unlimited content’ or ‘as much porn on your phone as possible’.
The problems are with many of you, fellow Leftists, not with our fabulous product. I suggest you adopt the approach in my last post if you want to meet your targets.
But first you desperately need to get more sales staff. And not through you usual loser tactics of ‘intervening’ around climate change or the like. Kit out the most nubile amongst you with party literature and matching tight tshirts to lead a recruitment campaign. It worked, if but briefly, for both Phones4U and the RCP.
--
Phil, big picture, industrialisation was good not bad for all classes but not for a few individuals. Or should we seek to turn it all back to handlooms (like Gandhi argued)?
And the NW references simply follow from where Engels wrote about, Cottonopolis, and which you may not have noticed is mentioned in the Dave's post.
"why is everyone accepting that workers in the third world are being 'exploited' in making cheap jeans and tvs?
I can't speak for 'everyone', but I used the word in the first place because of the huge disparity between the value of those people's labour and their payment for it. Nothing to do with absolute poverty or compulsion."
Interesting little fact. Chinese manufacturing wages have been rising 14%, year on year, for the past decade. That means they're 3.7 times higher now that they were in 1997. No, I don't accept the contention that they're being exploited or underpaid, but even if you do, it's difficult to think of anything other than capitalism and trade that would have had such a large effect in such a short period of time.
Whym they're even getting rich enough to buy milk now, thus bailing out UK farmers.
Tim, they are being exploited, because, much as we, despite real terms rises in wages, their employers' profits are increasing even faster. Living standards of some, many even, may be rising, but the price in the deaths and mutilations of thousands of Chinese workers in brutal conditions. hat's the point - the condition for the advancement of all should be the advancement of each - we're past the time when it is even remotely justifiable to improve material standards at the price of human life and immiseration.
Being a reformist Labourist sell-out, I don't really do theory much, but from what I recall doesn't a feudal society such as China have to undergo its industrial revolution before socialism can be brought about?
I expect to incur the wrath of some Maoists.
Punchie
Not that I would ever want to parody you, but can I sum up what you are saying :
The left needs to act like mobile sales people. What it needs is nubile young things in tight t-shirts handing out leaflets, whilst reclining on the bonnet of a flash porsche . The chant being, 'what do we want? Boob jobs, when do we want them, Now'. Yep, socialism will mean boob jobs and botox for all .
Ever think its not your mates, but you who puts off women ?
btw nothing wrong with a night in the pub full of misfit, weird leftie men (and women). Some of my best mates and all that ...
Oops, meant mobile phone sales people.
Oh, one more thing. Punchie, you are very quiet on the whole GG/SWP/Respect business .
Whats the line from the real revolutionary then?
But that's it Strappy, Who gets more people interested in their products - Carphone Warehouse or the CPGB?
I had the g/fs, my saddo leftie mates didn't. I knew when to stop talking about Serbia. You may be content to sup real ale in a pub alongside the unwashed but few others are clearly interested in such company.
Some of us are serious about spreading the socialist message. Thousands pay through the nose for botox and whose 'startled rabbit' look doesn't last long anyway.
But well done the salesmen who managed to convince thousands to put a poison in their face. If only I was made 'First Comrade' then we could use similar tactics to sell not cosmetics but communism - and our unique selling point would be incomparably better.
You know you're reading the words of an ultra-ultra-left when that person thinks that socialism will be just like consumer capitalism only more so. Something about the 'narrow horizons of bourgeois thought', the future as the endless present etc etc. The idea that everyone will be driving Ferraris and living in their own Posh and Becks mansions is so obviously preposterous that I suspect other people can't be bothered to point it out.
"He had no idea how to engage anyone not interested in his hobby."
Southpaw that sounds remarkably like you entertaining the bored with orthodox Trotskyism.
Actually, if that's your pitch then you need to get back to the drawing board and improve your overall strategy such as the hard sell.
"Kit out the most nubile amongst you with party literature and matching tight tshirts to lead a recruitment campaign. It worked, if but briefly, for both Phones4U and the RCP."
Bit confused here as is this for real or a parody? Am I expected to take this seriously with the "nubile" members reference? Translated you mean women wearing tight t-shirts (oh no, lets do better and have a wet t-shirt competition as well)to sell the wonders of revolutionary socialism. No, lets not call them women but eye candy. I mean, treating women equally and with respect is old fashion. Women's liberation and feminism... who needs it.
Get back to what women do best, make the tea and please the man.
Southpaw, just what are you talking about 'cos your high falutin' ideas make no sense.
Oh, I get it now after I switched off my analytical thinking, you (Southpaw) are trying to package socialism in a kinda, "if you can't beat them join them" philosophy... Emulate corporate capitalism, the bourgeoise and all its trappings...
Utterly bizarre
"You may be content to sup real ale in a pub alongside the unwashed but few others are clearly interested in such company."
A passing acquainatance with my blog, which you Punchie have, and you would know I don't drink real ale . In fact I get slagged off for wanting a socialist future that involves decadence and champagne for all.
There is though a difference between the finer things in life being available to all and the idea that we can all have mansions etc. We need an equitable distribution of wealth, that shouldn't be the lowest common denominator, but there are limits as to what we could all individually have.
Your attitude though to women seems to be that 1) they play a purely decorative role in politics and 2) they of course wouldn't want to bother there pretty little heads with talk of politics.
Bollocks . There are political women and men, just as there are men who have no interest either.
Oh and the leftie bloggers piss up lot are not the great unwashed, though admittedly the next morning seeing them sprawled around Dave's flat is not the prettiest of sites. You can be left wing, clean and dress well you know.
Red deathy wrote "Luke Akehurst"
*Shudders*
*vomits*
Why does anybody engage with, link to or converse with this reactionary cunt? Do you debate with murders and nonces aswell? Any prick who claims he specialises in "advising defence and aerospace companies" can fuck right off in my book.
Pro killing and maiming fucking arsehole. Puke is truely an evil little shit.
KMS, the stuff you may think is meant lightly is generally said with complete seriousness.
Generally I actually agree with a lot of what SPP sais, it's very orthodox far left class-based politics, a lot of it anyway. But sometimes I just think "wtf". We can show what we are fighting for - and it seems he (I am assuming SPP's a he) meant this. More things, more objects, more stuff to buy. Very useful. A great part of SPPs future socialist society, where if Lenin hadn't banned other parties during the civil war, the Mensheviks and the SRs would today be running freeview TV channels and the equivalent of tickets to Marxism would be sold via reverse auctions, presented by a slightly more oily version of John Rees in a crap suit.
I once met someone who said he'd "organised an election campaign" (for the SPD). I imagined he was something like a constituency agent, sorting out leafleting, talking to voters about policies, getting the vote out on election day. I was accused of being an amateur with no idea of how politics works. This "organising" meant writing slogans and running PR campaigns, choosing the pictures of Schröder for placards that went down best with the target electorate (via focus groups) etc. Indeed, politics as just something else to sell, in the same way this person creates ad and PR campaigns for companies with, maybe, another mobile phone contract.
Where are the RCP now anyway? And don't give me "all in the media", we know that. Where's their politics, the "R", the "C" and the "P" bits, in particular? Going, going, gone to the woman from Philip Morris, the man from Bayer and the board of Monsato for a record bargain price. I note that "Phones4u"'s boss sold out to private equity, after conducting a strategic review of his business. The same as the RCP then.
Do you want more holidays or less? Do you want to elect your bosses or put up with the current bunch? Do you want to pay £150 or £20 for a turn up and go return on the train from London to Manchester?
All part of the socialist argument, no quibbles there. Don't quite see the connection with the latest range at Dixons.
Do you think it will be better to have one combined organisation searching for a cure for Aids and without a profit motive diverting their work or several companies duplicating each other’s work in a race to be first where the winner will sell the cure at a level many people will never be able to afford. Nah, on second thoughts too complex. Drop that one.
You insult the people you claim to want to reach. Anyone who's used the health service or has sick relatives or has ever even heard about medicine rationing can see the madness that the pharmaceutical industry is. It's not difficult or complex. But perhaps your PR employer pays your BUPA subs?
Anyway: I just wondered - why aren't there any pics of Punchie on his website? Click here for an XXL mega cock combined with an oiled massaged orthodox Trot, that'd get the hits up, surely. Or some kind of interactive Southpawpunchstripshow, 5 quid per cubic inch of material removed? (Hang on, that only applies to women...) Horizontal recruitment to the one and only true socialist party in the world, prop. the Derek Trotter of the far left, SPP? Obviously, I'm not interested. I like my politics complicated. And I don't (knowingly) react to adverts. Sold many phones today?
Isn't there an ad campaign going on trying to get real ale to appeal to the most nubile ex-Living Marxism seller-ess? Anyway - that "RCP strategy" didn't work for every group - kitting out your main man to look like an Adidas shop mannequin (tight clothes at that) dind't seem to work for Socialist Action - maybe the ideas and the support for Milosevic (to mention Serbia, just for SPP) didn't go down well with the target group, even if the clothes were the height of fashion at the time. though Simon Fletcher can occasionally stand in for Ken if he's visiting Chavez or someone. Presumably he's dropped the fashionable sportswear for a suit though.
Anyway, don't waste time. You've got a book to write. Will it be filed under "comedy"? I'd like to suggest two titles:
"The old duffer's guide to socialism and building the party"?
"Is it just me, or is this ex-member of SO talking shit?"
No, Louise & Strappy.
Socialism is about consumer satisfaction as much as bigger concepts. Whereas the cry in the French Revolution was partially for 'bread' it may now be for 'fancy baguettes and Belgian beer'.
It's not seeking to emulate capitalism but in part seeking (and promoting) why we should have better goods e.g. a phone for the Osler family in the 60s or free wifi for them all for them now. It's all part of the communist programme although ignored by most Lefts.
And what's 'bizarre' about that? Should people's eyes be just placed on more 'noble demands' maybe 'an end to the killing in Darfur.' Hands up who doesn't want a Ferrari?
I don't know why you may think I would argue 'women should just make the tea' or 'play a purely decorative role in politics' or such antediluvian sexist rubbish. I say nothing remotely similar - also see http://southpawpunch.blogspot.com/search?q=iwd
I think you may mean that I said that most people - women or men - are not interested in politics.
But I also don't confuse socialist feminism with Victorian morality and the denial of eroticism. I'm happy to go head to head on revolutionary socialist feminism v your reformist equal rights anytime.
KMS's post is beyond reply and comprehension - never mind parody. Has the Oktoberfest started early? I'm not sure whether she's agreeing with me or not.
Strappy - missed 'Respect' point before but too off topic (even for me).
A thoughtful post, you summed up the difficulty when you wrote:
It seems to me that the left - especially that section still trying to sell the classical Marxist vision of an alternative society of material abundance - hasn't thought a lot of this through.
Why would they?
be honest, chunks of the Left have been dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century, let alone the 21st
If you want evidence of that, look at the take-up of new technology across the Left, it is patchy and poorly managed, even when a lot of the offerings (blog, web sites, etc) are free
Dave wrote:
If not, how should we pitch revolutionary socialism?
Well you might consider looking at the failures over the last 40 years, see what was wrong, organisationally, personalities, etc as well as the political dimensions and try to avoid them again
Hairshirt environmentalism is not really a working-class things, we've been recycling stuff for years without the benefit of trendy coloured boxes, or whining posers on the TV telling you how to live your life.
If you going to argue for socialism, then you have to offer something positive, something good, something tangible, not just doom and gloom about capitalism, and caricatures of fat blokes in coat and tails with cigars.
Also you might consider how many organisations on the Left are decidedly unfriendly to working-class, and women.
That's a starter.
I don't want a fucking Ferrari.
Looking at many of the contribution, there are many good points:
DB wrote:
radical left today could learn a thing or two from this 1950s social democrat in terms of how to inspire, inform and educate without resorting to tired cliches which sound out of place in the 21st century …. some detailed explanation is in order, namely of how the "meretricious society" has a dark underbelly
exactly, many on the Left sound like parrots from the 1930s and haven't come to terms with the 21st century
Sue R wrote:
Socialists need to return to basics such as the right to an up-to-date health system with on regional differences, the right to an education that will equip a person for life and proper
Absolutely, but there's a problem: the education system is the bastion of the middle classes, and to provide us, the working classes, with a superior education will create competition with their offspring in universities, etc and that they won't do.
Sadly, the Left seems to have lost even the most basic of tradition: self education, readers groups, etc working classes, which need to change if socialist ideas are to become substantial.
KMS wrote:
At the same time I think housing would be a better place to start than consumer goods. We need to create a vision of a different society and make it sound credible.
Housing is a key issue, decent public housing, quality public housing.
Frenetic wrote:
…just like the silence on the welfare reform act, this 'hierarchy of oppression' means that those on benefits, etc, millions of people in fact continue to get shat on and the left just looks on
Agreed, I think that the Left doesn't perceive the role of the petty bureaucrat or obnoxious official has an issue, but in real people's lives it makes a difference. A real difference.
Sue R wrote:
We also need socialism/Marxism to fight the rise and spread of superstitious nonsense that is destablising the world.
spot on
I won't comment on SouthPawPunch's stuff much, other than to say, it is fairly obvious that he has an ingrained elitist and condescending attitude to the working classes and women. Stroppy and Louise said it all.
The super-rich are getting obscenely super-richer. But that does not seem to inspire the moral outrage it rightly should.
In short: your goal is not to make the poor richer, but to make the rich poorer.
I don't think it is an easy sell.
Socialism is about consumer satisfaction
No, it's not. Socialism is about human fulfilment. Consumer satisfaction is - pretty much by definition - something that you achieve by using the money earned through alienated labour to purchase commodities produced through alienated labour and sold for a profit.
And no, I don't want a Ferrari. I want to be able to go wherever I want, whenever I want, in conditions I find safe and congenial. And I want everyone else to be able to do this too. Revolutionary enough for you?
It's not seeking to emulate capitalism but in part seeking (and promoting) why we should have better goods e.g. a phone for the Osler family in the 60s or free wifi for them all for them now. It's all part of the communist programme although ignored by most Lefts.
Not better goods, a better life.
"If you going to argue for socialism, then you have to offer something positive, something good, something tangible, not just doom and gloom about capitalism, and caricatures of fat blokes in coat and tails with cigars."
Easy.
A two day working week, hardly impossible given that most gainful employment in the West is a massive, totally unproductive waste of time and most of the backbreaking shit inflicted on third world proles could be easily automated.
Fancy spending five days a week playing with your family/ knocking out your deathless masterpiece/sitting in the sun? I do.
"In short: your goal is not to make the poor richer, but to make the rich poorer."
Large inequalities of wealth have all sorts of pernicious social effects. I think even the Tory party recently came to recognise this (if only for a fleeting moment) in all that 'Polly Toynbee's got the right idea' hoo-haa a few months ago.
Phil's brief post is more about the socialist programme (as was the tagline* of 'Trainspotting') than most of what Southpawpunchline's had to say. By the way, I also couldn't give a damn about Ferraris.
* 'Choose life'
KMS's post is beyond reply and comprehension - never mind parody. Has the Oktoberfest started early? I'm not sure whether she's agreeing with me or not.
When it comes to 'comprehension', I think you should read through your own posts first and then wonder why quite a few people replying seem to have a problem understanding them. And never mind the Oktoberfest (another 18 days, and it's not in Berlin anyway), what's the latest drug in your workplace/being used in your time off? I think I'd probably turn it down, despite it having noticeable effects, unless it was on a "buy one get one free" offer.
Anyway, why doesn't s/he like Cuba (I assume that's the case)? Cuba's got it all: the sun, the sand, the beaches, the women (ask Galloway), machismo, the cigars, and Lenin. Ok, the consumer goods issue could be a problem for SPP, but otherwise...
Phil, Read the post. "in part seeking (and promoting) why we should have better goods" 'In part' = part of the answer. And better and cheaper goods will be part of socialism and an attractive part of our programme now.
Modernity, you talk a lot of bollocks and not based on anything I actually write. But what's new.
Ed, after socialism, can I have your Ferrari? A blue one to go with my red one, please.
Scratch, I agree.
"But I also don't confuse socialist feminism with Victorian morality and the denial of eroticism. I'm happy to go head to head on revolutionary socialist feminism v your reformist equal rights anytime".
I was wondering when Southpaw was gonna harp on about those dastardly reformists who are class traitors..blah, blah blah!! The revolutionary tribunal will decree those counter-revoluntaries to be shot (well that's the reality of Southpaw's wet dream)...
Oh please, you wouldn't know socialist feminism if it kicked you in the bollocks.
And what is this fresh hell about Victorian morality and denial of eroticism. Who exactly is arguing that? You are distorting the arguments to fit your own naff politics.
Just 'cos I don't want to see women objectified, treated as if they are nothing, not taken seriously 'cos our brains aren't developed enough' and lectured to by tossy men like you that makes me a moralist.
Don't be bloody silly, Southpaw. I believe that women should be able to do things on their own terms and to make their own choices (and that includes sex and sexuality).
Ya know, equality, something which you will find hard to emulate in your reconstituted pre-packaged "socialism"...
To agree with Phil and Ed, I don't wanna top-of-the-range motor, I would, however, like a better life.....
Oh, and finally KMS makes a good point, maybe Southpaw does indeed want to be alpha-male top of the socialist pecking order giving those big breasted nubile hot, hot, women hot tips in horizontal recruitment. Way hey....and worry not my pretty babe as women will be liberated come the Glorious Day....
SouthpawsHotTipsSexForTheRealRevoluntary (reformists better not apply!)
Bit of a mouthful, I know....
KMS,
I'm not aware of anyone having a problem understanding what I write (apart from the deliberate obtuseness of those like Modernity who which to make up what I do say).
The problem appears to be some people don't like what I write. Being traditional nomark leftists, they are incapable of thinking 'out of the box' and think people are going to join their ranks through esoteric interests in say 'less climate change' rather than in 'better consumer goods'.
And why would I be a Castroite? Some of us like it Trot.
You're making a bit more sense now. I let my colleague, who is sat next to me as we labour on towards ten (and with no BUPA), confirm that we take no drugs and he also doubts he would have understood your first post even after consuming all the drugs in ‘Trainspotting’ at the same time.
But he has a theory - he just asked me whether in fact it's a disguised request for a date. But he is one of those gay men who think all men can be tempted and those that deny it the most, etc ..., and says the 'Obviously, I'm not interested.' is a complete giveaway.
Can I put you down for a pre-order for the book then?
Louise,
Read the post. ‘Kit out the most nubile amongst you’ Where does that say women?
“Just 'cos I don't want to see women objectified, treated as if they are nothing, not taken seriously 'cos our brains aren't developed enough'… I believe that women should be able to do things on their own terms and to make their own choices (and that includes sex and sexuality). ” I absolutely agree – but where do I argue anything like the contrary to this? Nowhere.
How about engaging with the argument – I have posted a link (above) to the largest article where I write about feminism. In what way is that article not revolutionary socialist feminist rather than your feminism that confuses sexual openness along with a puritan approach to everyday sexuality mixed in with a little leftist politics? – see numerous articles of yours on Stroppyblog.
For Southpaw:
The Concise English Dictionary definition of "nubile": Marriageable (esp. of woman); comes from Latin, 'nubilis' (become of wife).
If you were trying to be gender neutral with your language then you messed-up. Choose your words with care and think about the definitions.
Have your heard languages change, especially in the millennia since Latin?
Google 'nubile men' for many entries.
No, teacher, I didn't mess up whereas you leapt to an unsupported conclusion.
The book: I'll see if I can get my employer to order it in bulk - but they'll only consider it if they can get 60% discount off the actual selling price (not the fake RRP), plus a further discount based on whatever reason they decide to think up, the right to settle the bill years after you send them the books, and the right to return all copies they can't sell (even if they don't try) for a full refund. I doubt though if the interest in Germany will be that big, unless you want to organise a translation (best not use Babelfish though). Have you got a title yet? Do you need further suggestions?
I know you like it Trot as opposed to Castro-Hot. I was more talking about the PR value of the Caribbean as opposed to cold, cold Siberia.
Do you really think your suggested argument about the pharmaceutical industry is too complicated for 'the masses'? Surely not.
And all those Ferraris will obviously be part of a car-sharing scheme after the revolution. You'll be forced to let everyone else use 'your' red one (and the blue one) - though you can use it too. I want less traffic jams in socialism, not more roads.
(If my first comment in this thread was a stream of, hm, something - then, be pleased. That's what happens to some of us after reading some of the comments you make on other people's blogs. Are you going to post them on SouthPawPunchBollocks or whatever it's called? Why do the long articles generally make so much sense, but the off the cuff stuff is just....a stream of...hm? Sometimes I do wonder, I really do.)
I'd suggest that a google search for 'nubile' (as opposed to 'nubile men' (as you didn't mention men anyway), shows how the term is more generally used. While 'Young nubile fuck: Free porn videos and full length movies completely free.' does not specify a particular gender, 'xxx sex: Nubile Cutie Miranda - Miranda is a beautiful nubile stripping down and ... Bridget The Nubile - Nubile with brackets slowly strips down and shows her ...' (the dots are part of the google site description, nothing to do with me) is, and 'eager and wild teens and college girls' are provided by a similar website.
Also on the second page of google results is http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nubile , which is pretty clear about which 52% of the population the term refers to - in this day and age.
So, sorry, the date's off. Me and my principles, eh... Teacher will probably put you in detention for being cheeky anyway.
You write "Bridget The Nubile - Nubile with brackets slowly strips down and shows her..."
You've been Oktoberfesting again haven't you? You have a suspiciously very exact knowledge of when it starts (in, er, September). Go and lie down.
Apparently there are 'nubile men' in James Joyce's Ulysses. That's good enough for me.
You're right about the pharmacy question. I was just trying get across a good point that Mark Steel (SWP) does well in his first biography. He describes how he saw the socialist light whilst working in an office and then forever more wondered why everyone else didn't immediately think likewise - it seemed a no-brainer, do you want to work more hours or less?
Whilst the AIDS point seems also a no-brainer, I'm sure many wouldn't see it.
Wow, KMS, you have done your research...
There are countless refernces to "nubile women" but hey, James Joyce mentions "nubile men" and it is good enough for SouthPaw.
Oktoberfest starts on 22nd September, and Bier will be served from 12 noon onwards. And goes on until the 7th October. Exact enough?
In case I've ruined your travel plans for this year, you can plan ahead. It's Karl-Marx-Straße's Oktoberfest Fünf-Jahres-Plan:
2007: 22 September - 7 October
2008: 20 September - 5 October
2009: 19 September - 4 October
2010: 18 September - 3 October
2011: 17 September - 3 October
The Oktoberfest started in 1810 to celebrate some Prince's marriage, with a lot of drinking and some horseracing. It carried on in the following years, but they decided, "eh, it's a bit nippy, ain't it, particularly in those shorts we have to wear for the tourists", and moved it a bit forward (by 3 weeks), as it's well known that September in Munich is like July on the Costa del Sol. Therfore since the mid-1810s the Oktoberfest has indeed begun in the penultimate week of September. The phrase "if you don't know what the fuck you're on about, shut the fuck up" springs to mind, but said in the most friendly of ways.
I don't find Mark Steel to be that funny, but that point in his autobiog is something I can agree with.
Whilst the AIDS point seems also a no-brainer, I'm sure many wouldn't see it.
Ok, I think though that more people would argue against it than not understand this 'no brainer' - some people would argue that the profit motive and competition between companies would encourage them to work harder to make medicines first, but even many of those who say that would (I imagine), have to admit it is a great waste of resources and cooperation couldn't be any slower. I would have thought.
KMS, Thanks for that. Clearly I can in no way consider myself a socialist as I have so little knowledge of the origins of Oktoberfest.
I'd go from Luxembourg/Trier but it's probably too far. As you are clearly counting out the days, I hope you have an adequate supply of Bitburger or Schnapps to tide you through the long nights until then.
Yes, Mark Steel only had one joke /article - the unfunny historical parallel. 'David Cameron calling for the Human Rights Act to be abolished, it's like if Alfred the Great...'
And the point about nubile is surely in what sense I meant it - and I did mean men, with pecs, as well as women - and where would Left groups be without gay members?
Agree with the AIDS point which is also no less than a summary of the arguments for communism or capitalism.
Clearly I can in no way consider myself a socialist as I have so little knowledge of the origins of Oktoberfest., or indeed, when it actually takes place.
I'm glad that's been finally cleared up
- anyway, alcohol is available in Munich before and after the event, at significantly cheaper prices than during it, which are make London pubs seem cheap. And if there's one thing I would never be able to afford, that's a) staying anywhere in Munich if it involves paying for it ; b) eating food in Munich; c) buying alcohol in Munich. No wonder they're all moving here and buying houses.
Bitburger? Ugh. Where am I, Bitburg?
Btw: if you reading this Southpaw, I just wanted to say thinks for the mention in the corner of your blog (I was looking for your post on feminism) under "what others write"...
"Sexist ultra-left brand of boy wankery! I think he should stay in his bedroom." - Louise Whittle
It seems like you streamlined what I actually wrote but hey, I am flattered. I was feeling depressed, down and deflated this morning but when I saw the mention it cheered me up and definitely brightened my day.
Cheers comrade!
As I said, am highly honoured, Southpaw, by your inclusion of my words but here's the uncensored version (you can see full text on Stroppyblog)
"He just distorts arguments to prop up his own sexist ultra-left brand of boy wankery! I think he should stay in his bedroom and use his other free hand to hold his bk on Lenin....."
Thanks again
I think one way is to look at the impact our own lifestyles are having upon other countries, eg, the oil and gas pipelines through countries which have dispossessed people from their land; polluted environments, etc.
Particularly on developing countries.
On inequality we need to make the point that ever greater inequality means less liberty for everyone else, ie, they have less choice over their lives as those earning more.
Maybe the Left and civil society should think about those in the uk who are realy at the bottom. Yesterday the Guardian reported that the DWP is to bring in lie -detectors yes, lie-detectors to test claimants. If this was any other 'community' the left/civil society etc would be in uproar. this is very dangerous indeed. The nature of the claiming process with its ridiculous forty page claim forms, near impossible elegibility criteria, in fact a neo-victorian system which is designed to put people off claiming means that to get those benefits claimants really do have to at the very least over- emphasise certain features of their condition. Further, as people on here have noted, the claiming process itself is a very stressful one and people are rightly cautious in their answers. I suspect this will in the future be used for medicals, etc, its obscene and the left/civil society should be outraged. There seems to be literally an assault bn those on benefits, in fact i would argue, in the UK they are the real victims of globalisation, the DWP is also basically out of control, a law until themselves
I won't hold my breath though, the demo we had against the Welfare Reform Act at the L/P conference was apart from some SP members untroubled by the various factions of the left, despite many still being in Manchester after the A/W demo. People on welfare, etc, often some of the most vulnerable have largely been left to fend for themselves, though of course there are welfare rights officers for individual cases.
Its about priorities, right, sadly those millions on benefits, disabled people, the NEETS, carers, etc, don't seem to be one of them!
Not 'censored' Louise, but the most relevant part of your text is quoted - as is normal anywhere. Space isn't unlimited.
Frenetic, I don't know that the Left doesn't. Whilst it would be good to organise the unemployed (as in the 30s) or revive the Claimant Unions of the 80s it would be hard work.
Clearly the POA can flex more muscle than the (generally) unorganised ranks of the unemployed or those on low income but I think it also clearly answers the original question of this post on whether people are too well off to be bothered about socialism - if you have a key meter and your kids have free school meals you most clearly can see your situation could be a lot better.
But is Louise quite as happy as the picture 'of her' he links to?
It would be cruel and unfair to suggest that SPP does streetart like
HTML this
(anyway, that user's name suggest's it's got something to do with 'Lenin's Tomb'), especially while livinghere
.Otherwise, if you've got a key meter and your kids have free school meals you can also clearly see that your situation could get worse still, which obviously puts people off any kind of political/trade union activity or even opening their mouth to say what they think at work/to the landlord/at the DSS.
But is Louise quite as happy as the picture 'of her' he links to?
It would be cruel and unfair to suggest that SPP does streetart like
HTML this
(anyway, that user's name suggest's it's got something to do with 'Lenin's Tomb'), especially while living in the place linked to below (I can't link to it in the comment or it'll get filtered out due to it 'maybe being spam').Otherwise, if you've got a key meter and your kids have free school meals you can also clearly see that your situation could get worse still, which obviously puts most people off any kind of political/trade union activity or even opening their mouth to say what they think at work/to the landlord/at the DSS.
But is Louise quite as happy as the picture 'of her' he links to?
It would be cruel and unfair to suggest that SPP does streetart like this (anyway, that user's name suggest's it's got something to do with 'Lenin's Tomb'), especially while living in the place linked to below (I can't link to it in the comment or it'll get filtered out due to it 'maybe being spam').
Otherwise, if you've got a key meter and your kids have free school meals you can also clearly see that your situation could get worse still, which obviously puts most people off any kind of political/trade union activity or even opening their mouth to say what they think at work/to the landlord/at the DSS.
"shots of high-end cars, cosmetically enhanced women, luxurious kitchens and fancy gadgets "
You may be attempting to still convince that "nubile" is gender neutral, SPP, but I'd love to see how you spin "cosmetically enhanced women" as anything other than an objectification of women for the benefit of your proposed ad campaign to the working classes, who you seem to think are all male.
it is a real pity that an otherwise interesting thread has to be derailed by Southpawpunch's bizarre posts and regressive attitudes
Southpawpunch's mannerisms are more suited in his natural home: the Tory party
hopefully this topic will come up again and can be discussed without Southpawpunch's idiocy
KMS: I say, I am a delicate Victorian wallflower who blushes easily at the mention of any improper words and any kind of sexual impropriety, well, heavens, I shall be reaching for the smelling salts. Utterly disgusting and I shall have nothing to do with this behaviour.........
Sorry about that, little case of invasion of the Victorian body snatcher. I was expecting to see some vintage Victorian "lady" linked to my name (Southpaw lacks imagination to come up with anything more creative than "moralistic victorian" and/or "reformist" hiss! boo!)
But she looks like a stunner anyhow with that bob and probably a bit of a goer as well....as there was so much sexual hyprocrisy. Oooo err missus.
Actually Katherine any such 'ad' campaign would appeal to both - there's no reason why 'luxurious kitchens' should appeal more to women but they certainly do (in present day society).
You may feel that women are silly to wish to be cosmetically enhanced (I do as well, but I am also 'cosmetically enhanced' having had braces in my teeth when young) but I think 1) people should generally get what they want and 2) don't try to hide the power of sexual attraction.
I don't get Louise's reference to the 'stunner', but no matter.
Modernity, you know my politics - Orthodox Trot. Once again I ask you yours.
As another person said here recently you are attacking Galloway from the right and the GIYUS link on your site is that of a right-wing, hawkish Israeli governmental organisation. Are you the Tory?
Good lord SPP, are you even aware of the logical twistyness you are attempting to contort your mind into to make that make sense? I can't even be bothered to point out the enormous inconsistencies.
No, and your response is very much in a 'I can't beat his argument I'll just bluster instead' mode.
I think Katherine is spot-on and you , Southpaw, digging yourself a very big hole.
So Louise, substance. All you do is fingerpoint but with nothing to back it up.