The phony triumph of bourgeois democracy!

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fred
The phony triumph of bourgeois democracy!
Printer-friendly version

David Cameron held his first Cabinet meeting after the triumphant election result achieved by the Tories. (They actually got 37% of the vote to Labour's  36% - that is a triumph isn't it? The newspapers insist.) Seated around what looked like a giant snooker table - all green baize - the meeting looked rather like a meeting of staff at some fancy school.  Fancy, because when the Headmaster - the PM - made his dramatic entrance into the suitably  hushed room, like a meeting of Quakers, everyone politely tapped on the green baize.  Nothing vulgar or reminiscent of real life.  Just gentle tapping. 

The PM looked very very slightly humbled.  Somebody must have suggested this to him as being a good move.  And of course he made a speech. 

The new Tory government has got to work hard on behalf of working people, he proclaimed, as the hush intensified.  Workers deserve it. Workers are the life-blood of the country.   Workers that is who have a job. Not shirkers. Workers who are really and truly unable to work and can prove it by getting themselves wheeled down to the appropriate employment agency,  or sitting for hours in a hospital to see a doctor, or waiting weeks for an appointment with some GP, will get government help. Don't spend it all at once! 

What a breakthrough for everyone this is! You could see it on the faces of the astounded cabinet.  Especially the new carefully recruited  women members.  For this is Socialism at work! Handouts for the sick and specially the dying who wont need it long god willing.  (What he didn't say was: It is to be hoped these failed and sick workers  won't spend their benefice all  at once in a bungled flutter on the horses otherwise starvation awaits. Presumably this is to be taken as read.) 

But oh my goodness. Have the Tories  all turned red? For here's the  PM actually talking about workers, and using the scary word and asserting that a Tory government is a government for everyone, even including workers, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a traitor to the bourgeois cause. And lying quite openly and saying that he and his cabinet are all on the workers' side. Will everyone believe him? Surely not? 

But is he suddenly aware of workers, and the awful lives we  all lead under austerity - that is to say in Tory-speak: going without for the sake of the country and its ruling class. Or does the PM suddenly want to sound worker friendly like the defeated Red Ed Milliband did on the hustings, who might just as easily have been making this same Cameronian  monologue himself in front of his own cabinet had things been different?  Or has the PM been reading Capital god  forbid and realises that the on-going essential provision of profit depends on having some workers actually  and submissively on the underpaid job; producing commodities for sale that alone will produce the riches the ruling class deserve, and which will enable them to have a flutter on the horses too, and a refreshing holiday should they lose, which the unemployed miss out on as a result of being  born poor? 

Outside, in Trafalgar Square, discontents  fought the police in protest at the Tory victory. They'd wanted Milliband and Labour to win.  As if there's any difference between the political parties of the bourgeoisie in the phony democratic lunacy of a General Election.  

baboon
It was an interesting result

It was an interesting result and strangely reminiscent of the 1992 campaign where, for weeks, the opinion polls called it neck and neck all throughout, with most of the press hammering the "left-wing" Labour leader Kinnock and, to everyone's apparant surprise, the result of a working Tory majority. The post election emphasis on the workers (working people) from the Tories is interesting too because there is something of a focus here from the bourgeoisie. There's to be new laws against strike ballots making it more difficult to strike (legally) and, at the same time, somewhat strengthening the hands of the unions in the left v right set up. Also important for the working class is the immediate proposals to "tighten up the laws against extremism" under the guise of doing away with "hate preachers". Given that that many of these "hate preachers" based here (the Muslim Brotherhood for example) have and continue to serve the needs of British imperialism there is a wider and more sinister aspect to these proposals and these are to target groups who are against democracy. The British bourgeoisie, in its own fashion, is very much going along the lines of the militarisation of society taken by the French.

baboon
hole deception and

 I agree with the sentiments of Fred about this phoney triumph of the election in relation to the working class but I think that this was a very real victory for the bourgeoisie. For weeks the ruling class and all its media have reached paroxysms of hysteria in order to sell the line that the election result was in the balance, that it was “neck and neck”, “anybody’s guess”, “to close to call”, “all sorts of combinations and coalitions” and a new election in just a few months time. “Don’t vote” Russell Brand even changed his position to “keep the Tories out”. None of this of course happened and this is due to the strength and coherence of the British bourgeoisie which, despite the descent of capitalist society into a general decomposition, with economic problems piling up, has further strengthened itself with a clear mandate to continue the attacks on the working class, both ideological and material.  Despite looming problems its position in Europe has been strengthened as has been the interests of British imperialism overall.

As I said above it is reminiscent of the 92 election, which for months was “neck and neck” and so on. Today they have played the same trick in different more difficult circumstances and come out very much coherent and very much on top of the situation with exactly the result required by the state.

When the eastern bloc collapses the British bourgeoisie, like many others, was completely disorientated even in denial about events (which, incidentally were being clearly analysed by the communist left, particularly the ICC). The 1992 election was a real catch-up and was part and parcel of the New World Order, the victory of capitalism and the end of class struggle. That was the main message of that election and its consequences were further attacks on the working class, a rise in militarism, repression and imperialist adventures behind the US. This election just gone is, in my opinion, in complete continuity with that of 92.

I remember reading at the time of that election that it was just sixty thousand votes over a number of key constituencies that swung it for a majority one way or a majority the other for Labour or Conservative. That’s easily manipulated and there were reports in the Guardian a few days ago that senior Labour figures were aware of the probable outcome of the election in key seats weeks before the actual event. That wouldn’t surprise me. Not only has the British bourgeoisie avoided the political problems of different coalitions – which was never a real prospect – they have used these divisions to put further pressure on the working class. Any problems presented by the SNP and Scottish nationalism to the bourgeoisie are secondary to the reinforcement of the division that this sets up within the working class.

The British bourgeoisie has provided itself with the best team to further confront the working class and the competitors that it has and it has done this through the organised fine tuning of its electoral system, particularly using first past the post.

 A special mention should be made about the “left-wing” BBC whose sterling work for the state it serves played a major role in the cohernce and implementation of this whole deception and manipulation.

baboon
A couple more points

Taking full and wholesale advantage of the Paris shootings the French bourgeoisie, no slouch in rapidly moving against the working class hisotrically, completely sidelined and dispensed with the FN - even though the root of the issue was ostensably "racial". It had aboslutely no need of the FN because it acted in a unified and coherent way.

 

The post-Paris murders profit-taking by a French state clearly unified in driving home a message of nationalism againist the working class, has been well surpassed by the British bourgeoisie as shown in the results of the general (and local) election(s). It has not just sidelined UKIP from the political equation and rendered it useless but it has got rid of what bugbear there was to the Liberal Democrat part of any possible coalition. The emergence of Scottish nationalism has also been cleverly manipulated into an overall advantage for the British state. On top of this it has rammed home the idea of national interest and the inevitability of major attacks on an impotent working class.

 

The implications of all this for the working class (like the defeat of the miners' strike this electoral result has wider ramifications beyond Britain) are obvious and on the imperialist level the Times writes yesterday: "Britain is expanding its attempts to train moderate Syrian opposition forces at military camps outside Syria under the direction of a newly-emboldened Conservative government, Whitehall and defence sources said last night". This will mean further expansion of the British military into Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia and this precisely echoes the moves of French imperialism just after the Paris killings.

 

In fact the bourgeoisie of France and Britain have, through their respective nationalist "triumphs", found a sort of anti-proletarian, imperialist common ground. They have both conducted a long-term anti-muslim divisive campaign at home and the Telegraph reports ttoday that French Prime Minister Valls is prepared to work with Britain in coordinating action against smugglers and migrants in the Mediterreanean.

slothjabber
On 1992

It reminded me a lot of 1992 as well. Only, I think this time is what the ruling class wanted, and I think in 1992 it was a mistake - I'm not completely convinced, but I think that the ruling class actually wanted a Labour victory in 1992, in order to signal a re-orientation of British capitalism and especially its foreign policy (Labour at that point being unequivocally pro-European, the Tories being split between the Europhiles around Clarke and Hesiltine, and the Eurosceptics).

 

But it was all eerily similar. The neck-and-neck polls; the exit poll saying that the Tories would edge ahead but not get a majority; waking up in the morning to find out that the Tory incumbent had a (slim) majority...

commiegal
tory victory

Yeah what does this mean for the class struggle for the next few years? I think that this result shows the labour party is finished tbh.

baboon
This should be discussed but

This should be discussed but for the immediate the intelligent and machiavellian British ruling class has considerably strengthened its position across the board through its manipulation of the electoral fraud. There's been further evidence that the result of this fraud was known about well before the event with both private (and secretive) opinion polls of the Tories and the Labour Party predicting the correct result of an overall Tory majority - with the Tory poll just one or two seats out from the actual result. While the upper echelons of the state were aware of the result before the event the BBC in the forefront played up the game of "neck and neck" etc., as the ringmaster in the whole circus with its intermidable "discussions" and "experts".

I don't think that the Labour Party is finished as the bourgeoisie will have need of some sort of left wing apparatus. It isn't that now because right now the bourgeoisie doesn't have need of it given the weight against the working class and the whole ambience of the class struggle. The whole of the mainstream political apparatus has swung to the right and now it is time to spread  the idea that Ed Miliband's party was too "left wing" giving an indication of the strength of the bourgeoisie. This idea of a Labour Party that was "too left-wing" tends to break down when one sees the strength of the (equally fraudulent) "anti-austerity" vote in Scotland, particularly against the "left-wing" Labour Party. However this idea that the LP was too "left-wing" is being carried on by the Labour Party itslef and is in continuity with the election result and the whole campaign around it. That is, the Labour Party is still offering and giving a tremendous service to the state.

This whole election campaign and its outcome has dealt another blow to the working class and paved the way for more direct attacks. One thing that we know about the bourgeoisie historically, and particularly within the development of state capitalism, is that it is conscious of not leaving the least glimmer of potential revolt among the working class (the end of the Second World War showed this in spades). When the working class is down and disoriented, and both the French and British bourgeoisie (or significant elements of them) are conscious of this situation, then that's the time to put the boot in. In my opinion that's what the French bourgeoisie did with the post-Paris murder campaign and that's what the British bourgeois have done with its recent election.

Fred
The Queens Speech

I caught a glimpse of the Queens Speech on the TV.  It didn't seem to say anything much.  Perhaps the intentions are all disguised and muffled as the outcome of the election apparently was.  (Why did Ed Milliband  take it so badly, or is he just a good actor?) The most striking image of the Speech was the awesome display of people in their "Golden  Age"  on public display. In other words a large assembly of senescence. I know that we humans can't avoid growing old, if we last long enough that is, and we're certainly not supposed to talk about it,  but this exhibition of it - the slouched shoulders, the groping of hands for security and support, the attempts not to catch the scrutinising eyes of the TV cameras - was almost tactless given the image the revolutionary Tory government wishes to convey, with its new found passion for working people - the working poor as you might say:  definitely not dripping with unsuitable jewellery and weighed down by expensive and daringly archaic costumes. 

But in the speech itself nothing about the vital importance of the submissive working class to the future plans of the Rich who now, via their government, have nothing else on their minds than the reduced welfare and falling wages they will enforce on  their timorous trembling  workforce. 

Outside on the street TV commentators struggled  hard to find something to discuss arising from the speech. There's the EU Referendum of course - it'll all be over quicker than you think - and then the fascinating but thorny issue of Human Rights.  Do we have any or not?  This wasn't discussed of course, just taken for granted.  But it appears theyll now be called something new - I forget the name - and this vital and absorbing topic absorbed all the time available on Sky News for the analysis of this important political event.  The Queens Speech.

 But actually, the film, "The Kings Speech" was much better I thought,