The great Labour tradition of defending capitalism

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fred
The great Labour tradition of defending capitalism
Printer-friendly version

The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: The great Labour tradition of defending capitalism. The discussion was initiated by Fred.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

Fred
down with illusions

Car wrote:
The 1974 Labour government was brought in against a wave of struggles, promoting illusions that it would be different to its predecessors. In fact, in the 1970s, Labour and the unions held down wages with the imposition of their Social Contract. Under Callaghan began the monetarist policies, the programme of cuts in public spending, that were later taken up by Margaret Thatcher. The strikes and demonstrations of the ‘winter of discontent’ of 1978-79 were against a Labour, not a Conservative government.
 

Labour specialises in "promoting illusions". But what we need to think about is just why exactly the working class in Britain but doubtless elsewhere too appears to be so eager to take these crazed illusions to heart? Is it because things for workers are so essentially unpleasant, and that we long  so much for their improvement that we'll believe anything any bourgeois says as long as he seems to be sorry for us? 

Or is it because we have lousy memories?  Car lists above in the article the long series of lies and vicious betrayals starting with the Atlee government of 1945 that labour has thrust down the throats of its naive working class supporters. The states of emergencies imposed resulting from workers on strike which persisted even into the early fifties and the return of Churchill-the-war-monger  and some economic growth. (Not necessarily the result of Churchill's resurrection, though it was presented as such. That and the Queen's coronation!)

In 1964 workers waited with bated breath to see if Harold Wilson would replace at last the loathed  tories under  PM Macmillan (he was famous for telling workers "you've never had it so good" which, in capitalism's terms was actually true) and he was followed briefly by  PM Lord Hume, the 14th Earl of somewhere in Scotland as the left wing papers and labour itself never tired of thrusting down workers' throats, as if the replacement of an earl by some labour academic with a Yorkshire accent and always in a mac even when it stopped raining would change everything. But workers fell for that though only just.  However  nothing changed and things got worse with inflation and something called "The Social Contract" which made the Unions more effective at derailing discontent.

But why are we workers so gullible and fall so easily for all the cheap ploys and lies the bourgeois throws up especially when it's labour pulling our legs? 

Now we have the socialist Jeremy Corbyn  who isn't inclined to wear a tie just an open collar like some workers do. He's pulling our legs too.  But then even the arch-Tory Cameron often neglects to wear a tie. It's democracy at work! 

Do we workers believe in labour because it occasionally talks radical crap and can even make austerity sound as if the bourgeois is doing us a favour by saving its capital at our cost?  Or is it because we can't escape the idea that we need leaders and people  to tell us what to do, or what to put up with, and we'd rather have labour do that than the Tories?  Is this the grand illusion of the Labour Party that it has our interests at heart while continually putting us down and working against us? 

Or do we have a basic reluctance instilled into us by being born in working class families, poor with all that signifies,  under continual pressure, bored and exhausted by work or unemployment, cowed as under dogs, poorly educated and scared of tomorrow - it could easily be worse than today - and ultimately frightened to stand up and assert ourselves?  We are told everyday mainly implicitly by the media that we're hopeless and can't do anything, can't think for ourselves, can't amuse ourselves, need our cheap trashy commodities to drug us into a quiescence it's easier to accept than challenge, and yet we can't go on like this for much longer. Things are getting so bad that we're going to have to wake up and challenge the whole rotten decaying system.  The glory is that we can if we want. But we have to want. We can do it together but not as individuals. We will do it as a class.

So to hell with Corbyn and his ridiculous lick-spittle Labour Party; and down with the rich Tories and their pompous ass chattering lies. Workers rise up.  This isn't going to happen just now and just like that of course and I speak like a fool with Workers rise up! 

But workers start to think and start to talk. To discuss the disasters  all round. We are told we have a world to win, but if we don't start on this magnificent project soon we could end up being too late! 

 

 

Fred
just curious

Up till now only 28 people have attempted to read the post above, and 3 of them was me who wrote it. 

I admit it's not a very good post  -  too long, too boring and mixed-up. But how do readers know to keep away from it?  They could try it and give up, but then the number of readers (failed readers!) would go up wouldn't it?  The number stays conspicuously low.  This is a "failed" post. But how do readers know that if they haven't tried to read it? 

lem_
The strange thing is that in

The strange thing is that in the UK unlike the US it's not really an ideological thing. It's simply that one of the 6th strongest economies in the world can no longer afford to give money to the poor and sick.

Isn't economics funny

lem_
Quote:Up till now only 28

Quote:
Up till now only 28 people have attempted to read the post above, and 3 of them was me who wrote it.
the world is a small place and attention spans are low.

most people have made their mind up already on everything

lem_
I read a new guardian article

I read a new guardian article on Corbyn, by Clive James, and noted:

Quote:
i think i've found the worst phrase in existence:

"Pierre takes all the biscuits because of his goodness"

this is: a pun (lucky women) on a cliche (take the biscuit) pumped up by exaggeration (all the biscuits) and overwriting (because of his goodness), written in a vernacular that isn't his (biscuits as guns), by a popular poet (clive james), on a serious issue (trident), inspired by a TV adaption of a classic (war and peace), against demilitarisation!

 

 

this is the second more substantive version. but anyway, the reply was something to the effect of: typical corbyn supporter. baffling !!

 

 

Fred
baffled!

lem_ wrote:

I read a new guardian article on Corbyn, by Clive James, and noted:

Quote:
i think i've found the worst phrase in existence:

"Pierre takes all the biscuits because of his goodness"

this is: a pun (lucky women) on a cliche (take the biscuit) pumped up by exaggeration (all the biscuits) and overwriting (because of his goodness), written in a vernacular that isn't his (biscuits as guns), by a popular poet (clive james), on a serious issue (trident), inspired by a TV adaption of a classic (war and peace), against demilitarisation!

 

 

this is the second more substantive version. but anyway, the reply was something to the effect of: typical corbyn supporter. baffling !!

 

 

 

I don't get It at all. 

lem_
Hi Fred, sorry I didn't reply

Hi Fred, sorry I didn't reply quicker, I was just embaressed about being so difficult to understand.

I posted IMO quite a detailed criticism of the writing in an article by an anti Corbyn type, and the respone was to accuse me of knee jerk hatred of anyone who disliked Cornyn.

Just completely irrational of them, I think.