This is indeed becoming a very familiar practice now, Comrade Chris H of Lansbury’s Lido Blog, reads a post sends in a comment/contribution which in turn I think is good and worthy of elevation, and so I reproduce his political contribution because it has and holds much relevancy, to what will be an ongoing debate in the weeks and months that lay ahead regarding the renewed crisis of world capitalism; and in particular what will or should the answer be as the situation develops around the world affecting millions of people with possibly dire and dreadful consequences. Is this a pivotal event of crucial importance, and will the old politics of reformist currency peddled by Social Democrat organisations not too dissimilar similar to the Labour Party in Britain; be they now excepted or now rejected by working class people the world over? These are indeed important questions that lead us to consider, what is the alternative to the failure and exposure of the market system and the moulded and shaped society it forged around itself.
My last post ‘Workers of the World Unite’ called on workers to consider braking with the old allegiances and blind loyalties of the past and building a new movement for socialism and unashamedly advocating revolutionary change. Comrade Chris, has raised the following.
“I think there's a fair few challenges that your post raises.
First off, getting people to realise that they are 'working class'. Unfortunately the media has given that phrase some bad press. Working class = chav = idle git = irresponsible sponger = criminal and all that.
Secondly it's getting people to realise that when they look at themselves as an 'entrepreneur' or a 'businessman' or woman that it's actually bollocks,
I work in a large company, about 60,000 people world wide and it's a big battle against such corporate speak like 'selling yourself' and 'going the extra mile'. I see all these people striving and prostituting themselves, stepping on their fellow workers and expecting that one day they'll be 'among the top people'. It's crap. Few are going to get the top jobs and those that do are chosen long before through connections and suchlike. They're corporate sheep and God I wish they realised that.
Then you have the historic link with the Labour party. I think that the elite at the top of the Labour party gave up on the working class decades ago. They've always looked out for capitalism and nurturing the capitalist system for yonks. Same for most of the unions. I remember doing a course at my union head office back in the 80s. The course leader there was all chummy. But outside the course he'd blank me when he was with 'those at the top'. It was so obvious that he was playing the corporate game. His members weren't his priority, it was his career and his standing with his 'betters'.
And back to Labour, or 'New' Labour, in your post when you talk of New Labour do you mean New Labour or the Labour Party in general? It makes a big difference regarding direction for the working man and woman.
Finally, although we are in a crap economic system and paying for the luxury of those running the show I think that there's only so much they can tinker with before we see some serious breakdown in the economy. But with that comes such an opportunity to promote socialism. People are going to be mighty pissed once they realise that their sacrifice at the altar of austerity isn't going to get the gods to save the harvest.”
First and foremost, keep in mind that ‘Globalisation’ means just that, becoming global, of becoming world wide. There is nothing wrong with globalisation as such. The coming into being of a global community, in which all humanity recognize themselves as being part of one whole human tribe living on the same planet and beholding each other as completely and entirely altogether is a good thing, worthy of our destiny to come.
However, capitalist globalization is in the driving seat which has been developed over a long period of time, through countless wars, conquests, imperialism and the establishment of markets for trading; this pushed along the globalization of the world we have and know it for today.
This world as we experience is split up into virus states, which compete with each other for the resources and markets of the world on behalf of their own capitalist cartel and class. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels called the state under capitalism ‘a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie, adding ‘The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production.’
For Marx, he understood only to well, that in order for man to be free he has to understand freedom, and it was always his aim to show how the material outcome of history has interfered with this understanding. For Marx, this was the central drama of polities.
I agree that it is an illusion that many fall under thinking of themselves as 'entrepreneurs' or 'businessman'. The same thing as thinking that there are more than two classes in society, and some will argue that there now exists an under class, there of course is no such category.
I have many times considered it the case, that the system controls the majority through its hold on the education of our children. I like the way that William Morris put it:
“If the capitalists the ‘manufactures’ were the servants of society as they sometimes profess to be; but who shall force such a prodigious change upon them as success even in such a miner manner as this would indicate, so long as they are the masters of society, which is their real position.”
More to the point he said:
“People are ‘educated’ to become workmen or the employers of workmen, or the hanger-on of the employers, they are not educated to become men.”
When the Tories set about the Trade Union Movement the last time they were in office, they knew exactly what they wanted to achieve, a decisive weakening of that movement, which they accomplished with assistance from some of the leaders within both the Labour and Trade Union Movement. When Labour was returned to power they refused to repeal any legislation that impeded, blocked, obstructed whatever you would like to call it, which has deliberately curtailed Trade Union Organisation. This has had an effect on the development of our movement and class as a whole, that is why some working people are totally wedded and conjoined to prostituting themselves to capital, which is a nice way of putting it. But now that thousands are being shown the door, and indecently not like it was under Mrs.Thatcher, they are clerical, office workers and banking staff, many of whom would predominately consider themselves middle class and immune and from the forced trips down to the local dole office.
It is obvious that working people, have an interest in emancipation and equality as the exploited class, and it is equally obvious that the capitalist class have no such interest, and indeed are bound to react against it even though, as Marx pointed out, it is sometimes possible of course for enlightened individuals in a ruling class to throw in their lot with a revolutionary movement.
The question does arise, however, whether the working class can leave the achievement of emancipation to leaders. All the established political parties, including those calling themselves Labour and Socialist, except the principle of Leadership. The disciples of Lenin, for example, subscribe to his incorrect and borne witness view that Socialism can only be accomplished by a toilet-trained leadership, an elite composed of professional revolutionaries drawn from the ‘intelligentsia’, leading a mass of followers, and I say that respectfully of those many comrades who make a fantastic contribution to the class struggle.
The point was well put by Frederick Engels:
“ The time is past for revolutions carried through by small minorities at the head of unconscious masses. When it gets to be a matter of complete transformation of social organisation, the masses themselves must participate, must understand what is at stake and why they are to act. That much the history of the last fifty years has taught us. But so that the masses may understand what is to be done, long and persistent work is required....”
My last point is that Labour, New or Old, and the many claims of it being a reforming party par-excellence are simply not backed up by experience. All its administrations with great reforming intentions were only able to do one thing, run the system according to its own economic logic - profits first, wage and salary workers a poor second.