The spectre is not ‘Marx’…Do you honestly think that this part of humanity is simply going to settle for whatever is dished out to them, forever, or until the powerful decide they might get a few crumbs?

Ambigulous I think you’re making the error that I’m one of those anti-Marx people. I’m not.
>
I think Marx made an extremely valid contribution both to Political-Economy and history. And I advocate a return by the Left to the matters raised by him just with lessons learned. I neither think that this “part of humanity is simply going to settle for whatever is dished out to them, forever” nor do I think they should. I simply argue that if you move on past the ideological warfare of the 20th century (whilst learning valuable lessons from it) and instead think once again about (attainable) goals progress can be made.
>
Many of those who wax triumphant about the victory of capitalism do so because the ‘working class’ enjoyed much higher standards of living, more freedom, more dignity, safer workplaces than they did (and do) in socialist countries. Now this is a fact that’s probably been born out in the interplay between what is possible in liberal-democracies, the organization of labour and the virtues of markets.
>
What I’m suggesting is that the Left cease to demonize capitalism and markets and instead seek to replicate their benefits everywhere. Thru the advocacy of democracy, thru organized labour when necessary.
>
You’ve mistaken my arguments because you seek to classify them according to some ideological box. Y’know it’s entirely possibly to assimilate a range of thinkers and facts and make up one’s own mind without reference to secular theology The Book of Ideology.
>
I’m a passionate advocate of democracy but often apply the works of that most eminent anti-democrat - Nietzsche - to my thinking on the subject. Likewise I believe that classic liberal philosophers like Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek have a lot to contribute to understanding how to bring about a general prosperity. But that doesn’t mean I reject Marx. I only reject Marx the Prophet. And also Marx the writer in need of a good editor. >
Also I regard 1917 not only as the first ’socialist’ revolution but more importantly as the last anti-ancien regime revolution in which Eurpeans overthrew their aristocracy. 1917 finished a process that began in 1789. And began another one.

The spectre is the possibility that somewhere, at some time, thousands, millions of people, will suddenly decide that their lives and the conditions under which they live, are no longer tolerable.

It is not the spectre of a bunch of intellectuals arguing about ‘late capitalism’ or whatever the latest configuration might be termed, that discombobulates the powerful. It is the possibility, always latent, but always real, especially in the current circumstances, that a little thing, a little piece of resentment, just one more indignity, or one more price rise for the staples (bread or rice), might be the spark that sets off an explosion.

We are not talking ‘Leninist Revolution’ here, (a formulation which would have disappeared from history, but for the solvent effects of total war on a ruling class utterly incapable of retaining control) but the real form that resistance and fury takes-riot, insurrection, property destruction, repression and, hopefully, reform.

A global working class has been brought into being, which is overwhelmingly young, and female, and subject to terrible conditions, upon which our capacity to consume at the rate we do, largely depends. It is also a working class which has access to information about rights and entitlements elsewhere that our great great grandparents never had, except in their dreams. Do you honestly think that this part of humanity is simply going to settle for whatever is dished out to them, forever, or until the powerful decide they might get a few crumbs?

I don’t. And I am sure the powerful don’t either, deep down. That is the nature of the spectre that haunts our world-not the writings of a European, 19th century philosopher, no matter how prescient he was in some (limited) ways.

Yes interestng. The real culture wars (as opposed to the cheap imitations run by the right) were of course won by the left.

The various forms of social emancipation that have occured over the course of the 20th century were battles fought for (mostly but not always) by the left. However these are not incompatible with ‘liberalism’. If anything they exist at the edge of a battle between liberalism and conservatism.

wbb -

And to such an extent that I (as an example of a contemporary citizen) can no longer even conceive what a more socialist agenda would reasonably look like.

and amused -

Far from being expunged however, the spectre hovers still, as two billion people recently drawn into pitiless wage labour, expropriation on a heroic scale, and instant information about the real conditions existing elsewhere, are expected to ’settle down’ and ‘wait their turn’ for any kind of life.

See the spectre of Marx coming back? I think the Left made bad use of Marx. Instead of simply treating him as someone with some ideas that could be used as a basis for further work he was turned into a Philosopher-God whose word was gospel. He was also misunderstood by the very people most guilty of doing this. For example I used to read a lot of post-WWII Marxists’ stuff talking of the late 20th century as the era of ‘late capitalism’.
>
Late capitalism? How so? Capitalism, broadly defined as an economic system in which the tertiary sector overtakes the primary and secondary economic sectors as the prime site of economic activity is still to, in Marx’s words, ‘civilize the world’. One of the prime indicators of capitalism is urbanisation but it is only some time this year that more people will live in cities than in the country for the first time in history.
>
This is not the era of ‘late capitalism’. And, altho’ I think Marx’s analysis was pertinent, I think his claims at prophecy are something best taken with a little salt.
>
But still there’s already indicators of the new-new left agenda: the conditions of the workforce worldwide. We see a return to the Dickensian spectacle of poorly paid factory labour and the rest. Unfortunately this happens in places that haven’t the traditions of the rule of law or habeas corpus that England did so the process by which these workers emancipate themselves will be much tougher. Labour had a hard enough time organizing in the Anglosphere. Obviously much worse happens to people trying to do the same in Burma or the PRC.
>
As I see it opposition to capitalism or liberalism is redundant and counter-productive. The old Whig notion of property rights: that a person owns their body and their labour is a sufficient theoretical basis for the emancipation of the new proletariate. Rhetoric about abolishing property or worker’s states or whatever have produced an entirely opposite scenario to those dreamed of by their original Utopian idealists. One cannot simply redesign human nature at will. And individual incentives and property rights etc are desirable materially and in terms of democratic governance for reasons that such as Smith and Hayek have covered.
>
Hayek made some very good point both about the inherent inefficiency of government centralisation and the tyranny of command economics. Those advocating Social Democracty would do well to incorporate these into their policies. Of course Hayek is also wrong. Medicare doesn’t lead to tyranny.

From his article -”Last week Evans-Pritchard, ever pungent, wrote in an opinion piece: “Put a clothes peg on your nose. The moral stench of bailouts for the uber-rich will be sickening.

“None of us wants to pay a farthing to rescue the bankers and assorted debt pimps who got us into this financial mess, and in doing so exposed our societies to such harm … Yet we must forbear. It was such sentiments that turned the 1930 recession into [the Depression].”

[link]

This ultra fluidity of capital is something I’d be glad to hear Brian and Mark’s ideas on.

Well the spectre was never really the expectation that a Parliamentary majority composed of resectable reformers would vote to abolish property. It was always the fear of explosions from below, and the unsettling effects that always has for ’stability and certainty’ that drove the range of reforms known now as ’social democrtacy’. Of course these gains are being slowly wound back as the ruling class forgets why it ever had to concede them in the first place.

Far from being expunged however, the spectre hovers still, as two billion people recently drawn into pitiless wage labour, expropriation on a heroic scale, and instant information about the real conditions existing elsewhere, are expected to ’settle down’ and ‘wait their turn’ for any kind of life.

What seems clear is that people will generally be patient. Until they aren’t. And then the shit hits the fan. And then the spectre returns, with the cycle of repession and reforms sufficient to ensure the recovery of ’stability and certainty’ suficient to enable a new round of accumulation.

We have a lot to thank those that rioted, conspired, threw bombs and grenades and generally refused to ‘be quiet’, not the least being, that we can argue about whether the ‘welfare state’ is the only thing we can ever imagine, as opposed to what exactly? From where they now struggle, the ‘welfare state’ is a demand so utopian, it would stretch the imagination and daring of the most determined agitator in Shanghai, Mumbai or Sao Paulo, and these places after all, are where the spectre now hangs out, engendering fear and hope in equal amounts.

However, if by the Social Democracy, Mark has in mind a more socialist agenda than the welfare state - then yes, it has been routed.

Got it in one, wbb!

The problem for the owners in places like Germany is that they have unions there.

What could the capitalists have been thinking when they chose Romania? Of course they are now threatening to take their factories elsewhere.

The existence of this huge (2 billion) global working class, largely disenfranchised and almost wholly without the means to organise its own defence and political emancipation, is having a huge political and economic effect on liberal democracies. One of the chief effects politically, has been to embolden attacks on democratic achievements inconcievable even twenty years ago. Socially, the baneful effects of a sea of unorganised and disenfranchised workers, can be seen in the complete contempt for their own working class which now prevails in the UK, US and up to a point, even here.

Quite so, Wbb. And then there’s the permanent victory on Medicare. Undermined at the edges, yes, but not even a rampant Howard dared touch the basics.

total defeat on the economic front

I would measure the score on the economic front by the proportion of taxes spent on things like public education, public health and welfare. I doubt those measures would indicate recent total defeat. Not saying the left has kicked away either, but I reckon it has held its ground reasonably well during a long solid patch of material growth in which redistribution inevitably takes a back seat as most are distracted by the over-flowing trough.

I myself think the post-New Left should take a little stock of its accomplishments and failures of the last century. And also consider the neo-liberal rise of the last 30 years or so. This economic ‘defeat’ has been accompanied by a social success which is almost complete. Racism is regarded as immoral, many significant aspects of sexual discrimination likewise. Many conservatives even advocate gay marriage and (at least in this country) few will make openly homophobic comments.

I’m largely in agreement with you, Adrien. I think it’s important not just to recognise gains but also what is in most ways an almost total defeat on the economic front - social democracy has to be about more than defensive measures, and a sine qua non of getting back on the front foot is to recognise that you’ve been hit for six off every ball bowled in the last few overs. But I won’t preview what I’m going to say at the event too much - no doubt we can have some discussion about it when I’ve got my thoughts down on paper. I’m happy to post my talk here if people are interested.

Doesn’t one have objectives, which happen to be “left”.

Rather than one is “left”, then drifts around in search of objectives which may fit in with being “left”?

This would seem to be a logical but I don’t think it’s true. I think generally speaking there are people who look at the world and marvel out how far we’ve come (or lament how much we’ve declined) and others who look at the same thing and are sad that so little has changed:

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.

So the mini-Jabberfests to which Mark has alluded are discussions re the search for new mistakes. I myself think the post-New Left should take a little stock of its accomplishments and failures of the last century. And also consider the neo-liberal rise of the last 30 years or so. This economic ‘defeat’ has been accompanied by a social success which is almost complete. Racism is regarded as immoral, many significant aspects of sexual discrimination likewise. Many conservatives even advocate gay marriage and (at least in this country) few will make openly homophobic comments.
>
It is irritating that some people on the Right are even trying to steal credit for various social movements that led to these emancipations. I don’t remember the Liberal Party being represented at the first Gay and Lesbian Pride march in Brizvegas. Sodomy was still illegal then. But when conservatives not only accept, but attempt to take credit for, such progress, one can rest reasonably assured that we’ve drawn a line we won’t cross back over (hope hope).
>
So given that perhaps the focus should turn back from identity politics to more socio-economic orientated projects but with a view to incorporating a few lessons. Firstly that Marx made an error in indulging in prophecy and that error should be abandoned. Second that the advocates of laissez-faire capitalism have made good points about the encumberances on enterprise wrought by regulation and the iniquities of welfare. That doesn’t mean that one should advocate laissez-faire capitalism just refine one’s position to accomodate those criticisms which are apt. After all I would assume that the Left will continue to advocate Social Democracy and it helps if Social Democracy is as functional as it can be.
>
And that’s my $0.0137 worth of brainfarts for today.

For those who don’t know, SF is what became of the Australian Communist party’s funds when they closed up shop in 1991. All those unions subscriptions from Communist affilated unions over the years had left some six million in the coffers.

I must say, SF are refreshingly non-doctrinaire in their funding, given the background.

Well as long as you don’t try re-imagining the Great Society, I reckon too many fingers won’t get chopped off by accident. Last time we left the lefties in charge, the whole place pretty much burned to the ground.

Trust me, youse don’t wanna go there… (SHUDDERS)