In the new revolution, progressives fight against, not with, the poor

33 posts / 0 new

Last post

Tue, 2009-08-25 21:23

500_Apples

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/24/revolution-1989-1979

David Edgar

Monday, August 24th

In the new revolution, progressives fight against, not with, the poor

The old, transformative alliance between the intelligentsia and the poor has been broken by the intelligentsia itself

Succint Paragraphs, as selected fby yours truly:

The 21st-century revolution pits the educated, western-oriented, socially liberal, economically neoliberal urban middle class against the economically egalitarian, socially traditionalist rural poor. The green armbanded protesters – again, on the right side – against Ahmadinejad's election "victory" in Iran were urban and liberal, the president's supporters rural and conservative. As the BBC's John Simpson noted in the streets of Tehran, the two big differences between the 1979 and 2009 uprisings were the presence of women and the absence of beards.

The sedimentation of this new fault line would be a disaster for the left. Like the Russian revolution, all of the great progressive campaigns of reform in the 20th century – from the international campaign for the Spanish Republic via the American New Deal and the European postwar welfare state to the American civil rights movement and women's liberation – grew out of an alliance between the progressive intelligentsia and the poor. That alliance was betrayed in Russia when Stalin turned on the intelligentsia in the Great Purge of the 1930s, as Mao Zedong did in the Cultural Revolution of the late 60s.

But today, the alliance is being undermined by the intelligentsia itself, here as well as elsewhere. Proclaiming old left-right divisions as out of date, progressive thinkers posit a raft of new fault lines – liberty versus authority, secularism versus religion, free speech versus censorship, universalism versus multiculturalism, feminism versus the family – all of which are cast in forms that put the progressive middle class on one side and significant sections of the poor on the other. The pro-war belligerati wrap themselves in borrowed progressive banners and set about cementing a new barrier between freedom and equality. Abandoned and berated, sections of the non-white poor turn to religious fundamentalism and parts of the white poor to the BNP.

Tue, 2009-08-25 22:15

Jacob Richter

The article is full of so much liberal BS that I don't know where to begin.

First of all, they use the liberal-progressive definition of class, as being based on income, education, etc. With this view, they can't separate clerical and/or professional workers (like myself) from mid-level managers or from small-business owners or from unproductive labour (self-employed hacks, lawyers, cops, judges, etc.)!

The "intelligentsia" they speak of are comprised mainly of non-workers.

The "working poor" encompasses most manual workers and at least some segments of clerical workers (bartenders, bank tellers, generic office workers, etc.).

The urban-rural alliance needed in modern times is NOT between workers and peasants. Forget the imagery of hammers and sickles; that alliance was broken with the unreliability of the peasantry. It is between urban workers of various stripes (factory workers, retail workers, office workers, etc.) and rural workers of various stripes (most notably proper farm workers).

Tue, 2009-08-25 22:33

genstrike

Maybe your left has screwed up on this one, but not my left.

Tue, 2009-08-25 23:10

Fidel

Quote:
Optimistic leftwingers thought eastern Europe had risen up for social democracy, not realising that the enticing Swedish (and West German) model was also in deep trouble.

And the difference is that Swedish social democrats have transformed that country into a highly competitive social democracy. Economists from the OECD to shock therapist Jeffrey Sachs have admitted that there is a valid alternative to the neoliberal model for flexible labour markets. Those alternatives are the Nordic countries today and still plowing a third of GDPs back into social spending. This writer sounds like an apologist for Thatcherite neoliberal voodoo falling down around everyone's ears today.

Tue, 2009-08-25 23:49

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

We'll see who gets smashed.

Tue, 2009-08-25 23:55

martin dufresne

The discussion following the article is certainly very interesting.

Wed, 2009-08-26 00:46

Fidel

I think a lot of Labour and Tory voters are angry with the influx of Eastern European and Asian workers who are not your typical desperate emigres from thirdworld capitalist countries. The Soviet system educated them well, and they can compete in the dog eat dog world of half-assed new liberal capitalism going down the drain today.

Wed, 2009-08-26 19:58

500_Apples

martin dufresne wrote:

The discussion following the article is certainly very interesting.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Wed, 2009-08-26 21:11

Cueball

RevolutionPlease wrote:

We'll see who gets smashed.

Heh.

Sat, 2009-08-29 02:54

#10

al-Qa'bong

What was quoted from the article makes sense to me. The disdain for the working class that I've seen among "progressives" on babble seems pretty apparent. Class is a topic that isn't discussed in polite progressive company.

Rather than howl that the article is "liberal" (while slagging farmers and rural people - remember the days of Farm-Labour solidarity?) why not examine how the left (or its residue) has torn itself apart along the lines cited in the article?

Sat, 2009-08-29 03:42

#11

Jacob Richter

Just look at Venezuela: Who's backing the "Bolivarian revolution"? Who's protesting?

Sat, 2009-08-29 05:10

#12

Erik Redburn

The discussion following the article is actually better than the article, but then that's often the case. Not much agreement but they all have interesting points to make.

Mon, 2009-08-31 15:32

#13

Doug

al-Qa'bong wrote:

What was quoted from the article makes sense to me. The disdain for the working class that I've seen among "progressives" on babble seems pretty apparent. Class is a topic that isn't discussed in polite progressive company.

It's sort of like - "We're doing all this for you so how dare you be (sexist, racist, sympathetic to the boss, hard on criminals, etc, etc.)?!" All talking and no listening.

Mon, 2009-08-31 20:47

#14

Farmpunk

Jacob-Richter:

"The urban-rural alliance needed in modern times is NOT between workers and peasants. Forget the imagery of hammers and sickles; that alliance was broken with the unreliability of the peasantry. It is between urban workers of various stripes (factory workers, retail workers, office workers, etc.) and rural workers of various stripes (most notably proper farm workers)."

What's a "proper" farm worker? One who isn't an unreliable peasent but one who agrees with everything put forward by the urbanites?

Wed, 2009-09-02 19:14

#15

canuquetoo

From the comments in this thread, the leftys can't even agree on whos a lefty, never mind form a consensus. The only certainty is that if the revolution were ever successful, the true disciples of leftist socialism would be the first ones stood in front of wall by entities with more than egalitarian socialist mumbo jumbo on their minds.

How can you organise a revolution when everyone is talking and no-one is listening?

Wed, 2009-09-02 19:54

#16

Tommy_Paine

Revolutions are organized by the aristocracy.

Unwittingly, mind you, but there you have it.

Canada's aristocracy has been doing it's best lately, but we on the left are too polite to oblige.

Wed, 2009-09-02 19:58

#17

remind

From the evidence here at babble over the last couple of days, it is quite apparent the thread title is accurate.

Wed, 2009-09-02 20:04

#18

martin dufresne

I would rather question the canon that babblers are progressives by sole virtue of posting here.

Wed, 2009-09-02 20:07

#19

Unionist

Why not spend more time discussing issues facing the people rather than other babblers?

Wed, 2009-09-02 20:40

#20

remind

Oh yes, we never ever discuss issues unionist! :rolleyes:

Wed, 2009-09-02 20:49

#21

Tommy_Paine

What's a "proper" farm worker? One who isn't an unreliable peasent but one who agrees with everything put forward by the urbanites?

Pretty much.

Feminism provides a pretty neat illustration, but of course this plays out across the whole progressive left wing rainbow. Bourgoise feminists convince all feminists that it's in their best interests to promote bourgoise feminists interests. Which is why we all rejoice in our progressive way about the progress of women's rights when we finally get a female tory cabinet minister cutting social programs and the like.

Scratch one patriarchy!

Not that it's particular to feminism.

That's the art of the revolution. It's the middle class that has to feel threatened before anything really happens. And, they make things happen by harnessing the power of the angry working class mob, first against the aristocracy, and later against fellow middle class people.

Then, when the dust settles, the middle class faction that has emerged victorious designates itself the new aristocracy, and thanks the angry mob by turning the military upon it.

(cue Roger Daltrey Scream)

Maybe we can do it different, I doubt it. Least of my worries. I just want the few months of the angry working class mob part.

Wed, 2009-09-02 21:17

#22

Jacob Richter

Farmpunk wrote:

Jacob-Richter:

"The urban-rural alliance needed in modern times is NOT between workers and peasants. Forget the imagery of hammers and sickles; that alliance was broken with the unreliability of the peasantry. It is between urban workers of various stripes (factory workers, retail workers, office workers, etc.) and rural workers of various stripes (most notably proper farm workers)."

What's a "proper" farm worker? One who isn't an unreliable peasent but one who agrees with everything put forward by the urbanites?

Nope, agricultural workers (as opposed to small farm owners and such). You know, workers in corporate farm assembly lines (for animal slaughter) and such. The Soviet equivalents were the sovkhozy farm workers (actually employed by the state and directed by "red directors" like Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko), as opposed to the kolkhozy peasants.

Wed, 2009-09-02 21:27

#23

Slumberjack

It is not uncommon for political allegiances and partnerships to evolve or shift like sand with the wind. Take for instance the current jostling to do with the possibility of an election this Fall. From the NDP's communications director today on CTV, it is still not clear whether they will abstain or vote against confidence motions in the new session, it all depends you see.

Though all of them operate in similar mendacious fashion, these organizations remain attractive due to their apparent structural consistency, having histories, offices, leaders, resources and ideology, on paper at least if one can find it. Through their actions though, they betray their own emptiness at every level while disaffecting the committment of supporters who are seen as dispensable if other audiences can be found, which invariably necessitates the fine tuning of script for the new reality.

All of their collective efforts, fuelled by moneyed interests above all else, are directed primarily towards concern for their own survival and little else, and secondly, with maintaining the widening divide between groups of citizens of various backgrounds who succumb to being led around by the nose, often in crisscross patterns with other competing factional directions, as the leaders seek out the path of least resistance that will maintain or improve their own standing.

Wed, 2009-09-02 21:35

#24

remind

If only things were so cut and dried, like mercenary contractors who get paid huge amounts to go kill brown people they do not know and have done nothing to them.

Seems to me that is the height of money interests and being concerned only for their own survival and improving their standing.

Wed, 2009-09-02 21:40

#25

Slumberjack

Why don't you come out and say directly what is on your mind instead of these clearly unencrypted and miserable little sideswipes.

Wed, 2009-09-02 21:46

#26

remind

I just did actually.

Wed, 2009-09-02 21:53

#27

Slumberjack

I suppose it's of little use for you to know that I will not be baited by ignorant personal attacks. Your character here suggests that a perverse delight is achieved in continuing along the same lines. You are welcome to it, as much as you wish for whatever benefit it is to you.

Thu, 2009-09-03 05:54

#28

Farmpunk

Jacob Richter:

"Nope, agricultural workers (as opposed to small farm owners and such). You know, workers in corporate farm assembly lines (for animal slaughter) and such. The Soviet equivalents were the sovkhozy farm workers (actually employed by the state and directed by "red directors" like Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko), as opposed to the kolkhozy peasants."

You're speaking Russian to me, dude. And I'm not sure your example has any relevance to Canada.

Is this where we bring in migrant farm workers.... again? I'm not sure the men I work with everyday will agree with you. They want Canadian money, not a power sharing arrangement with the workers living in Toronto or Mexico City.

Thu, 2009-09-03 10:15

#29

Jacob Richter

Do such farm workers necessarily have to be immigrants?

In general, the folks I'm referring to are ones who don't own the plot of land they work on.

Thu, 2009-09-03 11:49

#30

canuquetoo

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Revolutions are organized by the aristocracy.

Unwittingly, mind you, but there you have it.

Canada's aristocracy has been doing it's best lately, but we on the left are too polite to oblige.

Thats an interesting comment and true.

While 'the left', whatever that is, and the labour movement are ever willing to 'stand and deliver', if you will excuse the archaic idiom, regarding foreign issues or the privilege of who gets to collect the garbage or drive the buses is at stake, they expend their revolutionary capital squabbling over what Lenin had for breakfast and boring their supporters to death arguing about who the enemy is when the revolution is at hand.

"Revolutions are organised by the aristocracy" states Mr. Payne. Too true and while 'the left' fusses and fulminates in impotent rage, the revolution organised by the aristocracy is underway. To whit: the economic rescue that has pledged global financial resources toward saving the capital of the same entities that caused (and profited from) the crisis will create a generational debt that will suck the growth out of global economies including Canada's.

These 'stimulus' plans are now running out of steam as government run out of resources. [ the 'stimulus' plans are running out of steam because the aristocracy is using stimulus funds to restore balance sheets and the speculative bubble rather than direct lending into the economy, but that is another story].

Forget the strawmen the 'aristocracy' is bandying about and concentrate on the fact that the real revolution needs to address the insidious 'solution' to the 'lack of stimulus capacity' via harnessing additional stimulus resources by reducing public pension and social policy entitlements.

Fri, 2009-09-11 21:51

#31

Doug

An interesting paper relevant to the discussion:

http://sociology.buffalo.edu/documents/Hoffmanundeservingrich.pdf

Sun, 2010-02-14 16:08

#32

Fidel

American [url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17594]Cindy Sheehan wrote:[/url]

Quote:
The Robber Class knows two things that we need to learn quickly…

That they need us far more than we need them and there are far more of us then there are of them.

This is a revolution that we can win.

Sun, 2010-02-14 19:22

#33

E.P.Houle

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Revolutions are organized by the aristocracy.

Unwittingly, mind you, but there you have it.

Canada's aristocracy has been doing it's best lately, but we on the left are too polite to oblige.

Unwitting? I think not. They may always have unintended consequences but Standard Oil grew tired of the Czar's manuverings on oil. With this sort of light we could even examine the 'merican revolution, the congress of aristocrats(Hamilton the banker), even Mao's work. The exception to aritocratic destabilization is more the rare circumstance. List, Cuba, Haiti, Scandanavia.

I'm suggesting change in the way we analyse history by analogy. In my youth we were proving the existance of other galaxies using optical(visual spectrum) telescopes. Now we have gamma, IR, UV and by extention can see back 14By. We can trace the extention of humanity quite acurately back through 40 thousand years. Surely, if I can examine the tax records of the last 10,000 yrs we can do better than 'Proley Revolt'. The enemy of the new oligarchs is education and clean information vs the talent that the new oligarchs to stay in power is an educated class that can only be drawn from a broad spectrum.