The left and general elections
Steve Wallis
newspaper (www.cpgb.org.uk), which will hopefully appear in Thursday's
issue:
John Masters (Letters, October 1) admitted he was wrong to exclude
former Militant MPs Dave Nellist and the late Terry Fields from his
analysis of the 1992 general election, and that including them would
have led to an average of 1,370 for left-wing candidates, exceeding
the 1,000 mark he said had not been reached since 1966.
However, his analysis is still flawed because, according to Wikipedia,
the 20 non-Militant far left candidates in that election were of tiny
sects - the Workers Party, Revolutionary Communist Party and Communist
Party of Great Britain (PCC). It is frankly ridiculous to equate such
electoral forays with that of Militant (which obtained over 5,900 for
all three candidates) or the far more important left unity projects
which stood in later elections, specifically the Socialist Alliance,
Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and Respect. These projects largely
arose due to the successes of Militant (including Scottish Militant
Labour's Tommy Sheridan who he did count) in that election.
Militant did so well in the 1992 general election due to its role in
leading the mass non-payment campaign which had by then defeated the
poll tax. I joined Militant during that campaign, in 1990, when it was
proving itself serious rather than just urging people not to pay. I
left the Socialist Party of England and Wales (which it had become) in
1998, due to its shift towards sectarianism and to expose
infiltration, which I believed was behind its failure to support the
establishment of the SSP. I'd argue that the presence of significant
forces within these broad formations and Marxist organisations within
them not committed to achieving socialism are a major reason for their
problems since.
Masters' pessimism about opportunities in the upcoming general
election is not justified either. Mainstream politicians are more
unpopular than ever due to the expenses scandal (which is in the
headlines again), the credit crunch has exposed the flaws in the
capitalist economic system (which would make socialism popular if
argued for skillfully) and the main parties promise a future of
massive cuts hitting the living standards of ordinary working and
middle class people.
Whatever programmes socialists put forward at the next general
election, we must say where the money will come from to be seen as
credible. And I say, use the money left from the massive bank bailouts
- by nationalising all banks, only compensating pension schemes! And
more power should be in the hands of borrowers and savers than workers
(but the trade unions and government should have representatives on
the boards).
But be warned - David Cameron, in his speech at the Tory conference,
has prepared the ground for a big attack on welfare, particularly
single parents, by highlighting the case of a single mother with two
children earning £150 a week who would only receive an extra 4p with a
£1 pay rise. Also, elements within the BBC are encouraging fascism by
allowing BNP leader Nick Griffin MEP on Question Time and providing
biased coverage of the English Defence League (EDL). National BBC TV
and radio news said 2,000 EDL supporters protested in Manchester on
Saturday without mentioning the protesters opposing them (a local BBC
text report said there were 700 EDL supporters and 1,400 on the Unite
Against Fascism counter-protest) and Jeremy Paxman cut off an
interviewee on the October 12 Newsnight when he started talking about
anti-fascists.
--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionary...@yahoo.co.uk
Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve
Other blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk [ Indian mirror
(containing same files but without publicly viewable statistics):
http://www.socialiststeve.in ]
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/socialiststeve, MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia: http://www.galaxiamusic.net,
http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-revolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180,
http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net, http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist
revolution will never happen?": http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net
Paul Hyett
<revolutionary...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in uk.politics.electoral
:
>
>But be warned - David Cameron, in his speech at the Tory conference,
>has prepared the ground for a big attack on welfare, particularly
>single parents, by highlighting the case of a single mother with two
>children earning �150 a week who would only receive an extra 4p with a
>�1 pay rise. Also, elements within the BBC are encouraging fascism by
>allowing BNP leader Nick Griffin MEP on Question Time and providing
>biased coverage of the English Defence League (EDL). National BBC TV
>and radio news said 2,000 EDL supporters protested in Manchester on
>Saturday without mentioning the protesters opposing them (a local BBC
>text report said there were 700 EDL supporters and 1,400 on the Unite
>Against Fascism counter-protest) and Jeremy Paxman cut off an
>interviewee on the October 12 Newsnight when he started talking about
>anti-fascists.
History has proven that gov'ts of both the far-right & far-left have
proven disastrous for the populations that live under them.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Henry Potts
> Masters' pessimism about opportunities in the upcoming general
> election is not justified either. Mainstream politicians are more
> unpopular than ever due to the expenses scandal (which is in the
> headlines again), the credit crunch has exposed the flaws in the
> capitalist economic system (which would make socialism popular if
> argued for skillfully) and the main parties promise a future of
> massive cuts hitting the living standards of ordinary working and
> middle class people.
However, as so many times before in their history, parties of the far
left have undermined what little prospects they had themselves. Both
RESPECT and the Scottish Socialist Party had made some electoral
gains, but both have been torn apart by fights between the SWP and
others with devastating results. The result has been electoral
annihilation with none of the four resulting groups (Respect Renewal,
Left Alternative, SSP, Solidarity) in a serious position to capitalise
on the expenses scandal. The SSP has been reduced to a single
councillor, Solidarity have nothing, and the Left Alternative has
effectively ceased to function. Respect Renewal have a handful of
councillors and Galloway, of course.
--
Henry
JNugent
> Steve Wallis <revolutionary...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> But be warned - David Cameron, in his speech at the Tory conference,
>> has prepared the ground for a big attack on welfare, particularly
>> single parents, by highlighting the case of a single mother with two
>> children earning �150 a week who would only receive an extra 4p with a
>> �1 pay rise. Also, elements within the BBC are encouraging fascism by
>> allowing BNP leader Nick Griffin MEP on Question Time and providing
>> biased coverage of the English Defence League (EDL). National BBC TV
>> and radio news said 2,000 EDL supporters protested in Manchester on
>> Saturday without mentioning the protesters opposing them (a local BBC
>> text report said there were 700 EDL supporters and 1,400 on the Unite
>> Against Fascism counter-protest) and Jeremy Paxman cut off an
>> interviewee on the October 12 Newsnight when he started talking about
>> anti-fascists.
> History has proven that gov'ts of both the far-right & far-left have
> proven disastrous for the populations that live under them
...to the extent that there has ever been a far-right government, that is.
This is because a far-right government would by definition be one that didn't
believe in a state apparatus much beyond national defence and law and order -
almost but not quite anarchy - and certainly no over-arching ideology to be
imposed.
Far-left governments such as those in Russia 1917-1989, much of Eastern
Europe 1945-1989, most of Germany 1933-1945 and part of Germany 1933-1989
have certainly proven disastrous for many people, not limited to the
populations of those particular territories.
liberal
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 at 10:52:41, Steve Wallis
Hmmm, problem is defining "far left" & "far right". Here in America we
have the "far-far reich" and the "not-so far reich".
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>
>> History has proven that gov'ts of both the far-right & far-left have
>>proven disastrous for the populations that live under them
>
>...to the extent that there has ever been a far-right government, that
>is. This is because a far-right government would by definition be one
>that didn't believe in a state apparatus much beyond national defence
>and law and order - almost but not quite anarchy - and certainly no
>over-arching ideology to be imposed.
You know perfectly well who I, and virtually everyone else means, when
referring to the far-right.
In any case, I'd personally find your anarcho-capitalist scenario as
objectionable as a dictatorship.
>
>Far-left governments such as those in Russia 1917-1989, much of Eastern
>Europe 1945-1989, most of Germany 1933-1945 and part of Germany
>1933-1989 have certainly proven disastrous for many people, not limited
>to the populations of those particular territories.
>
Nazi Germany was far-right, not far-left - just ask any historian.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>> History has proven that gov'ts of both the far-right & far-left have
>>> proven disastrous for the populations that live under them
>> ...to the extent that there has ever been a far-right government, that
>> is. This is because a far-right government would by definition be one
>> that didn't believe in a state apparatus much beyond national defence
>> and law and order - almost but not quite anarchy - and certainly no
>> over-arching ideology to be imposed.
> You know perfectly well who I, and virtually everyone else means, when
> referring to the far-right.
Of course I do - but you are wrong in using the term.
> In any case, I'd personally find your anarcho-capitalist scenario as
> objectionable as a dictatorship.
Perhaps. But that isn't the issue. The issue is that there has never been a
far-right government (properly defined) whilst there are several well-known
historical examples of far-left government, including the Soviet Union and
its empire, National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy and quite a few
still existing. Part of Germany was under far-left rule from 1933 to 1989/1990.
>> Far-left governments such as those in Russia 1917-1989, much of
>> Eastern Europe 1945-1989, most of Germany 1933-1945 and part of
>> Germany 1933-1989 have certainly proven disastrous for many people,
>> not limited to the populations of those particular territories.
> Nazi Germany was far-right, not far-left - just ask any historian.
Not for any properly reasoned definition of "left" or "right".
If you start *from* the conclusions you require, you can call Germany
1933-1945 "far right". But that is not how you arrive at proper conclusions.
The first thing you have to do is define the characteristics of "left" and
then check whether National Socialist Germany met them (and it did, in
spadefuls).
Paul Hyett
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>
>>> ...to the extent that there has ever been a far-right government,
>>>that is. This is because a far-right government would by definition
>>>be one that didn't believe in a state apparatus much beyond national
>>>defence and law and order - almost but not quite anarchy - and
>>>certainly no over-arching ideology to be imposed.
>
>> You know perfectly well who I, and virtually everyone else means,
>>when referring to the far-right.
>
>Of course I do - but you are wrong in using the term.
You're saying you are right, and everyone else is wrong, then?
>
>>> Far-left governments such as those in Russia 1917-1989, much of
>>>Eastern Europe 1945-1989, most of Germany 1933-1945 and part of
>>>Germany 1933-1989 have certainly proven disastrous for many people,
>>>not limited to the populations of those particular territories.
>
>> Nazi Germany was far-right, not far-left - just ask any historian.
>
>Not for any properly reasoned definition of "left" or "right".
>
>If you start *from* the conclusions you require, you can call Germany
>1933-1945 "far right". But that is not how you arrive at proper
>conclusions. The first thing you have to do is define the
>characteristics of "left" and then check whether National Socialist
>Germany met them (and it did, in spadefuls).
Right... because the Nazi's loved socialists & communists so much...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>>> ...to the extent that there has ever been a far-right government,
>>>> that is. This is because a far-right government would by definition
>>>> be one that didn't believe in a state apparatus much beyond
>>>> national defence and law and order - almost but not quite anarchy -
>>>> and certainly no over-arching ideology to be imposed.
>>> You know perfectly well who I, and virtually everyone else means,
>>> when referring to the far-right.
>> Of course I do - but you are wrong in using the term.
> You're saying you are right, and everyone else is wrong, then?
What's this "everyone"?
There are *plenty* of people who share the opinion that fascism and national
socialism are... er... socialist creeds. That is, they are belief systems
which elevate the interests of the state (as an entity) above those of the
individual (which is perhaps an over-simplified way of putting it, but good
enough for this discussion).
>>>> Far-left governments such as those in Russia 1917-1989, much of
>>>> Eastern Europe 1945-1989, most of Germany 1933-1945 and part of
>>>> Germany 1933-1989 have certainly proven disastrous for many people,
>>>> not limited to the populations of those particular territories.
>>> Nazi Germany was far-right, not far-left - just ask any historian.
>> Not for any properly reasoned definition of "left" or "right".
>> If you start *from* the conclusions you require, you can call Germany
>> 1933-1945 "far right". But that is not how you arrive at proper
>> conclusions. The first thing you have to do is define the
>> characteristics of "left" and then check whether National Socialist
>> Germany met them (and it did, in spadefuls).
> Right... because the Nazi's loved socialists & communists so much...
Socialists of slightly different hues cannot stand each other, even in cases
where they have made pacts for one purpose or another.
Think of the amphitheatre scene in "Life Of Brian".
Richard Gadsden
2009 19:13:26 +0100, J...@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:
> ...to the extent that there has ever been a far-right government,
> that is. This is because a far-right government would by definition
> be one that didn't believe in a state apparatus much beyond
> national defence and law and order - almost but not quite anarchy -
> and certainly no over-arching ideology to be imposed.
This is a nonsensical and utterly unhistoric definition of right-wing.
By this definition, the Anti-Corn Law League was right-wing, and its
aristocratic opponents were left-wing.
Aristocracy is not a left-wing concept.
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
Richard Gadsden
2009 23:52:45 +0100, J...@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:
> There are *plenty* of people who share the opinion that fascism and
> national socialism are... er... socialist creeds. That is, they are
> belief systems which elevate the interests of the state (as an
> entity) above those of the individual (which is perhaps an
> over-simplified way of putting it, but good enough for this
> discussion).
Being statist (which is what you mean when you say socialist) doesn't
make them left-wing. Metternich was a statist. So was Louis XIV.
Neither of them were left-wing.
JNugent
> J...@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:
>> There are *plenty* of people who share the opinion that fascism and
>> national socialism are... er... socialist creeds. That is, they are
>> belief systems which elevate the interests of the state (as an
>> entity) above those of the individual (which is perhaps an
>> over-simplified way of putting it, but good enough for this
>> discussion).
> Being statist (which is what you mean when you say socialist) doesn't
> make them left-wing. Metternich was a statist. So was Louis XIV.
> Neither of them were left-wing.
You are falling into the trap of failing to distinguish the state as an
entity from rulers as a phenomenon. Monarchs support the state as an adjunct
to their own personal authority.
I have heard of Metternich but know little of that person. In any case,
Metternich was not a state and not a political system. A state run under a
given political system will contain people of various views. It now appears
that a significant number of the ruling classes of the Soviet Union were not
socialist, though they sought position and influence in a socialist state. I
dare say that the same can be said of National Socialist Germany.
BTW: You are aware that this sub-discussion is about *far* left and *far*
right governments, are you?
We know what a far left government looks like because there were only too
many of them suring the twentieth century and still too many now. But what
would you say a *far* right government looks like (and in what way would your
definition distinguish a far right government from a straightforward far
left government)?
Is it only a matter of how they treat racial and ethnic minorities (which is
an arbitrary distinction) or is there something else equally fundamental?
Richard Gadsden
2009 01:12:24 +0100, J...@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:
> But what
> would you say a *far* right government looks like (and in what way
> would your definition distinguish a far right government from a
> straightforward far left government)?
A totalitarian absolute monarchy would be a far right government, it's
one that uses the state to reinforce the power of the existing power
structure, rather than to bring new people to power.
Both left and right are statist ideologies; that's why as a liberal, I
reject both.
JNugent
> In article <KuKdnSduy4j1J0rX...@pipex.net> on Fri, 16 Oct
> 2009 01:12:24 +0100, J...@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:
>
>> But what
>> would you say a *far* right government looks like (and in what way
>> would your definition distinguish a far right government from a
>> straightforward far left government)?
>
> A totalitarian absolute monarchy would be a far right government, it's
> one that uses the state to reinforce the power of the existing power
> structure, rather than to bring new people to power.
>
> Both left and right are statist ideologies; that's why as a liberal, I
> reject both.
You are simply - and spuriously - defining the "right" in a way which allows
you (you think) to distinguish it from the left and from yourself.
Where would a (genuine) libertarian anarchist fit into your proposed continuum?
For me, they are the "far right" - those who value the individual and the
liberty of the individual more than they do the state or any of its
manifestations.