TUSC and UKIP: fishing in same pond?

[ALB]

There were some local by-elections in Oxford yesterday (we're following the political scene there as we are planning to contest at least one seat in Oxford in next year's general elections):

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decCD/Election_results_occw.htm

These results reveal a curiosity: when standing in an election with a UKIP candidate TUSC did badly (or, putting it in a positive light, as well as us) (2%) but when there's no UKIP candidate they did considerably better (6%). This would seem to be a case of "Protest Voters of Britain, Unite!). Mind you, it confirms one theory I have been reluctant to accept — that UKIP is attracting voters from the traditional working class. These wards cover council estates in the south of Oxford, including Blackbird Leys, the scene of riots in the early  estate. Labour strongholds but in these elections with UKIP coming second, even if a long way behind.

As to be expected, there was nothing in the least socialist about the TUSC election statement:

Quote:

We live in Blackbird Leys and are standing in the council elections to offer an alternative to the main parties who are out of touch with ordinary people.

As public sector workers in health and education we have been on strike to fight the government's pay freeze which has left many families struggling to make ends meet. We believe all workers should receive at least £10 a hour as part of a drive to eradicate poverty. Alongside better pay we need affordable public housing for all to end the housing crisis in Oxford.

If you agree, vote for us on November 27.

Pathetic.

[ALB]

ALB wrote:

it confirms one theory I have been reluctant to accept — that UKIP is attracting voters from the traditional working class.

I think we have to accept this. Just read this, in a book just out Sex, Lies and the Ballot Box. 50 Things You Need to Know about British Elections. It's from a chapter 'Not What You Think: UKIP Voters' by Matthew Goodwin:

Quote:

Yes, the party's base is very socially distinctive but it is blue-collar, poorly educated, old, white and male. Far from a rebellion of the golf club, UKIP is Britain's most working class party. Indeed, to find a party support base that is disproportionately working-class you need to go back to the Labour Party in the early '80s, and the days of Michael Foot. Since 2010, the voters who have flocked to Farage look more like Old Labour than True Blue Tories; they are older white men, working-class, struggling financially and poorly educated (…) UKIP have succeeded in winning over Britain's 'left behind' voters: groups in society who have long struggled to adapt to the global economy, who hold a very different set of values from the new, middle-class and professional majority, and who were hit the hardest by the post-2008 financial crisis.

If this true, as the evidence seems to be suggesting, this would explain why TUSC with its Old Labour appoach picks up votes which would have gone tor UKIP if it had been standing.It also has various implications. First, that the trotskyists might try entering UKIP. But, more seriously, it refutes the view that the experience of an economic crisis will spontaneously generate a socialist or even a anti-capitalist consciousness. It emphasises the need for people to hear the case for socialism, for this to become part of their experience, for a socialist consciousness to have a chance of emerging.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

But, more seriously, it refutes the view that the experience of an economic crisis will spontaneously generate a socialist or even a anti-capitalist consciousness.

What? Y'mean the 'materialists' are wrong, and the 'material conditions' don't talk to humans? And that the 'practice' of everyday experience doesn't produce a 'theory' of revolution, so that 'matter' and its 'material usage' doesn't generate 'class consciousness'?Blasphemy! Whatever next!

ALB wrote:

It emphasises the need for people to hear the case for socialism, for this to become part of their experience, for a socialist consciousness to have a chance of emerging.

'Hearing a case' before 'experience'? 'Ideas' prior to 'action'? Theory informing practice? Consciousness emerging after thinking about ideology?Heresy! This is 'idealism'! The 'materialists', 'physicalists', 'inductionists' and the 'practice and theory' crowd just won't stand for it!Seriously, though, ALB, we've been through all this before, and I won't take this thread in that direction again.But your words, and political prescriptions, fit far closer to the philosophical basis of Marx's 'idealism-materialism', than it does to Engels' 'materialism'.Theory and practice means ideas preceding material practice. Both are entwined. 'Material' for Marx meant 'social production', not 'matter'.The view that 'ideas' determining our 'practice' is 'idealism', is suicidal for workers.All the 'experience' of capitalism, for hundreds of years, will not produce 'class consciousness', unless workers who are Communists provide other workers with unfamiliar 'ideas'. Those new 'ideas' will then make a different sense of the 'experience' of workers. The 'ideas' and 'experience' they have now is leading to UKIP. Current 'theory and practice' produces Farage.These views of mine are why I'm still participating on the SPGB site, because the truth is that the SPGB in its practice is not 'materialist', but is 'idealist-materialist', in that it believes in the power of 'ideas', education and propaganda, to help develop the working class.The rhetoric of 'materialism' (and that's all it is, rhetoric) is at odds with party practice, and all it does is leave the party open to charges of either hypocrisy or ignorance.PS. This is well-meant advice, comrades, not the seeking of another internecine row.

[ALB]

This article from the Socialist Standard in 1933 should amuse you:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1933/no-342-february-1933/how-make-socialists-lenin%E2%80%99s-viewAnother recruit to your "idealism-materialism"

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

This article from the Socialist Standard in 1933 should amuse you:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1933/no-342-february-1933/how-make-socialists-lenin%E2%80%99s-viewAnother recruit to your "idealism-materialism"

Brilliant!Did the SPGB eventually recruit him?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

What? Y'mean the 'materialists' are wrong, and the 'material conditions' don't talk to humans? And that the 'practice' of everyday experience doesn't produce a 'theory' of revolution, so that 'matter' and its 'material usage' doesn't generate 'class consciousness'?

Believe it or not LBird but, unlike your idealism, materialism includes human beings in 'material conditions' and yes it includes ideasIn fact it is the inculsion of ideas as 'material' that actually defines 'materialism'  

[DJP]

Vin wrote:

Believe it or not LBird but, unlike your idealism, materialism includes human beings in 'material conditions' and yes it includes ideasIn fact it is the inculsion of ideas as 'material' that actually defines 'materialism' 

Well yes. But that's a story for another thread…

[Anonymous]

In fact what idealists such as LBird don't understand is that class consciousness is one of the material conditions necessary for socialism

[LBird]

First warning:  1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

What? Y'mean the 'materialists' are wrong, and the 'material conditions' don't talk to humans? And that the 'practice' of everyday experience doesn't produce a 'theory' of revolution, so that 'matter' and its 'material usage' doesn't generate 'class consciousness'?

Believe it or not LBird but, unlike your idealism, materialism includes human beings in 'material conditions' and yes it includes ideasIn fact it is the inculsion of ideas as 'material' that actually defines 'materialism'  

Yeah, I know, Vin. You, DJP ,YMS and ALB (to name but a few) keep telling me that.I'm reading what you're all saying, and listening.But I just have one problem, and I'm loath to start on the merry-go-round, yet again… but…Why call it 'materialism', when simply everybody agrees with Marx and me that it includes 'ideas'?The only person who seemed to think (and then only at points, which makes him unreliably and confusing) that 'matter' existed for humans outside of their 'ideas' of it, was Engels. Everyone else thinks that both object and subject are both required for knowledge.Since, for Marx, 'material' meant social production (ideas and stuff worked on), and his method was 'theory and practice', and everybody precedes 'materialism' with some prefix or other (historical, dialectical), why not just have done with it, and use a term which stresses both 'being and consciousness', rather than one which stresses only one aspect (ie. the 'material')?Simple question, comrades – why not call it 'idealism-materialism', if it includes 'ideas' and 'material'?If, on the other hand, it's acceptable to stress only one aspect of both ideas and material (and both are required for social production), why not call it 'idealism', and just say:

Alter-ego-Vin wrote:

In fact it is the inclusion of matter as 'ideal' that actually defines 'idealism'

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

In fact what idealists such as LBird don't understand is that class consciousness is one of the material conditions necessary for socialism

In fact what materialists such as Vin don't understand is that class consciousness is one of the ideal conditions necessary for socialism 

[J Surman]

ALB wrote:

[quote=ALB But, more seriously, it refutes the view that the experience of an economic crisis will spontaneously generate a socialist or even a anti-capitalist consciousness. It emphasises the need for people to hear the case for socialism, for this to become part of their experience, for a socialist consciousness to have a chance of emerging.

Any chance we get back to this part of ALB's comment? We're endeavouring to do this on a regular basis but what or how could we do this better? The capitalist way and throw lots of money at it etc etc? C'mon guys, serious ideas please!

[Anonymous]

JS My own opinion is that 'socialism' and 'revolution' has had such bad press that we can't even get off the starting blocks. People hear the terms and switch off. I think tho' that the tide is turning. Brand for example is using revolution very similar to the way we have always used it. We have to hope that socialism/communism will also begin to  take on a different meaning.   

[LBird]

J Surman wrote:

ALB wrote:

I don't think that 'we' (if you mean 'Communists') do 'this' at all.I tried many times to give explanations in simple terms of difficult subjects, but there seems to be a preference for obscurity and dogma.I can't give any more detail, because I keep getting warnings for mentioning anything that others don't like hearing about.I think a 'serious idea' would be to take our heads out of the sand. I'm using 'sand' because the other term is forbidden.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

Vin wrote:

In fact what idealists such as LBird don't understand is that class consciousness is one of the material conditions necessary for socialism

In fact what materialists such as Vin don't understand is that class consciousness is one of the ideal conditions necessary for socialism 

Second warning:   LBird1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[ALB]

Actually, it so happens that Oxford was the scene of one of the most successful experiments in "workerism" with the "Independent Working Class Association" winning up to 4 seats on the City Council in the period 2002-2012 when its last councillor gave up. It still survives there as a cultural and sports club. Their history can be found here:As can be seen from this recent speech, as summarised on their facebook page, their tactic was (emphasis added):

Quote:

The failure by the left to abide by democratic principles and to work with the working class in pursuit of what the working class perceives as its own immediate interests is what lies behind the left’s failure, and is also the key to its revival.

That covers a lot of things but not socialism. The IWCA's success in Oxford was due to them doing on council estates what the LibDems prided themselves on doing elsewhere: community politics. It might have brought some welcome improvements in daily living but it didn't (couldn't and wasn't even intended to) bring socialism any nearer.It did proclaim "Working class rule in working class areas" but that appeared to mean simply "working class" councillors and in any event was based on a mistaken, narrow definition of who the working class are. Most workers don't live on council estates; in fact, most areas are "working class areas" in that they are areas where people who depend for a living on selling their mental and physical energies for a wage or salary live.Here's their speaker's analysis of the UKIP:

Quote:

it would be prudent to note that roughly 80% of the BNP vote folded effortlessly into that of UKIP in 2014. Now while UKIP is not fascist in the traditional sense it does not appear to have too many scruples either. Unsurprisingly following his time in the City Farage is adept at ferreting out ‘markets and opportunities’ as he puts it. The BNP showed how the right could prosper in traditionally blue collar Labour areas and in a very specific way UKIP is picking up from where the BNP left off. More than anything it is this market Farage has targeted.But while currently riding two horses, sooner rather than later they will be faced with a choice.Simply in order to maintain momentum they will likely be forced to become more and more socially radical (note how the Thatcherite plans such as the proposed charge for visiting your GP has been quietly jettisoned) to the point where they morph into an authentic far-right party after the European model.

UKIP certainly will have to find a way of reconciling the ideology of "free market capitalism" espoused by its founders and leaders (including its 2 MPs) and its blue-collar voter base. Not so sure, though, that it will evolve into far-right type party, but we'll see. .

[Author]

Posts