Bourgeoise are ok with being socially liberal

[graffic]

Many people argue that British politics (perhaps also US) is in a state of crisis if you like. Since 1997 when a "Labour" government came to power voting turnout has collapsed which can be seen as a form of a threat to democracy. For example, only 22% of the electorate put a cross next to Labour on the ballot paper (61% turnout) in the 2005 general election and because of the first past the post voting system, Labour formed a government with executive powers. In addition, BNP support has risen among white working class. One of the criticisms of the Labour government is that it was right-wing on many issues and betrayed many of the parties "principles" to get into power. To give Labour credit they achieved many things, but they were social democrats not democratic socialists. Labour were socially liberal on lots of issues, for example they passed many laws in favour of gay rights. Peter Hain said on question time that this is just the "froth" of politics. Tony Blair was perhaps socially liberal on certain issues but himself and his government did barely anything to help the working class. You could perhaps link this, and link to other issues, with the decline in voting turnout and rise of a disinterest in politics (and rise in BNP support). I think a politically correct version of capitalism is perhaps better than discrimination but it is still undesirable, and it favours the bourgeoise. Seumas Milne said in a guardian column a while ago that the anti-politics culture which he claims has evolved in recent years is anti-democratic and favours the New Right.

The thing about being "socially liberal" is that in my view, its very easy to be "socially liberal". Even if you are against something, its arguably easy to say "its fine it doesn't affect me, privately I don't like it but its ok". Rich or poor, its not a big deal to learn to be tolerant of different lifestyles. Although of course there are many religious folk and others who are completely intolerant I think the emphasis, which has been significant, on minority interests, has turned people away from politics. I think it is easier for a government purporting to be left wing to be "socially" left on some issues than it is to support unions and stand with working people.

[LeftSideDown]

Of course its easier to say homosexual men should have the right to marry other homosexual men than to advocate the violent overthrow of society. Whats your point?

[mollymae]

Of course its easier to say homosexual men should have the right to marry other homosexual men than to advocate the violent overthrow of society. Whats your point?

:lol:

[Raúl Duke]

The fact that Blair and the Labour party was involved in making the UK join the U.S., which at the time had a right-wing government, crusade to Iraq makes me considering that in a few policy they aimed towards a right wing option.

When it comes to ideology and political parties, especially major ones, I tend to see that ideology ("social liberal, etc") matters less. The ruling bourgeois parties work for one class and they do what they think is best to aid that class. When new labour arised, basically the party turn its back on social liberalism/social democratic policies because in a sense they were no longer viewed as "needed" or "urgent" as it were when they were adopted. This also occurred in the U.S. Basically, after Thatcher and Reagen one could deduce that the working class was weakened and thus these "social democrats" stopped instituting reforms since there was no more threat of revolution (especially after the fall of the USSR when bourgeois intellectual circles made a big wank on how they've reached the "end of history" and that it's free-market capitalism).

In the past, those parties represented the segments of the bourgeoisie that believed that reforms (i.e. "small pieces, crumbs") were needed so to "keep the whole cake" under their control.