Pray For A Triple Dip Recession

[Land Of Upright Men]

If material hardship is what sparks revolution, europe should be praying for this triple dip economic disaster, right?

The Greek government will not be able to look to Germany or Britain for a bailout if the Triple dip hits, so that is one country in the eurozone that already has a workers movement, that will be the first insurrection.

Britain will probably start privatising the NHS, they will most likely raise the pension age even higher, while cutting all social spending, maybe even introducing austerity measures.

The IRA may see this as an opportunity and force troops to deploy, creating another expensive war for the government, thus making the economy crumble, just pray the workers have a group of revolutionaries to look to, not the BNP.

It would be the same in spain, aswell as Italy.

Would it spark global insurrections?


If not thoses 500 copies of we are an image of the future will be a big waste of everyones time :)

Anyone have any thoughts?

[Broletariat]

I think the quote goes something like, The hungry do not fight for freedom, but for food.

Material hardship isn't what always inspires revolution, '68 was in a relatively good state of Capitalism. The 80's also were in a downturn and nothing much happened.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think the quote goes something like, The hungry do not fight for freedom, but for food.

Material hardship isn't what always inspires revolution, '68 was in a relatively good state of Capitalism. The 80's also were in a downturn and nothing much happened.

...or alternatively we could look at the Depression decade in the U.S. (the '30s), in which the shit hit the fan in a big way, with two of the most important strikes in U.S. history (the San Francisco general strike and the Minneapolis general strike) and industrial unionism and the sit-down strike sweeping the nation. The struggle for food and the struggle for freedom often go hand-in-hand.

Although I don't necessarily think that a double-dip recession is a good thing. In fact, it would be horrible.

[durhamleft]

I don't think we should pray for people to starve, in the hope they turn to left wing ideas, as i) it's totally fucking immoral and ii) in the UK atleast, they'd be more likely to turn to extreme right wing ideas anyway.

What I think one should do is promote ones ideas to the public, make them as accessible as one can, and as popular as one can, and one day the people will rise together (maybe due to disaster, who knows?) but to simply pray for economic hardship is a bit tactless I feel, these are people's lives at stake.

[Rakhmetov]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" ---- Upton Sinclair

What life means to me is to put the content of [Percy] Shelley (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/wiki/Percy_Bysshe_Shelley) into the form of [Emile] Zola (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/wiki/%C3%89mile_Zola). The proletarian writer is a writer with a purpose; he thinks no more of "art for art's sake" than a man on a sinking ship thinks of painting a beautiful picture in the cabin; he thinks of getting ashore — and then there will be time enough for art. Cosmopolitan (October 1906)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EvakM9Waus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2oHmIFNW_A&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8FMDHhth5A&feature=related

[Rusty Shackleford]

I have this sort of nervous feeling of the second major slide in the markets is going to happen any(business) day now. quite honestly, im excited but fucking scared.

what will happen? who is most ready to rise up?

all i can say is the working class will suffer, and the immigrands and oppressed nationalities will be stomped on by economic hardship.

national socialist and militia movements would probably become popular among even the white working class.

and where is the left? theres a handful of dedicated parties and anarchist federations/networks. none large enough to make a national influence in the case of a rgiht wing insurgency. i also think watching glenn beck made me rather apocalyptic over the summer.


yes, i think that the recession may spark a new revolutionary sentiment among the working class in the west(and would probably aid the revolutionary movement in phil, india, and nepal by a long shot)

but there are MANY dangers that come with it. i want it to happen though, no matter how much of a shit storm it will be. it will destroy us global dominance faster than anything else.

[Jolly Red Giant]

If material hardship is what sparks revolution, europe should be praying for this triple dip economic disaster, right?
Material hardship does not spark a revolution - class consciousness does - and material hardship can actually have the opposite effect by depressing class consiousness among workers (particularly unemployed workers) and creating opportunities for the far right.


The Greek government will not be able to look to Germany or Britain for a bailout if the Triple dip hits, so that is one country in the eurozone that already has a workers movement, that will be the first insurrection.
again it could have the opposite effect.


Britain will probably start privatising the NHS, they will most likely raise the pension age even higher, while cutting all social spending, maybe even introducing austerity measures.
The British establishment are attempting to do that anyway - without another dip in the economy.


The IRA may see this as an opportunity and force troops to deploy, creating another expensive war for the government, thus making the economy crumble, just pray the workers have a group of revolutionaries to look to, not the BNP.
Just what we need - the sparking off of sectarian conflict in the North of Ireland. And who will be the victims?



Would it spark global insurrections?
Generally throughout the history of capitalism, the most class consciousness workers movements have occurred during periods of transition from boom to slump or slump to boom. The recent sharp sudden collapse of the world economy has primarily had a stunning effect on the working class in most countries and class consciousness is unlikely to develop significantly until the economy begins somesort of a recovery. This will facilitate a growing confidence among workers, a willingness to fight to regain the losses of the depression and a developing class consciousness. So I suggest you 'pray' for a slow recovery in the world economy - it will most likely create the best conditions for revolution.

[Land Of Upright Men]

well I am from a working class area, and people just do not give a shit, they do not feel exploited, they seem to be ok with the system, they even seem ok when i say there are nearly 250 million child slaves, or 50 thousands people starve to death, every day, because of capitalism.

People in the west just do not seem to care about the super exploited, and to be honest, i am pretty dissilusioned, people want to go smoke weed and act like idiots, they all seem to parrot "I HATE DEM PAKKIZ", even when you explain class is the issue, not race, you get what are you on about I H8Z DEM PAKIZZZ

People here are starting to piss me off, if they do not feel exploited and are happy with capitalism, fuck them.

[Rusty Shackleford]

well I am from a working class area, and people just do not give a shit, they do not feel exploited, they seem to be ok with the system, they even seem ok when i say there are nearly 250 million child slaves, or 50 thousands people starve to death, every day, because of capitalism.

People in the west just do not seem to care about the super exploited, and to be honest, i am pretty dissilusioned, people want to go smoke weed and act like idiots, they all seem to parrot "I HATE DEM PAKKIZ", even when you explain class is the issue, not race, you get what are you on about I H8Z DEM PAKIZZZ

People here are starting to piss me off, if they do not feel exploited and are happy with capitalism, fuck them.
the epitome of false-conscience.

basically if they are being fucked by the very system they think is good, then they are 100% wide open to scapegoating.

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

This system is as rotten as a grape ready to fall from the vine for being overthrown. If it happens, it will be in Europe, not here. Americans only rise up when their sports teams lose.

[Land Of Upright Men]

the think is, alot of lads in late teens to early 20s, have never worked a day in their life, never intend to, they get 30 quid dole pw, spent it on bud, and live off their families, alot of us got in trouble when we were younger, never finished school, so a whole generation, who are not workers, they can only be classed as labour aristocracy, IE, they do not work, but get money from the government, because they live in an imperialist nation.


There are not just three classes, there are loads of sub classes

. Criminal Class
. Benefit class
. working poor
. comfortable working class (own their own homes etc
. Middle class(ford focus driving motherfuckers)
. lower upper class(live on redrow)
.Upper class(own factories and buisnesses)

Might not be marxist way of looking at things, but sums up society pretty fucking well

[Rusty Shackleford]

the think is, alot of lads in late teens to early 20s, have never worked a day in their life, never intend to, they get 30 quid dole pw, spent it on bud, and live off their families, alot of us got in trouble when we were younger, never finished school, so a whole generation, who are not workers, they can only be classed as labour aristocracy, IE, they do not work, but get money from the government, because they live in an imperialist nation.


There are not just three classes, there are loads of sub classes

. Criminal Class
. Benefit class
. working poor
. comfortable working class (own their own homes etc
. Middle class(ford focus driving motherfuckers)
. lower upper class(live on redrow)
.Upper class(own factories and buisnesses)

Might not be marxist way of looking at things, but sums up society pretty fucking well
with bourgeois society, it is also possible to classify things in a bourgeois manner.

basically its an expansion of the marxian class view.

Criminal class = lumpen proletariat
benefit and working poor and comf. working(though are labor aristocrats) = proletariat
middle and lower upper class = petit-bourgeoisie
upper class = bourgeoisie

[Land Of Upright Men]

do you still have faith in the labor aristocracy, should we see them as exploited, i mean, yeah they live on a wage, but the real exploited are the workers in the third world, it seems real hardship stopped for most people in europe in the 60s/70s, now its, im so fucking broke, i only have enough to get consumer product of your choosing.

Whats the point is saying people who support imperialist wars, say the hate immigrants, do not care about the third world, are exploited, i am a bit confused/pissed off atm, i mean, i am part of this fucking labour aristocracy (First world working class), cannot get work)


I just wish i was petit bourgoisie like che, then i could just fuck off and play guerrilla.

[Dimentio]

If material hardship is what sparks revolution, europe should be praying for this triple dip economic disaster, right?

The Greek government will not be able to look to Germany or Britain for a bailout if the Triple dip hits, so that is one country in the eurozone that already has a workers movement, that will be the first insurrection.

Britain will probably start privatising the NHS, they will most likely raise the pension age even higher, while cutting all social spending, maybe even introducing austerity measures.

The IRA may see this as an opportunity and force troops to deploy, creating another expensive war for the government, thus making the economy crumble, just pray the workers have a group of revolutionaries to look to, not the BNP.

It would be the same in spain, aswell as Italy.

Would it spark global insurrections?


If not thoses 500 copies of we are an image of the future will be a big waste of everyones time :)

Anyone have any thoughts?

Fuck no.

Right now, most of Europe is characterised by a steady flow towards neo-tribalism and a deterioration of the traditional left. During increased economic hardship, people will turn to fascist and authoritarian father figures, or to burn down their Indian neighbour's restaurant - at least under the current circumstances today.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Fuck no.

Right now, most of Europe is characterised by a steady flow towards neo-tribalism and a deterioration of the traditional left. During increased economic hardship, people will turn to fascist and authoritarian father figures, or to burn down their Indian neighbour's restaurant - at least under the current circumstances today.

basically this legitimizes the need to build a party organization, anarchist federation, or hardcore propagandization. its really urgent that we do as much as we can to avoid reactionary sentiment for gaining any more ground.


do you still have faith in the labor aristocracy, should we see them as exploited, i mean, yeah they live on a wage, but the real exploited are the workers in the third world, it seems real hardship stopped for most people in europe in the 60s/70s, now its, im so fucking broke, i only have enough to get consumer product of your choosing.

Whats the point is saying people who support imperialist wars, say the hate immigrants, do not care about the third world, are exploited, i am a bit confused/pissed off atm, i mean, i am part of this fucking labour aristocracy (First world working class), cannot get work)


I just wish i was petit bourgoisie like che, then i could just fuck off and play guerrilla.

heres my take on it. i still need to do study on this subject though.

the labor aristocracy is kind of like the peti-bourgeoisie in that they can go either towards progressivism or reaction.

because the labor aristocracy is placed higher than their fellow workers they have a condescending view towards the majority of the working class.
"they just dont work hard enough"
"they are lazy"

also, a labor aristocrat is much harder to win over to class solidarity and to make class conscious.
even the hyper-exploited working class can have reactionary views, but thats where the whole concept of class consciousness comes in. they are either in step with bourgeois ideology or the are class minded/revolutionary/ideologically against the bourgeoisie.
labor aristocrats are still exploited but to a lesser degree.
in the US, immigrants are more exploited than citizens by virtue of the circumstances created by the immigration policy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Fuck no.

Right now, most of Europe is characterised by a steady flow towards neo-tribalism and a deterioration of the traditional left. During increased economic hardship, people will turn to fascist and authoritarian father figures, or to burn down their Indian neighbour's restaurant - at least under the current circumstances today.

By "traditional left," you mean the center-left, right?

Also, re. "authoritarian father figures," wasn't the German worker movement successful in the 19th century - amidst the Long Depression - partly because Lassalle was adopted as an "authoritarian father figure"? After all, his cult of personality was the basis of Lenin's for the Russian working class.

[the last donut of the night]

Fuck no.

Right now, most of Europe is characterised by a steady flow towards neo-tribalism and a deterioration of the traditional left. During increased economic hardship, people will turn to fascist and authoritarian father figures, or to burn down their Indian neighbour's restaurant - at least under the current circumstances today.

What do you mean by neo-tribalism?

[Rusty Shackleford]

What do you mean by neo-tribalism?

a look at a new (but thankfully very small) phenomenon in the us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WQ3l7SxSr0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGjbf93ij7Q&feature=related

[Dimentio]

By "traditional left," you mean the center-left, right?

Also, re. "authoritarian father figures," wasn't the German worker movement successful in the 19th century - amidst the Long Depression - partly because Lassalle was adopted as an "authoritarian father figure"? After all, his cult of personality was the basis of Lenin's for the Russian working class.

I mean the entire left. Radical left-wing parties usually attain the support of a maximum of 15% of the electorate. The more "purist" they are, generally the smaller they are. The real communist parties usually have about 0,01-1% of the vote in any given western European country.

The social democrats are somewhat more successful, in general having support from 20-30% of the electorate in a typical European country. And they are mostly social liberals any way.

Those social democrat parties which have moved to the left or stayed on the left have in general been punished in the voting booths. The same for communist parties which have refused to "reform".

In short, left-wing politics seems to be punished in general by the voters in Europe (except for in parts of eastern Europe, like Cyprus and Slovakia, and there they have only came to power by red-brown unholy alliances with nationalists, such as Robert Fico's SMER and their collaboration with Anti-Roma xenophobes).

That brings us to the next question: Why aren't leftist policies seen as credible?

[Dimentio]

What do you mean by neo-tribalism?

People tend to identify with smaller and smaller constituencies, team up in gated communities and hang out with members of their particular ethnicity.

[Jimmie Higgins]

...or alternatively we could look at the Depression decade in the U.S. (the '30s), in which the shit hit the fan in a big way, with two of the most important strikes in U.S. history (the San Francisco general strike and the Minneapolis general strike) and industrial unionism and the sit-down strike sweeping the nation. The struggle for food and the struggle for freedom often go hand-in-hand.Except the worst years of the depression (1932) was a low point in union struggle. The economy was actually on an upswing (within the overall downswing of the depression) when worker's began to fight back. Even then it was slow until workers started winning... then it was a cascade.


Although I don't necessarily think that a double-dip recession is a good thing. In fact, it would be horrible.I agree... then again, when the economy recovers, the austerity and restructuring of the economy that's already happened is going to remain and so ultimately fight-back is needed regardless of recovery or another downturn.


Why aren't leftist policies seen as credible? Well that's the question isn't it.

My overly simple and short attempt at a response: for the reformist-left I think in places like France and Italy, left-wing coalitions and socialist parties actually helped push neo-liberalist policies and so they have made themselves discredited. In the UK, Labour showed itself to be toadies for American Imperialism and neo-liberalism.

In Latin America and some places like Greece, radicals were fighting on the ground with workers and so leftism was given a boost in these places because the left was associated with a concrete struggle rather than associated with justifications on social-spending and apologies for the state.

[Dimentio]

Well that's the question isn't it.

My overly simple and short attempt at a response: for the reformist-left I think in places like France and Italy, left-wing coalitions and socialist parties actually helped push neo-liberalist policies and so they have made themselves discredited. In the UK, Labour showed itself to be toadies for American Imperialism and neo-liberalism.

In Latin America and some places like Greece, radicals were fighting on the ground with workers and so leftism was given a boost in these places because the left was associated with a concrete struggle rather than associated with justifications on social-spending and apologies for the state.

I don't think that's the case, even if that is the standard left-wing answer. It seems more like a "false conciousness" answer which is made to bolster the self-confidence in smaller movements to the left of the left-centrist social liberals.

Why isn't that the case then?

Because if the reason why social democrats were losing their popularity was their abandonment of left-wing policies, then they would win if they enact left-wing policies in their programmes.

What we instead have seen during the last 30 years is that (social democratic and communist) parties are losing their popularity almost in proportion to how left-wing they are in Western Europe. Those parties which openly have embraced more "free market" policies have been able to hold off their decline for a longer period of time.

British Labour was almost killed in the elections in the mid-80's when they had a comparably "left-wing" programme. It was first with the reforms set after those elections when they partially and eventually fully embraced Thatcherism that they could challenge the Tories.

So in short, left-wing policies are not seen as non-credible because they aren't implemented, but because another reason. If non-implementation would have been the reason, that would have meant a gain for parties more to the left instead of parties more to the right.

This should not be interpreted as an advice to move further to the right. Nothing that is popular is more correct because it is popular. But we must try to understand why the people are acting like they act in the voting booth.

Either, left-wing policies are simply not popular, or the elections in reality are controlled by a sinister group which is determining election results and using polls as a way to prepare people for the results and lure them into the assumption that the election result somehow correspond to the popular will. :lol:

I obviously don't believe in the latter, so then we must return to the fact, why does electability decrease the farther to the left you go?

[Rusty Shackleford]

this is pretty much a "the predicament the left is in" thread right now.

people will say the left failed to mobilize after the start of the recession, but the left didnt have much to mobilize.

we have been growing steadily since 2008 but were certainly not at the level that would be appropriate for the situation. ill arbitrarily say about 40% of the population at least in agreement with the left.

false-consciousness is a legitimate reason but it is not a reason to say "oh well we should stick with small groups." it means we have to work. now.

electability isnt a key part of the struggle, but elections are a key part of a propaganda campaign. and, if we get a revolutionary into office, then that is fucking GREAT. we wont be able to do much with that office though. maybe try to push for a few reforms but they wont last long after that revolutionary party is out of office unless there is an actual state-overthrowing revolution that will push beyond reforms and implement actual revolutionary whatevers.

if there is a second dip, the left will be able to take more steps because of this period of growing. but i have no idea what will happen...

speculation at least.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I mean the entire left. Radical left-wing parties usually attain the support of a maximum of 15% of the electorate. The more "purist" they are, generally the smaller they are. The real communist parties usually have about 0,01-1% of the vote in any given western European country.

The social democrats are somewhat more successful, in general having support from 20-30% of the electorate in a typical European country. And they are mostly social liberals any way.

Those social democrat parties which have moved to the left or stayed on the left have in general been punished in the voting booths. The same for communist parties which have refused to "reform".

In short, left-wing politics seems to be punished in general by the voters in Europe (except for in parts of eastern Europe, like Cyprus and Slovakia, and there they have only came to power by red-brown unholy alliances with nationalists, such as Robert Fico's SMER and their collaboration with Anti-Roma xenophobes).

That brings us to the next question: Why aren't leftist policies seen as credible?

That can be explained away by worker disgruntlement with politics in general (hence that Theory thread of mine). There is a boost in the far-right protest votes, but the vast bulk of the working-class reaction is abstentionism and not protest voting.

You didn't comment on personality cults substituting for "authoritarian father figures." Related to this, of course, is a possible resurgence of charismatic figures trying to fill the big shoes left behind by the Julius Caesar of people's history. They're able to garner support, and one of them helped that support recently even when saying, "We want to overthrow capitalism" - to the point of now being in a position of possibly shoving Chavez aside and heading a new leftist International.

[Autumn Red]

I see history as cyclical but progressing in a forward direction at the same time; like the waves of the ocean.

Just from current world events, here's my guess at what is going to happen in the next few years. The world's economic troubles will only get worse, increasing debt of the U.S. will lead to an utter collapse of the U.S. economy. The Middle East will explode because of the political vacuum caused by the fall of the United States, and I can predict some form of resurgence of Arab Nationalism. Anyways, the European Union will be severely damaged, but will nonetheless survive. Various countries will blame Leftists for the economic troubles and we may be very well persecuted. Countries will progress quickly into quasi-fascist or outright fascist societies, leading to a new generation of renegades and Socialists. Eventually, these governments will crumble underneath the weight of themselves and of the groups operating inside. The new Left, fostered under persecution, will be stronger and will have much more respect and credibility by the people.

I honestly have to wonder how many more times people have to taste Fascism before they realize it is simply not a good idea.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Speaking of red-brown stuff:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/25/2992536.htm


But would such a government be workable in Australia when you have groups of varying ideologies and interests lumped together?

Well it works in Norway.

After more than 30 years of unstable minority governments, partly due to the political fragmentation produced by the country's proportional representation electoral system, three parties from radically different parts of the political spectrum came together in 2005 with a joint pitch for office.

They won and have since been re-elected for a second four-year term.

The parties are the large centre-left Norwegian Labour Party, the Socialist Left Party and the Centre Party.

Sounds a pretty benign grouping until you consider where each party is coming from.

Norwegian Labour are pretty much your bog-standard European social democrats.

The so-called "Centre" party is anything but. They're a protectionist, nationalistic, rural-based grouping, way to the right of where the Nationals are on the Australian political spectrum.

What they have in common with the Socialist Left Party is that both vehemently oppose Norway joining the European Union.

Labour is supposedly pro-EU, but it does have a sceptic wing.

So how is this major political difference which has deeply split Norwegian society handled within this coalition?

Simple. All three parties have agreed that any further talk on Norway joining the European Union is off the agenda until the current parliamentary term ends in 2013. (Which, incidentally, is smart politics - given 70 per cent of Norwegians currently oppose EU membership.)

The Socialist Left Party still officially holds that capitalism is "evil and stupid" and that Norway should immediately pull out of NATO, but the lure of the treasury benches after 35 years on the outer is obviously strong.

I asked Norway's leading political analyst, Berndt Aardal from the Institute for Social Research in Oslo, how the government can function as a united outfit when there are such major ideological differences at its core.

"Bizarrely", he laughs, "this type of situation actually calls for consensus-making."

Knowing they'll inevitably have to give ground to their coalition partners, only ideas and proposals that will appeal to the overwhelming bulk of Norwegians end up seeing the light of day.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think that's the case, even if that is the standard left-wing answer. It seems more like a "false conciousness" answer which is made to bolster the self-confidence in smaller movements to the left of the left-centrist social liberals.I'll defer to your knowledge of european politics since everything I know about Europe is from the left-wing US press and the UK Guardian. But I think maybe you are misrepresenting my argument.


Why isn't that the case then?

Because if the reason why social democrats were losing their popularity was their abandonment of left-wing policies, then they would win if they enact left-wing policies in their programmes. You seem to assume that my argument is that the left wing in fixed and that people are clamoring for reforms and then abandon the reform-groups when they move to the right. That's not what I was arguing I was talking about places like in Northern Italy where a left-wing coalition came to power and "promised change" but did not fight for anything genuinely different or simply did not accomplish any promised reforms. The effect on consciousness was disorienting and so why be left-wing if you just get more of the same, why think that change is even possible, why bother - thinks many voters. This gives the right a space to come back and win a portion of the disillusioned voters or maybe fence-sitters to an alternative vision of "reform" based on kicking out immigrants and whatnot.

To me, this is not an argument to help small parties sleep better at night (in fact it should have the opposite effect). The key to what I was arguing IMO was weather the left was organizing on the ground like in Greece right now or participating in a governmnet overseeing and apologizing for the attacks on working people over the last generation.


What we instead have seen during the last 30 years is that (social democratic and communist) parties are losing their popularity almost in proportion to how left-wing they are in Western Europe. Those parties which openly have embraced more "free market" policies have been able to hold off their decline for a longer period of time.

British Labour was almost killed in the elections in the mid-80's when they had a comparably "left-wing" programme. It was first with the reforms set after those elections when they partially and eventually fully embraced Thatcherism that they could challenge the Tories.I think this explains how mainstream parties have typically moved to the right to meet the needs of capitalism after the 1970s, but not why left-wing policies are not popular in the population.


So in short, left-wing policies are not seen as non-credible because they aren't implemented, but because another reason. If non-implementation would have been the reason, that would have meant a gain for parties more to the left instead of parties more to the right. What's the reason? "They are not popular because they are not popular" is not an explanation and I would like to know what you think the reason is if it is not the reason I suggested.


I obviously don't believe in the latter, so then we must return to the fact, why does electability decrease the farther to the left you go?This is not true across the board because there are elections in europe where the further left-groups have gained higher proportions of the votes while the center-left has ended up with a lower percentage of votes. I believe this was the case in French elections several years ago and recently in the highly polarized situation due to the econ crisis where both the far right and far left gained higher percentages.