Your opinions on Blue Labour

[graffic]

Looks like a good tactical alternative to the bullshit "big society".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/24/blue-labour-maurice-glasman
http://www.soundings.org.uk/
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/06/immigration-labour-voters
The problem with New Labour was what Peter Mandelson said: "we are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich". I think it doesn't matter what colour you rap around the politics, that statement is wrong on every level. At a basic level the job of politicians should be to represent their people democratically and stop people ruining the world in the pursuit of wealth at the expense of others

[Queercommie Girl]

Well there is some good rhetoric here, like even today the CCP in China uses Maoist rhetoric to pacify the masses.

But empirically do I seriously think Labour today is a genuine alternative to the Conservatives? No.

Unless trade unions are democratised, anti-trade union laws removed, and the commanding heights of the economy nationalised, empty rhetoric means nothing.

[Tim Finnegan]

I think that Blue Labour is every bit as toxic as New Labour, it just adopts a posture of quasi-Third Way politics, rather than the outright neoliberalism that New Labour came to publicly admit. Just because they've started giving the tumbs-up to their projected fantasies of an innately reactionary working class, rather than a half-hearted wagging of the finger, doesn't in any way suggest that they are even on an entirely temporary, as-convenient basis, on our side.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think that Blue Labour is every bit as toxic as New Labour, it just adopts a posture of quasi-Third Way politics, rather than the outright neoliberalism that New Labour came to publicly admit. Just because they've started giving the tumbs-up to their projected fantasies of an innately reactionary working class, rather than a half-hearted wagging of the finger, doesn't in any way suggest that they are even on an entirely temporary, as-convenient basis, on our side.

What? :confused:

Can you elaborate?

[Tim Finnegan]

What? :confused:

Can you elaborate?
It's a common conviction among the British middle class (be they petty bourgeois, managerial, or high-status proletarians) that the working class, in the sense of the greater mass of the proletarian population, are by the simple fact of their social status prone to socially reactionary views, such as racism, misogyny, and so forth. More than a little bit of this is projection on the part of the middle class, who like to find- or imagine- a "common" mouth-piece to voice the rancid politics that they keep locked behind plastic smiles. As such, the middle-classes like to concoct political recipes which address this percieved tendency of the "white working class", be it a finger-wagging liberalism that tries to dance around it, or an approving conservatism that tries to embrace it, as Blue Labour is doing.
Needless to say, the working class, who are not the homogeneously reactionary force that they are made out to be, tend to find this all very patronising and alienating, which is one of the many reasons for the increasing non-involvement of the working class in political life.

[magicme]

Your opinions on Blue Labour
Looks like a good tactical alternative to the bullshit "big society".


By tactical alternative to the 'big society' what do you mean? If you're wondering whether it's a good tactic to get them elected again then I'm not sure, people might get confused if the Labour Party adopts it as a slogan. 'New' was ok, getting votes wise, as 'new' means nothing but 'blue' denotes tory to me. There's a danger for them that their core vote might not turn out if it's thought that Milliband is going too tory to appease the floating voters they need in the big cities.

I read the first article and most of it struck me as nonsense. Like I agree with this bit


Democratic resistance to the domination of capital through the pursuit of the common good is not really the way that liberals view politics or, more important, markets. They see the benefits but not the distress, the efficiencies but not the disruption, the choice but not the coercion.

But then we get this bit


Labour has always understood both. This understanding is essential in defeating the liberal-led coalition – there is nothing conservative about this government – by developing a strong agenda for both regulating finance and generating regional private sector growth.

The Labour Party that was just in government showed little or no understanding of the distress and disruption caused by capitalism's markets. Or maybe they understood but just didn't care that the British economy makes most of its money from playing with profits made abroad by stealing from poor people and "value-added industries" like selling police states their torture instruments and poverty stricken nations air defence systems.

Presumably the article's referring to the effect of capitalism in recent years on communities in Britain. The idea of regulating finance is just funny; they can't do that unless they reintroduce the currency controls that were common before the 70s and there's not a chance they'll be leaving the WTO and kicking the City of London in the face by doing anything like that. As for generating regional private sector growth, they tried that round my way. They gave Siemens any amount of money to build a microchip factory, Siemens waited for the funding to run out and then shut the factory. They funded the building of a call centre in Hartlepool where I worked but that shut about a year ago to go to India.

As long as the Labour Party persists in its idea that it can tame capitalism it's just going to continue in its role as a facilitator of businesses robbing the taxpayer, fall-guy for the media when anything goes wrong and as a stand-up member of the international club of rich bastards who bang on about freedom and fairplay while some mad percentage of the world is on the verge of starving.

What really annoys me about the Labour Party is that it's full of idealists. They seem to think that they can make society like they claim to want it without addressing the material conditions that mean it can't happen. The most depressing thing is that there are likely many potential comrades who vote for them, even join their party. I was posting on Yahoo Answers UK in the politics bit before the last election and I got messages quoting something Lenin said about the best way for Britain to go socialist was through the Labour Party; tricksy, vote stealing, control freak when they have no control anyway, reformist who don't even reform anymore, careerist bastards. That's my opinion on the people who do well in the Labour Party and the regular members are just lazy and/or deluded.

Sorry for the rant, those guys annoy me. At least with the Tories everyone knows they're there to represent the bourgeoise in parliament, the Labour Party is a cruel joke played on British people who take credit for stuff they did years ago using policy tools (like nationalising stuff and currency controls) that they've no intention of using again as the capitalists won't let them.

[RedSunRising]

People should not romanticize "Old" Labour.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Blue Labour is a reactionary wing, and should be cut loose from New Labour.

One is corporatist/guild socialist and conservative, the other is moderate and neo-liberal.

Both are fucking stupid.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's a common conviction among the British middle class (be they petty bourgeois, managerial, or high-status proletarians) that the working class, in the sense of the greater mass of the proletarian population, are by the simple fact of their social status prone to socially reactionary views, such as racism, misogyny, and so forth. More than a little bit of this is projection on the part of the middle class, who like to find- or imagine- a "common" mouth-piece to voice the rancid politics that they keep locked behind plastic smiles. As such, the middle-classes like to concoct political recipes which address this percieved tendency of the "white working class", be it a finger-wagging liberalism that tries to dance around it, or an approving conservatism that tries to embrace it, as Blue Labour is doing.

Needless to say, the working class, who are not the homogeneously reactionary force that they are made out to be, tend to find this all very patronising and alienating, which is one of the many reasons for the increasing non-involvement of the working class in political life.


Ok, well to be frank, in that other thread on Marx's poverty I actually thought you had a bit of such elitist views in your dismissal of poorer layers of the workers. I think camerelpence went as far as saying that the most skilled layers of the working class, e.g. engineers, are those with the greatest amount of "revolutionary potential", and you thanked him.

Many Westerners do tend to have racist views against Blacks, Asians etc, which is often subtle. But I don't think this is good function of economic status, as if "middle class" people aren't racist or something. It's just that a significant proportion of Westerners tend to have prejudices, which cut across class lines pretty much. The German Nazis back in their day for instance had both petit-bourgeois and working class support (as well as obviously big bourgeois support) to some extent. This is a product of capitalism and Western imperialism, and cannot be blamed on the working class in any intrinsic sense.

[Tim Finnegan]

Ok, well to be frank, in that other thread on Marx's poverty I actually thought you had a bit of such elitist views in your dismissal of poorer layers of the workers. I think camerelpence went as far as saying that the most skilled layers of the working class, e.g. engineers, are those with the greatest amount of "revolutionary potential", and you thanked him.
I must have miscommunicated. Certainly, I wouldn't take as simplistic view of "revolutionary potential" as I apparently implied.


Many Westerners do tend to have racist views against Blacks, Asians etc, which is often subtle. But I don't think this is good function of economic status, as if "middle class" people aren't racist or something. It's just that a significant proportion of Westerners tend to have prejudices, which cut across class lines pretty much. The German Nazis back in their day for instance had both petit-bourgeois and working class support (as well as obviously big bourgeois support) to some extent. This is a product of capitalism and Western imperialism, and cannot be blamed on the working class in any intrinsic sense.Oh, of course. My point was that the middle classes very often regard the working class as being bigoted or reactionary, when in fact bigotries cut across class lines- as you say- and in some regards, the working class may actually be more socially progressive than the middle-classes. The construction of the fiction of a reactionary "white working class" is really just a way of allowing the crypto-reactionary middle classes to pursue reactionary programs with a clean conscience.

[RGacky3]

Well Socialism is making a major comeback in europe, and politicians reacting to it is a good sign, that does'nt mean you should support them, but it means the message is getting through.

As far as the social issues, imo they are way less important than the economic issues, (economics and material backgrounds effect social issues eventually anyway).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Blue Labour is definitely a corporatist platform. [IMO it is also a fascist platform.]

[Die Neue Zeit]

Just because they've started giving the tumbs-up to their projected fantasies of an innately reactionary working class, rather than a half-hearted wagging of the finger, doesn't in any way suggest that they are even on an entirely temporary, as-convenient basis, on our side.


It's a common conviction among the British middle class (be they petty bourgeois, managerial, or high-status proletarians) that the working class, in the sense of the greater mass of the proletarian population, are by the simple fact of their social status prone to socially reactionary views, such as racism, misogyny, and so forth. More than a little bit of this is projection on the part of the middle class, who like to find- or imagine- a "common" mouth-piece to voice the rancid politics that they keep locked behind plastic smiles. As such, the middle-classes like to concoct political recipes which address this percieved tendency of the "white working class", be it a finger-wagging liberalism that tries to dance around it, or an approving conservatism that tries to embrace it, as Blue Labour is doing.
Needless to say, the working class, who are not the homogeneously reactionary force that they are made out to be, tend to find this all very patronising and alienating, which is one of the many reasons for the increasing non-involvement of the working class in political life.


My point was that the middle classes very often regard the working class as being bigoted or reactionary, when in fact bigotries cut across class lines- as you say- and in some regards, the working class may actually be more socially progressive than the middle-classes. The construction of the fiction of a reactionary "white working class" is really just a way of allowing the crypto-reactionary middle classes to pursue reactionary programs with a clean conscience.

The only area of the "socially conservative" agenda that workers might lean more conservative is on the issue of crime and punishment. I don't see much working-class value for patriarchal "family values," "nuclear families," etc. or even foreign interventions dressed as "humanitarian" or "patriotic" (given the paltry veterans benefits these days, among more political problems).

[RGacky3]

Blue Labour is definitely a corporatist platform.

Corporatist in what way? and How?

[NewSocialist]

Corporatist in what way? and How?

I'd also like to know, because the 'guild socialism' endorsed by the Blue Labour advocates appears to have far more in common with the economic institutions championed by Proudhonists/mutualists and market socialists (e.g., worker cooperatives, mutual aid societies, etc.) than it does with fascist corporatism. The only similarity you could draw between this Blue Labour lot and fascism is that they oppose immigration and seem to endorse rather conservative social policies. In other words, they're fairly left-wing economically and relatively right-wing socially (not unlike the National Bolsheviks). Whether or not they're actually sincere about the economic doctrine they espouse remains to be seen—after all, the Nazis claimed to be "socialists" to appeal to the working-class for support as well.

[RGacky3]

They are not corporatist in the post fascist sense of the word at all, (state and buisiness working together for national interest).

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'd also like to know, because the 'guild socialism' endorsed by the Blue Labour advocates appears to have far more in common with the economic institutions championed by Proudhonists/mutualists and market socialists (e.g., worker cooperatives, mutual aid societies, etc.) than it does with fascist corporatism.

Fascist corporatism isn't limited to the big industrialists. The Charter of Carnaro championed those same economic institutions you mentioned.

[#FF0000]

EDIT: Nevermind. Misread posts. 12 hour overnight shift. Hurf durf

[NewSocialist]

Fascist corporatism isn't limited to the big industrialists. The Charter of Carnaro championed those same economic institutions you mentioned.

I'm unfamiliar with this charter you're referring to, but even if it does support the formation of worker cooperatives, mutual aid societies, and such, it was most likely mere rhetoric—like the Nazis claiming they wanted to "nationalize" large industries in their 25 point program (which they never fulfilled). Nevertheless, perhaps you'd be kind enough to post a few exceprts from the charter anyway.

"Corporatism" refers to a theorhetical economic ideology wherein representatives of labor, capital, and the state are all supposed to gather together in some sort of economic congress to plan certain aspects of the economy together. These "corporations" never truly existed en mass (as any historian of fascism will tell you), and where they did exist, the state almost always sided with the proposals of capital and against those of labor, but I digress.

Now, I do know that during Mussolini's brief Social Republic, the Congress of Verona met in 1943 and decided upon an economic program which, among other things (many of them being anti-Semitic), promoted the nationalization of mid and large size businesses to be run by the workers—but that program was drafted by Mussolini's old socialist friend, Nicola Bombacci, and it was never fully implemented since that "Republic" didn't last very long before the war ended.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Corporatism, in the sense of Blue Labour, refers to "class cooperation" in a sense. The same way the National Socialists in Germany used it.

[NewSocialist]

Corporatism, in the sense of Blue Labour, refers to "class cooperation" in a sense. The same way the National Socialists in Germany used it.

Yes, I'm well aware of how "class collaboration" refers to a central theme in corporatism—after all, the ideology claims to "solve" the problem of class struggle by giving every part of class society (labor, capital, and the state) an "equal" position in the bargaining process in the Chamber of Corporations (which, in practice, never occured, of course).

But if these Blue Labour people are serious about this 'guild socialism' they endorse, no class collaborationism would happen because there would literally be no bourgeois class to collaborate with, since labor would control the means of production themselves—albeit in a market context (as seen in mutualism and market socialism). So, again, it's quite different from fascism, at least economically.

[Red Future]

It's a common conviction among the British middle class (be they petty bourgeois, managerial, or high-status proletarians) that the working class, in the sense of the greater mass of the proletarian population, are by the simple fact of their social status prone to socially reactionary views, such as racism, misogyny, and so forth. More than a little bit of this is projection on the part of the middle class, who like to find- or imagine- a "common" mouth-piece to voice the rancid politics that they keep locked behind plastic smiles. As such, the middle-classes like to concoct political recipes which address this percieved tendency of the "white working class", be it a finger-wagging liberalism that tries to dance around it, or an approving conservatism that tries to embrace it, as Blue Labour is doing.
Needless to say, the working class, who are not the homogeneously reactionary force that they are made out to be, tend to find this all very patronising and alienating, which is one of the many reasons for the increasing non-involvement of the working class in political life.

I want to rep this greatly

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm unfamiliar with this charter you're referring to, but even if it does support the formation of worker cooperatives, mutual aid societies, and such, it was most likely mere rhetoric—like the Nazis claiming they wanted to "nationalize" large industries in their 25 point program (which they never fulfilled). Nevertheless, perhaps you'd be kind enough to post a few exceprts from the charter anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Carnaro


Those only are full citizens who give their best endeavour to add to the wealth and strength of the State; these truly are one with her in her growth and development. Whatever be the kind of work a man does, whether of hand or brain, art or industry, design or execution, he must he a member of one of the ten Corporations who receive from the commune a general direction as to the scope of their activities, but are free to develop them in their own way and to decide among themselves as to their mutual duties and responsibilities.

The first Corporation comprises the wage-earners of industry, agriculture and commerce, small artisans, and small landholders who work their own farms, employing little other labour and that only occasionally.

The second Corporation includes all members of the technical or managerial staff in any private business, industrial or rural, with the exception of the proprietors or partners in the business.

In the third, are united all persons employed in commercial undertakings who are not actually operatives. Here again proprietors are excluded.

In the fourth, are associated together all employers engaged in industrial, agricultural, or commercial undertakings, so long as they are not merely owners of the business but — according to the spirit of the new constitution —prudent and sagacious masters of industry.

The fifth comprises all public servants, State and Communal employees of every rank.

In the sixth are to be found the intellectual section of the people; studious youth and its leaders; teachers in the public schools and students in colleges and polytechnics; sculptors, painters, decorators, architects, musicians, all those who practise the Arts, scenic or ornamental.

The seventh includes all persons belonging to the liberal professions who are not included in the former categories.

The eighth is made up of the Co-operative Societies of production and consumption, industrial and agricultural, and can only he represented by the self-chosen administrators of the Societies.

The ninth comprises all workers on the sea.

The tenth has no special trade or register or title. It is reserved for the mysterious forces of progress and adventure. It is a sort of votive offering to the genius of the unknown, to the man of the future, to the hoped-for idealization of daily work, to the liberation of the spirit of man beyond the panting effort and bloody sweat of to-day.
It is represented in the civic sanctuary by a kindled lamp bearing an ancient Tuscan inscription of the epoch of the communes, that calls up an ideal vision of human labour: ‘Fatica senza fatica.’

[NewSocialist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Carnaro

Okay.. So you're showing me how the eighth corporation (as outlined in the Charter of Carnaro) acknowledged the validity of worker cooperatives, but what's your point? That worker cooperatives are inherently fascistic or corporatist? I know you don't mean that, since socialists have been advocating on behalf of them long before fascism or corporatism were even conjured up. Or do you mean that worker cooperatives are at least not antithetical to fascism or corporatism? And even that's debatable. As the very charter you're alluding to indicates, traditional capitalist enterprises were not opposed at all. In regards to Fascist Italy, as I stated earlier, Mussolini didn't explicitly start opposing capitalism until the formation of his Social Republic (with the legislation drafted at the Congress of Verona), and even then the economic program Bombacci wrote was never fully implemented—partly because the state only lasted two years and partly because the Nazis opposed its implementation during the war.

Now I don't know if these Blue Labour people actually favor the abolition of all capitalist enterprises (to be replaced with worker control of the means of production) or not. If they're indeed actual guild socialists, as they claim to be, then they would oppose all capitalist firms. If not, the "fascist" label could more accurately be attached to them, though you'd still have to show where they endorse the formation of a Chamber of Corporations (to say nothing of militarism, expansionism/imperialism, dictatorship, etc.)

They're clealry nationalists and social conservatives, but I've yet to see how they could be accurately labeled "corporatists" or "fascists." I appreciate you taking the time to post some exerpts from that proto-fascist charter nevertheless.

[Coach Trotsky]

Is there any wing of the Labour Party leadership that isn't reactionary and class-collaborationist?

[Red Future]

Is there any wing of the Labour Party leadership that isn't reactionary and class-collaborationist?

I suppose you could consider Scargill"s Socialist Labour Party which included ex-labour types.

[Nial Fossjet]

Why is every third way agenda from the direction of social conservatism + fiscal progressivism (as opposed to the neoliberal/libertarian social liberalism + fiscal conservatism third way of the DLC/New Labour) seen as crypto-fascism? Was West Germany "corporatist"? Is Christian Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy) fascism? Didn't the social market economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy) successfully arbiter between worker's unions and business owners?

[RGacky3]

I agree, calling it fascist is stupid, the connotations with that word have nothing to do with it.

The Social Market economy is really the same as social-democracy, just a little tougher.

[Coach Trotsky]

Why is every third way agenda from the direction of social conservatism + fiscal progressivism (as opposed to the neoliberal/libertarian social liberalism + fiscal conservatism third way of the DLC/New Labour) seen as crypto-fascism? Was West Germany "corporatist"? Is Christian Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy) fascism? Didn't the social market economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy) successfully arbiter between worker's unions and business owners?

Because if you are political leadership, and you aren't revolutionary socialist, then one way or another you're in the business of misleading and betraying working people (and surprise surprise, the liberal-Left establishment forces and the union bosses are also involved in this sort of business, hand-in-hand with the bourgeoisie, serving their interests and defending/perpetuating this system in the process). Of course, the fake-Left doesn't tell on itself, and much of the Left in general either think they are above criticism (can't criticise our Popular Front "allies", right?) or are too cowardly to offer the needed criticism, or are too unwilling to admit that much of what passes today as "progressive" in Left circles is just their own embracing and rationalizing and capitulating before the globalized capitalist ruling class' new game!
Comrades, we need to recognize that today's fake-Left is a business, just like the churches are!

[RGacky3]

Because if you are political leadership, and you aren't revolutionary socialist, then one way or another you're in the business of misleading and betraying working people (and surprise surprise, the liberal-Left establishment forces and the union bosses are also involved in this sort of business, hand-in-hand with the bourgeoisie, serving their interests and defending/perpetuating this system in the process).

Not all of them, not all of them at all, its kind of silly to paint that brush. A lot of them get corrupted, but that does'nt mean that they neccessarily do.

Obviously when people get in power they have to compromise sometimes to get things done, some of them ARE corrupt and use that as an excuse.

But you can't tell me that Bernie Sanders is not sincere, the same that goes with many union leaders.

[scarletghoul]

Well this seems to be a clear turn towards fascism on the Labour Party's part.. they are negating Blair's negation (of Clause IV) and confirming once and for all that the Labour Party will never serve the interests of the lower classes. Shame on anyone who still supports them.

[RGacky3]

who are you, Glenn Beck?

[scarletghoul]

Why is every third way agenda from the direction of social conservatism + fiscal progressivism (as opposed to the neoliberal/libertarian social liberalism + fiscal conservatism third way of the DLC/New Labour) seen as crypto-fascism?
I would say because those are the very ingredients of fascism. It's an attempt to conserve traditional social values while maintaining and consolidating the strength of monopoly capitalism and appealing ideologically to the petty-bourgeoisie and 'grafters' as miliband puts it.

Parts of the Guardian piece sound like they could have come straight from mussolini, from the brutally paradoxical ideology-

combines faith and citizenship, patriotism and internationalism and is, at its best, radical and conservative.
-to the economics which blame finance capital for all the problems and want to create a stronger and more controlled form of capitalism-

The tradition is strong and the party should honour it. In its explanation of the crash it must point to the volatility and vice of finance capital and the necessity of a balance of power within the firm and stronger institutions to constrain capital and domesticate its destructive energy.

This fascism is inherent in 'third way' politics,, as it can not accept the existence of an internal contradiction in capitalism and has to displace the contradiction by blaming the jews or finance capitalism or whatever, while trying to strengthen the Nation/etc. The Smurfs are a great example of this, as I outlined in an old essay (http://scarletghoul.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/smurfism-is-fascism-revised-and-extended/).

[ComradeMan]

who are you, Glenn Beck?

I challenge you not to use the words "Glenn" and "Beck" for at least one month.... :lol:

:thumbup1:

[RGacky3]

I challenge you to make a real point.

[ComradeMan]

I challenge you to make a real point.

.


:lol:

[Nial Fossjet]

I would say because those are the very ingredients of fascism. It's an attempt to conserve traditional social values while maintaining and consolidating the strength of monopoly capitalism and appealing ideologically to the petty-bourgeoisie and 'grafters' as miliband puts it.

Except certain ideologies such as Christian Democracy in Europe/Latin America/the Philippines and populist politics such as the Progressive Era in the U.S. are not inevitably fascist. Communitarian societies in East Asia with rather stern traditionalist morality derived from Confucianism, and markets involving heavy state intervention are not fascist, either. Maybe you can apply the phrase corporatist, but corporatist economy is only one component of fascism.


This fascism is inherent in 'third way' politics,, as it can not accept the existence of an internal contradiction in capitalism and has to displace the contradiction by blaming the jews or finance capitalism or whatever, while trying to strengthen the Nation/etc.

Not everything that pretends to have leftist fiscal policies while having less-than-leftist policies in other matters is inevitably fascist!

[Tim Finnegan]

Well this seems to be a clear turn towards fascism on the Labour Party's part..
Labour have transformed into a ultranationalist mass-movement of the petty bourgeoisie with a bonapartist political program and a palingenesis-fixation? :confused: You'd think that something like that would catch more headlines...

[brigadista]

Well this seems to be a clear turn towards fascism on the Labour Party's part.. they are negating Blair's negation (of Clause IV) and confirming once and for all that the Labour Party will never serve the interests of the lower classes. Shame on anyone who still supports them.

agreed - they are a bunch of wankers and have more in common with the tories than the people they claim to represent

[graffic]

I think a lot of people need to read the links again. Blue Labour is not "anti-immigration". I think its important to remember its more about emphasis. They want to emphasis much more greatly the problem with neo-liberal markets and put working class interests first as opposed to "New Labour" that was unashamedly pro neo-liberal.