Tim Cornelis
13th April 2013, 13:03
It's a bit incoherent, hopefully you get the gist of what I'm trying to say. Essentially, why do people vote against themselves (i.e. why do workers vote right-liberal) and do they really (are they workers or labour aristocracy)?
Class interests culminates in class struggle, as Anton Pannekoek noted:
There is a class antagonism in capitalism—capitalists and workers have opposing interests. Not only on the question of conservation of capitalism, but also within capitalism itself, with regard to the division of the total product. The capitalists attempt to increase their profits, the surplus value, as much as possible, by cutting down wages and increasing the hours or the intensity of labour. On the other hand, the workers attempt to increase their wages and to shorten their hours of work.
The price of labour power is not a fixed quantity, though it must exceed a certain hunger minimum; and it is not paid by the capitalists of their own free will. Thus this antagonism becomes the object of a contest, the real class struggle.
Recently, I read some text on the ICT website which differentiated between class consciousness and class instinct. Class instinct is not revolutionary, nor does it mean that those having it are aware of opposing class interests. Class instinct simply means aspiring to get higher wages, for instance. Workers' class instinct can even be reactionary, the notion that foreigners take 'our' jobs. Likewise, capitalists tend not to be class consciousness and aren't aware of the class struggle they wage, they have class instinct upon which they act. So it would be logical to conclude that where most lack class consciousness, most would have class instinct.
How then is it possible, with the working class being the vast majority in Western countries, that such "class interest" parties on the left underscore and on the right overachieve. Looking at the Netherlands, we have five or six workers' class instinct parties (note, workers' class instinct does not preclude capitalist class instinct):
The Socialist Party, GreenLeft, far-right Freedom Party, 50PLUS, and Labour (though Animal Party may also count). These tend to oppose flexibilisation of the labour market, austerity measures, and such measures not in the interest of workers (though to some extent only rhetorically). These parties combined have 76 seats out of 150, just over half, even though workers make up the, say, 85 to 95% of the adult population.
In the latest March polls, they have 91 of 150 seats (or 60%) -- a uniquely high figure.
How then do we account for this gap? Why do workers vote for parties that insist on flexibilisation of the labour market? . Perhaps it's the labour aristocracy with a high income and steady job that looks down on those not working "if I can do it, why can't they? Let's slash their welfare checks and security," and they turn leftward only in times of crisis when they succumb to job insecurity (as we see in Southern Europe).
If this is true, then what are its implications? Accelerationism?
Class interests culminates in class struggle, as Anton Pannekoek noted:
There is a class antagonism in capitalism—capitalists and workers have opposing interests. Not only on the question of conservation of capitalism, but also within capitalism itself, with regard to the division of the total product. The capitalists attempt to increase their profits, the surplus value, as much as possible, by cutting down wages and increasing the hours or the intensity of labour. On the other hand, the workers attempt to increase their wages and to shorten their hours of work.
The price of labour power is not a fixed quantity, though it must exceed a certain hunger minimum; and it is not paid by the capitalists of their own free will. Thus this antagonism becomes the object of a contest, the real class struggle.
Recently, I read some text on the ICT website which differentiated between class consciousness and class instinct. Class instinct is not revolutionary, nor does it mean that those having it are aware of opposing class interests. Class instinct simply means aspiring to get higher wages, for instance. Workers' class instinct can even be reactionary, the notion that foreigners take 'our' jobs. Likewise, capitalists tend not to be class consciousness and aren't aware of the class struggle they wage, they have class instinct upon which they act. So it would be logical to conclude that where most lack class consciousness, most would have class instinct.
How then is it possible, with the working class being the vast majority in Western countries, that such "class interest" parties on the left underscore and on the right overachieve. Looking at the Netherlands, we have five or six workers' class instinct parties (note, workers' class instinct does not preclude capitalist class instinct):
The Socialist Party, GreenLeft, far-right Freedom Party, 50PLUS, and Labour (though Animal Party may also count). These tend to oppose flexibilisation of the labour market, austerity measures, and such measures not in the interest of workers (though to some extent only rhetorically). These parties combined have 76 seats out of 150, just over half, even though workers make up the, say, 85 to 95% of the adult population.
In the latest March polls, they have 91 of 150 seats (or 60%) -- a uniquely high figure.
How then do we account for this gap? Why do workers vote for parties that insist on flexibilisation of the labour market? . Perhaps it's the labour aristocracy with a high income and steady job that looks down on those not working "if I can do it, why can't they? Let's slash their welfare checks and security," and they turn leftward only in times of crisis when they succumb to job insecurity (as we see in Southern Europe).
If this is true, then what are its implications? Accelerationism?