What would a UKIP Britain look like in reality?

[Carlos-Marcos]

I'm interested in seeing the views of the far left on this issue - the recent UK elections returned the Conservative party unfortunately, but much of the talk was about the UKIP party that gained 4 million votes.

So, let's say UKIP actually won (or perhaps next time) - how would it really pan out in reality? What would happen to the average guy on the street (and let's forget about the immigration issue this time)

[ChangeAndChance]

What do you mean "forget" about the "immigration issue"? Tightening of immigration (towards countries with a Muslim majority, mind you) is integral to UKIP's racist libertarian capitalist ideology. When you analyse the effects of a political party's handling of an entire country's society and economy, you must take their ENTIRE ideology into account including the blatantly racist bits.

In any case, if by "average guy on the street" you mean white, heterosexual, C of E, middle to upper class man, things would probably be just great, especially if you're a capitalist. If you're not all of these things, then you can expect life to get a fuck tonne harder.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sometimes a picture is worth an unspecified but large number of words:

https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10922421_352122538313560_2891144275700858613_n.jpg ?oh=5eda426723808978c97deb3fe484a6fd&oe=55BFDAAC

A Britain governed by UKIP would not be any different than a Britain governed by Tories, a Britain governed by Labour, the SNP, the Greens, TUSC, the CPGB-PCC or Class War. The rising popularity of the UKIP and the BNP, with their anti-immigrant racism, is simply the symptom of changes in British bourgeois society, changes that would be reflected in any government. The only difference is that Tories, the UKIP or the BNP would likely be direct about it, whereas Labour would try to portray themselves as friendly to immigrants even as they deport them, detain asylum-seekers in concentration camps etc.

[Carlos-Marcos]

What do you mean "forget" about the "immigration issue"?

I was hoping to try and understand the other issues, ie: the economic ones.

for example, UKIP have said they will remove all on min wage from income tax - so what's the catch?

[Carlos-Marcos]

A Britain governed by UKIP would not be any different than a Britain governed by Tories, a Britain governed by Labour, the SNP, the Greens, TUSC, the CPGB-PCC or Class War.

aren't the CPGB, TUSC and Class War way to the left - why do you say they would be the same as UKIP? (and what is PCC?)

or are they all hopelessly corrupted by capitalism? I guess, perhaps they are

[RedWorker]

A Britain governed by UKIP would not be any different than a Britain governed by Tories, a Britain governed by Labour, the SNP, the Greens, TUSC, the CPGB-PCC or Class War.

Actually, it would. Obviously, capitalism would still be there. That doesn't mean nothing will change.


The rising popularity of the UKIP and the BNP, with their anti-immigrant racism, is simply the symptom of changes in British bourgeois society, changes that would be reflected in any government. The only difference is that Tories, the UKIP or the BNP would likely be direct about it, whereas Labour would try to portray themselves as friendly to immigrants even as they deport them, detain asylum-seekers in concentration camps etc.

You could attribute any change to changes in society in general... This is simply a tautology carrying an unfalsifiable statement. This reasoning is weak.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Actually, it would. Obviously, capitalism would still be there. That doesn't mean nothing will change.

The names of people in the executive committee of the bourgeoisie would change, as would come inconsequential rhetoric. What you will have a hard time proving is that any substantial policy would change. It flies in the face of actual historical experience - e.g. with the Freedom Party in Austria, the near identity of policies by successive Labour and Conservative governments in the UK (the policies of MacMillan were, after all, closer to those of Willson than they were to those of Thatcher, and Blair was closer to Thatcher than Willson), etc.

[RedWorker]

Because any actual change that is found, you will claim that it 1) would happen under any other party, 2) was forced by action of the masses, and rely on a large amount of tautologies while doing so. Obviously, these claims in the way you do them are unfalsifiable. It is true that there are big factors (for example, there are usually two bourgeois parties e.g. Labour and Conservative the policy of which is adapted exactly to the ruling bourgeois policy at the time but 1 step to the left or 1 step to the right - and MANY politicians/parties were credited for laws that the masses and their action were really responsible for). That doesn't mean that these 2 factors, big as they are, determine everything, as you claim. There are more than 2 factors, they have differing degrees of importance.

Society is always the result of the interaction of all of its components... so it is always true that one component of society is determined by the whole of society. You use this statement as a basis for your claims. What you really are doing, however, relies on the nuances of language rather than on real phenomena.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Because any actual change that is found, you will claim that it 1) would happen under any other party, 2) was forced by action of the masses, and rely on a large amount of tautologies while doing so. Obviously, these claims in the way you do them are unfalsifiable. It is true that there are big factors (for example, there are usually two bourgeois parties e.g. Labour and Conservative the policy of which is adapted exactly to the ruling bourgeois policy at the time but 1 step to the left or 1 step to the right - and MANY politicians/parties were credited for laws that the masses and their action were really responsible for). That doesn't mean that these 2 factors, big as they are, determine everything, as you claim. There are more than 2 factors, they have differing degrees of importance.

Society is always the result of the interaction of all of its components... so it is always true that one component of society is determined by the whole of society. You use this statement as a basis for your claims. What you really are doing, however, relies on the nuances of language rather than on real phenomena.

Tautologies are statements that always evaluate to true, so if I'm relying on tautologies, as you claim, I'm obviously not saying anything false (although I might fail to be informative). I don't see a single tautology in my argument, though. You interpreted "bourgeois society" to be the same as "society" in general, but that wasn't the point. The point was that policy is not set voluntaristically by this or that party, but is the result of developments in the bourgeoisie and associated strata (senior civil servants, for example). Mass pressure is only part of the story. Mass pressure didn't bring about Thatcherism.

And as for falsificationism, it's bunk. Even so, we can directly compare the policies of various, supposedly ideologically disparate parties, at the same time, and in similar circumstances - the UK Conservative Party, the UDF and its predecessors in France, the CDU in Germany and so on. All of these countries show the same economic development even though they were ruled at various times by conservative, social-democratic, Christian-democratic, whatever, parties.

This is not nitpicking, this is a basic communist political position, that electing Kadets or Trudoviks is essentially the same as electing Progressists or Octobrists. To deny that is to open the way to a coalition, and we all know how well that went for communists.

[Q]

aren't the CPGB, TUSC and Class War way to the left - why do you say they would be the same as UKIP? (and what is PCC?)
Xhar-xhar is clearly not having an idea when he says that the CPGB wants to take power in the UK alone. They explicitly call for a Communist Party of the EU that have some concentrated effort towards taking power on a continental scale.

The "PCC" addendum refers to the fact that the CPGB doesn't see itself as the party. It's more correct to say that it sees itself as a campaign to refound the Communist Party. Therefore it adds to its name "Provisional Central Committee", awaiting the refoundation congress.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Xhar-xhar is clearly not having an idea when he says that the CPGB wants to take power in the UK alone. They explicitly call for a Communist Party of the EU that have some concentrated effort towards taking power on a continental scale.

That is besides the point. A bourgeois EU, including bourgeois Britain, where the CPGB-PCC forms the government (an obviously unlikely situation, but the point was to illustrate the principle: left and "left" parties running bourgeois governments are not except from the general laws of development of the bourgeois state), would be qualitatively the same as a bourgeois EU, including bourgeois Britain, where the European Federalist Party forms the government.

[Comrade Jacob]

well at least a UKIP Britain could spring some sort of fightback.

[Left Voice]

well at least a UKIP Britain could spring some sort of fightback.
You're pretty much outing yourself with comments like that.

I appreciate what the OP is trying to achieve by wanting to put aside the immigration issue, but that's impossible and playing into UKIP's hands. UKIP utilise immigration, but *want* you to believe that their reasoning is more about economics than the discrimination that it really is. UKIP exposed themselves as a single-issue party obsessed with immigration during the run-up to the recent election when everything from the housing crisis to HIV was somehow caused by immigrants, according to Farage himself.

UKIP taking power would see an acceleration of Conservative policies. That's why so many Tory backbenchers are crying out for a coalition with UKIP - they know it would be much easier to do everything from privatise the NHS to dismantle the welfare state to withdraw from the EU, repeal the human rights act and everything else that as as socialists should oppose, if they had the extra strength of UKIP to help them overcome the moderates in the Tory party.

[Rafiq]

The names of people in the executive committee of the bourgeoisie would change, as would come inconsequential rhetoric. What you will have a hard time proving is that any substantial policy would change. It flies in the face of actual historical experience - e.g. with the Freedom Party in Austria, the near identity of policies by successive Labour and Conservative governments in the UK (the policies of MacMillan were, after all, closer to those of Willson than they were to those of Thatcher, and Blair was closer to Thatcher than Willson), etc.

The only thing in common would be yes - the retention of capitalist relations and their perpetuation in a more efficient manner. This does not make any sort of equivalence between a UKIP and a Tory government, however. Capitalist society can get worse, and to say otherwise gives Communism an apolitical character. Only those with the privilege of not having to rely on an already decimated welfare state, laws which to a limited extent protect immigrants, and so on can claim it would make no difference. People forget that the bourgeois liberal state was partially forged through concessions to the working people and the actual strive to forstall class antagonisms.

Think: Communist struggle is not some kind of organic, spontaneous demand from the masses. It is political. And political developments within capitalism are of importance insofar as they tip the scales out of our favor, or make Communist politics even less viable. It is a war we are fighting (or will fight), not some kind of march to destiny, and in a war defeat and victory are real possibilities. Dismissing the degradation of society's political standards as "inconsequential rhetoric" inspires a sense of not only political apathy, but arguably psychosis. Believe it or not, there have been achievements wrought out by the liberal totality (even if they are in opposition to liberalism) that would most likely not be possible in a Fascist one. Things you dismiss as a given so arrogantly - secularism, the status of women, even DEMOCRATIC ethics (Yes, I know, vomit). These are simply not enough in contrast to Communist politics - but just imagine - imagine if these were gone. What is probable is that the collapse of Liberalism will be the end of civilization as we know it, and the absolute impossibility of Communist politics to arise.

If you don't believe me, look at Russia or Hungary and tell me what in any sense could Communist politics arise independently of their potential emergence westward?

[Rafiq]

That is besides the point. A bourgeois EU, including bourgeois Britain, where the CPGB-PCC forms the government (an obviously unlikely situation, but the point was to illustrate the principle: left and "left" parties running bourgeois governments are not except from the general laws of development of the bourgeois state), would be qualitatively the same as a bourgeois EU, including bourgeois Britain, where the European Federalist Party forms the government.

Power perpetuates the conditions of capitalism, but the point of a proletarian dictatorship, as it was conceived by Marx and Engels, is to exercise power insofar as it lays the foundations for socialism. In other words, what would qualify a "bourgeois EU" would be an EU that acts in accordance with the interests of the bourgeoisie, a real class, not whether it is burdened with presiding over the capitalist society it is in the process of doing away with.

[RedWorker]

Tautologies are statements that always evaluate to true, so if I'm relying on tautologies, as you claim, I'm obviously not saying anything false (although I might fail to be informative)

Let me explain with an example:

2 + 2 = 4. This is based on language. Because we define the numerals and the mathematical processes. Now, of course, this is tied to real phenomena. If we take two apples and put another two apples next to them, we will end up with four apples. We are still defining the process of counting, what "two" is, an "apple" is... Putting two with two, whether they are physical items or not, will always result in four because of the definitions we have used. But it is still tied to reality, in fact it is interwoven with reality.

You say: "The rising popularity of the UKIP and the BNP, with their anti-immigrant racism, is simply the symptom of changes in British bourgeois society, changes that would be reflected in any government." The point is that this statement is carrying circular reasoning (not immediately apparent, buried, would require an exposition of the whole logic to be directly apparent). It is not interwoven with real phenomena, but rather relies totally on language itself - rather than using language as a device to create a logic system interwoven with reality, as in the 2+2 example. You claim that policy is determined by what is currently favored by bourgeois society. Surely it is one of the determining factors; however, the claim that the party has no influence at all on policy relies on circular reasoning carrying an unfalsifiable statement.


The point was that policy is not set voluntaristically by this or that party, but is the result of developments in the bourgeoisie and associated strata

What proof do you have that the party has no influence at all in the content of the laws?


Mass pressure is only part of the story. Mass pressure didn't bring about Thatcherism.

The point is that you will claim that any good law made by a party was really down to mass pressure.


And as for falsificationism, it's bunk.

Is it relevant that it cannot be proven nor disproven that God exists? I think it is. That does not mean that I agree with Popper. I believe that Marxism is interwoven with reality rather than rely, in the end, on language, or circular reasoning. Marxism gives labels to things and describes processes; that, however, does not mean that it engages in weak reasoning purely based on tautologies. Otherwise biology (e.g. because of taxonomy) or mathematics would also be considered weak reasoning...


Even so, we can directly compare the policies of various, supposedly ideologically disparate parties, at the same time, and in similar circumstances - the UK Conservative Party, the UDF and its predecessors in France, the CDU in Germany and so on. All of these countries show the same economic development even though they were ruled at various times by conservative, social-democratic, Christian-democratic, whatever, parties.

The Labour Party and the Conservative Party, the CDU and the SPD are, in present times, barely ideologically disparate.

And by the way: interestingly it was you who claimed that the Stalinist coup in Cuba (which retained capitalism and bourgeois society, the change being changing the people/party in power of the bourgeois state) brought about important policy changes. How is this not incongruent?

Venezuela now, the fascist states and the Stalinist states exist or existed in the context of bourgeois society and capitalism. But that does not mean that the bourgeoisie has total and direct power over policy. Neither does it mean that the policies applied challenge bourgeois society nor capitalism - they are simply not the ones considered most efficient by bourgeois standards. So because you believe that in capitalism there can only be one policy, you also believe that a change in policy must have meant also that capitalism has been exited (e.g. in the USSR), even though you believe that a change in policy cannot exit capitalism! This is ripe with contradictions.

What you think is based on a flaw in Trotskyist thought. "The revolution succeeded in Russia, so a workers' state was created, and even after degenerating it is still a workers' state of some kind... that means it cannot be capitalist. And the military expansion to e.g. East Germany created another workers' state, albeit still a degenerated one. So capitalism ended there too." What a mockery of thought; obviously it results in absurd conclusions. No wonder Trotskyists such as you (in difference to the ones who e.g. theorize about state capitalism), for instance, can never give a definite answer to what mode of production the Soviet Union was under; preferring, rather, to give explanations such as "distancing oneself from the people ritualistically chant state capitalism" (accusing others of dogma because they violate your dogmatic belief!), etc... which obviously is just a cheap excuse to avoid answering the question.

Anyway, it speaks for itself: "DEFEND THE NORTH KOREAN DEFORMED WORKERS' STATE!" - the rallying cry of your political organization (literally).

The very fact that you believe that there is policy in bourgeois society, means that a party can change it... of course, bourgeois parties tend to rule in bourgeois societies, and what is seen as more efficient policy by bourgeois standards is what will become the ruling policy earlier or later. This does not mean that parties cannot change policy. It means that the SPD and Conservatives will gravitate towards the same policies, that they will tend to be in power, and that parties will tend to adapt to the bourgeois standard.


This is not nitpicking, this is a basic communist political position, that electing Kadets or Trudoviks is essentially the same as electing Progressists or Octobrists. To deny that is to open the way to a coalition, and we all know how well that went for communists.

The basic communist position is to understand that electing any party that will operate in a reformist basis within bourgeois society will never result in the abolition of capitalism. Believing that everything will be the same no matter what party is elected is not necessarily a communist position.

In fact, the basic communist position is to understand that certain parties are closer to the interests of the proletariat and communists, all the while understanding that electing reformist parties will not be the engine of a social revolution.

And if we're talking about basic communist positions, then we'd better check on the people who defined communism. After all, it was Engels who said:

"where the bourgeoisie rules, the communists still have a common interest with the various democratic parties, an interest which is all the greater the more closely the socialistic measures they champion approach the aims of the communists - that is, the more clearly and definitely they represent the interests of the proletariat and the more they depend on the proletariat for support." - F. Engels

[Left Voice]

A Britain governed by UKIP would not be any different than a Britain governed by Tories, a Britain governed by Labour, the SNP, the Greens, TUSC, the CPGB-PCC or Class War.
This is a stunning statement that trivialises the hardship that working people have endured throughout 5 years of Conservative-Liberal Democrat cuts, and are surely going to suffer from over the next 5 years of exclusively Conservative rule.

Nobody is going to suggest that the Labour Party is a path towards revolutionary socialism. But to completely disregard the trials of working people because of its 'irrelevance' to the working class isn't a great way to make socialism relevant to the working class.

[Blake's Baby]

well at least a UKIP Britain could spring some sort of fightback.

First UKIP, then us!

Because that worked so well in Germany.



....

You say: "The rising popularity of the UKIP and the BNP, with their anti-immigrant racism, is simply the symptom of changes in British bourgeois society, changes that would be reflected in any government." The point is that this tautology is carrying circular reasoning. It is not interwoven with real phenomena, but rather relies totally on language itself - rather than using language as a device to create a logic system interwoven with reality, as in the 2+2 example. You claim that policy is determined by what is currently favored by bourgeois society. How do we know what is favored by bourgeois society? By looking at policy. It is simply circular reasoning carrying an unfalsifiable statement...

So stop trying to find empirical evidence and argue from a rationalist standpoint.

We know that the history of all hitherto-existing societies is the history of class struggle. We know that the ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the rulijg class. What does this allow us to infer? That the policies that the ruling class enacts are either 1-the policies they want to enact (as Xhar-Xhar says, policies that would likely be enacted by any government, see the previous 2 governments' record on immigration controls) or 2-something they are forced to accept by mounting social pressure (see not very many things in the last 30 years).

Now, there are some minor differences between the parties. The ban on fox-hunting that Labour brought in was purely a sop to 'liberal' urban voters that Labour wanted to keep sweet. Likewise, the repeal of the same law is designed as a sop to the Conservatives' rural voter-base. British Capitalism (TM) doesn't give a fuck one way or the other. The CEO of British Airways or Toyota's top UK dude aren't lying awake at night worrying about whether or not the foxes are going to be ripped to bits. Economically it's utterly inconsequential. But very useful as window dressing.

The EU referendum is a bit different, membership or not of the EU would have certain economic consequences (some positive, some negative) for British capitalism. What the British ruling class has to do is come to a decision which it wants and then persuade the voters to back it.

[Rafiq]

We know that the history of all hitherto-existing societies is the history of class struggle. We know that the ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the rulijg class. What does this allow us to infer? That the policies that the ruling class enacts are either 1-the policies they want to enact (as Xhar-Xhar says, policies that would likely be enacted by any government, see the previous 2 governments' record on immigration controls) or 2-something they are forced to accept by mounting social pressure (see not very many things in the last 30 years).


Generally this is true, but it is too simplistic. The ruling class is hardly monolithic under its own terms - one needs to understand that the drive for profit, to feed the hunger of capital conflates and intersects. Finally, one also ignores that an invisible bourgeoisie is infinitely possible as the basis of bourgeois politics, that is to say, a petite-bourgeois movement, while seldom backed by the bourgeoisie, is bourgeois insofar as it inevitably gives us an alternative bourgeoisie.

[RedWorker]

he policies that the ruling class enacts are either 1-the policies they want to enact

Policies are enacted by parties. Usually in a bourgeois society there are two parties, the first one step to the left (Labour) and another one step to the right (Conservatives) of the current bourgeois standard. These parties tend to rule. Parties, in general, gravitate around the bourgeois standard. The bourgeoisie does not directly rule politics. It indirectly rules them.

Still, policies are enacted by parties. It is possible for a party to come in power and set about its own policy. It is even possible for the bourgeoisie not to rule politics for a period of time without capitalism and bourgeois society being eliminated. With time, the policies based on the bourgeois standard will rule again, though the ideological justification for this will vary. In other words, there is a trend that generally tends to the present bourgeois standard matching the policies in use. That doesn't mean that it is always the case.

The bourgeoisie stopped ruling politics in the USSR, Nazi Germany and currently Venezuela. Capitalism and bourgeois society were retained in all cases. Yes, it stopped ruling politics in Venezuela too, even though it is the closest of the three to a regular bourgeois country. Note "ruling", because the bourgeoisie is still a big influence/factor - just not the ruling one.


(as Xhar-Xhar says, policies that would likely be enacted by any government, see the previous 2 governments' record on immigration controls) or 2-something they are forced to accept by mounting social pressure (see not very many things in the last 30 years).

Sure. That is one of the big determining factors. My point was not that it is not a factor; my point is that any example of different policy given to 870 will result in the following justifications: "the bourgeois standard changed" or "the masses forced it". According to his circular reasoning, any case of a ruling party enacting something without the masses forcing it means that the bourgeois standard must have changed. Now, that the bourgeois standard is one of the determining factors is true. But claiming that it is the only possible case becomes possible to sustain only by using circular reasoning - this is not the case when taking into account my considerations above. How does one explain the case of e.g. Venezuela? The masses did not force it and the bourgeois standard did not change. Yet the current policies, although they are not very distant from the bourgeois standard and may be floating towards it, are obviously not the same as these preferred by the bourgeoisie (though they could be preferred by a political bureaucracy). Now, I'm not saying these are proletarian policies, but the fact that they are inefficient by bourgeois standards is the main point.


Now, there are some minor differences between the parties. The ban on fox-hunting that Labour brought in was purely a sop to 'liberal' urban voters that Labour wanted to keep sweet. Likewise, the repeal of the same law is designed as a sop to the Conservatives' rural voter-base. British Capitalism (TM) doesn't give a fuck one way or the other. The CEO of British Airways or Toyota's top UK dude aren't lying awake at night worrying about whether or not the foxes are going to be ripped to bits. Economically it's utterly inconsequential. But very useful as window dressing.

Labour and Conservatives are the two big bourgeois parties that have nearly the same economic policy and a slightly different social policy. So they are not the best examples for disproving the point that there may be another party - far away from the big bourgeois parties - that will enact different policy.

[Carlos-Marcos]

UKIP taking power would see an acceleration of Conservative policies. That's why so many Tory backbenchers are crying out for a coalition with UKIP - they know it would be much easier to do everything from privatise the NHS to dismantle the welfare state to withdraw from the EU, repeal the human rights act and everything else that as as socialists should oppose, if they had the extra strength of UKIP to help them overcome the moderates in the Tory party.

that seems about right, yet why do so many working class Brits support UKIP these days?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What would happen to the average guy on the street
Couldn't you at least say "average person" so you wouldn't exclude women? Women often have much more to lose when reactionaries gain power.

[Carlos-Marcos]

I think that is debatable because it depends on the woman.

A right wing woman, for example, may benefit from a UKIP govt.

[John Nada]

that seems about right, yet why do so many working class Brits support UKIP these days?Because the vast majority of working class Britons don't support the UKIP. 66% of potential voters bothered to turnout, 12.% voted UKIP, which in actually is about 8%. Over 57, male, white, sole proprietors and lower/middle management, who made up the bulk of that 8%, are not the British proletariat, let alone close to that many.

[Carlos-Marcos]

well what I'm getting at here is why do many working class NOT vote Labour? (young included)

[Blake's Baby]

Because Labour is a party for lying corrupt warmongers, obviously.

[Carlos-Marcos]

Certainly the 4 main parties in UK are like that, Con-Lab-Lib-UKIP, so not much getting away from that unfortunately - and one can only vote SNP if living in Scotland - so that just leaves the Greens (1million votes), who are basically just eco-liberals, and a handful of minority parties

[stealingscissors]

(Hi, I'm a first time poster, so just experimenting)
Personally, I think that there is no way of telling what a UKIP Britain would look like , as with all mainstream political parties,it won't stick to it's manifesto, and the outcome will be totally different to what is expected.
This applies to all of the parties, no matter where on the political spectrum, as they are all still promoting capitalism, so will ultimately have the same outcome in the long run (as the only way to achieve change will be the revolution). In the meantime, just watch what the hell UKIP will do with their elected seat (probably screw it up anyway~)