View Full Version : Disraeli - did nothing for the working class?
Funky Monk
2nd May 2004, 23:00
I disagree.
Me too
But alas, this was Kez's argument. He said he'd debate it: so its up to him, as the proposition, to defend his claim.
We await with eagerness kez.
Funky Monk
2nd May 2004, 23:08
Just like to question early, are we questioning his desires or his actions?
Because it could be said that he did it all in the name of a Tory future but found it necessary to improve the lot of the Working class.
Well, you are quite right to raise such point. It is a source of great debate, which i will be only too happy to explore:
However, the issue at hand is Kez's claim that Disraeli did nothing for the working class: in that he didn't improve the situation of the late C19th, british working class.
Invader Zim
2nd May 2004, 23:46
I think you would be hard pressed to find even one prime minister sinse the Duke of Wellingon's time in office, who has arguably not done a thing to improve the life of the working classes.
Even Robert Peel the "father" of conservatism has a strong case of actually helping the working classes in some respects.
i dont think i said the **** didnt do a single thing for the working class, because had he not done, then there would be revolution...
however, read this
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/ljb1.html
read that, i cant be arsed give any more effort to this shit.
cubist
6th May 2004, 17:19
lmao KEZ shows how good you are,
can't be arsed to argue and back up calling james a mother fucker and starting a kick him out thread with a major reason being about disraeli
I hope you realise what a fucking anti-working class motherfucker Disraeli was also.
First mention of disraeli - note, you open up the discussion. Not me (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24447&st=0)
I knew you would chicken out - i state in the above link that the debate would probably never go ahead.
He was not anti working class in my opinion. Defend this assertion of yours please.
You said in the Commie Club something along the lines of:
Disraeli the motherfucker was a supporter of the ruling class
“He despised the members of the aristocracy even more than he disliked the poor...”
- AJP Taylor’s (historian)
And this was a left wing historian's verdict.
______
The link that you post is only in regard to his foreign policy. That isn't the subject here, set up another thread if you want to debate that.
Disraeli did ALOT for the working class: more than was necessary.
and why was he a "****" kamo?
quit your fucking whining.
Alright, i'll fucking be arsed just to shut fucking pricks like you up, petty fucks
http://www.hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/1313.html
"The Great Depression of 1873 would in fact last for several decades. Amongst its immediate effects, however, was a conservative victory in the election of 1873-1874, bringing Benjamin Disraeli to the Prime Minister's seat. Disraeli, a favorit of Queen Victoria's, oversaw the transformation of Britain's view of its place in the world. Whereas most Britons, and even powerful business lobbies prior to this period trusted Britain's ability to dominate global markets through free trade, and thus opposed the cost of extending formal empire, Disraeli saw a growing challenge to Britain's pre-eminent commercial position. The newly-united German state was gaining power under the guidance of Bismarck. America was industrializing. The French, chastened by their defeat in the Franco-Prussian wars of 1870-1871, were looking to redeem themselves overseas. Finally, an expanding Russia was threatening British access to her crown jewel, India.
Incredibly, Britain had made no provisions to seize the empire she would later claim. As late as 1865, a Parliamentary Committee had recommended total withdrawal from her possessions in West Africa, and Disraeli's predecessor, Gladstone, had seen imperial expansion as extravagant and wrong. The holy doctrine of 'free trade' promised that British commercial prowess would maintain her dominance without the need for overseas adventures. Fortunately for the imperialist lobby, the enlightenment principles of egalitarian and democratic rule, which could have gotten in the way of empire building, had been blunted by events such as Kanpur and by a growing social Darwinist movement. Disraeli was able to justify the backing of despots and 'pashas' against reformers in the middle east through a doctrine of national interest and a civilizing mission. The ideals of early-Victorian Britain -- free thought, freedom of religion, modernization -- were thus abandoned in the name of Empire."
Disraeli was able to justify the backing of despots and 'pashas' against reformers in the middle east through a doctrine of national interest and a civilizing mission. The ideals of early-Victorian Britain -- free thought, freedom of religion, modernization -- were thus abandoned in the name of Empire
VIVA DISRAELI! thats what i say!
As for him being the great hero of the working class
http://www.marxist.com/hbtu/chapter5.html
"Following the Paris Commune, the astute Benjamin Disraeli granted reforms, despite divisions in the ruling class, to avoid any such social explosion in Britain. While Paris was ablaze, it was again a question of timely reforms from above to prevent revolution from below. With the extension of the franchise in 1867, further government concessions were made towards the trade unions in 1871, this time improving their financial status - an act that greatly impressed the upwardly mobile trade union leaders of the day. But as always, the concessions were limited and the legal restrictions on the right to strike were still retained. It took a further five years of intense working-class pressure to force the government to grudgingly eradicate these impositions."
Because first and formost on his mind was the real show of the working class to be really democratic so they wouldnt be exploited no longer wasnt it? In fact, one could argue Disraeli was the Lenin of Britain....couldnt they James?
He feared the emerging middleclasses, which threatened the Ruling Class, ie the class he supported. He is not someone a socialist such support in anyway, shape, or form. But you do.
AC-Socialist
6th May 2004, 17:39
James, I fail to see any kind of logic to your argument. Firstly this quote
“He despised the members of the aristocracy even more than he disliked the poor...”
This is the opinion of one historian, also im sure you are taking it out of context. So he disliked the poor as well? As implicit as it may be - thats the message I get.
Secondly, you say
Disraeli did ALOT for the working class: more than was necessary.
More than was necessary? <_< So what you think was necessary was a few reforms? Reforms which evidently still didn't get rid of exploitation and inequality? Reforms which only served to subdue the working people just enough so he and his cronies could continue with there doctrine of imperialism and slavery mabye?
This is what i dont get James, for what he did (or didnt do) for the working class a million poeple have done twice as much, and were not imperialist, empire building racists to boot. Why not Marx or Engles? or if your talking british working class specifically then why not Atlee, Ramsey or Benn?
Originally posted by
[email protected] 6 2004, 05:24 PM
The link that you post is only in regard to his foreign policy. That isn't the subject here, set up another thread if you want to debate that.
Disraeli did ALOT for the working class: more than was necessary.
Nope, you made the subject, i didnt, i said he supported the ruling class.
And by the way kiddda, the working class and the exploited are international...so it does matter with foreign policy...
How much is "neccesary" James??? What is neccessary is the overthrow of capitalism and all those who support it, THAT is neccessary, not a few crumbs thrown down at them from the tables of the capitalists.
The first article is pritty irrelevent. Again, it seems more focused on foreign affairs - as i said kamo, if you want to debate imperialism, or foreign policy in anyway: start a new thread. Your tactic of digression shall not be allowed here.
The article mentions the market. Well this isn't really that relative: as the topic starter points out - you are trying to argue that Disraeli did nothing (or very little) to improve the situation of the English Working Class.
It becomes even more irrelevent when one considers how Disraeli was actually a supporter of the Corn Laws; i.e. he was a protectionist. Of course you could make the argument that he did this to get back at Peel (who hadn't offered him a place in his cabinet): but this is going onto motives. Again, this was established early on that we arn't looking at motives, but what he actually did (partly because we don't need to get sidetracked from the actual issue here - and also because no one is sure either way what his motives were. There is a strong argument on both sides).
He never claimed to be a socialist Kamo - so i'm afraid you can't make the argument that he was a failed socialist in trying to change the market to a socialist one (he was in favour of paternalist economy).
The ideals of early-Victorian Britain -- free thought, freedom of religion, modernization -- were thus abandoned in the name of Empire
Like i said, i won't allow you to digress this onto foreign policy. We are debating what he did for the English working class.
_____
This next cut and paste job...
Well, it isn't really that reliable a source - as its marxist history: which is famous for finding links which don't actually exist. Anyway...
Following the Paris Commune, the astute Benjamin Disraeli granted reforms,
You mean he went back in time, to grant a vast proportion of the workingclass the vote? (which is how they prevented revolution in 1832)
Like i said - it finds links where there are none in the first place.
Disraeli was a reformist WAY before the Paris Commune.
to avoid any such social explosion in Britain.
Lets pretend that you had a valid point. i.e. the 1867 Reform Act of Disraeli's came after the Paris Commune.
There was not popular protest in England itself. Chartism (which failed in the short term, and def failed at succesfully challenging the government) died out a decade before.
this time improving their financial status - an act that greatly impressed the upwardly mobile trade union leaders of the day.
As i said - there was no popular protest.
His MOTIVES (which we said are not the subject) are controversial, but there is evidence which supports a strong argument that he was a reformist at heart. See the Young England group he was a member of; his novels (two nations theory); the fact that he at first tried to enter parliament as a radical. blah blah blah
But as always, the concessions were limited and the legal restrictions on the right to strike were still retained. It took a further five years of intense working-class pressure to force the government to grudgingly eradicate these impositions."
Because first and formost on his mind was the real show of the working class to be really democratic so they wouldnt be exploited no longer wasnt it? In fact, one could argue Disraeli was the Lenin of Britain....couldnt they James?
Thats bit of a confused "argument".
All i'm going to say is:
Conspiracy And Protection of Property Act 1875
Employers and Workmen Act 1876
Factory Acts of 74 and 78
For labour relations alone.
But he also improved the WC's conditions.
Publich Health Act 75
Artisans Dwellings Act 75
Sale of Food and Drugs Act 75
Enclosures Act 76
industrial waste legislation of 76
B. H. Abbot said - "the legislation of these years laid the foundations of modern public health so thoroughly and lastingly that no major changes were required for over 60 years"
Eddy Butler argues that
"All these measures were designed to ameliorate the poor conditions experienced by the working class at the hands of unregulated and unscrupulous industrial business concerns which had been allowed to operate in a laissez-faire manner by previous Liberal administrations."
He sumarises Disraeli's political philosophy as -
"the need for the upper class to work with the working class in a great national effort. He saw it as the duty of the upper class to improve the conditions of the working class and his social reforms were directed towards that end."
James, I fail to see any kind of logic to your argument. Firstly this quote
“He despised the members of the aristocracy even more than he disliked the poor...”
This is the opinion of one historian, also im sure you are taking it out of context. So he disliked the poor as well? As implicit as it may be - thats the message I get.
It was the guys conclusion of Disraeli (and as you can tell, he didn't like him). The fullest version i can find is;
“He had a flighty mind which drifted from smart triviality to adolescent day-dreaming and back again...He despised the members of the aristocracy even more than he disliked the poor...He relished the trappings of power, not the reality...Thick black ringlets, fancy waistcoats, powder and scent were not the marks of a gentleman or even of a politician.”
As i point out, he's a leftsit historian, who dislikes Disreali. Of course he's going to say that he hated the poor (although evidence proves this wrong); but the fact that he is saying that Disraeli hated the aristocracy EVEN more than the poor. Well, thats something in my book.
I wasn't making a new point, i was replying to Kamo's claim that he supported the upper class.
Secondly, you say
"Disraeli did ALOT for the working class: more than was necessary."
More than was necessary? So what you think was necessary was a few reforms? Reforms which evidently still didn't get rid of exploitation and inequality? Reforms which only served to subdue the working people just enough so he and his cronies could continue with there doctrine of imperialism and slavery mabye?
Necessary - its in reference to the often pointed out point, that most governments "threw the working class scraps from the table", to keep them happy. i.e. my point is that it is incorrect that Disraeli was a bog standerd capitalist leader who only made concessions, to prevent his overthrow. Disraeli did more than what was necessary, coming from a capitalist viewpoint. Or in response to a marxist argument.
for example; kamo argues a very origional argument that Disraeli ONLY legislated in response to threats from below. This may well have been true of earlier governments (major example is the 1832 Reform Act) - but not of disraeli.
I'm sorry; that was quite a vauge statement. It would have been okay if i was talking to you face to face, but it lost its meaning in print.
This is what i dont get James, for what he did (or didnt do) for the working class a million poeple have done twice as much, and were not imperialist, empire building racists to boot. Why not Marx or Engles? or if your talking british working class specifically then why not Atlee, Ramsey or Benn?
I'm merely pointing out that he did a dam lot for the working class. Sure alot of people did more; but my argument isn't that he did the most.
I'm a massive fan of Atlee - i think he's everything a British Prime Minister Should Be. I prefer Atlee to disraeli if you really want to know
So you agree kamo, after all you have said (and done), that Disraeli did do alot for the English working class - especially when compared to his political contempories?
If so, then we are allright old boy. And we agree.
And therefore there was no need for you to get me kicked out of the CC over this.
look you muppet, dont try and get away from this debate.
I said Disraeli was a supporter of the working class, and this is what point i shall defend, not what he did for the working class.
If i set you on fire, then pissed on you, would i be helping you? yes i would.
That is the core of your argument.
He made a few concessions, so what? We accept he did. According to your narrow debate topic thats the end of that.
The issue here is what kind of a person was Disreali, and what motivated him to make the concessions?
Sorry James,next time i'll make sure i use the Guardian for sourcees, since that paper ALWAYS tells the truth...
i suggest you read thru my points again, and answer them.
Also answer my last post.
"Nope, you made the subject, i didnt, i said he supported the ruling class.
And by the way kiddda, the working class and the exploited are international...so it does matter with foreign policy...
How much is "neccesary" James??? What is neccessary is the overthrow of capitalism and all those who support it, THAT is neccessary, not a few crumbs thrown down at them from the tables of the capitalists. "
Funky Monk
6th May 2004, 18:30
If Disraeli was so anti working class why was he a member of the Young England movement?
there are people in the conservative party today who were in the communist party, so what?
gimme document stating goals of this Young England organisation please.
look you muppet, dont try and get away from this debate.
I'm not.
He added 1 million WORKING CLASS people to the voting register.
He dramatically improved public health (a vast vast vast subject) for the WC, in MANY ways.
He made it possible for Trade Unions to effectively strike
He improved workers rights
He improved education
I said Disraeli was a supporter of the working class, and this is what point i shall defend, not what he did for the working class.
I'm saving that cracker!
If i set you on fire, then pissed on you, would i be helping you? yes i would.
That is the core of your argument.
No it isn't.
Did Disraeli set these people on fire? No.
Its like say i set you on fire, and then Funky Monk ran along and pissed on you; he would be helping you.
But thats a bit silly kamo. No one would piss on you (if you were on fire that is...)
He made a few concessions, so what?
He didn't though. That purely marxist argument is not accurate.
He didn't make concessions.
We accept he did. According to your narrow debate topic thats the end of that.
Well its going to be, because new youth doesn't have an article on disraeli apart from how he made concessions. You won't change your mind.
Please address the concession argument (give evidence of rebellion in England on the scale of 32)
The issue here is what kind of a person was Disreali, and what motivated him to make the concessions?
Not really - but if you want to go down that route... Fine.
He tried to get into parliament as a radical
He was a founding member of Young England
He was a renouned protectionist
His novels (self explanatory don't you think?)
What do you think motivated him? I bet all you can argue is that he was making concessions to prevent revolution etc. How origional, yet historically inacurate.
Sorry James,next time i'll make sure i use the Guardian for sourcees, since that paper ALWAYS tells the truth...
I havn't used the guardian at all. Don't digress.
i suggest you read thru my points again, and answer them.
As far as i'm aware, i did do.
Please just ask me in your own words (don't copy and paste...) - number your questions if you want.
Also answer my last post.
"Nope, you made the subject, i didnt, i said he supported the ruling class.
And by the way kiddda, the working class and the exploited are international...so it does matter with foreign policy...
How much is "neccesary" James??? What is neccessary is the overthrow of capitalism and all those who support it, THAT is neccessary, not a few crumbs thrown down at them from the tables of the capitalists. "
1. Imperialism isn't related to the condition of the English working class (e.g. state of public health). It isn't the subject here, start up another thread if you want to deal with imperialism. All i can say is that i don't support imperialism. Quote me saying "disraeli was cool because he was an imperialist" kamo; if you want to justify you digression by arguing that i in fact need to defend a comment of mine in the slightest.
2. the english working class are not international. And anyway - that is a trot OPINION.
3. I answer this in reply to that other guy's post
Funky Monk
6th May 2004, 19:14
there are people in the conservative party today who were in the communist party, so what?
gimme document stating goals of this Young England organisation please.
The organisations views can be seen in Disraeli's novels.
Basically they argued that hte Middle Class was too powerful and that the Aristocracy should use their power to protect the working class.
It was described by Marx as Fuedal Socialism
fucking hell. Were gonna be here all fucking night it seems:
"He added 1 million WORKING CLASS people to the voting register.
He dramatically improved public health (a vast vast vast subject) for the WC, in MANY ways.
He made it possible for Trade Unions to effectively strike
He improved workers rights
He improved education"
Right, first off, the TU point and workers point is the same
The other 3 were placed there as a safety valve against revolution, its pretty fucking clear.
If however we listen to your mumbo jumbo, in that he was restraining the middle class by increasing power of aristocracy (!!!) and the working class, again he wasnt giving working class justice, he was giving them more power so he could achieve his goal of weakening the new middle class.
"QUOTE
I said Disraeli was a supporter of the working class, and this is what point i shall defend, not what he did for the working class.
I'm saving that cracker!"
What i mean to say was:
I said Disraeli was a supporter of the ruling class, and this is what point i shall defend, not what he did for the working class.
I apologise for not proof reading.
Why is the fact that what he did were consessions incorrect?
And if you wanna be a childish fuckwit and not accept marxist sources, then i can not accept bourgeoise sources, argument becomes fucked, well done.
"He tried to get into parliament as a radical
He was a founding member of Young England
He was a renouned protectionist
His novels (self explanatory don't you think?)"
Right, Bentham (who said working class should not be given aid as illness levels our the weak from the strong and its good) was also radical, does he get support from socialists? does he fuck.
Again, this young england shit. You can be radical and from the right, so what???
Protectionist, ie protects the interests of the ruling class by allowing them to make products innefficiently, what a great man, i bet the working class wrote poems for him on that one...
Finally,
"the english working class are not international. And anyway - that is a trot OPINION."
now i AM saving that one. All socialists of all backgrounds and branches believe the working class is international, and not confined to borders, the only people who dont are National Socialists.
Invader Zim
6th May 2004, 22:08
Kez the one even remotly viable point you have raised in this entire debate is this: -
The other 3 were placed there as a safety valve against revolution, its pretty fucking clear.
Concievable I suppose, as it was a tactic used by Robert Peel, however Peel was faced with a very different political situation. Peal had to deal with the issue of Catholic emancipation, and Chartism (the major working class movment of the entire 19th century, in Britain), Disraeli had no such issues to deal with. Their was no need for a saftey valve against revolution, as their was no revolution likley to occur, it was a non-existant threat.
If your "marxist sources" tell you other wise then I suggest you find another more qualified historian, as it is simply not true.
"Disraeli, later to be a Tory prime minister, wrote two novels, Sybil and Coningsby, which “can be read as textbooks of the [Young England] school... These Tory scions of the aristocracy had an idealistic aim: to counteract the rising bourgeoisie and regenerate the power of the aristocracy by appealing to the working classes of the factories and farms, not simply by social demagogy but by real amelioration of the workers’ lot – exclusively at the expense of the rival ruling classes”. [23] These forces therefore represented divisions inside the ranks of the rulers and a real conflict of interests between different sections of the ruling class. However, they had no desire to see the working class acting in its own interests, since this would threaten the property and position of the landowners and the church as much as it would the factory owners. Their critique of capitalism, therefore, attracted the most compliant and least class conscious of the workers, those most likely to be deferential to their “betters”."
http://www.marxists.de/theory/german/manifesto.htm
As for unrest...
"A depression in 1873 shook up all class and they began to fear each other. Labor had legal unions and reforms did occur that saved England from a revolution in the 1840s, but the monopolies, cartels, and foreign competition and widespread poverty after 1873 led to a rise in militancy in a push for minimum wages.
Irish- “They detested the absentee British landlords and their burdensome rents” (Spiel. 838). Then the great famine of 1845-7 led to 1 mil. deaths and 1 mil. emigrants. Parliament offered no help and a revolutionary republican army--the Fenians--was born that engaged in terrorism demanding independence (home rule). It wouldn’t happen until after WWI when Ireland would be divided with the south gaining independence while 6 counties of Ulster remained part of the United Kingdom.
Feminists- more radical women demanding suffrage began militant action in the form of breaking windows, starting fires in mail boxes, chaining themselves to the gates at Parliament, hunger strikes when arrested. It would take the role women would play in WWI to get the vote (over 30 by 1918; 21 by 1928)."
http://socsci.gulfcoast.edu/rbaldwin/2NDINDUS.NT2.htm
Invader Zim
7th May 2004, 11:47
A depression in 1873 shook up all class and they began to fear each other. Labor had legal unions and reforms did occur that saved England from a revolution in the 1840s, but the monopolies, cartels, and foreign competition and widespread poverty after 1873 led to a rise in militancy in a push for minimum wages.
And where is your websites sources?
And where is your source saying that Disraeli's reforms in favour of the working classes were in direct responce to this depression?
Irish- “They detested the absentee British landlords and their burdensome rents” (Spiel. 838). Then the great famine of 1845-7 led to 1 mil. deaths and 1 mil. emigrants.
To a large extent the irish crisis of the 1840's was over, the large issue and violance over Ireland was not to respark until the early 1900's.
Parliament offered no help
Untrue, Peel a staunch conservative even attempted to ease the crisis, with the India/American grain imports, public works scheams and the abolishment of the Corn laws. Your website lies, to say that "Parliament offered no help", is just not true.
I am also intrigued to know why feminists and Irish people would force Disraeli to improve the conditions of the ENGLISH working classes.
Try reading your own sources.
"He added 1 million WORKING CLASS people to the voting register.
He dramatically improved public health (a vast vast vast subject) for the WC, in MANY ways.
He made it possible for Trade Unions to effectively strike
He improved workers rights
He improved education"
Right, first off, the TU point and workers point is the same
Ah i'm sorry. I meant to say working conditions (which i suppose you could loosely put under that heading) + Trade Union stuff.
These two are quite different.
And quite significant in my mind.
This is why i like disraeli - this is why i have an interest in him (i still can't get my head around your opinion that to be a socialist, one has to like/have an interest ONLY (in) other socialists).
The other 3 were placed there as a safety valve against revolution, its pretty fucking clear.
No they were not Kamo. Where is your actual evidence? When you consider the Chartist movement only sparked a little legislation?
They were inline with his political philosophy (: one in which i have great interest in.). His legislation is inline with the Young England group, and his novels and speeches. You can't simply ignore all this.
Anyway, are you saying that socialists can't study other philiosophies? (even though monk points out it is still a form of socialism - just not marxist)
If however we listen to your mumbo jumbo,
What mumbo jumbo exactly? I'm not the one who is arguing against HISTORICAL FACT.
in that he was restraining the middle class by increasing power of aristocracy (!!!)
Pardon?
and the working class, again he wasnt giving working class justice, he was giving them more power so he could achieve his goal of weakening the new middle class.
What are you on about?
He believed in working class rights - he was actually sympathetic to the Chartist movement. He didn't make it easier for Trade Unions to exist and protest, to prevent some rebellion in the slightest. That is a STUPID opinion.
Why is the fact that what he did were consessions incorrect?
Like i said - he did far more than what was nesecary.
Honestly Kamo, i really don't think you have ANY understanding of this period in british history. I really don't...
Please go away and study it, and then come back and try and debate.
And if you wanna be a childish fuckwit and not accept marxist sources, then i can not accept bourgeoise sources, argument becomes fucked, well done.
Pardon?
Now you see - i have stated FACTS.
- He masterminded several important pieces of legislation - FACT
- which greatly enhanced the english working class position - FACT -
- NOT because of a threat from below: but because of his personal philosophy
- Even if you had been correct, which you arn't - in that there had been a movement more threatening than Chartism; then it has to be pointed out that his legislation program, and speechs, and personal dedication: went further than was "necesary". FACT
ALL you have done kamo, is state firstly that he hardly did anything for the working class (he was anti working class?)
Then you changed your argument to yes he did do alot (which is why i like him Kamo - are you okay with that now? Are you going to say sorry for your origional comment?), but his "motives" were anti working class
To support this very thin argument ALL you have done is cut and paste jobs. Usually irrelevent crap, from a very biased source. Marxists are usually very crap at history because they like to find links which prove the marxist theory. When they can't find these links, they forge them, themselves. e.g. your wild claim that there was a threat of some sort, of rebellion.
So no Kamo, you are not correct. The argument became "fucked" when you started it - attacking ME personally, via slagging off my avatar (disraeli): without any basic knowledge of who disraeli actually was, what he did, and - MORE IMPORTANTLY - WHY i like/interested in him.
Grow up. PLEASE.
"He tried to get into parliament as a radical
He was a founding member of Young England
He was a renouned protectionist
His novels (self explanatory don't you think?)"
Right, Bentham (who said working class should not be given aid as illness levels our the weak from the strong and its good) was also radical, does he get support from socialists? does he fuck.
Again, this young england shit. You can be radical and from the right, so what???
Protectionist, ie protects the interests of the ruling class by allowing them to make products innefficiently, what a great man, i bet the working class wrote poems for him on that one...
My list is a very crude attempt at demonstrating some possible motivations: concessions is not a valid argument that holds ANY water.
Yes, he was a tory: this is blindingly obvious. What are you trying to do Kamo? Your digression has just esculated to a new level.
Finally,
"the english working class are not international. And anyway - that is a trot OPINION."
now i AM saving that one. All socialists of all backgrounds and branches believe the working class is international, and not confined to borders, the only people who dont are National Socialists.
So all socialists argue it, except for some socialists? lol
Anyway; no doubt you will try and spin that comment. I was merely pointing out that we are talking about the English Working Class. The English working class is not international, when put into the context of what Disraeli did for the english working class. I said that in reply to an attempt of yours to get onto imperialism, so that you could have some more ammo in the CC.
(by the way, i think you'd find a debate on Disraeli's "imperialism" would backfire on you)
I like disraeli for what he did regarding the english working class position. Whats your problem?
He blatantly did alot for the WC: and not just to avert rebellion. He was a man ahead of his time. A very interesting man to study, from Britain's history.
Kez, i know you are itching, so go here and get it off your chest.
Disraeli's imperialism (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24664)
As i've said before, i like disraeli and find him interesting, because of what he did for the english working class.
Originally posted by
[email protected] 7 2004, 11:47 AM
A depression in 1873 shook up all class and they began to fear each other. Labor had legal unions and reforms did occur that saved England from a revolution in the 1840s, but the monopolies, cartels, and foreign competition and widespread poverty after 1873 led to a rise in militancy in a push for minimum wages.
And where is your websites sources?
And where is your source saying that Disraeli's reforms in favour of the working classes were in direct responce to this depression?
Irish- “They detested the absentee British landlords and their burdensome rents” (Spiel. 838). Then the great famine of 1845-7 led to 1 mil. deaths and 1 mil. emigrants.
To a large extent the irish crisis of the 1840's was over, the large issue and violance over Ireland was not to respark until the early 1900's.
Parliament offered no help
Untrue, Peel a staunch conservative even attempted to ease the crisis, with the India/American grain imports, public works scheams and the abolishment of the Corn laws. Your website lies, to say that "Parliament offered no help", is just not true.
I am also intrigued to know why feminists and Irish people would force Disraeli to improve the conditions of the ENGLISH working classes.
Try reading your own sources.
the source is written with a link for you to click, really not difficult...
I dont need a source to tell me, i have a brain capable to conclude from many sources (including these 2 sources, and how British Imperialism has operated for centuries) that as a result from Pressure from below, the ruling class must shift.
Let us also not forget the effects of the events in France.
Originally posted by
[email protected] 7 2004, 02:04 PM
"He added 1 million WORKING CLASS people to the voting register.
He dramatically improved public health (a vast vast vast subject) for the WC, in MANY ways.
He made it possible for Trade Unions to effectively strike
He improved workers rights
He improved education"
Right, first off, the TU point and workers point is the same
Ah i'm sorry. I meant to say working conditions (which i suppose you could loosely put under that heading) + Trade Union stuff.
These two are quite different.
And quite significant in my mind.
This is why i like disraeli - this is why i have an interest in him (i still can't get my head around your opinion that to be a socialist, one has to like/have an interest ONLY (in) other socialists).
The other 3 were placed there as a safety valve against revolution, its pretty fucking clear.
No they were not Kamo. Where is your actual evidence? When you consider the Chartist movement only sparked a little legislation?
They were inline with his political philosophy (: one in which i have great interest in.). His legislation is inline with the Young England group, and his novels and speeches. You can't simply ignore all this.
Anyway, are you saying that socialists can't study other philiosophies? (even though monk points out it is still a form of socialism - just not marxist)
If however we listen to your mumbo jumbo,
What mumbo jumbo exactly? I'm not the one who is arguing against HISTORICAL FACT.
in that he was restraining the middle class by increasing power of aristocracy (!!!)
Pardon?
and the working class, again he wasnt giving working class justice, he was giving them more power so he could achieve his goal of weakening the new middle class.
What are you on about?
He believed in working class rights - he was actually sympathetic to the Chartist movement. He didn't make it easier for Trade Unions to exist and protest, to prevent some rebellion in the slightest. That is a STUPID opinion.
Why is the fact that what he did were consessions incorrect?
Like i said - he did far more than what was nesecary.
Honestly Kamo, i really don't think you have ANY understanding of this period in british history. I really don't...
Please go away and study it, and then come back and try and debate.
And if you wanna be a childish fuckwit and not accept marxist sources, then i can not accept bourgeoise sources, argument becomes fucked, well done.
Pardon?
Now you see - i have stated FACTS.
- He masterminded several important pieces of legislation - FACT
- which greatly enhanced the english working class position - FACT -
- NOT because of a threat from below: but because of his personal philosophy
- Even if you had been correct, which you arn't - in that there had been a movement more threatening than Chartism; then it has to be pointed out that his legislation program, and speechs, and personal dedication: went further than was "necesary". FACT
ALL you have done kamo, is state firstly that he hardly did anything for the working class (he was anti working class?)
Then you changed your argument to yes he did do alot (which is why i like him Kamo - are you okay with that now? Are you going to say sorry for your origional comment?), but his "motives" were anti working class
To support this very thin argument ALL you have done is cut and paste jobs. Usually irrelevent crap, from a very biased source. Marxists are usually very crap at history because they like to find links which prove the marxist theory. When they can't find these links, they forge them, themselves. e.g. your wild claim that there was a threat of some sort, of rebellion.
So no Kamo, you are not correct. The argument became "fucked" when you started it - attacking ME personally, via slagging off my avatar (disraeli): without any basic knowledge of who disraeli actually was, what he did, and - MORE IMPORTANTLY - WHY i like/interested in him.
Grow up. PLEASE.
"He tried to get into parliament as a radical
He was a founding member of Young England
He was a renouned protectionist
His novels (self explanatory don't you think?)"
Right, Bentham (who said working class should not be given aid as illness levels our the weak from the strong and its good) was also radical, does he get support from socialists? does he fuck.
Again, this young england shit. You can be radical and from the right, so what???
Protectionist, ie protects the interests of the ruling class by allowing them to make products innefficiently, what a great man, i bet the working class wrote poems for him on that one...
My list is a very crude attempt at demonstrating some possible motivations: concessions is not a valid argument that holds ANY water.
Yes, he was a tory: this is blindingly obvious. What are you trying to do Kamo? Your digression has just esculated to a new level.
Finally,
"the english working class are not international. And anyway - that is a trot OPINION."
now i AM saving that one. All socialists of all backgrounds and branches believe the working class is international, and not confined to borders, the only people who dont are National Socialists.
So all socialists argue it, except for some socialists? lol
Anyway; no doubt you will try and spin that comment. I was merely pointing out that we are talking about the English Working Class. The English working class is not international, when put into the context of what Disraeli did for the english working class. I said that in reply to an attempt of yours to get onto imperialism, so that you could have some more ammo in the CC.
(by the way, i think you'd find a debate on Disraeli's "imperialism" would backfire on you)
I like disraeli for what he did regarding the english working class position. Whats your problem?
He blatantly did alot for the WC: and not just to avert rebellion. He was a man ahead of his time. A very interesting man to study, from Britain's history.
Socialist should and do have an interest in historical figures regardless of their ideologies, however, we dont support ruling class figures.
Again, we should study and understand other philosophies, but Marx was attacking Feudal Socialism in the Communist Manifesto, and if one concludes that Disraeli was indeed a Feudal socialistn (!!!!) then it would still be our duty as real socialists to critisize him. I however, do not believe he was even a Feudal Socialist, not by far.
what the fuck is the pardon about?
"He didn't make it easier for Trade Unions to exist and protest, to prevent some rebellion in the slightest. That is a STUPID opinion."
-No shit sherlock. Had he done these then i would say he supported workers rights. However, in a time when clearly workers were being persecuted, and had few rights, why did Disraeli not propose legislation for full rights? Because he wanted to contain the workers from ever gaining power.
i am still amazed at what you think the working class deserve....the working class deserves EVERYTHING, COMPLETE POWER, not crumbs thrown down from the capitalists table.
Explain what you mean "more than was neccessary".
Dont tell me to study anything, how about u try reading something other than bourgeoise historians rubbish?
Socialist should and do have an interest in historical figures regardless of their ideologies, however, we dont support ruling class figures.
So whats your problem??
Again, we should study and understand other philosophies, but Marx was attacking Feudal Socialism in the Communist Manifesto, and if one concludes that Disraeli was indeed a Feudal socialistn (!!!!) then it would still be our duty as real socialists to critisize him. I however, do not believe he was even a Feudal Socialist, not by far.
You mean as Marxists.
Fair enough.
But don't try and say real socialists = marxists and that only marxists = real socialist.
what the fuck is the pardon about?
It was in reference to your comment that i can't make observations about your sources (they were all marxist - your other sources don't state anything relevent): you can't attack my sources because i'm not relying on a type of source which is famous for poor historical accuracy. I state examples of how i state historical fact, and you only reply with philiosophy.
You would have a point if you wern't trying to argue that England was on verge of revolution.
"He didn't make it easier for Trade Unions to exist and protest, to prevent some rebellion in the slightest. That is a STUPID opinion."
-No shit sherlock. Had he done these then i would say he supported workers rights. However, in a time when clearly workers were being persecuted, and had few rights, why did Disraeli not propose legislation for full rights? Because he wanted to contain the workers from ever gaining power.
I think you confused my statement.
He didn't legislate in response to a threat.
What else could he do? What he did was relatively speaking, revolutionary - he established the RIGHT for TU's to exist (he made it legal for them to strike - i.e. to bargin and gain power); and brought in fairer employment legislation AND set maximum working hours.
What existed before? Hardly anything. You have to put it into context.
i am still amazed at what you think the working class deserve....the working class deserves EVERYTHING, COMPLETE POWER, not crumbs thrown down from the capitalists table.
Stop talking shit kamo - this point is an attempt at diversion.
You are seemingly impossible to debate with, because you can only accept whatever new youth says, and only agree with individuals in power who grant the WC "everything".
I NEVER said Disraeli did such a thing - stop trying to distort WHY i like the guy, and am interested in him.
He did do ALOT for the working class - no matter what and how you argue; you can't change this FACT.
Explain what you mean "more than was neccessary".
Dont tell me to study anything, how about u try reading something other than bourgeoise historians rubbish?
I said!
I was saying it, within the context of this hypothetical situation of yours that Disraeli only threw them a few crumbs, to keep them happy.
Your argument is incorrect regarding his motives. He was not scared of some revolution. He legislated out of a disire to improve the conditions of the english working class.
And like i said - i read your sources, but they are so inacurate.
By all means your argument is valid regarding WHY 1832 was passed, and possibly (to a far lesser extent) some 1840s reforms - but not Disraeli's legislation. That is why i think you need to read up on this era. I have done - from left wing and right wing sources.
Kamo: there was no mass movement. People wern't taking to the street in a way to scare the "rulling elite".
I'm sorry kamo.
and can you please have your imperialism rant (in the imperialism thread): i'm sure we'll discover that, yet again; you don't have the slightest clue.
Cheers
What a sham.
The point is a socialist should not support such a wanker, as you do.
As for the imperialism thread, ive made my comments here, so you can reply here, i cant be fucked usuing 2 threads, when its bad enuf trying to deebate with someone who is set in a capitalist mindset as you.
The working classes werent on the streets, again, no shit sherlock, but there was discontent. When were on the streets its too fucking late.
The point is a socialist should not support such a wanker, as you do.
I'm sorry kamo, its just so hard to keep up with your "point" which seems to change every post or so.
So i "support" disraeli? Please quote me (i think there is an issue of misunderstanding here kamo - don't confuse interest and like, with support)
Don't you think Enigma "supports" peel, because he has expressed an interested in him? (Are you going to get him kicked out too?)
As for the imperialism thread, ive made my comments here, so you can reply here, i cant be fucked usuing 2 threads,
You don't actually; you've just done a few copy and paste jobs that refer to Disraeli's imperialism. Seeing as this was a concern of yours (that i "support" an imperialist), i think you should just reiterate for us your comments. What specifically are you refering to when you state that disraeli was an imperialist?
Please be as specific as possible. State some specific examples of Disraeli's imperialism - and this does NOT mean cut and paste from some website. If you do this again then we will have to conclude that you don't actually have a clue about disraeli, and you therefore raised this whole thing because you simply wanted to attack me personally. Hope they are keeping up with this debate in the old CC
The working classes werent on the streets, again, no shit sherlock, but there was discontent. When were on the streets its too fucking late.
So you now agree that there wasn't actually any effective popular protest movement? If so, you have CHANGED your argument!
Is your argument now that Disraeli legislated, 'just in case' this situation changed?
Personally i don't think Disraeli would have done that, he was after all extremely clever. Why would he give the working class a means to increase their power and improve their situation in society (the TU's); effectively a weapon in revolution - if he wanted to keep them down?
Also, why did he support the chartist movement if he was for keeping the working class down?
Again, i restate - i think you don't actually understand that i have an interest in disraeli because he was a remarkable guy, who did an awful lot for the english working class. I really don't see where you got this idea from, that i in some way, "support", disraeli. No, i think this is more of a personal vendettae of yours. Why? Probably because you really are a sad prick (i'm not the only one to think this old boy).
redstar2000
9th May 2004, 02:37
The point has been made often enough that each successive generation sees history "through its own eyes".
Which makes me wonder about your motives, James, and not Disraeli's.
Are you "in the market" for a modern Disraeli? An aristocratic chap (or aristocrat-wannabe) who will "do nice things for people" out of the "goodness of his heart"?
Do you see locating such an august personage and elevating him to power as "the best hope for the future"?
Is this your "non-Marxist" "socialism"?
There seems to be a "thing" among some of the English members of this board about "benevolent authority figures"...perhaps this is an English tradition, I don't know.
But your posts don't read like those of someone who is "merely" interested in historical accuracy; you sound like someone who genuinely admires Disraeli.
From Otto von Bismarck to Franklin D. Roosevelt to, yes, Joseph Stalin, we can find a fair assortment of characters who "did a lot for the workers"...not forgetting that Adolph Hitler ended mass unemployment in Germany while the rest of the capitalist world continued to suffer from the Great Depression. Is that sufficient to be worthy of admiration?
Is it your "hidden thesis" (or "sub-text") that Disraeli's "benevolence" "proves" that benevolent authority is both possible and "the best we can hope for"?
I've noticed that a good many contemporary struggles are fought in "historical costume" (Marx noticed it too).
Perhaps this controversy is one of them.
:redstar2000:
The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
DaCuBaN
9th May 2004, 03:51
From Otto von Bismarck to Franklin D. Roosevelt to, yes, Joseph Stalin, we can find a fair assortment of characters who "did a lot for the workers"...not forgetting that Adolph Hitler ended mass unemployment in Germany while the rest of the capitalist world continued to suffer from the Great Depression. Is that sufficient to be worthy of admiration?
Quite frankly the names you mentioned are worthy of note, if not admiration. They all did many good things. The problem is (AGAIN!) idolisation - we can respect the honourable works that disraeli set in motion, but these are as equally counteracted - as with all the names Redstar mentioned, 'good' and 'bad' are part of everyone (apologies for the cliché)
Is this your "non-Marxist" "socialism"?
I find a lot of people treat marx as 'holy scripture' (not yourself red, I've seen you post on that subject) as if marx and engels figured it all out and we don't even need to think about it anymore - just wait for the demise of capitalism and rise up!
Proposterous in my mind - as if we can't advance on what they've written... as if we can't look at figures like disreali and others of his ilk and try and learn from them as well... they have plenty to show us, whether we agree with it or not.
Reading sources sympathetic to your own views doesn't make you think you know :rolleyes:
I'm not sure i like the way you say "out of the goodness of his heart". Sounds like you are taking the piss to tell you the truth. If so, then you are over simplifying it.
Do you see locating such an august personage and elevating him to power as "the best hope for the future"?
Is this your "non-Marxist" "socialism"?
Isn't that reading into it a little bit?
I see where you are going with this though - yes, i am interested in the philosophy of paternalism.
And it does have a strong argument - marxism usually ends with some person being elevated to power.
I prefer Disraeli to Stalin. I admire Disraeli more than Stalin.
There seems to be a "thing" among some of the English members of this board about "benevolent authority figures"...perhaps this is an English tradition, I don't know.
There is probably a strong element of truth in this. This would probably also explain why i'm interested in Owen, Titus Salt, etc
But your posts don't read like those of someone who is "merely" interested in historical accuracy; you sound like someone who genuinely admires Disraeli.
Don't you think someone will come to the defence of a historical figure (or event) if another tries to slag them off and paint a totally inaccurate picture?
Kamo has been arguing from a totally ideological stance. In his dogma, he discards historical accuracy.
From Otto von Bismarck to Franklin D. Roosevelt to, yes, Joseph Stalin, we can find a fair assortment of characters who "did a lot for the workers"...not forgetting that Adolph Hitler ended mass unemployment in Germany while the rest of the capitalist world continued to suffer from the Great Depression. Is that sufficient to be worthy of admiration?
Not in my PERSONAL opinion, but that isn't why i'm interested in Disraeli (alone). That over simplifies my interest.
For example, if i shared Kamo's "opinion" (i.e. he only legislated to prevent revolution) - then i wouldn't be interested in Disraeli in the same way.
I DO, however, share Kamo's basic opinion when we look at Earl Grey and the 1832 Reform Act ("The principle of my reform is to prevent the necessity for revolution"). Thats why you see me now defending Disraeli; and not Grey.
Is it your "hidden thesis" (or "sub-text") that Disraeli's "benevolence" "proves" that benevolent authority is both possible and "the best we can hope for"?
I disagree with the latter part.
redstar2000
10th May 2004, 16:33
...as if we can't look at figures like Disraeli and others of his ilk and try and learn from them as well... they have plenty to show us, whether we agree with it or not.
Like what?
That is, what would you have us learn from Disraeli?
Yes, I am interested in the philosophy of paternalism.
And it does have a strong argument - marxism usually ends with some person being elevated to power.
Well, Leninism does.
But why is paternalism "interesting"?
Would you want to do that? Why?
Do you project paternalism as a "peaceful alternative" to Marxism, one that "accomplishes the same goals" only slowly and peacefully?
It seems to me that "benevolent authority" is an oxymoron; if some authority figure gives the appearance of benevolence, then there's something deeper going on.
I have no idea what that might be in Disraeli's case -- 19th century English history is "not my field" and I've probably read less than half-a-dozen books on the matter in the last 40 years.
But I don't believe that bourgeois politicians become successful "because" they're "nice guys" who do things to help people "out of the goodness of their hearts".
What was Disraeli up to and why?
Is it not possible, for example, that Disraeli's reforms were a response not to any existing crisis but to one he anticipated and hoped to prevent? He would not have been the first "far-sighted" bourgeois politician...though possibly he was among the earliest.
Did he not also have the reforms of Napoleon III as an example to learn from? Or perhaps the Paris Commune to be afraid of? (You can see my knowledge of the chronology here is pretty hazy.)
I agree with you. by the way, concerning the over-riding importance of historical accuracy. "What really happened" can be very complex, with much conflicting evidence, etc.
Nevertheless, none of our conclusions will be worth anything if we don't get "what really happened" right...or as close to right as we can.
:redstar2000:
The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
James
10th May 2004, 18:02
But why is paternalism "interesting"?
Its an interesting philosophy, its "different"; as kamo points out - its romantic, utopian.
Would you want to do that? Why?
Do what?
Do you project paternalism as a "peaceful alternative" to Marxism, one that "accomplishes the same goals" only slowly and peacefully?
Not really... marxism and paternalism are very different. Paternalism is very diverse in itself: paternalism isn't one set belief, i think it would be better to say that paternalism is just more of a different way of thinking.
It depends on what you percieve Marxism's goal.
It seems to me that "benevolent authority" is an oxymoron; if some authority figure gives the appearance of benevolence, then there's something deeper going on.
Thats because you are a marxist (this is an assumption of course, sorry if i'm wrong) - thus you automatically suspect authority (not that i don't think authority should be questioned).
Kamo accuses me of thinking with a "capitalist mindset" - i think he is on to something here, or rather, i think he is correct in stating that we have a different mindset. I'm not thinking as a marxist.
Whats your opinion on human nature? inherintly good/evil? Or is it all nuture? (briefly though, lets not open that can of worms).
I think authority can be benevolent.
I have no idea what that might be in Disraeli's case -- 19th century English history is "not my field" and I've probably read less than half-a-dozen books on the matter in the last 40 years.
But I don't believe that bourgeois politicians become successful "because" they're "nice guys" who do things to help people "out of the goodness of their hearts".
What was Disraeli up to and why?
Is it not possible, for example, that Disraeli's reforms were a response not to any existing crisis but to one he anticipated and hoped to prevent? He would not have been the first "far-sighted" bourgeois politician...though possibly he was among the earliest.
The problem is that we will never know. We do know though, that his vision of society was revolutionary for the time.
True he was not a marxist: he never claimed to be. He never claimed to be a socialist either. But this is only really worth exploring if one is of the opinion of kamo: that socialists should only be interested in other socialists. His "mindset" does not allow him to admire those he percieves to be "non socialist".
But you could make the argument that he had alot of socialist ideas (from a more feudal approach) I suppose :)
Did he not also have the reforms of Napoleon III as an example to learn from? Or perhaps the Paris Commune to be afraid of? (You can see my knowledge of the chronology here is pretty hazy.)
Kamo stumbled across these arguments earlier. The situation of England though had been quite safe for some time - 1832 had prevented rebellion.
Even if you argue that he legislated from a desire to preserve the rulling elite, you can't argue that he legislated ONLY because of this.
Nevertheless, none of our conclusions will be worth anything if we don't get "what really happened" right...or as close to right as we can.
Well there isn't THAT much of a point to this thread, because its origins are in kamo's earlier attack in the commie club which itself didn't hold much water.
Personally, i am interested in Disraeli, and paternalism. This doesn't make me "un socialist" though, contary to what some morons may think.
Louis Pio
10th May 2004, 18:46
Now this whole discussion actually seems to evolve around if we should admire and idolise bourgious politicians if they do something "good". As Kez already stated most of these take the measures because of the pressure from below. They give concessions to keep themselves in power and keep their economic model - capitalism. We see this clearly when looking at the Scandinavian "wellfarestates".
I dunno much about Disraeli and I don't really care since it seems to be a rather pointless "university" discussion. But if we fail to analyse the background and the reasons for the actions then it has no relevance as a guide to action. And that is is precisely why we should analyse both the past and the present to learn from it. That's a basic of marxism and also why it triumphed over the utopian socialist models.
Invader Zim
10th May 2004, 19:03
Originally posted by Kez+May 7 2004, 05:36 PM--> (Kez @ May 7 2004, 05:36 PM)
[email protected] 7 2004, 11:47 AM
A depression in 1873 shook up all class and they began to fear each other. Labor had legal unions and reforms did occur that saved England from a revolution in the 1840s, but the monopolies, cartels, and foreign competition and widespread poverty after 1873 led to a rise in militancy in a push for minimum wages.
And where is your websites sources?
And where is your source saying that Disraeli's reforms in favour of the working classes were in direct responce to this depression?
Irish- “They detested the absentee British landlords and their burdensome rents” (Spiel. 838). Then the great famine of 1845-7 led to 1 mil. deaths and 1 mil. emigrants.
To a large extent the irish crisis of the 1840's was over, the large issue and violance over Ireland was not to respark until the early 1900's.
Parliament offered no help
Untrue, Peel a staunch conservative even attempted to ease the crisis, with the India/American grain imports, public works scheams and the abolishment of the Corn laws. Your website lies, to say that "Parliament offered no help", is just not true.
I am also intrigued to know why feminists and Irish people would force Disraeli to improve the conditions of the ENGLISH working classes.
Try reading your own sources.
the source is written with a link for you to click, really not difficult...
I dont need a source to tell me, i have a brain capable to conclude from many sources (including these 2 sources, and how British Imperialism has operated for centuries) that as a result from Pressure from below, the ruling class must shift.
Let us also not forget the effects of the events in France. [/b]
the source is written with a link for you to click, really not difficult...
Where is the websites source Kez? Thats what I was asking: -
A depression in 1873 shook up all class and they began to fear each other. Labor had legal unions and reforms did occur that saved England from a revolution in the 1840s, but the monopolies, cartels, and foreign competition and widespread poverty after 1873 led to a rise in militancy in a push for minimum wages.
I see no source.
I dont need a source to tell me, i have a brain capable to conclude from many sources
It is not a source, it has no referance from historians regarding those statements, or quotes from contempories to back it up. It also completely fails to mention at any time the effect that this "rise in militancy" had on the rulers of Britain.
Your source is completely irrelevant at this stage.
and how British Imperialism has operated for centuries
please explain to me the significance of British imperialism, to the "rise in militancy" in britain.
that as a result from Pressure from below, the ruling class must shift.
Again I demand that you show me your sources specifically stating this corrilation, with regards to the reforms made by Disraeli.
redstar2000
11th May 2004, 23:06
[Paternalism] is an interesting philosophy, it's "different";...it's romantic, utopian.
Well sure. But would you want to implement such a perspective (that's what I meant by "do that?")?
And if so, why? And how you would you distinguish between the "real" benevolent father-figure and the liar?
Paternalism is very diverse in itself; paternalism isn't one set belief. I think it would be better to say that paternalism is just more of a different way of thinking.
Is there not a common thread? That is, that there "are" people who are "fit to rule" by virtue of their "inherent benevolence"?
It depends on what you perceive [as] Marxism's goal.
A classless, stateless society, of course.
That's because you are a marxist...thus you automatically suspect authority (not that I don't think authority should be questioned).
True. But in light of the "track record" of authority "considered as a whole", why would not any rational person not be deeply suspicious?
In fact, why would not any rational person not adopt "as a working assumption", that they are all bastards?
Granted the bare possibility that one might very occasionally be mistaken, you'd almost always be right!
Yes?
Whats your opinion on human nature? Inherently good/evil? Or is it all nurture?
No opinion...since no one really knows, in a scientific sense, I think the question is unanswerable at this time.
Certainly all the arguments that this or that social order is "impossible" because it "violates human nature" are nothing more than great clouds of smoke escaping from someone's rectal orifice.
I think authority can be benevolent.
And Disraeli would serve as your "evidence", right?
Well, I suppose it's a way to look at things...though an extraordinarily dangerous one. If you're going to involve yourself in political matters, you will face the real problem of "picking out" who is "really benevolent" and who is faking it.
What are the odds that you'll get it right?
Even if you argue that [Disraeli] legislated from a desire to preserve the ruling elite, you can't argue that he legislated ONLY because of this.
Why not? You yourself admitted that we can't "see inside his head" and discover his "real motives"...so why not make the historically most plausible assumption? He did it because he foresaw catastrophe if it was not done.
It would be nice, of course, if this could be documented from the sources (his speeches to parliament, etc.). But bourgeois politicians have never been known for their public candor; whenever reforms are granted, they're usually placed into some framework of "simple justice", "Christian duty to our fellow men", etc. (Disraeli, being Jewish, might not have used that second phrase...I don't know.)
Personally, I am interested in Disraeli, and paternalism. This doesn't make me "un-socialist" though, contrary to what some morons may think.
No, it certainly doesn't. It does make you something of an anachronism, though. "Paternal socialism" was definitely a 19th century view...perhaps culminating with the Webbs, Shaw, etc. I know of no contemporary version at all.
I dunno much about Disraeli and I don't really care since it seems to be a rather pointless "university" discussion.
True...but sometimes you -- or at least I -- need a break from all the "heavy stuff". :P
:redstar2000:
The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
James
13th May 2004, 16:11
Well sure. But would you want to implement such a perspective (that's what I meant by "do that?")?
And if so, why? And how you would you distinguish between the "real" benevolent father-figure and the liar?
Ah, well you see this is where it is 'romantic' and 'utopian'.
I guess its more of a different society - people's attitudes would have to be very different to what they are now. One could argue that it is the same problem facing Marxism.
Is there not a common thread? That is, that there "are" people who are "fit to rule" by virtue of their "inherent benevolence"?
It all depends on how you view it.
Its more of aa altruistic society, where those rulling have moral duties - they are rulling out of a responsibility to their fellow man.
(now this is a very deep topic...)
A classless, stateless society, of course.
I'd say no then.
True. But in light of the "track record" of authority "considered as a whole", why would not any rational person not be deeply suspicious?
In fact, why would not any rational person not adopt "as a working assumption", that they are all bastards?
Granted the bare possibility that one might very occasionally be mistaken, you'd almost always be right!
Yes?
Like i said - its a different society, where those "rulling" are doing so from a moral obligation - not because they want power. Not because they want to make some money.
And Disraeli would serve as your "evidence", right?
Well, I suppose it's a way to look at things...though an extraordinarily dangerous one. If you're going to involve yourself in political matters, you will face the real problem of "picking out" who is "really benevolent" and who is faking it.
What are the odds that you'll get it right?
steady... i didn't say that.
I'd say that Disraeli had paternalist impulses. I think it would have been impossible for the PM to be a very paternalist - like it would be impossible now, under our current system.
Why not? You yourself admitted that we can't "see inside his head" and discover his "real motives"...so why not make the historically most plausible assumption? He did it because he foresaw catastrophe if it was not done.
It would be nice, of course, if this could be documented from the sources (his speeches to parliament, etc.). But bourgeois politicians have never been known for their public candor; whenever reforms are granted, they're usually placed into some framework of "simple justice", "Christian duty to our fellow men", etc. (Disraeli, being Jewish, might not have used that second phrase...I don't know.)
Well, let me put it this way - you are free to think and say what you want. There is however, far more evidence in support of the argument i stated previously.
True...but sometimes you -- or at least I -- need a break from all the "heavy stuff".
I agree.
Saint-Just
13th May 2004, 16:33
As a Leninist, of course one would say Disraeli did nothing for the working class. He made conservatives realise they would have to make concessions to the working class to avoid them developing a revolutionary consciousness.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.