Tony Benn.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Personally I am a big fan of Tony Benn, however, it would be good to know what others think of him and his theories.
He seems to be continually popping up in other threads, so I've given him one of his own.
If you want a clearer view of his political beliefs, take a look at this interview (http://www.labournet.net/other/0011/benn.html).

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Odd one is our Tone.

Born into the aristocracy but gave up any claim to his titles due to his principles yet he is a part of the British political establishment.

But, I have a lot of respect for him. He spoke a rally in support of Nelson Mandela long before anyone cared who Nelson Mandela was (the rally was in Trafalger Square in 1964). The most inspirational thing about him is his unwavering defence of the ideal of democracy as a tool to be used by ordinary men and women, not the mutation created during the 20th century.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Born into the aristocracy but gave up any claim to his titles due to his principles yet he is a part of the British political establishment.

He lost his seat in Parliament, because of this. When his father died he inherited a peerage he didn't want. Meaning he could no longer be a MP. Eventually he got the Government of that time to change the law regarding peerage.
As for him being part of the political establishment, uh, that would imply he is an elitist of some sort. Remember though he did give up his seat in Parliament in order to be more in tune with politics.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:50 PM
As for him being part of the political establishment, uh, that would imply he is an elitist of some sort.
By political establishment I meant that he was a cabinet minister in the '60s (I think) and the '70s and he is an established and respect political figure. The whether he wanted to be part of the establishment or not, he was and he still moves on the fringes.


Remember though he did give up his seat in Parliament in order to be more in tune with politics.

He was also 75 years old. But it was a good move, since then he's been able to make his opinions known without the restrictian of parliament.


He lost his seat in Parliament, because of this. When his father died he inherited a peerage he didn't want. Meaning he could no longer be a MP. Eventually he got the Government of that time to change the law regarding peerage.

I don't dispute this.

[Amusing Scrotum]

By political establishment I meant that he was a cabinet minister in the '60s (I think) and the '70s and he is an established and respect political figure. The whether he wanted to be part of the establishment or not, he was and he still moves on the fringes.

Now I get what you meant. Sorry I just thought you were using the phrase "political establishment" in a derogatory sense.


He was also 75 years old. But it was a good move, since then he's been able to make his opinions known without the restrictian of parliament.

A clever politician always makes the most of a situation.


I don't dispute this.

I didn't think you did dispute it. I was just pointing it out in case you didn't know.

[Roses in the Hospital]

Tony Benn's one of the few 'mainstream' politicians who I think is genuinely motivated by his beliefs and whenever I see him on TV he always seems to talk sense. I like the guy...

[Intifada]

Tony Benn is a fantastic man.

Long may he live.

[chebol]

Not a shadow on Ny Bevan, tho.

Has anyone read Benn's book on Socialism?

[American_Trotskyist]

I GOT TO INTERVIEW TONY BENN FOR AN OXFORD STUDENT NEWS PAPER! I was excited. However, I still believe he is just a left centre reformer, not a genuine socialist.

[James]

However, I still believe he is just a left centre reformer, not a genuine socialist.

What led you to believe that?

I expect it was his method: he is a socialist, but see's the best way of achieveing it, via parliament.
Can't knock the method. Look at all the change that has come in modern history in england: all come via the house of commons.


I fully support his method.

[Hegemonicretribution]

He is far more in touch than many politicians have ever been before. If there were more like Tony Benn in power, then the concept of reform would not be as hard to accept. He spent a lot of his life doing more than many of us ever will, just because he was in mainstream politics does not make him less radical than those that talk about some vague revolution.

I saw him talk at Glastonbury, quite a big crowd there as well, there were a couple of decent acts at the time if I rember correctly, but people were drawn.

[Vanguard1917]

I expect it was his method: he is a socialist, but see's the best way of achieveing it, via parliament.

I was at the 2004 annual Marxism week-long conference in London (organised by the SWP) where Benn was speaking. I remember him saying that socialism should be considered as a general political "guide" but not as an aim...

I think that we have to get things into perspective. Benn is an Old Labour leftish reformist. He has never actively supported revolutionary politics - hence he has never been a true socialist in practice. A lot of his politics have been dubious. For example, he opposed the immediate withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland in the 1970s, and - as was characteristic of Old Labour - he was always cautious about relaxing trade union laws in favour of workers.

Tony Benn was on the left of a very cautious and reformist mainstream Labour party whose role in 20th century British society was essentially to tame the working class, in times of intensifying class conflict, in the interests of the existing system. So we should not be nostalgic and sentimental...

[amos]

Originally posted by Sir Aunty [email protected] 14 2005, 05:42 PM
Born into the aristocracy but gave up any claim to his titles due to his principles...
Tony Benn's father was a Liberal MP who converted to Labour in the 20s and was then awarded a hereditary peerage after serving as a Cabinet Minister. So in terms of him being a member of the aristocracy, the characterization is probably a little harsh.

In terms of being a part of the political establishment he does come from a family where both of his grandfathers were MPs, his father was an MP and his son Hilary is currently a Labour MP.

I've always perceived Tony Benn to be a man of principal though, which has to be a rare thing in politics.

Cheers
Amos

[American_Trotskyist]

I expect it was his method: he is a socialist, but see's the best way of achieveing it, via parliament.
Can't knock the method. Look at all the change that has come in modern history in england: all come via the house of commons.


I fully support his method.

Well if we follow where this conversation is going we are going no where because we don't agree on this.

I am more believer of Lenin's analysis of the State. To put it short I believe that what divides a Marxist from a Social Democractic Parlementarian is that the Marxist understands that the end of the class conflict can only be done with one class completely ruling over annother, the dictatorship of the working class. That is just my opinion.

[James]

and you think that parliament is something which is useless in achieving that aim?

[h&s]

I certainly don't. I just want to ask - do you believe that socialism can be achieved completely through the parliamentary road (though including other work of course, within unions, etc)?

[James]

Well H&S my question was aimed at American_Trotskyist, but i'll answer your question.

"I just want to ask - do you believe that socialism can be achieved completely through the parliamentary road (though including other work of course, within unions, etc)? "

Well, this is a very tricky question to answer. Please excuse the length of this post, and the apparant over reliance on Benn quotes! I think he makes some very good points though which partly answers your question:
(from the interview linked at the top)

It's very important not to differentiate protest from the democratic process. Because the ballot box is so important. There's people on the left who say, the ballot box is a waste of time. Forget them. When Mandela voted for the first time at the age of 76 there was a lot of grown men, including me, wept buckets. That was what it was about. It doesn't solve things, but it gives you the mechanism to hold to account the people with power.

from another interview:

Let me give you one final quote from Lao Tzu. He was asked about leadership, and he said, 'As to the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence. The next best they honour and praise. The next best they hate. The next best they fear. But,' said Lao Tzu, 'when the best leaders' work is done the people say 'We did it ourselves''. And I think that is a wonderful encouragement to people. When the best leaders work is done the people say, Do It Yourself'. Democracy is not just voting every 5 years and watching Big Brother in between and wondering why nothing happens. Democracy is what we do and say where we live and work. I think that democracy is the most controversial idea in the world. Nobody in power likes democracy. Stalin didn’t like it, Hitler didn't like it, leaders of religious organisations don’t like it, and corporate business doesn't like it. And yet without it there is no chance of changing things.


So i hope that establishes why i think democracy is so important. Especially when we look at what engels said
"The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in on it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are fighting for, body and soul."

When this stage is reached, of course parliament will be able to force through the change required.
But essentailly i suppose it all comes down to how you define socialism. Benn defines it as "the flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world.".

So what exactly do you mean? Could parliament renationalise, thus putting the means of production in the hands of the people (thus satisfying in part the dictionary defition of socialism)? Of course it could. Its done so before.
The important thing to realise though is that this isn't just going to happen out of thin air.
This is similar to my argument i posted in the voting thread in politics (i think). It is easy for a socialist party to get voted into government.
People vote for the party/ideology they want to. If they want to vote for socialism they will.
To tell you the truth though, vast amounts of britains don't even know about socialism. If i ask my house mates when i go back to uni, i garuntee you that only one or two of them will have a slight idea.
This demonstrates that parliament CAN be used, but other work needs to be done first. This fact is obvious to one and all; hence why many don't think the change could come through parliament (i.e. in effect, they recognise that today, the people are not going to fight for socialist change).

I hope that answers your question. If not, ask away again :)

[h&s]

It half answers my question (sorry! )
What I meant was that do you think that a democratically elected government could make the transformation from capitalism complete to a society where the working class is in charge? Or do you think that parliament can do 99% of the work, and a slight revolutionary 'kick' may be needed at the end?
I'm just wondering - I like to understand where people are coming from. :)

[James]

"do you think that a democratically elected government could make the transformation from capitalism complete to a society where the working class is in charge?"

I'm not being funny, but please expand upon this.
How do you percieve the working class to be in charge?
More importantly, who do you consider to be the working class?

Lets stick to britain, because thats what we are both more familiar with.

[h&s]

I mean the working class being in charge as in state power has been de-centralised to a more local level, where every representative is democratically accountable immediately for whatr they do. It would be where the people make the decisions in life, and the workers run their factories or offices.
I percieve the working class to be the 'normal' 'everyday' people - the majority of the population. People who work for a living, employed by someone else. People who are on, around or under the national average wage.

[James]

I mean the working class being in charge as in state power has been de-centralised

Decentralisation is incredibly possible via parliament. Within the last decade we have seen power devolved to scotland and wales for example. I know this isn't what you have in mind, but it demonstrates that the principle of giving power to "lower" levels via parliament is possible as a concept, and has been done in very recent history.

Another interesting factor to remember is that the current government is considered by the public, and media, to be highly centralised. It is most likely that there shall be a reaction against this in some form.

Indeed the "reaction principle" stated above, some would argue, has been seen (at the highist level) via prime ministerial power. For example Thatcher's government was very decisive and authoritive, in reaction to the previous "ineffective/weak" labour government. Whereas Major in reaction, had to be of a more "cabinet government" style. We see the process in full circle with blair: the reaction against "ineffective" cabinet government.

But that is just a theory, i don't want you focusing on that and missing the general overall point:, put at a basic level, action has an equal and opposite reaction.

This alone wouldn't be much of a point regarding your question. However, parliament has devolved power recently. So in principle what you ask is possible in theory, has been done in practise, and is likely post blair (in some shape or form).


to a more local level,

Parliament alone isn't the issue. It reflects public opinion. Like revolutions. Its pointless trying to think you can start a succesful revolution, if the public don't want one (or simply don't care). Simily with parliament. Its hard to percieve parliament passing what you desire at the moment: mainly because public opinion isn't that way inclined at the moment.

However, "localism" is becoming an increasingly popular theme in politics ("we are going to fight and win this election on local issues") and culture (buy local!).

I think many "marxists" have a problem today, in thinking its the earl 1900s. I don't think we should be afraid to realise its the early C21st: and not the early C20th! Therefore, we shouldn't expect change, and socialism, to come in the forms it came in, in the 1900s. Like we shouldn't fight to have Owenism put in place as it was in the 1800s.

Therefore, i don't think any of the above trends i've mentioned (localism, devolution) should be ignored by the progressive left.



where every representative is democratically accountable immediately for whatr they do.

Sorry old boy, going to ask you to expand on this a bit further. I can't answer you, because i'm not terribly sure by what you mean.

Do you mean representative (i.e. "representing a body of people") or delegate (i.e. voicing the actual opinion of the majority)?

There are benifits with both. If we had delegates for example, we would most likely have capital punishment. Its up to you to decide whether that is a good thing.

As well as philosophical elements, you need to consider practicality of each. Athenian democracy was so active, because the "citizens" had a slave class doing everything else.
Who's going to pick the kids up from school whilst i'm at the meeting?
Do i want to go to the meeting after i've had a day of work?
Do i care?

This is not nesecarily pessimism on my behalf, i'm just trying to place everything under scrutiny.



It would be where the people make the decisions in life,

What is under the relm of democatic control?
What isn't?
Are you concerned about "mob mentality"?
What about the permanent minority?



and the workers run their factories or offices.

Again there are the same philosophical and practical issues regarding the above.




I percieve the working class to be the 'normal' 'everyday' people

I think most people consider themselves to be so.



- the majority of the population.

Do you have any statistics regading this? I don't, thats why i'm asking. I would like to see actual statistics showing the wage distribution etc


People who work for a living, employed by someone else.

I think that covers most people. Even the British MD of cocacola!
However, you also rule out those who are self employed.
How do you define self employement?
Is it the working class guy who works for himself painting walls?
Is it the same guy 5 years down the line, who employs his mate to help him out?
Is it the same guy in 10 years when he has a few staff?
Is it the same guy 20 years down the line when he has different regions?

I'm not having a go at you, i'm just trying to get you to think about what you actually want.
I think it is a mamouth task: often not realise by many who think a few sentences describe who they are, what they believe in, and what they want to happen.
Everything is terribly complex.



People who are on, around or under the national average wage.

So not doctors? (you get my point? Some people are highly paid, yet are still working people, often working for others).
Alternatively, many self employed arn't that far off (either side of) the average wage.

[h&s]

Decentralisation is incredibly possible via parliament. Within the last decade we have seen power devolved to scotland and wales for example. I know this isn't what you have in mind, but it demonstrates that the principle of giving power to "lower" levels via parliament is possible as a concept, and has been done in very recent history....

OK, I get that. :)


Do you mean representative (i.e. "representing a body of people") or delegate (i.e. voicing the actual opinion of the majority)?
A representative, subject to the opinion of the majority.
i.e. an official who is voted into a local assembly on a certain prpgramme they have put forward, but if they do things people don't like, the people can vote them out immediatly.
The details of the above aren't really that important, it is the idea of setting up local assemblys that are highly democratic.


As well as philosophical elements, you need to consider practicality of each. Athenian democracy was so active, because the "citizens" had a slave class doing everything else.
Who's going to pick the kids up from school whilst i'm at the meeting?
Do i want to go to the meeting after i've had a day of work?
Do i care?

This is not nesecarily pessimism on my behalf, i'm just trying to place everything under scrutiny.

Ah, but as I know you understand, this sort of thing can not come about without it being the 'will' of the people, be that through a reformist or a revolutionary path.
If people have set this up, they will want to participate.


What is under the relm of democatic control?
What isn't?
Are you concerned about "mob mentality"?
What about the permanent minority?
I suppose everthing would be up for discussion, but there should probably be some sort of constitution on certain issues.
However thinking about the details now is pretty pointless as it all depends on the conditions of the day.




and the workers run their factories or offices.



Again there are the same philosophical and practical issues regarding the above.
And my repsonse is the same as above - these things can only happen if they are what is wanted.


Do you have any statistics regading this? I don't, thats why i'm asking. I would like to see actual statistics showing the wage distribution etc
I can remeber a major poll a few years back that concluded that about 67% of the population consider themselves to be working class, and I think the average wage is about £21,000p/a


I think that covers most people. Even the British MD of cocacola!
However, you also rule out those who are self employed.
How do you define self employement?
Hmm, you got me!
The MD of coca cola does not count as they are definity middle class.
Self-employed people do count to a certain extent though, as most are just small business people, who no-one in their right mind should want to nationalise straight away.


Is it the working class guy who works for himself painting walls?
Is it the same guy 5 years down the line, who employs his mate to help him out?
Yes.


Is it the same guy in 10 years when he has a few staff?
Probably.


Is it the same guy 20 years down the line when he has different regions?
No, though the ammount of people who get this far are minimal.


So not doctors? (you get my point? Some people are highly paid, yet are still working people, often working for others).
Alternatively, many self employed arn't that far off (either side of) the average wage.
I get the point. Doctors do tend to be midle-class in outlook though, and the less well-off self-employed do count, as they have many of the same concerns as the rest of us.

I hope that explains things for you, but if not, ask away!

[James]

A representative, subject to the opinion of the majority.
i.e. an official who is voted into a local assembly on a certain prpgramme they have put forward, but if they do things people don't like, the people can vote them out immediatly.
The details of the above aren't really that important, it is the idea of setting up local assemblys that are highly democratic.



Ah so you mean a representative, with some form of a recall system.

(the only problem with which, is that sometimes politicians make "unpopular" decisions, which in the short term damage their support, but in the long term, are better for the whole. Although of course this comes down to the very nature of democracy: are the masses always right? How much independence does the representative have? A representative represents the people: where as a delegate is told what to do by the people. I think you may actually mean a delegate. Delegates do have their weaknesses.)



Ah, but as I know you understand, this sort of thing can not come about without it being the 'will' of the people, be that through a reformist or a revolutionary path.
If people have set this up, they will want to participate.


That is an incredibly good answer.
Indeed, you may have answered the question that you asked me.

If the people want it enough: parliament will pass it (parliament isn't seperate from the people: the people make up parliament).

I think you should remember that parliament has gone to war with the monarch before. It has even chopped off a monarch's head. It set up a republic; and then set up another monarchy. The only nationalisation that has ever taken place here, was done by parliament.

Parliament is the supreme source of power in the UK, in theory, nothing is beyond it (because parliament is soverign).


I suppose everthing would be up for discussion, but there should probably be some sort of constitution on certain issues.
However thinking about the details now is pretty pointless as it all depends on the conditions of the day.

Whilst i see your point, i think you are actually wrong. Often political success and power comes from being prepared, for WHEN the conditions of the day are correct.

I think a serious discussion on the british constitution would be of great use to us all. Indeed, i don't think much of it will be found to be in need of change.


I can remeber a major poll a few years back that concluded that about 67% of the population consider themselves to be working class, and I think the average wage is about £21,000p/a


Are you saying the working class are those who consider themselves to be working class?
Its an interesting issue topic: crucial to this discussion.


I get the point. Doctors do tend to be midle-class in outlook though, and the less well-off self-employed do count, as they have many of the same concerns as the rest of us.



yeah, my general point was "who is the working class"?
Its not such a black and white issue as it first seems.

[h&s]

Right, I understand your position now (finally! :D )


Are you saying the working class are those who consider themselves to be working class?
Its an interesting issue topic: crucial to this discussion.
On the whole yes, though there are, of course, those who were once working class that have moved up to be MC, but haven't seen it.
But then there are those who don't see themselves as WC, but are.
Its definitly not black and white anymore.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Armchair.Socialism, do you know if it's possible to get his complete diaries in one volume? I found one edition of the "complete" diaries, but it was abridged.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Revolutionary or reformist?

Reactionary.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Armchair.Socialism, do you know if it's possible to get his complete diaries in one volume? I found one edition of the "complete" diaries, but it was abridged.

I really don't know. His diaries have been something I've been meaning to read for some time now, but I've never got round to it. Their supposed to be excellent though, how did you find the abridged version?


Revolutionary or reformist?

Reactionary.

Would you kindly explain how you've come to such a conclusion.

[American_Trotskyist]

My post may have been misunderstood. I believe that it is necessary to instigate within the Parliamentary system only as a way of showing the masses that all possible routs have been tried and that it is impossible to defeat without a complete replacement of bourgeois democracy i.e. representative democracy with democratic centrism.

I don’t want there to be a military coup to prove this but I think, like in Russia in 1917, that in order to maintain a base of support within the working-class and prevent alienation from it, there is a need to demonstrate that it is impossible for any true social change to occur within a system based on the protection of private property.

I pity those who think that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be achieved within a bourgeois democracy.

Tony Benn is one of those. He may have much socialist rhetoric but he still is for this parliamentarian system and he will never achieve socialism with that. As far as I know he is not for the nationalization and democratic control of the economy. So he is a reformist, he may have a lot of good rhetoric but all the same I see him as a reformist. There can be no medium in class war.

[tunes]

I like what this man has to say.


IMAGINE THAT YOUR PARTY -- A PARTY OF GENUINE SOCIALISTS -- HAS WON A MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN A GENERAL ELECTION. WHAT STEPS WOULD YOU TAKE TO INTRODUCE SOCIALISM CONSTITUTIONALLY?

Even the posing of this question requires considerable imagination. For the development of electoral opinion to the point where a general election might occur would clearly take a considerable time and would not go unnoticed by the capitalist class. Since this class will obviously use every weapon in its power to preserve its wealth, power and exploiting 'rights , -- in the name, of couse, of preserving 'freedom' and 'moral values' -- it would obviously take steps prior to the election (alteration of electoral laws and boundaries, outright banning of your party as 'subversive' etc.) to try to prevent such an embarrassing electoral result.

Let us assume, however, that as a result of some miracle of stupidity the capitalist class fails to take such preventive action.

Your party must then hope that the Queen will invite the leader of your party to form a government. It has long been customary for the monarch to invite the leader of the party with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons to become Prime Minister, but there is no constitutional obligation on her to do so.

Let us assume, however, that she takes this step and that the leader of your party selects his provisional Cabinet. Before these can take office as Ministers, they are required by constitutional law to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Since your party's electoral programme must have included pledges to abolish the undemocratic monarchy, the arrest of these Ministers on charges of perjury will be perfectly legitimate. And when sufficient of your MPs have been, quite legally, imprisoned, your party will no longer have a majority in the House.

Let us therfore assume another miracle -- that the capitalist class is too stupid to take constitutional measures to prevent your party from taking office and that it introduces legislation to socialise the principal means of production.

Such legislation can only be adopted with the approval of the House of Lords and the Queen (the latter can hold up legislation indefinitely), so that further miracles have to be imagined for your socialist programme to be put into legislation.

The capitalists may then appeal to the courts to rule that such legislation is unlawful, and a further miracle is required to make the upper class judges rule in favour of the socialist government.

Furthermore, the putting into effect of this socialist legislation requires the cooperation of the heads of the civil service, who are also drawn from the upper class, so that their cooperation would require a further miracle.

One must also assume yet another miracle. Constitutionally, the armed forces -- the heads of which are also drawn from the upper class -- may in case of 'emergency' at the request of the monarch establish martial law and rule dictatorially That reactionary military coups are not confined to distant countries was shown by the infamous Curragh Mutiny of 1914, which led to the partition of Ireland. Another miracle has, therefore, to be imagined to render the monarch and the armed forces inactive in this respect.

Such a wholesale series of miracles does not occur in real life, and it is clear that the concept of a constitutional transition to socialism is absurd.

-W.B. Bland (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/marxism/Cl4.html)

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 11:21 PM

Armchair.Socialism, do you know if it's possible to get his complete diaries in one volume? I found one edition of the "complete" diaries, but it was abridged.

I really don't know. His diaries have been something I've been meaning to read for some time now, but I've never got round to it. Their supposed to be excellent though, how did you find the abridged version?
It was advertised on his official website.