Hello comrade,
[sorry if I blather on - it's pretty late now]
I apologise for not finishing answering your previous questions about the State and Revolution - you asked very involved questions and I don't really have enough time. Again, you are asking good questions, I would just say that you'll have to fogive me if I do drag the Russian Revolution into this discussion since it is related to Lenin's writings on "State and Revolution" which were really put to the test in 1917. That said, what you say about the state of the "left" is completely true:
It seems so ridiculously far fetched that working class people could 'rise up' and overthrow capitalism due to organisation and unity forged outside of the political system, especially by the encouragement of people of whom many seem to know more about the revolution of 1917 than they do about the politics of their own country in their own time.
I live in Yorkshire so I am officially one of those represented by the BNP in the European parliament. Where I come from your words ring very true - there are all sorts of strange little sects which claim to be the "vanguard" of the working class and have plenty of blood curdling rhetoric about bloody revolution when most of them wouldn't know what a worker looks like. In that sense I share in your ranting quite often. In fact it is the complete irrelevance of these left groups which has means they are able to do nothing but moan about the "backwardness" of workers who voted BNP.
I have to say, I don't think it's possible to vote the system out of existence, but that's not the same thing as saying socialists shouldn't follow all the avenues open to them including running candidates in elections. Although I can see your point I would just say that I think the voter turnout is so low not because people are apathetic and don't care about politics but because they are so angry with establishment politicians. This anger was revealed in the recent expenses scandal which stirred up massive outrage. That's the thing with the public mood - a long term build up of discontent doesn't reveal itself in a smooth way - it reveals itself in sharp, sudden and unexpective outbursts of anger.
It is possible to have contradictory moods in the working class in Britain as in other countries. I will give you an example: Britain has actually come very close to socialist revolution several times, probably never closer than in 1926 during the general strike. The immediate aim of the strike was to defend the wages and conditions of the miners. But during this process the local Trades Councils took on a greater and greater role as "Councils of Action" organising things on a local level, and in many areas supplies would only be delivered if TCs had given their authorisation. What we had in Britain was, essentially, alternative centres of power developing spontaneously from the existing trade union movement! In Britain! And yet, in the 1929 elections the Labour Party had become the largest political party in parliament for the first time ever. Why were workers who had only a couple of years before created been on the cusp of revolution and completely undermined the government now asking the Labour Party to do their bidding in parliament? Simple answer really: because there were too few honest labour politicians or trade union leaders who would explain to the workers where the real power in the country lay. Both the union leaders who called the workers out on strike and the MPs elected to parliament a couple of years later built their careers on the backs of the working class only to ultimately betray them.
Forgive me now, I'm going to use an example from the Bolshevik Party (it's hard not to considering the context of State and Revolution!). Although Lenin argues in "State and Revolution" that the working class MUST replace the capitalist state with its own organs of power if they are to create socialism, that does not mean that workers UNDERSTAND this and don't have illusions in parliament - that it might be possible to "reform" the system. That is why stop the Bolsheviks used every single opening available to them in the established political system with the few freedoms that it offered them - including working in the parliaments. Lenin knew it is not enough to lecture workers about how terrible parliament is but to prove the bankruptcy of parliament by directly participating in it and using it as a platform to put forward socialist ideas.
The problem is nowadays all these little "revolutionary" groups don't want to get their hands dirty by participating in the established political set up or by using the avenues open to them in the established organisations of the working class - they think this would somehow compromise their hallowed principles. The consequence is that when things go tits up workers don't have a visible point of reference to turn to in their own leaders - it is today just as much a question of bad leadership as it was in 1926 - and as a result thousands of workers vote BNP or UKIP in protest. There's absolutely no contradiction in being a revolutionary and in tactically participating in the existing system. It's a failure to understand that dooms the left to insignificance.
You're right about what you say about falling union membership and falling voter turnout but that doesn't indicate growing apathy and detachment from questions of politics and economics. On the contrary - it shows that a growing anger and tension exists between the working class and its "official" leaders in the labour movement. In the same way that the growing tensions on a fault line inevitably end up in a total realignment of the geographic landscape, the growing gap between the establishment and the working class can lead to a serious upheaval all of its own at a stage.
Lastly, you did just ask how large the proletariat in the UK is. I'd guess and say 80%? I'm just curious as to why you ask. BTW comrade, can I also ask where in the UK you're abouts?
Ben
Logged
