Will be put in right place when I get to a computer.
//
Phone reply so small talk. I totally agree with first point. But that's really quibbles over method of consensus. For me though, the tyranny of a majority arises as soon as a vote needs to take place. In future society I believe that it could be eradicated. But that's philosophy, and debating that doesn't add to the discussion.
I don't think I made my second point clearly enough. When I said 'we are the bourgeoisie' I meant, broadly speaking, western Europeans. We are not going to give up our privilege for the sake of Chinese peasants. The working class didn't disappear, it is simply made up of people in countries with less reform and protection from capitalism. This is not anti-capitalist struggle it is a struggle trying to determine how big a slice of the profits of the real working class we (western Europeans) get. It is reformist struggle, not for the benefit of the oppressed but for the benefit of the oppressors. Reformist struggle is futile even if it's fighting for real reform such as an end to racist immigration laws or the use of sweat shop labour but when it transforms into the international bourgeoisie fighting amongst themselves whilst using the language of revolutionaries, it becomes an insult to those around the world who are actively involved in the fight against capitalism. My point is the connection needs to be made between these struggles and the wider struggles of humanity, that of the revolutionary struggle against capitalism, or the revolutionary discourse is mere self indulgent role play and as such it is irrelevant to the wider struggle what ideology people cling onto. My question is, are we (western europeans) really ready to give up our privilege or are we content with a picture of Pablo the happy coffee picker on our products, Maldon salt, some palestinian olive oil and a story to tell your grandkids about what a little Che we were. Consumer guilt offsetting as it were.
I think this reading is far too simplistic and dismissive. As Donnacha says, many of those playing a central role in the movement so far have been poor deprived kids fighting for EMA, from the "slums of London", as one put it in a Newsnight report. The opportunities and livelihoods of the very poorest are under attack, not just from the education cuts, but the cuts to housing benefit, to welfare, and the deep the cuts to the public sector, which the poor rely on.
ReplyDeleteYou can't just lump everyone in the West together with the trans-national capitalist class - the likes of Philip Green - who certainly will not be affected by the cuts and who are actively welcoming the opportunity to restructure the entire of society in the interests of capital. So your dismissal of this movement as "bourgeios" and "playing at revolution" is inaccurate - some may be privileged, yes, but for many this is a fight they can't afford to lose.
This is part of a much broader a fight against a neo-liberal orthodoxy that has blighted the planet for over thirty years and stands - its cheerleaders hope - on the brink of victory thanks to a crisis it itself has precipitated. The students who occupied UCL are conscious of this. That's why they declared themselves in solidarity with all those fighting austerity "nationally and internationally". They have been building links with the international student movement, including students suffering under oppressive dictatorships like those of Iran. It is precisely by engaging in the anti-cuts struggle at home and learning about the systemic harms inflicted by a global capitalist order, ran in the interests of the rich, that students and those in the wider anti-cuts movement, will have their consciousness raised and connect with those struggling for their rights abroad in the face of imperialism and corporate exploitation.
Sneering at them for being part of the "international bourgeoisie" and not truly "revolutionary" is pretty unhelpful in my view when they're trying to bring about change.