Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Migeru:
We're living a paradigm shift from the neoliberal system to something new. Whatever it is, it won't be politically "liberal".

Yes and No.

I think that the sovereignty of the individual will - necessarily - be a key attribute of the networked 'Peer to Peer' society I see evolving.

Where it will depart from neo-liberalism is in the recognition that with the privilege of individual property rights under the 'Rule of Law' come responsibilities and obligations to the society from which these rights flow.

Migeru:

Because there isn't a left ideology waiting in the wings, the system that emerges at the other end won't be a synthesis of liberalism and socialism,

I disagree.

In the UK at least, the values of Solidarity and Mutuality have always underpinned Labour: if you read the Party card you'll see that's where it's languishing - unread - in the wings. As the French guy said in respect of French revolutionary ideals: the 19th Century was the Century of Liberty; the 20th Century the Century of Equality; and the 21st century will be the Century of Fraternity.

The problem for Labour was that they were led astray as New Labour when Blair, Brown and the rest swallowed the neo-liberal economic Kool Aid.

As I have frequently said in my posts on Labour List, the Coalition's 'Big Society' - now running into the sand - is the greatest opportunity for Labour and Union members (if not their hierarchy) in the last 100 years.

The key to this is a new generation of collaborative agreements, developed 'bottom up' and acting as frameworks for self organisation to a common purpose. Such an approach could take the Left down the road of a modern day Guild Socialism or of the short-lived war-time Common Wealth movement, which was side-tracked into a Party, and shrivelled.

In the UK the Coalition's Localism legislation may well be intended to open up the way to privatisation, but in my view it creates a vacuum into which the Left - through their many Labour council gains - can drive a communitarian, co-operative and mutual coach and horses.

Even more extraordinary is the Coalition's - completely undemocratic - policy concerning the NHS. This is 'action-based' politics where their declaration of intent has already started the decomposition of the existing institutions as managers get out while they can.

In my view, such action-based and reality-based politics is a double-edged sword. Union memberships can and should simply take control and provide services directly to the public, cutting out the State, as well as shareholders, as middlemen. The enabling mechanism is new - direct - funding and financing, and that is where my interest - and a growing number of others - is completely focused.

In future, the policy will create the party - rather than vice versa.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jan 10th, 2011 at 01:09:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Union memberships can and should simply take control and provide services directly to the public, cutting out the State, as well as shareholders, as middlemen.

H'mmmm.

That challenges the domination of The Top whether that "Top" is a union president, the president of a bank, the leaders of the Labour Party, & so forth.  Any local union trying to "take control" will find the first and third of the previous list coming down on them like a ton of bricks.  

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Mon Jan 10th, 2011 at 01:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Frankly, I think that the steering wheel has come off in the hands of those at the top for the most part because they have unscrewed the linkage.

I believe that the UK 'reforms' being pursued with such vigour by the Coalition government are going to have unintended consequences......

And note I was not referring to Labour or Unions - but to Labour and Union members.


"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jan 10th, 2011 at 04:24:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As was I.

Union and Party members are only members until the national secretary yanks their cards, making them UnPersons.  The kind of petty-assed shit that goes down when the peasants are revolting.  


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Mon Jan 10th, 2011 at 06:52:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It would be the Unions' loss, not theirs.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jan 10th, 2011 at 07:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No disagreement on that, here.

The local members lose as well.  They lose the advantages belonging to a national organization such as money and news exposure.  And the externalities of solidarity, fraternity, & all that Left Wing socialist-hippy stuff.  (He wrote with self-deprecating self-mockery.)

And the Right Wing can put out a anti-campaign based around "Even their Union thinks they are wackos."

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Mon Jan 10th, 2011 at 07:38:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
However, if they get thrown out for local mobilization of direct responses ~ they are already organizing. And they already have a reason to continue organizing in response to being kicked out.

Recall when the Anti-Slavery Whigs in the US were purged from the Whig Party, and it was the Whig Party that collapsed as a result.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jan 10th, 2011 at 11:51:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly.

Either the Union leaders facilitate what the members wish to do, or the Unions wither on the vine.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Jan 11th, 2011 at 05:18:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The right talk a lot of trash about cooperation, but their own solidarity is to be envied. Is this the power of corruption? Or is it so usefull to fool people to distrust each other?

As is known, many neocons were former Marxists. They certainly preserved the discipline! And they harness other method of Communists: seize the mass media. Lenin's revolution took the telegraph first, Fidel Casttro stared on the radio, and now we have Foxnews and talk radios...

by das monde on Tue Jan 11th, 2011 at 06:50:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Chris Cook:
The problem for Labour was that they were led astray as New Labour when Blair, Brown and the rest swallowed the neo-liberal economic Kool Aid.

It seems to me that Blair and Brown, along with Clinton in the USA, were serving the Kool-Aid to their parties as the elixir that would return them to power, which it did. The essence of The Third Way was to embrace the goals of the wealthy elite so as to become acceptable to them as a governing party. The problem is that this destroyed the ability of their parties to provide a serious alternative to the opposition. Come the crisis, there was no real alternatives available to the electorate. Still really isn't.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Jan 14th, 2011 at 04:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series