====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Phil Ferguson wrote: 'But in what sense are these parties 'social democratic' these days?' In Britain, Labour is not in government, but it can hardly be considered as being in opposition to the Tory austerity government, because it hardly opposes anything the government does, and when it does demur it is merely to quibble about the degree of public expenditure cuts and reductions to sick, unemployment and other benefits. It completely accepts the argument that cuts and austerity are necessary, and has done nothing to say that it will reverse the Tories' cuts should it get elected in 2015. Old-fashioned social-democracy did promise and at times actually deliver reforms that benefitted the working class, albeit within the confines of capitalist limitations; social-democracy today are the palest pink imitations of openly bourgeois parties, and do not offer meaningful reforms. Indeed, when the Blair Labour governments here proposed 'reforms' they were nothing other than privatisation schemes under another name. Under the current leader Ed Miliband (sadly, the colourless, dismal son of Marxist Ralph Miliband; the elder son David is even worse), there are no proposals whatsoever to reverse privatisation even though Britain's railway system would be less costly and more efficient under state ownership, or to stop and reverse the steady privatisation of the National Health Service, which would also be cheaper and more efficient if run publicly. This is not to endorse old-fashioned nationalisation in and of itself as a socialist measure, but to show that Labour has bitten so deeply into the 'private = good, public = bad' ethos to the degree that it will refuse to reinstate key industries and institutions into the state sector, or prevent their further privatisation, even when it makes capitalist economist sense, irrespective of the social benefits involved. Organisationally, the Labour Party has over the last 20 years become much more bureaucratised, with the annual conference being more of a rally to hear the leaders speak and for the audience to cheer them. There is little debate, and little possibility of local branches getting critical motions on to the conference agenda. Not surprisingly, at a local level, many Labour Party branches are moribund. When Hilary Wainwright says that 'the forces of renewal' in these parties 'are negligible or very weak' she is quite right. Labour councils are busily implementing cuts. In Hackney, a traditional working-class Labour-held area in London, of 60 or more Labour councillors only two could be found who would not vote in favour of cuts. In other places, Labour councillors have been threatened with disciplinary action if they don't vote for cuts. Party members grumble, but there doesn't seem to be any real forces around to challenge the current ethos. There is a lot of anger in Britain today at the way things are going, and there have been several large demonstrations against Tory austerity. But I can't see any fightback getting on its way via the Labour Party at either a national or local level. Paul F ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
