If politicising the working class is our purpose then we must understand why the working class has stayed away from political parties and to a (lesser?) extent trade unions.
A political party by its very nature is an ideological union, this means that those with more of a an education have a huge advantage and get further up its hierachy because of it. For example in the bolshevik party Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin all had some sort of university education. So the middle class already has an advantage over the working class, this is also how people like Tony Blair has been able to climb so high within Labour and claim he is a lefty even though his actions and occupations are not left wing at all.
A political party consists of its members and if the ones in the best places do not have a university education then they do not have a vested interest in improving the situation of the working class. If someone does not live in the working class area then they will get no benefit from improving it so they have no reason to improve it. If someone also has a middle class education and occupation then they can quit at any time, join the middle class politics and wont be worse off. For a working class person that is not possible, if it is a high crime area then you can't simply switch off, if you can't afford to put the central heating on then it does not go on and you have a cold night.
The trade union on the over hand is an economic union, it is based on shared experiences and shared positions in society. Everyone in a trade union is in principle going to earn the same or very nearly the same as the next person, they will be able to afford a similar lifestyle and a similar house etc..
So where have the trade unions gone?
The one person i know that was actually likely to join a trade union and was offered membership didnt join. Why? because they did not know what they were joining the cost of it was £20 per year the moeny was not the issue but the issue was that they did not know what they were getting themselves involved into.
Trade unions main purpose nowadays is getting more money in the form of wages for the membership, nowadays it is unlikely that they will be unlikely to even disscuss working conditions, we have seen the firefighters working conditions being sold down the river for the sake of increased wages.
Trade unions have had a handful of major changes since 1900, first they became tied to the labour party and therefore tied to the labour parties ideology based on the fabien society. Secondly it gave up any control over increasing the quality of working conditions. Third, throught being tied to the labour party it became tied to the state and has became a tool of government for government policy. They have taken a back seat on workers control of production, this includes what is produced for whom and the way it is produced. This gives us the ludicrus situation of 'lefties' supporting the arms trade because it keeps manufactoring jobs in the UK.
Some blame the unions 'beurocrats' for the downfall in effectivness of the union, i disagree. Any organisaion that takes others money to pay full time employees is surely as bad as the 'bourgeosie' that takes from the produce of the poletarian. So the first stage of improvement would be to have no fulltime staff in a trade union. The next biggest problem is of course their fabien society/labour party ideology.
The reason for the above changes in trade unionism is of course money, everything has been sacrificed for increased wages (as an aside this has made revolution near impossible). All those that believe the proletariot need political power to make then changes nessasary, this of course is rubbish. For every year the Labour party have been in power is one year that proletariat have apparently had political power - it has not worked. These years of political power have been used on condition that economic power is sacrificed, in 1979 when everything was nationalised and the Fabian dream has been acheived as much as possible and the workers had no power. Why? (this is where we move full circle) a political party is an ideological union and the leading members do not nessasarily have a vested interest for stuff like workers control and the general improvement in the condition of the working class. The over argument for the centralised trade unions is that 'if you don't centralise the power of the workers they will be picked off one by one'. It seems that the centralising effect is the wrong way round, from the centre to the periphery, from the central commitee to the membership.
The working class wants action and when action has taken place there are many examples of people flocking to it and joining in. They do not want promises of utopias especially when they are struggling to get by, enough is enough, no more 'if you join us then the world will change'. Prove it, action first!
A political party consists of its members and if the ones in the best places do not have a university education then they do not have a vested interest in improving the situation of the working class. If someone does not live in the working class area then they will get no benefit from improving it so they have no reason to improve it. If someone also has a middle class education and occupation then they can quit at any time, join the middle class politics and wont be worse off. For a working class person that is not possible, if it is a high crime area then you can't simply switch off, if you can't afford to put the central heating on then it does not go on and you have a cold night.
The trade union on the over hand is an economic union, it is based on shared experiences and shared positions in society. Everyone in a trade union is in principle going to earn the same or very nearly the same as the next person, they will be able to afford a similar lifestyle and a similar house etc..
So where have the trade unions gone?
The one person i know that was actually likely to join a trade union and was offered membership didnt join. Why? because they did not know what they were joining the cost of it was £20 per year the moeny was not the issue but the issue was that they did not know what they were getting themselves involved into.
Trade unions main purpose nowadays is getting more money in the form of wages for the membership, nowadays it is unlikely that they will be unlikely to even disscuss working conditions, we have seen the firefighters working conditions being sold down the river for the sake of increased wages.
Trade unions have had a handful of major changes since 1900, first they became tied to the labour party and therefore tied to the labour parties ideology based on the fabien society. Secondly it gave up any control over increasing the quality of working conditions. Third, throught being tied to the labour party it became tied to the state and has became a tool of government for government policy. They have taken a back seat on workers control of production, this includes what is produced for whom and the way it is produced. This gives us the ludicrus situation of 'lefties' supporting the arms trade because it keeps manufactoring jobs in the UK.
Some blame the unions 'beurocrats' for the downfall in effectivness of the union, i disagree. Any organisaion that takes others money to pay full time employees is surely as bad as the 'bourgeosie' that takes from the produce of the poletarian. So the first stage of improvement would be to have no fulltime staff in a trade union. The next biggest problem is of course their fabien society/labour party ideology.
The reason for the above changes in trade unionism is of course money, everything has been sacrificed for increased wages (as an aside this has made revolution near impossible). All those that believe the proletariot need political power to make then changes nessasary, this of course is rubbish. For every year the Labour party have been in power is one year that proletariat have apparently had political power - it has not worked. These years of political power have been used on condition that economic power is sacrificed, in 1979 when everything was nationalised and the Fabian dream has been acheived as much as possible and the workers had no power. Why? (this is where we move full circle) a political party is an ideological union and the leading members do not nessasarily have a vested interest for stuff like workers control and the general improvement in the condition of the working class. The over argument for the centralised trade unions is that 'if you don't centralise the power of the workers they will be picked off one by one'. It seems that the centralising effect is the wrong way round, from the centre to the periphery, from the central commitee to the membership.
The working class wants action and when action has taken place there are many examples of people flocking to it and joining in. They do not want promises of utopias especially when they are struggling to get by, enough is enough, no more 'if you join us then the world will change'. Prove it, action first!
Comments
Display the following 2 comments