I'm surprised at the response of the British pro-war left  to  the re-election of the Labour party in last week's  elections.  At Harry's Place,  A General Theory of Rubbish and SIAW the view expressed has been that the Labour Party is clearly preferable to any other party.

In the aftermath of the election there has been a follow up discussion involving Paul Anderson, SIAW and Wil (A General Theory of Rubbish) about the danger of a “a grand anti-Labour alliance” between Tories and LibDems bringing down Labour in the 2009 elections:

There’s one alarming possibility that Paul’s posts seem to raise (though he doesn’t mention it). At this point an intelligent and adaptable Tory leadership would give some serious thought to courting the LibDems, with a view to forming a grand anti-Labour alliance around policy positions that both parties could sign up to with only a few adjustments, and, crucially, with the enthusiastic support of much of the media for glib rhetoric about “consensus” and “freedom”. (SIAW)

I'm an Australian and know very little about the details of British parliamentary politics. However I can't see that there would be any more reason for being 'alarmed' at the prospect of Labour losing the next election in Britain than there would be here. 

Almost 40% of the electorate didn't vote which is a pretty strong indication that  a very substantial majority of eligible voters just didn't care which party won.  That can be called apathy - and it probably is.  But apathy doesn't arise out of nowhere, it's generally a response to feeling that what you do (or say) has no effect. 

This to me is a far more significant issue than any "danger" of a Tory resurgence at the next election.  At some level people are aware that bourgeois democracy allows them to choose which party will manage the system better.  Now that is some sort of a choice - but not much of a choice.  It doesn't inspire people- as is eveident in the low turnout. Clearly nothing much seems to be at stake.

Here in Australia we have compulsory voting so the enthusiasm of the electorate can't be guaged by turnout, nevertheless the lack of enthusiasm for either of the major parties is obvious.  From a left perspective I'd judge the Australian Labour Party as marginally worse than the Liberal Party (equivalent of Torys ).  The idea that  the ALP is "the lesser of two evils"  -  and in some sense on the side of the "little person" whereas the Libs are on the side of "big busines" just doesn't make sense.  Both parties are in the game of running a capitalist system as efficiently as possible. 

The ALP took a completely opportunistic stance toward the war in Iraq  and as such deserved to be defeated in last year's election.  If I had been forced to cast a formal vote I would have voted Liberal.  

The situation in  Britain was more confusing, given Tony Blair's support for the war.  Nevertheless his progressive stance on this issue doesn't  justify clinging to the idea that Labour governments must always be better than non-labour ones. 

I'll finish off with an excerpt from Douglas Adams:

i

 ‘On (the robot’s) world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.’”

 

‘Odd,’ said Arthur, ‘I thought you said it was a democracy.’

 

‘I did,’ said Ford, ‘It is.'

 

‘So,’ said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, ‘why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?’

 

‘It honestly doesn’t occur to them,’ said Ford. ‘They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.’

 

‘You mean they actually vote for the lizards?’

 

‘Oh yes,’ said Ford with a shrug, ‘of course.’

 

‘But,’ said Arthur, going for the big one again, ‘why?’

 

‘Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,’ said Ford, ‘the wrong lizard might get in’”

 

 

Douglas Adams -  "So Long and Thanks for all the  Fish"

"It is not true that Marx no longer suffices for our needs. On the contrary, our needs are not yet adequate for the utilisation of Marx's ideas."

so what happened to the revolution, guys?   we're still choosing between labour and liberal 25 years later!  people are getting more apathetic and cynical but the 'alternative' of revolution seems very far fetched.  honestlty i don't think most people think things could be much different, Douglas Adams was right about that (see the lizards quote in the post from keza). 

if people really wanted to vote for someone different then a new party would be created that could win power from the other ones.  right now nearly everyone votes for labour or liberal so that must be what they really want, even if they say they don't trust or like theose parties very much.  I suppose that is what apathy means.  even though people complain they aren't motivated. 

in a way their lives are just too good,  so no-one thinks it's worth the effort.  revolutions only happen when people have got nothing to lose!  did Marx say that?

samsky

I am very reluctant to engage you on this Samsky, even though I agree with your final sentiments, as you have not even acknowledged previous responses to you.  I realise you say you don't get much computer time but it is annoying.  Especially when you seem to be misrepresenting the ideas being put forward.   

All Albert argued was that a revolution was necessary.  (Not that he was organising one, or had any idea of how to organise it - as opposed to changing the world from within the ALP).  Yes, we still choose between Lib and Lab 25 years later, but that is not the fault of Albert Langer (or others here) who have made the most concerted efforts of any individuals to change this, and who are still paying in  blood, sweat, and tears for attemtping to break the back of the two-party dictatorship operating in this country.  See the High Court challenge to s329A of the Electoral Act.  (Argued before the full-bench otf the High Court in October of 1995.)

It is not apathy which keeps people supporting Lib, or Lab, despite holding reservations,  it is the Electoral system we currently have, which supposedly requires us to support candidates we don't want in order to cast a formal vote for the candidates of our choice! Go figure? 

Personally, I think this is enough to get people up in arms, well at least on the streets, but with the complexity and obfuscation associated with the case, (side-lining the real issues with personal attacks on Albert, or discussion of implied rights; or of the compulsory voting etc) there seem to be few who really understand the outrages to the Australian democratic tradition we are now under. 

Anyway the housework calls.

Anita

Yes, there's a real, valid, challenge in both questions.

Personally, I think that "what happened to the revolution" was  fairly complex. In brief, though, I'd suggest that the main issues, highlighted in the  period late 1960s to early 1970s, were more or less won. I'm thinking of Vietnam, conscription, women's lib, censorship, racism. If not won, then big advances were made. A positive legacy of that period is the shift in culture which means people are freer today to reject mother-right-or-wrong patriotism. Of course, the world has changed a lot, and I guess the down-side is that the spirit of rebellion, and the Marxist theory that influenced it, are no longer so apparent in Australia. The clock can be turned back, and I think Bracks' legislation about 'religious tolerance' is an example; as is the whole Political Correctness thing. The revolution clearly didn't happen but it was good to see some pretty heavy reactionaries squirm for a little while - inside the movement too.  

The second question should be discussed on this site. Do revolutions only happen when people have nothing to lose? If that's the case, there won't be revolution in the advanced industrialised countries because people's basic needs are more or less catered for. I remember the old veterans of the CPA(ML) - (for whom I have lingering respect, might I add) -  plus people like Frank Hardy, who used to regularly predict when the "next big one" (economic collapse) would happen. They never got it right, and it hasn't happened in the sense in which they thought of it.

Could it be that revolution will happen, not because a situation develops in which people have nothing to lose, but rather because people realize that the capitalist class is totally unnecessary and that a much better future can be had without them holding things back? This assumes a movement proceeding from moral motives but, in a sense, that's what the 1960s rebellion was anyway. None of us took to the streets because of hunger or poverty. The material world shaped our discontent in other ways (such as Vietnam) and Marxism as a theory influenced our direction in struggle.

Barry

"It is not true that Marx no longer suffices for our needs. On the contrary, our needs are not yet adequate for the utilisation of Marx's ideas."

(Rosa Luxemburg)

A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal of even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls.

and


An appreciable rise in wages presupposes a rapid growth of productive capital. Rapid growth of productive capital calls forth just as rapid a growth of wealth, of luxury, of social needs and social pleasures. Therefore, although the pleasures of the laborer have increased, the social gratification which they afford has fallen in comparison with the increased pleasures of the capitalist, which are inaccessible to the worker, in comparison with the stage of development of society in general. Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure them in relation to society; we do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their gratification. Since they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.



Wage Labor and Capital