I doubt a coalition of the two (which Starmer would undoubtedly agree to) wouldn’t be any better unfortunately…
The fact is the system isn’t broken, it’s working exactly as intended. Which is why we need to abolish it entirely. Hanging hopes on electoral politics is continuing to play the same rigged game hoping those in charge will change the rules… They aren’t going to.
By accepting that a revolution is necessary. There is no fixing (“reforming”) capitalism. Or a monarchy. Or a parliament that consists of an entire house of unelected “gentry”. The system was never meant to serve us and it never will.
Capitalism has been reformed, repeatedly. There are different forms of it, it evolves all the time. That was a key part of Marx’s philosophical stance, that capitalism was an ever-changing, revolutionary force, both destructive and creative; that was what he admired about it, in fact! Clement Attlee and other world leaders reformed capitalism with the Bretton Woods agreement and the many reforms we made post-war within countries. I think it’s very doubtful that a post-war revolution in the UK would’ve turned out well, given how the other post-war revolutions shaped up. Even Thatcher ‘reformed capitalism’ in this country (very much for the worse, obviously!).
Now, if you agree that these things are better than the alternative, that is the same thing as agreeing with reform. I think you and I probably agreee that the reforms didn’t go far enough, or even that it would be better to do away with some of these things altogether, but it’s not true to say that they can’t be reformed; abolishing the monarchy would be a reform, albeit a major one. Barbados did it very recently, again without a revolution. Even changing the Lords to an elected chamber or getting rid of the last Hereditary Peers would be reforms, and I imagine we’d both welcome them, up to a point!
The thing to remember is that as scary and overwhelming as a revolution can seem, it isn’t just on the front lines, it requires a lot more than just a violent uprising, it requires a base to fall back on as well as significantly more people working behind the scenes than are on the front lines.
Building up communities that care about and for each other, spreading information and solidarity, building dual powers (communal services to replace the failing/for profit ones we’re made to rely on, from food banks to money banks to childcare to healthcare), spreading propaganda and so on, all are vital and need to be happening before any hypothetical storming of any institution could even happen.
@DessertStorms@GreyShuck@Fudoshin@Zagorath
I agree that starmer would work with the Tories, but I don’t think the Tories will work with Labour.
Our only chance of PR is a coalition between Labour and Lib Dems/Greens.
Labour in coalition is definitely the best chance it has of happening.
That dude’s idea that Labour and the Conservatives would govern in coalition is laughable. In a wartime emergency, maybe, but the two parties just do not get along enough to do it if there is any other option.
I think Labour could probably be talked into getting on board with it over time, too. UK politics is at a point now where Labour is being hurt by FPTP. I think convincing them to go with PR (rather than IRV) is more difficult, but even that would be a big step up.
First of all, I’m not a fucking dude, second off all, have you been paying any attention to new Labour as opposition??? They literally oppose nothing the Tories are doing. NOTHING
They represent the same people, and those people aren’t you
Labour are more right wing than I would like, so I agree with you up to a point.
However, to say Labour ‘literally oppose nothing the Tories are doing’ is plainly untrue. They voted against the Rwanda bill just two days ago, for example, and have promised to repeal it when they come into power (assuming it passes the Lords). If voting against something, arguing against it and promising to repeal it don’t constitute opposing the Tories, I don’t know know what does!
There’s really no chance, short of WWIII, that Labour would enter a coalition with the Tories or vice-versa, and I don’t really understand why you think there could be.
IIRC, Starmer said some time ago that if Labour didn’t win a majority, they would form a minority government rather than a coalition with anyone (also relevant to !Zagorath@aussie.zone’s comment).
@DessertStorms @GreyShuck @Fudoshin @Zagorath
That’s why I’m hoping that no party wins overall majority. PR is the only way things will change.
I doubt a coalition of the two (which Starmer would undoubtedly agree to) wouldn’t be any better unfortunately…
The fact is the system isn’t broken, it’s working exactly as intended. Which is why we need to abolish it entirely. Hanging hopes on electoral politics is continuing to play the same rigged game hoping those in charge will change the rules… They aren’t going to.
@DessertStorms @GreyShuck @Fudoshin @Zagorath
You’re right, but without a full-scale revolution how do we get there?
By accepting that a revolution is necessary. There is no fixing (“reforming”) capitalism. Or a monarchy. Or a parliament that consists of an entire house of unelected “gentry”. The system was never meant to serve us and it never will.
Capitalism has been reformed, repeatedly. There are different forms of it, it evolves all the time. That was a key part of Marx’s philosophical stance, that capitalism was an ever-changing, revolutionary force, both destructive and creative; that was what he admired about it, in fact! Clement Attlee and other world leaders reformed capitalism with the Bretton Woods agreement and the many reforms we made post-war within countries. I think it’s very doubtful that a post-war revolution in the UK would’ve turned out well, given how the other post-war revolutions shaped up. Even Thatcher ‘reformed capitalism’ in this country (very much for the worse, obviously!).
As to your specific points… we have reformed all those things, repeatedly. It’s really quite odd to point to a country that has a constitutional monarchy, which used to be an absolute monarchy, and insist there’s no reforming that monarchy. It’s the way it is because we reformed it. In fact, we last reformed it in 2013. And the Lords was last reformed in 2015. The Commons was also reformed, for the better, in 2015 to allow recall of MPs.
Now, if you agree that these things are better than the alternative, that is the same thing as agreeing with reform. I think you and I probably agreee that the reforms didn’t go far enough, or even that it would be better to do away with some of these things altogether, but it’s not true to say that they can’t be reformed; abolishing the monarchy would be a reform, albeit a major one. Barbados did it very recently, again without a revolution. Even changing the Lords to an elected chamber or getting rid of the last Hereditary Peers would be reforms, and I imagine we’d both welcome them, up to a point!
@DessertStorms @GreyShuck @Fudoshin @Zagorath
Yep
The thing to remember is that as scary and overwhelming as a revolution can seem, it isn’t just on the front lines, it requires a lot more than just a violent uprising, it requires a base to fall back on as well as significantly more people working behind the scenes than are on the front lines.
Building up communities that care about and for each other, spreading information and solidarity, building dual powers (communal services to replace the failing/for profit ones we’re made to rely on, from food banks to money banks to childcare to healthcare), spreading propaganda and so on, all are vital and need to be happening before any hypothetical storming of any institution could even happen.
We can do it.
@DessertStorms @GreyShuck @Fudoshin @Zagorath
I agree that starmer would work with the Tories, but I don’t think the Tories will work with Labour.
Our only chance of PR is a coalition between Labour and Lib Dems/Greens.
Labour in coalition is definitely the best chance it has of happening.
That dude’s idea that Labour and the Conservatives would govern in coalition is laughable. In a wartime emergency, maybe, but the two parties just do not get along enough to do it if there is any other option.
I think Labour could probably be talked into getting on board with it over time, too. UK politics is at a point now where Labour is being hurt by FPTP. I think convincing them to go with PR (rather than IRV) is more difficult, but even that would be a big step up.
First of all, I’m not a fucking dude, second off all, have you been paying any attention to new Labour as opposition??? They literally oppose nothing the Tories are doing. NOTHING
They represent the same people, and those people aren’t you
Labour are more right wing than I would like, so I agree with you up to a point.
However, to say Labour ‘literally oppose nothing the Tories are doing’ is plainly untrue. They voted against the Rwanda bill just two days ago, for example, and have promised to repeal it when they come into power (assuming it passes the Lords). If voting against something, arguing against it and promising to repeal it don’t constitute opposing the Tories, I don’t know know what does!
There’s really no chance, short of WWIII, that Labour would enter a coalition with the Tories or vice-versa, and I don’t really understand why you think there could be.
IIRC, Starmer said some time ago that if Labour didn’t win a majority, they would form a minority government rather than a coalition with anyone (also relevant to !Zagorath@aussie.zone’s comment).
they will do whatever keeps them in power.