|Still A Bit Disjointed
||[Nov. 14th, 2016|09:40 am]
I was expecting a revolution but not a revolution of the right.|
But "right", "left"; I'm not sure those terms have much meaning any longer. Simon Jenkins proposes that we should talk about "outsiders" and "insiders" instead.
I think Clinton lost the election when she dismissed Trump's army of outsiders as "a basket of deplorables" It was a "Let them eat cake" moment. You don't win elections in a democracy by displaying contempt for the electorate.
The parties of the so-called left have lost almost all contact with the people they used to represent. Which has let in the populist demagogues like Trump and (speaking parochially) Farage. These guys aren't friends of the disadvantaged and dispossessed (they're plutocrats) but they've retained an ability to talk the talk.
I've no idea what happens next. I think Trump is going to engender something like civil war (troops on the streets of major cities) if he carries through on his promise of deportations. Does he think 3 million desperate people will go quietly? Or perhaps- he's an old man after all- he'll settle- as Eisenhower and Reagan did- for playing a little golf.
Those terms still have their legitimate meaning; only the definitions of it, what society commonly thinks what is left, what is right, needs a big reform. Especially what the term "left" encloses.
Today it's a common thinking that leftism is about social minority activism and about claiming the personal right of everyone to do whatever he wants - no matter if good or harmful to society.
But originally, leftism was the stream of activism for the workers, for the common people that carry the system of human society on their shoulders and keep it running - in that context it also contained the rights activism for women -; it wanted to unite them and create a powerful force against those in the class of the rich which think they are beginning and end of the world, but treat everyone lower than them in the social pyramid like dirt.
Leftism like this also was minded to go to fight - in the last century this equalled holding rallies and marching on the street; this on its own already was demonstration of power enough to make the rich shake in their castles. In this century, in this decades, it doesn't make any of the rich shake anymore. Unless those simple people come up with pitchforks and signalize their readiness to also fight with their teeth and violence for their rights.
This is something that leftism always was ready for doing, 'cause they knew the nobles won't surrender voluntarily (and whenever they see a little space to start with their acting again, they gonna do it) - this is a component totally forgotten today and supported with poinson by the system in the form of "only peacefully protest, peaceful is the one and only real form protest".
The historic power base of the left- that is to say organised labour- has been weakened and demoralised. The power base of the right- that is to say- the rich and powerful and those who serve them- goes from strength to strength.
Hm... I've got to think about this...
...Yes. In some parts you even already ask "What workers?" because it's not humans doing the work, but machines entirely. Machines have no children, no family, no private life; they just do what they were programmed to do. Who should go on the street and protest then?
On another hand: Since WWII, since America has become the economical and cultural center of the world, it's all just been talking about "everyone individually", the single person. Not the group or people that feel a connection to each other.
If everyon runs around with that narrow sight, this is really bad group organizations like the worker associations have always been.
It's also much harder to get people again sitting at one table and finding compromises that half-way satisfy all that many different sides.
It's like... people have unlearned to grasp what they have in common. Despite all differences they have. And they have troubles to actually want to see this commons because everyone thinks like his site must be the one which gets through with the most.
The world is changing and the old political parties no longer fit the new reality. The British Labour Party- for instance- is no longer really the party of labour. It has the backing of some unions, but most of its MPs are lawyers or people who read politics at university and have never done anything in their lives except hang around Westminster.
I'd call that differently: The establishment of those powers which want to keep the simple people working for them so they can live in luxury and never mind about where it comes from, those powers have infiltrated the representating entities of society, politics and economy with their own personnel that is loyal to them, and they drove out the classic representatives of those groups - so in the end, it's an entity slave to their interests, not servant to the interests of those they once were originally formed for.
In short words: The establishment has conquered the helper entities of the simple people, so they don't work in their favor anymore.
You don't win elections in a democracy by displaying contempt for the electorate.
If you are Trump you do. He displayed contempt for everyone except straight, white, Christian men, and he won handily.