Is capitalism really such a good system?

[ahinton]

Whatever. I try my best to think rationally but there are moments when emotion takes over.

Fair comment. It just shouldn't have to; it just makes already parlous matters even worse because it can incite such a reeaction from time to time.

It has nothing to do with "rotten apples"

Well, no, of course; it's just that some of the more prominent practitioners of the worst aspects of what capitalism has been allowed to become that have made tghemselves look like that, I think.

it's not even the entire system that's rotten, it's working in the only way it can, redistributing wealth upwards, privatising profit and nationalising risk.

No the entire system isn't wrong, but the three aspects of its operation that you mention here are surely heinous examples of those parts of the system that are rotten.

As for "getting it wrong", Goodwin would still be happily "getting it wrong" now if he could, I have no doubt of that.

Exactly - and Diamond, too, I'm sure (and he's gotten away with it rather more unscathed than Goodwin and yet more and more scandals in the past operation of Barclays keep coming to the surface).

IDS will continue to "get it wrong" until he's put out to pasture.

There's plenty of that stuff owned by the wealthy UK landowners mentioned by TS, so that can't come soon enough. I used to be unsure whether he was just incompetent or something far worse, but those doubts have since largely ebbed away...

[Serial_Apologist]

I realise that I'll be shot down for this, but I do wish that this "ruling class" descriptor could be consigned to where it rightfully belongs, not least because it risks hiding something far mor dangerous and fearsome still. This "ruling class", when referred to - does it mean monarchs and their families?

Yes: but always remember, it's the system they preside over and its systemic failings per se that socialists condemn; were the ruling class to contribute of their self-assumed abilities and leadership powers to the benefits of a society run on egalitarian principles, who could object to that - apart from them not wanting to lose their privileges and unaccountable powers? Or do you think these are in some way naturally conferred?

presidents and their henchmen? prime ministers and theirs? - or just those people with vast amounts of assets and massivly high incomes who desire to wield power by using it in their own interests and against the interests of others?

Depends what "henchmen" refers to: bodyguards, nannies, servants and chauffeurs, no, since they are employees; elected politicians, no, however toadying they may be to the ruling orders; the military officer caste, police chiefs, newspaper editors: yes.

Apart, perhaps, from cases where members of the first three categories happen also to fit the last, it seems to me that what is meant is the last. The problem with this is that they have no democratic right to "rule" and they are not really a "class";

Who says the ruling class has to be democratically accountable? I don't see newspaper editors, army officers or police chiefs being elected; and the recent arrangement of electing police district chairpersons fell apart because it was seen as offering no genuine voice to community concerns. I think you've answered your own question there!

the reason for the latter of these is that they each have their own sets of interests which might and sometimes do conflict with one another. Were the intents and desires of every person with more than £x billion to his/her name and an annual income in excess of £x00,000 million were to be examined, I rather doubt that much commonality would be found. If they were all in the same boat, then whatever one might call them one would at least know what and whom one was up against but, in truth, the very diversity amongst them suggests too much fragmentation to warrant their being flung together as a "class", not least because not everyone who is in such a position of wealth seeks to use it against the interests of others.

Aren't their names etc in Who's Who or Debretts, or something? Their interests as a class lies in extracting the maximum amount of profit from the rest of the population, either through renting land or property, price fixing or wage minimalisation as a fraction of overheads, or overseeing the lawmaking and policing thereof - whether as individuals they like each other or not is irrelevant; their function is to compete with each other and keep their shareholders as much as possible satisfied. Brecht said something nice about this in his 1936 play "Die Rundkoepfe und die Spitzkoepfer" - for which Eisler composed great songs you possibly know - pointing out that members of the capitalist class are routinely at each other's throats in the capitalist struggle for their businesses to survive, but are never more united than when threatened by the power of an organised working class.

OK, maybe that's something of a side issue to the question posed by the thread. Capitalism was a good system (though not a perfect one - what system would or could be that?); whether it can recover from the parlous and discreditable state into which it has gotten itself over decades is obviously open to question (and it is indeed rightly being so questioned), but it certainly will not unless there is an international concerted and sustained effort to ensure that it does. In the meantime, there seems to be considerably less agreement as to a viable alternative than there is even about how the present system could be reformed for the general social good.

Surely its better to try and find agreement before than after the denouement? Right now the ruling classes of the world are all over the place; at least anticapitalists can't be accused of being the CAUSE of the banking and other crises - they tried pinning that blame on trade union militancy in the 1970s and 80s: just look where voluntarily conceding the point has led!

[teamsaint]

Rather a lot of what's done isn't done for the benefit of all, but to attract large subsidies. The real 'subsidy junkies' & 'scroungers' are among the richest people in the country - including those at the top of the 'ruling class' - i.e. the royal family.

what somebody else (can't remember who) called something like

" Socialism for the Rich , laissez faire for the poor."

[ahinton]

Rather a lot of what's done isn't done for the benefit of all, but to attract large subsidies. The real 'subsidy junkies' & 'scroungers' are among the richest people in the country - including those at the top of the 'ruling class' - i.e. the royal family.

The system is indeed not working as it needs to for such reasons. That said, that part of the amount paid for the royal family by the taxpayer that is actually received by each member thereof - i.e. the net amount after expenses - is a comparatively small proportion of the private incomes of most of them - and it is mainly the taxpayer that "subsidises" them, I think.

Envy of and contempt for the rich just because they're rich is all very well but achieves nothing for anyone else's benefit; there would need to be a way to persuade them to use at least a reasonable proportion of their wealth for public benefit but I've no idea how that could be done.

[ahinton]

Yes: but always remember, it's the system they preside over and its systemic failings per se that socialists condemn; were the ruling class to contribute of their self-assumed abilities and leadership powers to the benefits of a society run on egalitarian principles, who could object to that - apart from them not wanting to lose their privileges and unaccountable powers? Or do you think these are in some way naturally conferred?

Socialists are not everyone! - but never mind that; there are plenty of people who condemn - or at the very least harbour reservations about - the systemic failings of the capitalist system as it is now generally operated and not all of the are socialists in any case. I will use the tem "the ruling class" only in order to answer your point about them here. Of course no such privileges and powers are "naturally conferred"! As I've said, however, with wealth comes responsibilities but it's the greedy wealthy that refuse to budge in wanting to retain everything for their own benefit and care little for anyone else's.

Depends what "henchmen" refers to: bodyguards, nannies, servants and chauffeurs, no, since they are employees; elected politicians, no, however toadying they may be to the ruling orders; the military officer caste, police chiefs, newspaper editors: yes.

By that term I meant those who think in the same way and are part of the same operation.

Who says the ruling class has to be democratically accountable? I don't see newspaper editors, army officers or police chiefs being elected; and the recent arrangement of electing police district chairpersons fell apart because it was seen as offering no genuine voice to community concerns. I think you've answered your own question there!

What I meant was that these people are not given a mandate to "rule" and most of them don't even try to do so; I do not and cannot accept in principle the ownership of valuable assets and the receipt of massive incomes as being inevitably synonymous with "ruling" - the wealth and the attempts to exert power are two separate entities that are occasionally, but not always, seen in company with one another.

Aren't their names etc in Who's Who or Debretts, or something? Their interests as a class lies in extracting the maximum amount of profit from the rest of the population, either through renting land or property, price fixing or wage minimalisation as a fraction of overheads, or overseeing the lawmaking and policing thereof - whether as individuals they like each other or not is irrelevant; their function is to compete with each other and keep their shareholders as much as possible satisfied.

But this is not the exclusive province of the exceedingly wealthy; many people do some of those kinds of thing, including those who let holiday property or an apartment or two and those who run SMEs.

Brecht said something nice about this in his 1936 play "Die Rundkoepfe und die Spitzkoepfer" - for which Eisler composed great songs you possibly know - pointing out that members of the capitalist class are routinely at each other's throats in the capitalist struggle for their businesses to survive, but are never more united than when threatened by the power of an organised working class.

And if that doesn't serve to illustrate the sheer pointlessness of "class struggle", I don't know what does! Today, "members of the capitalist class" includes most people who own anything and/or employ anyone. The corner shop owner isn't just competing against Tescbury's but against the owner of the shop on the next corner; the local furniture restorer / french polisher's competing against the one in the nearest village. A far greater proporton of the labour market in UK today is self-employed than was once the case and this has surely undermined to some degree (though not, of course, dispensed with) the notion of the "power of an organised working class". Anyone who's been for a job interview has competed against ten, a hundred or a thousand other applicants for it and, if successful, may have also to compete to keep the job. The cut-throat aspect of the labour market infects it at all levels.

Surely its better to try and find agreement before than after the denouement?

Of course - if only that can be done.

Right now the ruling classes of the world are all over the place

THE EXTREMELY WEALTHY, you mean?!

at least anticapitalists can't be accused of being the CAUSE of the banking and other crises - they tried pinning that blame on trade union militancy in the 1970s and 80s: just look where voluntarily conceding the point has led!

No, that's true, of course - except that I've yet to hear trade union militancy in the 70s and 80s being blamed for the banking or other crises! - but the true causes of those crises are a complex matter indeed.

[Richard Barrett]

Their interests as a class lies in extracting the maximum amount of profit from the rest of the population, either through renting land or property, price fixing or wage minimalisation as a fraction of overheads, or overseeing the lawmaking and policing thereof - whether as individuals they like each other or not is irrelevant; their function is to compete with each other and keep their shareholders as much as possible satisfied.

This is the crux of class relations under capitalism of course. The ruling class isn't a gentlemen's club, it's the term given to a conglomeration of economically ruthless individuals who would often stab each other in the back as soon as look at each other - look at the way their beloved "Iron Lady" was dropped like a hot potato the second she outlived her usefulness. And if they do that to their comrades it's hardly surprising what they are prepared to do to those whose interests don't coincide with theirs.

[Serial_Apologist]

What I meant was that these people are not given a mandate to "rule" and most of them don't even try to do so; I do not and cannot accept in principle the ownership of valuable assets and the receipt of massive incomes as being inevitably synonymous with "ruling" - the wealth and the attempts to exert power are two separate entities that are occasionally, but not always, seen in company with one another.

I just don't understand how you fail to see that money confers the power to lord it over the rest of the population that fits the definition of the ruling class! Every day we hear of its evidence - the ability to usurp large properties and tracts of land, thereby pricing those on lower incomes from the market; to hire and fire at whim; to buy its way out of investigation; to stop activities threatening to its wellbeing infringing its back yard and have them diverted to poorer districts in need of any work; to court the psychophatic support of media hacks and commentators; to pass on its ill-gotten gains to its sons and daughters. One could go on...

But this is not the exclusive province of the exceedingly wealthy; many people do some of those kinds of thing, including those who let holiday property or an apartment or two and those who run SMEs.

Yes but not being ignorant you know perfectly well the disproportionately greater scale of influence the richest and powerfullest individuals and their families have over global economic fortunes than the corner shop or student flat subletter. It all adds up, sure, and one greater sin doesn't excuse the lesser - though of course "they" prefer the publicisation of the latter - but public ownership of land and property would start to resolve this issue by planning home-building, with - since you always ask the wherefrom - money saved by not being gambled on the international markets by those who don't have to work for a living if they've got enough money by this means or that, instead of doing something useful for society rather than being a drain.

And if that doesn't serve to illustrate the sheer pointlessness of "class struggle", I don't know what does! Today, "members of the capitalist class" includes most people who own anything and/or employ anyone. The corner shop owner isn't just competing against Tescbury's but against the owner of the shop on the next corner; the local furniture restorer / french polisher's competing against the one in the nearest village. A far greater proporton of the labour market in UK today is self-employed than was once the case and this has surely undermined to some degree (though not, of course, dispensed with) the notion of the "power of an organised working class". Anyone who's been for a job interview has competed against ten, a hundred or a thousand other applicants for it and, if successful, may have also to compete to keep the job. The cut-throat aspect of the labour market infects it at all levels.

And you think class struggle - the struggle within classes as well as between them, of business against business, of the worker against his or her workmates for promotion, as much as between the classes - you think it will just stop if one side says, OK, you won, I give up? No, what will happen is what has happened since Thatcher's government weakened trade union solidarity. And it will get worse unless the employed, then, stand together: the existing institutions of reform and policing, inadequate as they may be, will have funds and legal position cut for want of moralisation and support. All that happens is that the other side, which you either have some neurosis about calling the ruling class or seem to think a fiction of the imagination, gets its way, and we end up living in conditions similar to those in Africa or Latin America!

The real point to make is: these things need not be! There does not have to be a permanently waged war between the creators of wealth and those with disproportionate ownership and control of it and everyone else. The mistakes, whether deliberate or not, of 200 years of Industrialism, will be repeated because capitalism to operate needs its internal contraditions of class, wish non-fulfilment, waste, division and scarcity. One thing they will not allow is for the mistakes (deliberate of not) of socialism to offer lessons, such as caring for the environment, to be learned from.

[P. G. Tipps]

This is the crux of class relations under capitalism of course. The ruling class isn't a gentlemen's club, it's the term given to a conglomeration of economically ruthless individuals who would often stab each other in the back as soon as look at each other - look at the way their beloved "Iron Lady" was dropped like a hot potato the second she outlived her usefulness. And if they do that to their comrades it's hardly surprising what they are prepared to do to those whose interests don't coincide with theirs.

Given what happened to leaders at the hands of 'comrades' in former communist countries, I suspect the Iron Lady got off rather lightly at the hands of colleagues. At least we could trace her and discover that she was then still alive after she was swiftly dumped.

Socialists/Communists referring to each other as 'comrades' must be one of the Great Misnomers of History.

[ahinton]

This is the crux of class relations under capitalism of course. The ruling class isn't a gentlemen's club, it's the term given to a conglomeration of economically ruthless individuals who would often stab each other in the back as soon as look at each other - look at the way their beloved "Iron Lady" was dropped like a hot potato the second she outlived her usefulness. And if they do that to their comrades it's hardly surprising what they are prepared to do to those whose interests don't coincide with theirs.

OK, thanks for a realistic explanation of that term "ruling class"; its members do not "rule" as a consequence of having been democratically elected to do so (wisely or otherwise) but they try to do so or believe that they can do so by exercising the power made available to them as a direct consequence of their wealth.

This then distinguishes the unprincipled, greedy, self-seeking wealthy from the other wealthy, for not everyone who is excessively wealthy behaves in the ways that you describe here although, of course, some of them undoubtedly do. In conclusion, then, the "ruling class" comprises those who, whether or not they have been democratically elected to rule, are very rich and appropriate the powers made available to them by their wealth to act as rulers and feather the nests of self-interest thereby; it therefore excludes those who are extremely wealthy who do not behave in those ways.

Provided that this is to be the understood meaning of "ruling class", I accept it.

[ahinton]

I just don't understand how you fail to see that money confers the power to lord it over the rest of the population that fits the definition of the ruling class!

I have just replied to Richard Barrett about that term. I do not fail to see this at all; what I do say, however, is that such wealth, in terms either of asset values or incomes or both, only confers such power if and when the wealthy chose to exploit it - and not every person with asset values or incomes exceeding a certain figure that's not even defined in any case behaves in this manner, although some of them undoubtedly do.

Every day we hear of its evidence - the ability to usurp large properties and tracts of land, thereby pricing those on lower incomes from the market; to hire and fire at whim; to buy its way out of investigation; to stop activities threatening to its wellbeing infringing its back yard and have them diverted to poorer districts in need of any work; to court the psychophatic support of media hacks and commentators; to pass on its ill-gotten gains to its sons and daughters. One could go on...

One could, but there'd be no need as you have already made your point persuasively. Rather as it's harder to prove that something doesn't exist than it is to prove that it does, we are far more likely to hear evidence of such things than we are of instances when massive wealth is not misppropriated to such ends, because that, after all, simply isn't deemed newsworthy. The last of these is the only one with which I would seek to challenge; English law states that almost anyone can pass on assets to whomsoever they choose, but those assets may not necessarily be ill-gotten (and the law not only does not but cannot distinguish between those that are and those that aren't in any case) and they may be small; I don't see that it would be possible to draw a credible line between the person who leaves his/her small apartment and its contents, a car and, say, £25,000 and the one who leaves hundreds of millions, not least because it would be impossible reasonably to specify where it should be drawn, let alone why.

Yes but not being ignorant you know perfectly well the disproportionately greater scale of influence the richest and powerfullest individuals and their families have over global economic fortunes than the corner shop or student flat subletter. It all adds up, sure, and one greater sin doesn't excuse the lesser - though of course "they" prefer the publicisation of the latter - but public ownership of land and property would start to resolve this issue by planning home-building, with - since you always ask the wherefrom - money saved by not being gambled on the international markets by those who don't have to work for a living if they've got enough money by this means or that, instead of doing something useful for society rather than being a drain.

Of course I accept your first point and I do know that as well as you do, although it doesn't alter the fact that the cut-throat competition that is one of the more unsavoury aspects of capitalist practice remains present at all levels. What I don't accept is that "public ownership" of land and property would do as you believe it would. There's no such thing as "public ownership" that parallels private ownership in the sense that the owner takes full responsibility for the owned assets; I don't "own" any part of RBS just because the government's bailed it out with everyone's taxes including mine; the government owns it (or at least 80+% of it) and I cannot, could not and have not in any case been asked to take responsbility for anything that has happend to or within RBS since that bail-out occurred. By "public ownership of land and property" you mean national or local government ownership thereof and, yes, I do always ask the wherefrom, in this instance because I do not believe that "money saved by not being gambled on the international markets by those who don't have to work for a living if they've got enough money by this means or that" - even if it could be accessed (and how in any case would that be done against the will of those who do this kind of thing?) - would be sufficient to do much more than scratch the surface of this problem and, even if it could, there'd be no guarantee that enough people would be able to afford to buy or rent the housing so created over however many decades it might take to build sufficient properly to house everyone adequately.

And you think class struggle - the struggle within classes as well as between them, of business against business, of the worker against his or her workmates for promotion, as much as between the classes - you think it will just stop if one side says, OK, you won, I give up?

No, I don't. What I do think instead is that, for an entire raft of reasons, there is a great deal less class-consciousness today than there was half a century ago and that cpmpetitiveness for this and that advantage does not in any case respect "classes" - it's far too prevalent for that.

No, what will happen is what has happened since Thatcher's government weakened trade union solidarity.

But whilst Thatcher's legacy in this is as well known as it is true, I do not believe that this is the only reason for that weakening, any more than I believe that such "trade union solidarity" as may still pertain today is always necessarily a good thing with always a positive and just outcome. Trade union solidarity only ever manifests itself as a consequence of union members' discontent with the conduct of employers, not that of "the ruling class" (see - you and Richard have got me using this term now!) as a whole; some of the more militant union activists would be as keen to exploit what they see as their adversaries as those adversaries might be keen to exploit them.

And it will get worse unless the employed, then, stand together: the existing institutions of reform and policing, inadequate as they may be, will have funds and legal position cut for want of moralisation and support. All that happens is that the other side, which you either have some neurosis about calling the ruling class or seem to think a fiction of the imagination, gets its way, and we end up living in conditions similar to those in Africa or Latin America!

I fear that it may gert considerably worse whether or not the employed - or what might be left of them at the time - "stand together". I have no "neurosis" about calling anyone a member of "the ruling class" and hope that I will be understood now to have accepted Richard's definition of that term on the basis that it specifically excludes very wealthy people who do not use their wealth to behave exploitatively against less well of people in order to foster their own interests.

[Serial_Apologist]

English law states that almost anyone can pass on assets to whomsoever they choose, but those assets may not necessarily be ill-gotten (and the law not only does not but cannot distinguish between those that are and those that aren't in any case) and they may be small; I don't see that it would be possible to draw a credible line between the person who leaves his/her small apartment and its contents, a car and, say, £25,000 and the one who leaves hundreds of millions, not least because it would be impossible reasonably to specify where it should be drawn, let alone why.

The answer lies in taxation, surely - as a general principle (without entering specifics here)?

Of course I accept your first point and I do know that as well as you do, although it doesn't alter the fact that the cut-throat competition that is one of the more unsavoury aspects of capitalist practice remains present at all levels. What I don't accept is that "public ownership" of land and property would do as you believe it would. There's no such thing as "public ownership" that parallels private ownership in the sense that the owner takes full responsibility for the owned assets; I don't "own" any part of RBS just because the government's bailed it out with everyone's taxes including mine; the government owns it (or at least 80+% of it) and I cannot, could not and have not in any case been asked to take responsbility for anything that has happend to or within RBS since that bail-out occurred.

One couldn't blame anyone for not wanting to assume responsibility for a bank that was taken over under pain of losing all its customers' money! A genuine properly constituted people's bank would periodically elect its bosses to look after its customers' accounts.

By "public ownership of land and property" you mean national or local government ownership thereof and, yes, I do always ask the wherefrom, in this instance because I do not believe that "money saved by not being gambled on the international markets by those who don't have to work for a living if they've got enough money by this means or that" - even if it could be accessed (and how in any case would that be done against the will of those who do this kind of thing?) - would be sufficient to do much more than scratch the surface of this problem and, even if it could, there'd be no guarantee that enough people would be able to afford to buy or rent the housing so created over however many decades it might take to build sufficient properly to house everyone adequately.

Outwith capitalist relations of accumulation and distribution I don't see the problem; you need x number of accommodation units, y the number of bricks and other building materials needed, and z number of construction workers. A geographical network of peoples' banking outlets would apply vigilance to prevent speculative runs on the currency through its staff.

It isn't taking the Chinese that long to build! What the CCCP leadership has ordered is more of whatever that polite word for printing money is - competitive easing? A socialist administration would reunite the split between actual added value and money supply so the value of money would once again be made congruent with working reality and transparent.

What I do think instead is that, for an entire raft of reasons, there is a great deal less class-consciousness today than there was half a century ago and that competitiveness for this and that advantage does not in any case respect "classes" - it's far too prevalent for that.

Explained by how the overweening ideology we live under from cradle to grave courts a survivalist, all-against-all mass mentality in practically every field of human activity, then brings in religion and/or psychiatry to force the square pegs thereby created into round holes. Short of a class analysis I don't know of any philosophy of living, with the possible exception of secular Buddhism, capable of withstanding its pressures to fit in. How otherwise can, for instance, racism be accounted for into mature adulthood, other than by way of one or another of its divide-and-rule tactics?

But whilst Thatcher's legacy in this is as well known as it is true, I do not believe that this is the only reason for that weakening, any more than I believe that such "trade union solidarity" as may still pertain today is always necessarily a good thing with always a positive and just outcome. Trade union solidarity only ever manifests itself as a consequence of union members' discontent with the conduct of employers, not that of "the ruling class" (see - you and Richard have got me using this term now!) as a whole; some of the more militant union activists would be as keen to exploit what they see as their adversaries as those adversaries might be keen to exploit them.

Socialists have long argued that working people have but little alternative to withdrawing that which produces surplus value, their labour power, as ways of gaining concessions in terms of more leisure time, better incomes and conditions of work, or combatting redundancies, wage or job cuts, breaches of employment contracts etc., inadequate and inconvenient to the ordinary public though strikes may sometimes be. A revolutionary struggle would pose the question of who owns the plant - the employer or those doing the work - by the latter determining the product and who and how many are involved in its manufacture on a basis of objective need, and, if the boss doesn't concur, taking on ownership and control. This would take place under circumstances of wider social readiness - for one thing one would need the solidarity of refusal from, let's say, organised workers abroad being bribed into taking on the blacked work, (us pitted against us in class terms); for another a ligitimising government at local and national levels, since I don't personally think British workers, with their long historical identification of institutions of enablement such as local authorities, ngo's and co-ops, would go straight for unmediated forms of workers' democracy in the forms developed in Russia betwen 1905 and 1917.

I fear that it may gert considerably worse whether or not the employed - or what might be left of them at the time - "stand together". I have no "neurosis" about calling anyone a member of "the ruling class" and hope that I will be understood now to have accepted Richard's definition of that term on the basis that it specifically excludes very wealthy people who do not use their wealth to behave exploitatively against less well of people in order to foster their own interests.

If we're talking about rich philanthropists, I agree that they do exist, and good for them, but they constitute a minority; and as Ams and Flossie have pointed out in the past, is charity really a dependable, let alone satisfactorily accountable way to distribute largesse to causes which are really outcomes of capitalism's inability to meet basic needs?

[Flosshilde]

that part of the amount paid for the royal family by the taxpayer that is actually received by each member thereof - i.e. the net amount after expenses - is a comparatively small proportion of the private incomes of most of them - and it is mainly the taxpayer that "subsidises" them, I think.

I wasn't talking about the 'Civil List' or whatever it's called now, but the farming subsidies that are part of their private income paid on their private estates.

[Flosshilde]

Fair comment. It just shouldn't have to; it just makes already parlous matters even worse because it can incite such a reeaction from time to time.

I disagree. It is essential that emotions are involved - passion makes the argument more powerful, and helps maintain the struggle even when it appeares that no progress is being made.

[P. G. Tipps]

It is essential that emotions are involved - passion makes the argument more powerful, and helps maintain the struggle even when it appeares that no progress is being made.

The trouble with that is that folk who have done quite well materially under a relatively controlled form of capitalism ... not just the stinking rich/ruling class but the majority of us in the UK ... simply don't understand this talk of a 'struggle' and "taking to the barricades" and all that sort of revolutionary stuff.

They love having private possessions and boasting about these to their neighbours, and if they really wanted a Marxist revolution they could easily vote for far-left candidates at elections.

One can use as much passion and emotion as one likes to try and convince otherwise, but all the available evidence shows that they don't and won't (vote for far-left candidates).

[Serial_Apologist]

They love having private possessions and boasting about these to their neighbours, and if they really wanted a Marxist revolution they could easily vote for far-left candidates at elections.

Have any far-left candidates ever stood in your constituency, PGT? Because they haven't in mine, anywhere. Until people reach a stage of utter disillusionment in the existing order, the least implausible option of voting for the least objectionable candidate most likely to get elected is preferable to anything else, really.