gallinello

Apologies for the length of this, but lest we forget all HER 'achievements': Margaret Thatcher presided over the destruction of more industry in Britain than that destroyed by the Luftwaffe in the Second World War. She plotted to smash the National Union of Mineworkers and to dismantle the welfare state and all the reforms that had been fought for over decades by the working class. She slashed welfare payments, attacked the old and the sick and basically co-ordinated a one sided civil war against the British (and Irish) working class. There were many people in Britain whose lives were cut short by unemployment, by sickness and poverty as a result of the politics of Thatcherism, many families that fell apart, many children who went hungry. Yet, she was admired by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who wants her to have a state funeral, the sort of event normally reserved for royalty. Thatcher represented a new brand of Toryism, ostensibly more middle class and "ordinary" than many of their predecessors. Thatcher and Norman Tebbit - the Chingford Skinhead - sought to appeal to the backward prejudices of the middle class and to layers of the most backward workers. Thatcher was heralded as possibly the first woman Prime Minister. She would understand therefore the needs of ordinary women and so on. Hardly a day went by without her appearing on telly armed with a shopping basket bemoaning the lot of the "little people." The fact is however that she was anything but ordinary. Married to oil millionaire Dennis Thatcher, she represented the most vicious and small minded layers of the bourgeoisie. The ideas of class compromise and a formal commitment to the goal of full employment that were dominant in both big parties during the period of the Post War boom and were based on the theories of Keynes were abandoned. Thatcher embraced monetarism and neoliberalism. Her ideology was a ragbag of reactionary prejudices and crackpot economic theories, but they represented a coherent set of ideas and programme to attack the working class with. It's no surprise that the dominant economic and political ideas that Thatcher and Reagan supported were those of the Chicago school of economics - ideas known as monetarism - that had been promoted by the likes of Milton Friedman and Hayek. These ideas had been tried before of course. They had been put into practice in Chile under the murderous military regime of General Pinochet. There the 'Chicago Boys' had advocated tight monetary controls ostensibly to reduce inflation - which means smashing up the public sector, mass privatisation and attacks on the poorest in society. This was combined with a political programme to advocate self help, standing on your own two feet, and all the other alleged petty bourgeois virtues. Thatcher went as far as to say that there was no such thing as society. This was the green light for a massive onslaught on the working class, their communities and their organisations. This onslaught wasn't restricted to Britain either. It generated a programme of liberalisation and deregulation, that was ruthlessly applied by the IMF and the World Bank across the ex-colonial countries. Thatcher dressed up this reactionary programme as the logic of commonsense and thrift, armed only with a handbag (and a small onion for when she needed to shed a tear - according to Private Eye) she set off to put the world to rights. Thatcher's programme of privatisation and so called "popular capitalism" was wrapped up with the idea of a "property owning democracy", where everyone owned their own council house and had shares in the gas board and the electricity board. They would travel to work on privatised buses, or privatised tubes and trains. Because everyone was thereby "standing on their own feet" they would forget about the evil ideas of socialism and accept the god of "market forces". The fact is though that the assault on the public sector had much more to do with providing productive fields of investment for the bosses. Compulsory competitive tendering and the internal market within the health service served to batter down wages and conditions across the public sector. In the ?service? sector the vast majority of costs are in wages. The logic of compulsory competitive tendering meant that private companies could undercut council services, by the very straightforward policy of cutting wage levels and staff numbers. Thus, once they had also built their percentage profit into the equation, resulting in a massive growth in the exploitation of some of the poorest sections of the working class. Of course Thatcher also opposed the minimum wage as it would ?harm industry?. The recession between 1979 and 1981 had a huge impact on the working class. Unemployment shot through the roof as millions lost their jobs. What was the Tory answer? These, they said, were weak old fashioned industries that were uncompetitive and overstaffed. In other words they took the same attitude as their Victorian predecessors; they introduced ?laissez faire? capitalism. In other words Thatcher did absolutely nothing; the Tories just let the industries fold with calamitous results for working class communities up and down the country. What about the unemployed? Well, they were lazy, layabout shirkers, ?moaning minnies? and scroungers. The Tories slashed the number of tax inspectors and took on hundreds of people to police the benefit system. There were huge tax cuts for the rich while benefits were cut and people were encouraged to ?get on their bikes? and look for work. Did the medicine work? Monetarism meant that unemployment went higher sooner in Britain than in any other major capitalist country. Neoliberal policies didn?t solve anything. They are now totally discredited and the policies introduced by Thatcher in the 1980s are seen as being a factor in the present crash. One of the biggest factors in the victory of the Tories in the general election was the Falklands war. Out of the blue, or at least it appeared to be, the Argentinean army invaded the Falklands Islands or Malvinas a small bleak and utterly inhospitable group of islands with a tiny population massively outnumbered by sheep, penguins and elephant seals. The Argentinean Junta?s invasion unleashed a wave of jingoism on behalf of the press, which Thatcher used to present herself as a great war leader, casting herself as the successor to Winston Churchill, Joan of Arc and of course Britannia. The Tories sent a task force to the South Atlantic to retake the islands in what was essentially the most expensive election campaign in history. It?s clear that the Argentine military were surprised by the level of the response from the British. But for Thatcher it was too good an opportunity to miss, an opportunity to play on all of the long faded traditions of the British Empire, Rule Britannia and so on by showing ?the Argies? who was boss. Thatcher has always been portrayed as a strong leader. She was certainly dogmatic, stubborn and inflexible, but her longevity in power was achieved in part as a result of accident and in large measure as a result of the absolute incapacity of the Labour and trade union leaders to seriously challenge the Tories. Weakness and prevarication invite aggression and the Labour Leaders helped to create the conditions whereby the Tories were able to lay in to the working class for over a decade. Thatcher was no great thinker either. Her social base within the Tory Party was the nouveau riche, the petty bourgeois upstarts and the yuppies, the city slickers and the wide boys, the very same people who brought us the credit crunch. Large parts of the country were decimated, whole industries wiped out of existence. Dogmatic monetarism drove the Tories? politics and it was the working class that suffered. Viva the grocer's daughter!

Savant

Privates

Abuse

Dreary

And all the girls in the neighborhood Try to go out with David Watts They try their best but cant succeed For he is of pure and noble breed

Thr'pennies (sorry!)

Voglio vederti danzare - Franco Battiato Fantastico!

Pieces

Just a sad, little hand-written note: "This pub is closed." Seen tonight at 20.00ish.

Deconstructed

False

learned (II) (c'mon reetpetite et al, don't let WA die!)

Admittedly, mine is an archaic 1995 edition, but your OED, regretably, like your political opinions, judgements and analyses, appears to omit those same definitions you find unsuitable and unpalatable in support of your rather narrow interpretation of current political developments. However, if I consult the OED, I find, along with your 'discoveries' : Politic: (of an action) judicious, expedient; (of a person) prudent, sagacious; political (now only in body politic). Politics: a particular set of ideas, principles or commitments; activities concerned with the acquisition or exercise of authority or government; an organisational process or principle affecting authority, status, etc. Political: of, relating to, or engaged in politics; belonging to or forming part of a civil administration; having an organized form of society or government; taking or belonging to a side in politics or in controversial matters; relating to or affecting interests of status or authority in an organization rather than matters of principle. Incidentally, MM, who are we at war with this week, Eastasia or Eurasia, and where would this politically immature, politically naive comrade get himself a copy of the '75 edition of the Young Socialist 'guidebook' ?

If we take politics to mean the manner in which groups of social subjects, i.e unions and a major petro-chemical company in this case, make decisions and interact with each other, then this latest bout of industrial conflict is political.It involves a struggle with authority and concerns power and, therefore, it can only be political. With reference to LegalE's statement, I would replace All with Much, as a lot of the activities you list - love, parenthood, attitudes to death, choice of literature, writing style, charity - can be borne out of political circumstances or decisions arrived at through politics. Maybe some feminist EDFers could shed some light on the phrase: the personal is political, just to broaden the discussion out a little.

MM: How can industrial conflict be anything other than political, especially given the level of support from fellow engineering workers, as evinced in this current crisis? Guardian: "In a time of general recession and with unemployment at 25-30% in the engineering construction industry, this is serious stuff. Conventional wisdom say workers don't do this in these situations. Where can the dispute go next? There are three options. The first is that the strikers succumb to financial hardship and decide to continue to fight the battle another day ? maybe later in the summer through the official ballot. The second is that Total throws in the towel as it did in February this year. The final one is that we're in for a prolonged deadlock, with the union movement starting to raise money to keep the strikers from having to be forced back through economic penury. Already, there's some sign that it may be Total that blinks first. Today it is emphasising that it has not sacked any workers ? rather it's the two contractors that have sacked workers ? and it is actively encouraging talks between the contractors and the strikers to resolve the strike. So under the pressure of escalating action, the line that no talks could happen until the strikers returned to work has been shelved. Of course, talks neither guarantee an end to the strike nor the resolution of the issues that gave rise to it. All in all, it's shaping up to be the mother of all battles for the union movement this summer. They are in no mood to compromise or back down. The majority did not re-apply for the jobs by the 22 June deadline set by the company. Some went further and burnt their dismissal notices in a public display of protest. On top of that, one of the strikers' unions, the GMB, has organised a mass demonstration at the gates of the Lindsey oil refinery today. Together with the Unite union, the GMB is preparing to hold a national ballot for industrial action on the issues of issue on pay and job security. This is likely to result in a national strike by 20,000-30,000 engineering construction workers. After the weekend and the solidarity action that greeted the sackings last Friday, even more workers at more sites ? between 3 and 4,000 workers at power stations and oil refineries ? have come back out on unofficial strike in support for the Lindsey strikers."

MM. Interesting and valid review, but: "outdated, invalid and incoherent political theory" how can an objective analysis arrive at that conclusion? Times Online: The dispute over the sacking of 650 workers at the Lindsey oil refinery increased last night as wildcat strikes spread to four other British industrial sites and Total, its French parent company, rejected calls for further talks with union chiefs. As Lindsey workers publicly burnt their dismissal letters at a rally outside the Lincolnshire plant and union bosses branded the sackings ?outrageous?, at least 1,740 workers joined the walkouts in sympathy. They included 900 contractors at the Sellafield nuclear plant in west Cumbria, who stopped work after a lunchtime mass meeting. Michel B?n?zit, Total?s president of refining and marketing, placed the blame for the dispute on sub-contractors who had been involved in the expansion of the Lindsey plant, which was approaching completion. ?The discussion has to take place between the unions and the sub-contractors,? he told The Times from Paris. ?It is not our duty . . . [and] we are not responsible.? The French oil and gas company fired about 650 contracted workers last week in a dispute over threatened redundancies on a ?300 million project to install desulphurisation equipment. Total, which insists that the staff were temporary, said they had until 4pm yesterday to reapply for their jobs but many appeared intent on defying that call. ?Let them show us how many want to go back in there crawling on their bellies for their jobs,? Phil Whitehurst, a union official, said at the rally. ?We go out together, we go back together.? Tom Hardacre, Unite?s national officer, also adopted an uncompromising stance. ?The outrageous sacking of workers at Lindsey is one the most aggressive acts I?ve witnessed as a trade union official,? he said. ?Even some of the employers at Lindsey did not want to issue the letters to the workers but were forced to do so.? The dispute showed little sign of ending yesterday. At EDF Energy?s Eggborough coal-fired power station in North Yorkshire, 300 contracted staff walked out in sympathy. A further 240 construction staff at the South Hook liquefied natural gas terminal in Milford Haven, South Wales, and 300 workers at an oil refinery on the Humber operated by ConocoPhillips also joined the protests. At all of them, and at Sellafield, officials emphasised that there had been no disruption to their everyday activities as most of the striking workers were builders and scaffolders rather than operations staff. The fresh walkouts yesterday mean the disruption has affected 16 of Britain?s largest power stations and energy plants, raising fears that Britain?s power supplies could be affected if the dispute continues. Yesterday, thousands of contractors were on strike at Drax, Britain?s largest power station, E.ON?s power power plant at Ratcliffe-on-Soar in Nottinghamshire, EDF Energy?s power plants at Cottam and West Burton and at three sites operated by RWE NPower at Aberthaw in Wales, Didcot in Oxfordshire and Staythorpe.

learned

hard

Anti-Oedipus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia - Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari Rhizomes-a-go-go!!

How intelligent, and such wit!

Are the guests active and fully mobile? If so, and the idea of the hill-top vista appeals, why not take a fantastic walk from Archway Station up Highgate Hill, Swains Lane and Highgate Cemetery ("All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, ..."), Highgate High Street and then walk down to Hampstead Heath, along Highgate West Hill, finishing up at Parliament Hill for, what I would consider, the finest view of the metropolis.

'Fraid no trophies Tony, but I once gave Chester Barnes a run for his money at Pontins Holiday Camp, Camber Sands in the mid-seventies. Mind you, he was using an over-sized frying pan as a bat at the time, flash c**t!!

(a) job

vinceayre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Gallinello, what would you propose to replace it with, communism perhaps as that has worked so well else where. Vince, I believe in a socialist form of democracy based on mass workers' organisations, as existed in the early stages of the Russian revolution. In the interim period, or transitional stage (as referred to by ex-Troskyite, Macroban), I believe in the carrying forward of democratic reforms within the existing parliamentary system - for instance, the abolition of the monarchy and House of Lords, and the introduction of proportional representation - as a vital ingredient in the fight for a workers' government. I would hold that those other places you make reference to, North Korea or the old Stalinist USSR and Cuba, in which the state owns everything, are not true communist entities. There, the state owns the social wealth but because there's little or no democracy, a privileged bureaucracy owns and controls the state. So, in fact, a privileged minority owns the social wealth.Socialism means collective ownership of social wealth. There can't be collective ownership of social wealth without collective democracy.