|
|
Worker & Community Struggles and Protests
Blog Feeds
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
|
Why much of the Radical Left support social parasitism? national |
worker & community struggles and protests |
opinion/analysis
 Friday June 29, 2012 15:47 by Paddy Hackett - None rasherrs at eircom dot net
 Why Communism is not popular Today what is described as the Irish working class is of a different character. Much of the working class work a three day week or don’t work at all. But they and the so called low paid worker receive a basket of benefits from the capitalist welfare state that bring their living standards up to the level(and even beyond) of the higher strata workers who, prima facie, appear to be better off. But much of this strata may earn less revenue, in effect, than many of these workers from the lower strata. Today in Ireland the working class is of a fundamentally different character than that of the Irish working class at the turn of the century. This is because what is considered the Irish working class consists of a large element that is ultimately parasitic on the industrial working class. Much of the radical left represents the interests of what Marx and Engels would describe as lumpen in character. It seeks to protect the interests of the permanent and semi permanent unemployed. Much of this stratum has no interest in being employed as registered workers. They are under the naive illusion that capitalism can eternally sustain a massive parasitic social stratum that in a sense shares a commonality with the financial bourgeoisie. Both are parasitic. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (19 of 19)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19Which cumman of FG are you with Paddy?
You're a 'communist'?
Sure isn't that the ground Adolf and Benito recruited from.
On your Toika.
"They are under the naive illusion that capitalism can eternally sustain a massive parasitic social stratum that in a sense shares a commonality with the financial bourgeoisie."
Great! so what you're saying then Paddy is that if people keep taking all they can take from the social welfare system then together we can destroy capitalism, at which point we'll replace it with something better.
Dole power! destroy the system. sign on. ;-)
satire!
Paddy is of course playing into the hands of FG and others who are using the current crisis to eviscerate social supports and reduce wages etc.
I've got some news for you Paddy. If you cut off social welfare, everyone will not automatically convert to communism, but there will be widespread suffering and hunger, and you'll make the corporate sector and right wing neo con political class very happy. Is it really worth it do you think? And have you ever heard of Madeline Albright perchance? ;-)
he has a blueprint for the gulags in train.
"They are under the naive illusion that capitalism can eternally sustain a massive parasitic social stratum that in a sense shares a commonality with the financial bourgeoisie."
Great! so what you're saying then Paddy is that if people keep taking all they can take from the social welfare system then together we can destroy capitalism, at which point we'll replace it with something better.
Dole power! destroy the system. sign on. ;-)
Paddy: You miss my point. It is precisely because capitalism cannot indefinitely sustain a bloated and burgeoning social parasitic stratum from the eternally unemployed to single mothers that they must attack the living standards of the fully employed industrial worker and public employee. This parasitism exists at the expense of the full time skilled working class and to a lesser extent the full time unskilled worker (in Ireland). The effects of this on the core working class is demoralisation and even defeat. The result is an even weaker working class. I never intimated that the growth of the lazarus class and and resources allocated to them would destroy capitalism.
Social parasitism exists not to destroy capitalism but to sustain it. Should social parasitism not exist the conditions for working class unity on a communist platform would be tend to be stronger. The welfare state was established by capitalism to split and weaken the working class. But capitalism being inherently contradictory the welfare state is turning from a contradictory asset to a drain on capitalism.
"Paddy is of course playing into the hands of FG and others who are using the current crisis to eviscerate social supports and reduce wages etc."
The coalition government are not doing what is claimed above. They are engaged in a sustained attack against the fulltime employed working class ssslashing wages and worsening work conditions. The core of the working class is the fulltime registered working class. It is the strata that inspires and generates revolution.
I've got some news for you Paddy. If you cut off social welfare, everyone will not automatically convert to communism, but there will be widespread suffering and hunger, and you'll make the corporate sector and right wing neo con political class very happy. Is it really worth it do you think? And have you ever heard of Madeline Albright perchance? ;-)
That is true. It will not lead automatically to communism. I never made such a naive suggestion. However it would create the basis for its emergence.
We had those conditions in the fifties.
Where is your communism?You are a typical ideological-straw grasping wishful-thinker with a verbal formula for your version of the economic criminality gone viral....crush the victims and we'll get utopian commie blood out of their stones.
Try a little complexity Paddy..it will bring you towards, if not into, the communal problems of the disemployed and impoverished who are the prisoners of a system which will give your idiotic abstractions a standing ovation...and then fast-forward to realise their neo-liberal dog-eat-dog 'fair' and meritocratic solution.
Why dont you address hereditary wealth, the lie of the land(that its ownership is not based on theft and murder), or the corruption of our nascent democratic experiment by the William Martin Murphys(the 1913 centenary is also due) of the island before attacking those trapped in poverty and exclusion.
If you can't find sense, find a sense of fucking shame.
Try a little complexity Paddy..it will bring you towards, if not into, the communal problems of the disemployed and impoverished who are the prisoners of a system which will give your idiotic abstractions a standing ovation...and then fast-forward to realise their neo-liberal dog-eat-dog 'fair' and meritocratic solution.
Paddy: In Ireland many of the unemployed, three day a weekers and 15 hours a weekers lead relatively comfortable lives\; food, parties, cars, nice houses, cars and holidays. This is because official unemployment or under-employment is virtually a profession. Many of these people are experts on benefits of one kind or another. They dont just get what you call the dole. Some of them do the odd bit of work in the blackmarket. They constitute a virtual caste. They tend to be reactionary in their views which is many of them support Sinn Fein. They constitute a negative weight on the working class.
You turn your critical eye on those who create, maintain, profit from and thrive generally on this system?
Your vision of the luxury life on the social pittance is ludicrous. It echoes the shite I hear daily about the parasitic refugees, Travellers, foreigners etc.
If its not, why dont you argue for a sharing of the work and wealth so everyone gets a share of both?
Your vision of your 'revolutionary' working class clashes with my working experience. Me feinism is the general pattern. They cling to the chains of their jobs like any peasant farmer clutching his five acres and bog-rights, afraid to raise the gaze lest they see a bigger picture might require a moment's thought.
We dont emigrate to escape the ennui of our superfluous wealth, accumulated on the largesse of the FF/FG/Labour scabs sucking the national teat.
Your reference to SF indicates you share corporate Labour's terror of their inexorable rise, as a result of their articulating SOME resistance to the lockstep neo-liberalism you are embracing with Stalinesque overtones.
Lumpen proletarians and untermenschen are both shades of fascistic exclusivity...the mindset of elitists everywhere, from the Kremlin to Harvard and Oxbridge.
You should hang an Arbeit Macht Frei sign over your current tranche of wisdom.
diablos: Your vision of your 'revolutionary' working class clashes with my working experience. Me feinism is the general pattern. They cling to the chains of their jobs like any peasant farmer clutching his five acres and bog-rights, afraid to raise the gaze lest they see a bigger picture might require a moment's thought.
Paddy: The above just proves my point. You have nothing but contempt for the bona fide worker who is conscientious about his job and does not want to loose. You attack him/her for wanting to earn a living rather than suck it off other workers.
Diablos: Your reference to SF indicates you share corporate Labour's terror of their inexorable rise, as a result of their articulating SOME resistance to the lockstep neo-liberalism you are embracing with Stalinesque overtones.
Paddy: But this is the party that supported the indiscriminate bombings and killings by the IRA against British sovereignity. SF have no credibility. They are anything you want them to be. Left, Right, nationalist,monarchist. This is because it is a crass opportunist party that simply wants power and wealth as do many of its members.
Diablos: Lumpen proletarians and untermenschen are both shades of fascistic exclusivity...the mindset of elitists everywhere, from the Kremlin to Harvard and Oxbridge.
Paddy: Marx and Engels made reference to the reactionary character of the lumpen proletariat. So are they fascist too?
Not sure I have to add anything to that.
Your reverence for obedient salvery confirms my Arbeit Macht Frei comment.
Marx and Engels predated fascism, at least get your historic sequence into line. And their ideas played a large part in mobilising that 'reactionary character' once it was mobilised through indoctrination with their jargonised ideology for imperial capital's ends.
As for your depiction of SF and British sovereignty...I think you should get out and do a days honest work. Did you ever?You certaiunly haven't spent your time following the war started by Britannia, and run to her gain.
on one side we have FG and labour (and the remains of FF) trying to slash social programs and cut benefits, while not taxing wealth. On the other we have Paddy cynically pushing to have social supports on the poor completely cut in the naive hope the starving desperate people will at last realise communism is the answer.
Give me pearse doherty and mary lou any day!!!
Paddys definition of Lumpen Proletariat is far from any Marxist perspective. Seeing single parents and the long term unemployed as the enemy is something I'd expect from Fine Gael. And he adds the part timers to the gallery of rogues. I'm curious as to where Paddy thinks all of these people should find work? Are they responsible for the lack of jobs?
Paddy sadly has become a Groucho Marxist.
At the 2011 Communist University there was a discussion on Chavs, introduced by Owen Jones, author of Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class. Heres a vid of it, I think its relevant to the debate here.
Caption: Video Id: 29222758 Type: Vimeo
Beyond Chavs: imagining a working class politics for the 21th century
on one side we have FG and labour (and the remains of FF) trying to slash social programs and cut benefits, while not taxing wealth. On the other we have Paddy cynically pushing to have social supports on the poor completely cut in the naive hope the starving desperate people will at last realise communism is the answer.
Paddy: I never called for social supports on the poor completly cut. Many of those receiving a package of welfare benefits are better off than those who have worked full time for most of their lives. Neither did I suggest that social supports be taken away from the those that are receiving them who are not poor.
Paddy
we misunderstod you..you'd keep them on bread and water.
'Neither did I suggest that social supports be taken away from those that are receiving them who are not poor.'
Soo..like FG/FF/Labour you think the wealthy should keep their entitlements to 'dig-outs' from those same hard working taxpayers you claim to support.
I think Paddy you should read yourself again. Maybe you misrepresent what you actually mean to write.
Am I the only one thinks coherence is fading?
Well Paddy, I have to assume your joking when you claim to be a communist. I would identify as a communist as well and though I don't think we all have to be of the same shade of red, your masking right wing rhetoric under the guise of revolutionary crticism.. and to that I must say: On yer bike.
I would hope we could all afford to live on a 4 day work week..that's a purported aim of the Communist Party of Canada, though I doubt that many doing it in Ireland now with the use of the dole are in any way comfortable.
The class you describe is a strata of the Proletariat, one which Marx referred to as the lumpen-proletariat. Are you familiar with this concept?
Yes, in many instances there is a lack of education, yes, often the reliance on social welfare from the capitalist state leads to dependence. Although this class has features which could be considered counter revolutionary, This requires our class to aid in furthering self-education, mobilizing and then directing militancy once these have been achieved.
If your looking for someone to blame for the lack of revolution in Ireland, your pointing in the wrong direction. I thought blaming the most defenseless groups in our society was the sole tactic of the ruling class?? It keeps us divided, Paddy.. and as a Communist you should know- Division amongst the workers is never good. Employed or not.
If your looking for someone to blame, I suggest you point the finger upwards..
(Your emphasis on intellectualism is also a bit bourgeois, but we'll let ya off this time)
Robert Tressell addressed this question 100 years ago.
It is true that there are parasites at the bottom of society as well as at the top but those at the top are more powerful and take much more from those of us who work.
Yes, in many instances there is a lack of education, yes, often the reliance on social welfare from the capitalist state leads to dependence. Although this class has features which could be considered counter revolutionary, This requires our class to aid in furthering self-education, mobilizing and then directing militancy once these have been achieved.
Paddy: If your looking for someone to blame for the lack of revolution in Ireland, your pointing in the wrong direction. I thought blaming the most defenseless groups in our society was the sole tactic of the ruling class?? It keeps us divided, Paddy.. and as a Communist you should know- Division amongst the workers is never good. Employed or not.
If your looking for someone to blame, I suggest you point the finger upwards..
This modern lumpenproletariat does not, as you claim, "the most defenceless groups in our society". There are all kinds of groups some of them quasi-state organisations defending and promoting the interests of this "class". The latter form almost part of an industry for the promotion and defence of this "class". This is because there are jobs to be secured in this area. Then there are people like you, including the radical left, who promote its interests.
Pretty much all of Western society is parasitic on the colonies in Asia, Africa and South America. I don't know why Paddy picks on those on the dole in particular. Those who work a 40 hour week or more, enjoy a standard of living well above what they could possibly expect, if there was not massive theft of resources from the third World, and massive use of slave labour to produce cheap commodities. The same is true of those on the dole. Western production alone could never pay the dole to tens of millions of people - in the EU alone. The parasitic nature of Western society will not change, unless there is Communist Revolution in the Third World. To imagine it could would be like imagining that a junkie, who is getting heroin for free, would voluntarily give it up. Yes, one or two might, but the vast majority would not.
An Drignean: "Pretty much all of Western society is parasitic on the colonies in Asia, Africa and South America. I don't know why Paddy picks on those on the dole in particular"
Paddy: A hasty response:
The situation is the reverse. The European productive workers are much more exploited (much greater productivity) than the working class in what is euphemistically called the Third World. It is the Western productive working class that produces cheap commodities because they are so exploited. They have been much more exploited than Third World workers. Admitedly there have been changes taking place in this regard.
Your remark that Western "production alone could never pay the dole to tens of millions of people - in the EU alone." In a sense this is just the problem that has been surfacing in the Euro crisis. The EU is up to its neck in debt. It is no longer able to sustain this burgeoning debt. Because Euro capitalism has been bumping up against its objective limits it can no longer support the parasitic lumpenproletariat through the medium of debt. (Some might even describe it as a class). In other words the working class can no longer sustain this "Lazarus class" partly because this caste has grown too numerous in the Republic as a result of immigration and larger families.
These larger families are a product of the Bertie bubble. Bertie exploited the bubble, encouraged by his government, to raise funds devoted to children's allowances and other child related matters as a way of buying votes. Consequently this parasitic caste invested more of their energies in procreation. This strata have more children because they return more money. Instead of producing cattle they produce children as a livlihood. It is not popular to say this. However this is what a lot of pusilanomous Irish think. The entire situation has gotten out of hand. Bertie Ahearne is, to a good extent, the source of this problem. The situation brings to mind Jonathan Swift's enlightening satire on babies.
It does not makes sense that the salaries of public servants should be slashed to help pay for lots of these people to spend their time wandering around shopping malls while others are compelled to work a full week. They form surplus population and are contributing nothing to society either politically or materially. In fact it was much of this lumpen element that actively attacked the public service workforce arguing that its total wage bill should be cut. This is because it wanted some other category of people to suffer so that their lifesyle would continue to be sustained.
..when you pervert Swift to suit your national-socialist fantasy.
Swift's attack was precisely on the ascendancy double-think of the financially insulated and their hypocritical contempt for the impoverished they had disposessed to establish their pyramidic wealth.
You either have not read Swift, have totally misread him, or are on a payroll to distort his intent; which was to scald the imperial parasitic ascendancy for their economic numerology(which he parodies brilliantly) and oxymoronic upending of moral reality.
Your literal interpretation seem to be thick enough to mistake satire and parody for actual commentary. You invert the dispossessed into the exploiters, and vice versa.
Ibec will be proud of your services. You should go join Quaggy Myarse on the Independent. Or apply for the Centennial William Martin Murphy Chair of Literature in the University of Spindustrial Counter-Revolution.