What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Norgy]

Jesus Christ.
This degenerated quickly.

JUST LIKE THE TRUMP PRECIDENCY! 

[The Minsky Moment]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Shaw_(politician)

Shaw was born in Waterside, Colne, Lancashire. He was the eldest son of a miner, Ellis Shaw, and his wife, Sarah Ann (née Wilkinson). At age 10, Shaw began working part-time in a textile factory, and two years later quit school to work full-time. Later, he took evening classes to catch up with his education and was particularly skillful in languages. His knowledge of German and French proved useful to him later in his career.
. . .
Shaw was a strong supporter of unions. He joined the Colne Weavers' Association and became its secretary, and was a founding member of the Northern Counties Textile Trades Federation. He was Joint Secretary of Labour and Socialist International from 1923–1925. He was secretary of the International Federation of Textile Workers' Associations on a part-time basis from 1911 to 1924 and then full-time from 1925 to 1929, part-time until 1931, and then full-time again, a job that took him to nearly every country in Europe.

This man was a Marxist and a cabinet minister in McDonald's 1924 government.  He was not atypical, either for the British labor party or for European social democratic politics generally, a powerful force in European politics for well over a century and the dominant political expression of European working classes during that time.

[Norgy]

I think this Marxism debate is futile.

Marxism is just a way of analysing history.

Lenin made it into a weapon.

Mao and Stalin into tools of genocide.

[crazy canuck]

Guys, Raz has reached the stage where he will never ever concede an inch on this (and I have no idea if he is right or wrong as I really really don't care). Just move on.

Really, you really have no idea whether Raz's claim has no basis in reality?

And you want people to stop correcting him because he won't be convinced he is wrong?

Maybe the reason to keep correcting him is so that people like you won't come away from this thread thinking there is some merit to the claim he is making.

[crazy canuck]

I think this Marxism debate is futile.

Marxism is just a way of analysing history.

Lenin made it into a weapon.

Mao and Stalin into tools of genocide.

And so why isn't important to discuss all those things?

[Norgy]

If you put your lawyer wig aside for a while, you will realise people have done it better.

[Sheilbh]

This man was a Marxist and a cabinet minister in McDonald's 1924 government.  He was not atypical, either for the British labor party or for European social democratic politics generally, a powerful force in European politics for well over a century and the dominant political expression of European working classes during that time.

I'd add that it's also true of the union leaders of the time who lead Britain into the General Strike. There are absolutely Marxist union leaders (particularly the miners), others who are more moderate like Ernie Bevin as well and some, like Jimmy Thomas, who are just wheeler dealers. I think the particular, unique British twist is that the Marxist leader of the miners union was Welsh, so also a lay Methodist preacher.

It is worth noting the extraordinary stories of some of the ministers in MacDonald's government. Not least MacDonald himself - who was, despite his later treachery, started on the radical Marxist-influenced side of the British left and was in the more left-wing Independent Labour Party. But he was the illegitimate son of a housemaid in rural Scotland who was in work (as a pupil teacher) at 15, had periods of being unemployed and homeless - but was fiercely committed to self-education. He was reading everything, writing pamphlets, going to night schools, working for unions. David Torrance who works in the House of Commons Library had a book published last year for the centenary called Wild Men on MacDonald's first government which is really interesting on this and quite what a shock they were to the British system (I think there's a lot to the theory that whether countries developed significant fascist movements or not depended on the capacity of conservative interests to reconcile themselves to the rise of working class and socialist politics - I think it's arguably the last genuinely important and positive impact of the British royal family).

It's why I slightly want to, to nick a phrase, defend the working class from the enormous condescension of posterity in comparing them to medieval peasants. The 19th and 20th century working class were literate, urban, connected, new - and there was a huge streak of understanding their power and creatively and innovatively thinking about it. And Marxism was one of many theories that attracted attention and support - I don't agree with this "no true Scotsman" angle of it as it's not as if anarchism, or the utopian socialist traditions had less theory and less pamphleteering. It's just that the Bolsheviks won so Marx became central and the focus of so much academic research and thought.

I'd add it's also why I hate the credentialism of our current politics. I think of Ernie Bevin who, in my view, is possibly the greatest British Foreign Secretary but whose biographers question how literate he was from an incredibly poor childhood. I think it's telling that he hated the Soviets (this was a later theme in relations with the Labour Party and the Soviets :lol) not because he didn't recognise them - but precisely because he did. They were the same type of people he'd spent the early years of his life fighting as a union boss, precisely because they did have a base among the working class.

I think on that credentialism point there's a bit of a self-recognition issue looking back at Bevin or 1924 when Starmer apparently told his cabinet recently they were "the most working class cabinet ever" because they all went to state schools before (mostly) going to elite universities. Although at least Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary did apparently query him if that's how the public saw them

[crazy canuck]

If you put your lawyer wig aside for a while, you will realise people have done it better.

If being a lawyer is what makes me want to have meaningful discussions, then no I won't be putting that aside.

What people do you have in mind, and better than what?

[crazy canuck]

This man was a Marxist and a cabinet minister in McDonald's 1924 government.  He was not atypical, either for the British labor party or for European social democratic politics generally, a powerful force in European politics for well over a century and the dominant political expression of European working classes during that time.

I'd add that it's also true of the union leaders of the time who lead Britain into the General Strike. There are absolutely Marxist union leaders (particularly the miners), others who are more moderate like Ernie Bevin as well and some, like Jimmy Thomas, who are just wheeler dealers. I think the particular, unique British twist is that the Marxist leader of the miners union was Welsh, so also a lay Methodist preacher.

It is worth noting the extraordinary stories of some of the ministers in MacDonald's government. Not least MacDonald himself - who was, despite his later treachery, started on the radical Marxist-influenced side of the British left and was in the more left-wing Independent Labour Party. But he was the illegitimate son of a housemaid in rural Scotland who was in work (as a pupil teacher) at 15, had periods of being unemployed and homeless - but was fiercely committed to self-education. He was reading everything, writing pamphlets, going to night schools, working for unions. David Torrance who works in the House of Commons Library had a book published last year for the centenary called Wild Men on MacDonald's first government which is really interesting on this and quite what a shock they were to the British system (I think there's a lot to the theory that whether countries developed significant fascist movements or not depended on the capacity of conservative interests to reconcile themselves to the rise of working class and socialist politics - I think it's arguably the last genuinely important and positive impact of the British royal family).

It's why I slightly want to, to nick a phrase, defend the working class from the enormous condescension of posterity in comparing them to medieval peasants. The 19th and 20th century working class were literate, urban, connected, new - and there was a huge streak of understanding their power and creatively and innovatively thinking about it. And Marxism was one of many theories that attracted attention and support - I don't agree with this "no true Scotsman" angle of it as it's not as if anarchism, or the utopian socialist traditions had less theory and less pamphleteering. It's just that the Bolsheviks won so Marx became central and the focus of so much academic research and thought.

I'd add it's also why I hate the credentialism of our current politics. I think of Ernie Bevin who, in my view, is possibly the greatest British Foreign Secretary but whose biographers question how literate he was from an incredibly poor childhood. I think it's telling that he hated the Soviets (this was a later theme in relations with the Labour Party and the Soviets :lol) not because he didn't recognise them - but precisely because he did. They were the same type of people he'd spent the early years of his life fighting as a union boss, precisely because they did have a base among the working class.

I think on that credentialism point there's a bit of a self-recognition issue looking back at Bevin or 1924 when Starmer apparently told his cabinet recently they were "the most working class cabinet ever" because they all went to state schools before (mostly) going to elite universities. Although at least Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary did apparently query him if that's how the public saw them

And one need not go back that far, in BC when the NDP had real socialists, and even Marxists, they came from working class backgrounds from the forestry and mining communities of this province.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah although across Western democracies the number of working class (as in actually worked in working class roles) has declined in recent decades. I think in the UK and probably everywhere else because the unions' influence declined which used to be a real route into politics.

I think it's striking that the most prominent recent leading MPs in the UK with that sort of background came up through union politics. So Alan Johnson (minister in New Labour years) has written a genuinely extraordinary memoir of his childhood which really tough - but he became a postman and then ended up as General Secretary of the union before becoming an MP (interestingly he also had a Marxist phase). But also Angela Rayner, the current Deputy PM, who left school at 16 pregnant and with no qualification. She ended up studying part-time to become a care worker, entered the social care sector and their union and ended up senior in that union before moving to politics. It's not the only reason but it's a big reason I think the unions really matter - because we have enough people with good degrees who become lawyers and journalists and people who've only worked in the think tank/lobbying/political world.

[Tamas]

Guys, Raz has reached the stage where he will never ever concede an inch on this (and I have no idea if he is right or wrong as I really really don't care). Just move on.

Really, you really have no idea whether Raz's claim has no basis in reality?

And you want people to stop correcting him because he won't be convinced he is wrong?

Maybe the reason to keep correcting him is so that people like you won't come away from this thread thinking there is some merit to the claim he is making.

How would I know if he is right if I stopped reading about halfway of the first post of this multi-page debate?

[crazy canuck]

Yeah although across Western democracies the number of working class (as in actually worked in working class roles) has declined in recent decades. I think in the UK and probably everywhere else because the unions' influence declined which used to be a real route into politics.

I think it's striking that the most prominent recent leading MPs in the UK with that sort of background came up through union politics. So Alan Johnson (minister in New Labour years) has written a genuinely extraordinary memoir of his childhood which really tough - but he became a postman and then ended up as General Secretary of the union before becoming an MP (interestingly he also had a Marxist phase). But also Angela Rayner, the current Deputy PM, who left school at 16 pregnant and with no qualification. She ended up studying part-time to become a care worker, entered the social care sector and their union and ended up senior in that union before moving to politics. It's not the only reason but it's a big reason I think the unions really matter - because we have enough people with good degrees who become lawyers and journalists and people who've only worked in the think tank/lobbying/political world.

Agreed, here in BC the forestry sector and their union were both powerful political entities, now both have significantly diminished in importance-as the workforce in that sector declined.

[crazy canuck]

Guys, Raz has reached the stage where he will never ever concede an inch on this (and I have no idea if he is right or wrong as I really really don't care). Just move on.

Really, you really have no idea whether Raz's claim has no basis in reality?

And you want people to stop correcting him because he won't be convinced he is wrong?

Maybe the reason to keep correcting him is so that people like you won't come away from this thread thinking there is some merit to the claim he is making.

How would I know if he is right if I stopped reading about halfway of the first post of this multi-page debate?

Then I wonder why you made a comment at all.

[Tamas]

Guys, Raz has reached the stage where he will never ever concede an inch on this (and I have no idea if he is right or wrong as I really really don't care). Just move on.

Really, you really have no idea whether Raz's claim has no basis in reality?

And you want people to stop correcting him because he won't be convinced he is wrong?

Maybe the reason to keep correcting him is so that people like you won't come away from this thread thinking there is some merit to the claim he is making.

How would I know if he is right if I stopped reading about halfway of the first post of this multi-page debate?

Then I wonder why you made a comment at all.

Because the pattern of discussion was obvious.

[Sophie Scholl]

2PM EST. 
You cannot view this attachment.