I’d never heard of all those apocalyptic novels. They sound like great fun. And we should be grateful that the socialists in Britain were so mild. Unlike the Bolsheviks and the Maoists who ran up rather significant butcher’s bills.
Yep, so mild that the class divide is now wider than when they started out and the condition of the working poor barely improved. But hey, there are a thousand bureaucrats in City Hall earning more than £100k. So what’s not to like?
How ignorant of history can you be. The living standards of the working class in 1900 were wretched. Now they’re higher than the well off of 1900 and the middle classes of most non-European countries.
The improvements in living standards had absolutely nothing to do with Labour Socialism, which itself is an oxymoron. The only thing “working class” or labor-intensive about Socialism is the rhetoric.
Socialism is just Avante-Garde Academics telling actual laborers to follow them, be disgruntled and agitate for more pay and less work. That’s it. It teaches people to be resentful and throw fits because needing to work hard to “live with dignity” is “exploitation.”
I agree with you completely on socialism. I’m simply pointing out the fact that the working (and non-working) class are massively better off today than they were in 1900.
I’m no socialist but your history is way out. There was a huge amount of self-organisation amongst the working class: credit and trade unions, the Labour Party, worked education etc etc – whether or not you agree with collective solutions or not. It is perfectly reasonable to call this movement socialist albeit with a very British flavour. There were also alliances with many middle class people and even a very few in the upper class!
Modern progressive and politics however is indeed almost entirely detached from the modern working class, but bears in my view little resemblance to a socialist movement, quite happily with the most unequal society we’ve had in a long time. Economic factors just aren’t as important for the progressive movement, it is all, race gender and identity
You’re talking about a variant of Socialism heavily influenced by Marx. London was his base of operation. Marxist Socialism is a dialectical. Theres two components: Economic (Base) and Cultural (Superstructure).
The two movements ping pong back and forth. When one stops working, the other takes hold. Right now you’re seeing emboldened Orthodox Marxists because the cultural stuff has alienated so many people. But they’re two sides of the same coin.
I get it, many laborers are just normal people that welcome class conflict if it improves their standard of living in the short term. They know not what they advocate. But that standard of living improvement always comes with hyperpolitics and more State intervention, which is the entire goal of revolutionary progressive movements.
People are actually much better off in real terms than 100 years ago – so “barely improved” is absurd. There are structural forces in the modern capitalist economy which tend to lead to concentration, although the notion that the UK is some sort of minimal low tax night watchman state is also ridiculous. The state spends a lot with mediocre outcomes, railways and the health service most notably. There are no easy solutions; we need a state that probably does less, but that it does do far more competently.
May I also recommend ‘The Chilean Cub’ by George Shipway? *
(*Published 1971.)
Mr. Swemb
1 month ago
Socialists have worked out that mission-creep is more effective than revolution. They will get there in the end.
Hugh Bryant
1 month ago
Well, they were certainly right about the incompetence. We should never forget that it was a socialist chancellor who, by breaking the link between housing costs and interest-rate policy, brought about the largest upward transfer of wealth in our history. Let’s not even talk about his partner and the illegal wars, the collapsing borders, the dumbing down of education …
Tyler Durden
1 month ago
Such is the threat to Britain’s finances and culture, I would happily join a Jan 6 type protest to mark the transition to a Labour government.
Rather than being an insurrection, I would at least expect these happenings to have the length and scope of the recent London protests in support of the Palestinian intifada.
However, I fear that violence would also be the result as the Met police openly attacked the conservative activists and in doing so, be fully supported by the British political establishment.
This article literally lists all the amazing achievements of Labour that have unquestionably improved society whilst initially being opposed by conservatives – and you want an insurrection to prevent any more of them?
Consumed so much for your hatred of the ‘other’ that you forget to love your own country.
Of course Labour have done some good in office, although some of their achievements (such as “our” NHS) are not half as impressive as they like to pretend. The glorious reforming government of 1945, for example, that we endlessly hear eulogised, was so popular that it lasted six years.
Dominic English
1 month ago
I’ve just finished reading Alwyn Turners book about this period, Little Englanders, it’s brilliant. Informative, eye opening and very very funny. A real romp through the musical hall era. Thoroughly recommend.
R E P
1 month ago
The real worry that many of us have is that the Labour Party does not seem to like Britain or its citizens that much. As a mid-ranking home office official told me recently, ‘we need mass migration to counterbalance the people who voted Brexit.’ (She was much more explicitly hostile when describing the people she thought were the Brexit voters.) She is a Labour voter, natch.
A Labour government can hardly be any worse than the current Tory incompetents, and might be a whole lot better under Starmer’s leadership. Whatever individual civil servants and Labour activists may think, Starmer is not going anywhere near reversing Brexit, nor is he in favour of mass migration.
I agree there’s not much difference between Sunak’s Tories and Starmer’s Labour. For those of us who are Thatcherites (i.e., real conservatives), that’s rather the problem.
John Howes
1 month ago
I find the concept of working class some kind of bizarre fantasy that all MP’s indulge in to establish their street cred. Given the millions that are unable to work(disabled!) added to the millions that won’t work, (mental elf issues) it beggars belief that such a class exists outside the occasional soundbite of an MP who has nothing else to offer.
Santiago Excilio
1 month ago
I am quietly confident that Labour, led by Starmer, will a) win the next election and b) be a complete disaster.
As a party they are ideologically unsuited to the challenges that lie ahead, and one would be pushed indeed to describe any of the shadow front bench as burdened with brilliance. I have every expectation that they will revert to type, fail to reform the ailing state institutions, genuflect to identity politics, appease the unions and shake empty the piggy bank. One which last point perhaps the outgoing Treasury Secretary (whoever that is at the time) will leave a little note for his/her successor “Good Luck! There really is no money left this time.”
As I wrote in the Spectator comments section yesterday, Labour had better enjoy election night. Within two years, they’ll be as popular as the Tories are today.
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago
keep 80% of the population happy and you’ll never have revolution. Doesnt matter if they vote Labour or Tory. ‘Control the courts and the coinage and let the rabble have the rest’, as the ruling class have said adinfinitum.
An interesting piece of British political history. Thanks.
Why i subscribe.
I’d never heard of all those apocalyptic novels. They sound like great fun. And we should be grateful that the socialists in Britain were so mild. Unlike the Bolsheviks and the Maoists who ran up rather significant butcher’s bills.
Yep, so mild that the class divide is now wider than when they started out and the condition of the working poor barely improved. But hey, there are a thousand bureaucrats in City Hall earning more than £100k. So what’s not to like?
How ignorant of history can you be. The living standards of the working class in 1900 were wretched. Now they’re higher than the well off of 1900 and the middle classes of most non-European countries.
The improvements in living standards had absolutely nothing to do with Labour Socialism, which itself is an oxymoron. The only thing “working class” or labor-intensive about Socialism is the rhetoric.
Socialism is just Avante-Garde Academics telling actual laborers to follow them, be disgruntled and agitate for more pay and less work. That’s it. It teaches people to be resentful and throw fits because needing to work hard to “live with dignity” is “exploitation.”
I agree with you completely on socialism. I’m simply pointing out the fact that the working (and non-working) class are massively better off today than they were in 1900.
Its getting very popular amongst the young in the U.S though, which may worry you.
I’d say its less popular than it was 4- 5 years ago before they saw it in action.
I’m no socialist but your history is way out. There was a huge amount of self-organisation amongst the working class: credit and trade unions, the Labour Party, worked education etc etc – whether or not you agree with collective solutions or not. It is perfectly reasonable to call this movement socialist albeit with a very British flavour. There were also alliances with many middle class people and even a very few in the upper class!
Modern progressive and politics however is indeed almost entirely detached from the modern working class, but bears in my view little resemblance to a socialist movement, quite happily with the most unequal society we’ve had in a long time. Economic factors just aren’t as important for the progressive movement, it is all, race gender and identity
You’re talking about a variant of Socialism heavily influenced by Marx. London was his base of operation. Marxist Socialism is a dialectical. Theres two components: Economic (Base) and Cultural (Superstructure).
The two movements ping pong back and forth. When one stops working, the other takes hold. Right now you’re seeing emboldened Orthodox Marxists because the cultural stuff has alienated so many people. But they’re two sides of the same coin.
I get it, many laborers are just normal people that welcome class conflict if it improves their standard of living in the short term. They know not what they advocate. But that standard of living improvement always comes with hyperpolitics and more State intervention, which is the entire goal of revolutionary progressive movements.
People are actually much better off in real terms than 100 years ago – so “barely improved” is absurd. There are structural forces in the modern capitalist economy which tend to lead to concentration, although the notion that the UK is some sort of minimal low tax night watchman state is also ridiculous. The state spends a lot with mediocre outcomes, railways and the health service most notably. There are no easy solutions; we need a state that probably does less, but that it does do far more competently.
May I also recommend ‘The Chilean Cub’ by George Shipway? *
(*Published 1971.)
Socialists have worked out that mission-creep is more effective than revolution. They will get there in the end.
Well, they were certainly right about the incompetence. We should never forget that it was a socialist chancellor who, by breaking the link between housing costs and interest-rate policy, brought about the largest upward transfer of wealth in our history. Let’s not even talk about his partner and the illegal wars, the collapsing borders, the dumbing down of education …
Such is the threat to Britain’s finances and culture, I would happily join a Jan 6 type protest to mark the transition to a Labour government.
Rather than being an insurrection, I would at least expect these happenings to have the length and scope of the recent London protests in support of the Palestinian intifada.
However, I fear that violence would also be the result as the Met police openly attacked the conservative activists and in doing so, be fully supported by the British political establishment.
Yes, only the right type of protest will be tolerated.
This article literally lists all the amazing achievements of Labour that have unquestionably improved society whilst initially being opposed by conservatives – and you want an insurrection to prevent any more of them?
Consumed so much for your hatred of the ‘other’ that you forget to love your own country.
Of course Labour have done some good in office, although some of their achievements (such as “our” NHS) are not half as impressive as they like to pretend. The glorious reforming government of 1945, for example, that we endlessly hear eulogised, was so popular that it lasted six years.
I’ve just finished reading Alwyn Turners book about this period, Little Englanders, it’s brilliant. Informative, eye opening and very very funny. A real romp through the musical hall era. Thoroughly recommend.
The real worry that many of us have is that the Labour Party does not seem to like Britain or its citizens that much. As a mid-ranking home office official told me recently, ‘we need mass migration to counterbalance the people who voted Brexit.’ (She was much more explicitly hostile when describing the people she thought were the Brexit voters.) She is a Labour voter, natch.
A Labour government can hardly be any worse than the current Tory incompetents, and might be a whole lot better under Starmer’s leadership. Whatever individual civil servants and Labour activists may think, Starmer is not going anywhere near reversing Brexit, nor is he in favour of mass migration.
You assume that the rank and file will keep Starmer once in power.
I’m not so sure, I give him a year at most before the rabid left make their move.
Correct. If Starmer doesn’t implement the Great Revolution and Gosplan 2.0, then it’ll be knife time for him in short order.
I agree there’s not much difference between Sunak’s Tories and Starmer’s Labour. For those of us who are Thatcherites (i.e., real conservatives), that’s rather the problem.
I find the concept of working class some kind of bizarre fantasy that all MP’s indulge in to establish their street cred. Given the millions that are unable to work(disabled!) added to the millions that won’t work, (mental elf issues) it beggars belief that such a class exists outside the occasional soundbite of an MP who has nothing else to offer.
I am quietly confident that Labour, led by Starmer, will a) win the next election and b) be a complete disaster.
As a party they are ideologically unsuited to the challenges that lie ahead, and one would be pushed indeed to describe any of the shadow front bench as burdened with brilliance. I have every expectation that they will revert to type, fail to reform the ailing state institutions, genuflect to identity politics, appease the unions and shake empty the piggy bank. One which last point perhaps the outgoing Treasury Secretary (whoever that is at the time) will leave a little note for his/her successor “Good Luck! There really is no money left this time.”
As I wrote in the Spectator comments section yesterday, Labour had better enjoy election night. Within two years, they’ll be as popular as the Tories are today.
keep 80% of the population happy and you’ll never have revolution. Doesnt matter if they vote Labour or Tory. ‘Control the courts and the coinage and let the rabble have the rest’, as the ruling class have said adinfinitum.