How do we engage in the ‘class struggle’ in a society in which the norm is to treat class as a function of lifestyle and not as something defined by the individual’s relationship to the means of production.

But isn’t an individual’s relationship to the means of production a function, at least in part, of lifestyle?

Which is to say, is not one’s lifestyle during their formative years highly correlated to what their adult relationship to the means of production will be?

I’ll add it to my reading list. Thanks.

I don’t think this crash will turn back the clock, unless socialists use it as an opportunity to grab the helm!

Because all political theories begin from the same foundation, a set of assumptions about the nature of human nature itself, much of which is mere guesswork.

That’s where the work of Hauser and others becomes interesting, because what evolutionary psychology is beginning to unpick in a very nuanced and subtle way, is the question of human nature and its complexities.

What is it?

What are the givens?

How is it shaped by the interplay of biology, environment and culture and what ways does this manifest itself?

It what situations are we more (or most inclined) to respond to reciprocity rather than self-interest and vice versa and what are the limitations of such responses?

If that’s not a purely rhetorical question, Nick, then you’ll find at least part of the answer in Isaiah Berlin’s critiques of Rousseau, Hegel and Saint-Simon, which are published in “Freedom and its Betrayal: Six Enemies of Human Liberty” – http://tinyurl.com/5a3rw4

Except it isn’t, or, at least, it isn’t obvious that it is. The world economy keeps on growing and countless thousands who have been abandoned to desperate poverty by every other form of economic organisation are enriched by it. Of course, the derivative markets are f*cked, but I bet none of us needs any derivatives just now and have none to sell. I don’t mean to be flippant (well, not much) and the situation could degenerate into a general economic disaster, but we just don’t know yet, so it is not a good basis for searching for alternatives. All we know for sure, is that the years of ‘neoliberalism’ have masisvely enriched the world where those policies have applied (although we cand debate the fairness of how thos riches have been distributed), and the working classes of all nations seem to have noticed.

This neatly encapsulates why the ‘left’ have tied themselves up in knots.
People want healthcare free at the point of use, they don’t want their children saddled with a mountain of debt even before they have to think about buying a house or funding a pension. How that is financed should be the driving issue – this can only be achieved through redistribution in an economy that dictates that a majority will never earn enough to afford adequate provision. It’s called social democracy.

Actually what its called is ‘its not that easy!’ – try acquainting yourself fully with the issues that derailed Harold Wilson’s attempts to introduce a socialist/social democratic programme, and in particular his disputes with Lord Cromer, the then-Governor of the Bank of England during the course of the 1964-66 parliament.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/1995/may/25/obituaries

In fact none of the four Wilson governments was free from economic crises in one form or another. The 1966 election victory gave him a majority of 97, but by July the government was plunged into its worst crisis of all: a seamen’s strike exacerbated an already tense financial situation. Inflation at home led to a run on the pound and a severe strain on reserves. Devaluation was discussed and advocated by George Brown – but rejected by Wilson. Rumours spread about a cabinet crisis and a possible putsch against Wilson. The government scrambled through – far from the harmonious band their majority had promised.

Indeed. The only question is why collectivists always want to contract out this innate morality in individuals to state agencies!

This neatly encapsulates why the ‘left’ have tied themselves up in knots.
People want healthcare free at the point of use, they don’t want their children saddled with a mountain of debt even before they have to think about buying a house or funding a pension. How that is financed should be the driving issue – this can only be achieved through redistribution in an economy that dictates that a majority will never earn enouh to afford adequate provision. It’s called social democracy.

At a time when the neoliberal project is coming apart at the seams I don’t think appeals to Kant’s critiques will cut it.

Priceless!

I too think we should ditch the narrative of struggle. Apart from anything else, it’s intrinsically oppositionist and provides a poor preparation for the exercise of power which is presumably the purpose of political engagement. Worse, it precludes a proper valuation of the promotion of reciprocity – and it is the failure to promote reciprocity which will come to be seen as the biggest single failing of the current government since 1997. (Note to any ambitious twenty- or thirty-something Labourite reading this – if you want to be sure that you’re not seen as the next Blair, bang on about this till the cows come home – apart, obviously, from not being in Parliament yet but having a safe seat lined up for the forthcoming election.) More seriously, if we ditch the narrative of struggle, we can also ditch the presupposition that it is Labour who will deliver for us.

Later this week, Mike Killingworth will kick off regular blogging on LC to specifically talk about the direction the liberal-left should take.