Is anyone throwing a massive party? [links to Square Mile Masked Ball 2011]

You’re suggesting people disrupt a charity function?

Surely there are better targets.

Steve JOBS dying probably had a contributing effect on the latter graph.

A suggestion for you Sunny: how about also gathering stories about benefits claimants that undermine right-wing ‘scrounger’ rhetoric – like the local newspaper stories highlighted on LC earlier in the week, about very sick people being told they’re fit to work? Or stories about the crappy Christmases hundreds of thousands of recently-sacked workers are about to have?

We should be trying to get as many people as possible fighting on one front – i.e. focusing all their anger on the real parasites at the top of society, not dividing it between bankers on the one hand and unemployed people on the other. (I do worry that talk about the ‘squeezed middle’ feeds into that sort of view.)

“In other words: can you find a steady stream of stories of extravagance that can be contrasted with struggling families? I bet there are loads.”

This is good. Media focus is so much of an issue, and it’s prejudiced towards right-wing interests.

Cylus: good point well made.

All this demonstrating in the streets. I don’t know. It’s like we’re in an arab country…

All this demonstrating on the streets. I don’t know. It’s like we’re in an Arab country…

this is great, but one thing i wonder is could simply slagging of Capitalism in itself be a tactical error??

when we mention capitalism as the big bad enemy and a failed system etc, the media will simply say look, these people just want to turn `hard left’ (even if thats not the idea) and won’t resonate with the majority of people.

would we not be better off calling for a truely balanced system, with some capitalism to facilitate aspiration, and strong laws that banker’s and the city Have to abide and stop the `ferel elite’, and strong worker protection laws.

All good stuff Sunny but where is the necessary political representation to go with this spontaneous uprising. The party many might look to is simply not there,probably because its currency remains with the ancien regime. Without political consolidation there is no movement. Without a Party there cannot be any agenda or political consolidation. Please anwser.

@ 8
I think you’ve got it bang on there – this needs politicising, but there is no current political party who can fill this position. I think a large portion of the country agree with the occupy movement’s arguments, but fail to see how positive change can happen unless this is brought on through traditional democratic means. If this doesn’t happen then I feel it will slowly fizz out, and we’ll get some token gesture from the powers that be, just enough to shut everyone up.

@ paul f

I think a shift in language from being against any form of capitalism, to being against – what’s the right word? Corporatism? Corporationism? – would be a wise move. The mainstream social democratic Left shouldn’t be or appear opposed to a mixed economy. And anti-corporatism is something even large sections of the Right can get on board with – if e.g. they believe large corporations are stifling competition, standing in the way of investment etc.

There was not corporatism in the 19th century so it hardly fills me with confidence that removing it (is that possible) from the existing system, would bring on a fairer more democratic society.
7. I think that there are so many people who now understand that it’s the capitalist system that is at fault, it need not be mentioned.

I would like to support the occupiers, if they hadn’t gone and plonked themselves in such an absurdly inappropriate place. How does getting in the way of harmless tourists and worshippers who just want to visit St Paul’s serve to challenge the financial elite? I know they’re only there because the police wouldn’t let them camp on Paternoster Square – but still, there must be better places.

Occupying Parliament Square, as some of them did last year, was fine – it’s just a traffic island (and an ugly one), and there’s no cause for anyone other than protesters to venture onto it. But the Occupy LSX camp is badly situated, and it’s entirely understandable that the church seems to be starting to lose patience with the protesters.

good point’s. Many of us i’m sure abhore the way socialist government’s have been ejected by american interference etc, but what kind of country is Britain? I’d say there are lot’s of socialist tradition’s in britain and a lot of capitalist charecteristics, and the balance needs to be properly struck. Cameron would rip up all of britain’s socialist aspects if he could, so he’s not governing for the whole country. The `ferel elite’ are getting away with murder and are a law unto themselve unlike the rest of us. If we frame it in this way, rather than `red revolution’ or what ever we would gain more traction with more people.

“Corporatism” isn’t the right word. It refers to a system where the state actively facilitates bringing unions and employers together for collective bargaining – Sweden was a good example (and largely still is). Italian fascism also followed a form of corporatism, although in that case it was largely just a facade behind which the state allowed the capitalists to pull all the strings.

Thanks for clarifying that Richard P.

@ steveb

“There was not corporatism in the 19th century so it hardly fills me with confidence that removing it (is that possible) from the existing system, would bring on a fairer more democratic society.”

Fair enough, but is there anything to fill us with confidence that a fairer more democratic society would be brought on by the wholesale destruction of capitalism (if such a thing is even possible)?

We don’t know if there are workable, democratic, stable alternatives to a mixed economy. We do know that a society with a mixed economy can be a damn sight fairer and more equal than the US and UK are today.

One thing we may consider is to force the apologists of corporate greed (bluntly, the Tories & much of New Labour) to defend the worse excesses that occur too. PMQ should be a string of questions like:

‘Does the Prime Minister agree with me that all fuel companies should be forced, by law if necessary, to cap increases in prices at the CPI level for the next five years?’

‘Would the PM like to comment on the CEO of receiving £X number of pounds increase to a whopping £Y+X, while his workforce have had to accept cuts in hours?’.

‘Does the PM share my utter disgust at the decision to close this factory in despite huge profits for ?’

Even better:

‘I notice that has taken a huge salary, was he as greedy when you knew him at Eton?’

Britain. We need to talk about Capitalism!

As has been said elsewhere the biggest coup of neo-liberal capitalism since the 80s has been to remove the word entirely from public debate.

We need to get people thinking about why they’re pay is frozen, why they can;t afford their energy bills, why they’ve lost their job, why they can’t find a job, why there life is getting considerably worse due to this crisis.

Skirting round the C word is a cop out that lets the Right hold the ground and say ‘i know its tough but…’

but where is the necessary political representation to go with this spontaneous uprising.

The political representation won’t come unless:

1) it looks like you have a strategy to push your (more coherent) demands

2) the occupation starts growing and attracting people not the ‘usual suspects’ – who mostly hate Labour anyway.

3) this uprising becomes a force to be reckoned with. It isn’t yet.

Jim @ 16:

Most of those questions aren’t really relevant to the business of Her Majesty’s Government, and I can’t see the Speaker allowing them.

GO
We already have a mixed economy even though Thatcher got rid of a major part of it, unfortunately when things go wrong with the privately owned economy it is the publically owned economy that takes the hit and gets blamed.
I understand your reluctance about getting rid of the current system altogether, but I’m not advocating a worker’s revolution, on the contrary, I believe that it will be a slow evolutionary process. But the evolutionary process will start even sooner if more and more people verbalize their mistrust of the system by one means or another.

If you’re looking for fodder there is no better place than each Monday’s CityAm, where they have the Bill of the Week award for most expensive bill sent in. Two weeks ago it came it at £19000 for 3 bottles of champagne.

XXX @ 19

Most of those questions aren’t really relevant to the business of Her Majesty’s Government,

And? PMQs are not supposed to be about the business of Her Majesty’s Government, they are Prime Ministers’ Questions. You can ask him anything you want, and you can certainly ask him his opinions on the issues of the day.

Jim @ 22:

“And? PMQs are not supposed to be about the business of Her Majesty’s Government, they are Prime Ministers’ Questions. You can ask him anything you want, and you can certainly ask him his opinions on the issues of the day.”

Erm, no, that’s not actually the case. The questions are directed to the Prime Minister — that is, the head of Her Majesty’s Government — and questions can be and have been disallowed for not being relevant to the activities of HM government. When Tony Blair was due to step down, for example, David Cameron asked him a question about who would become leader of the Labour Party; the question wasn’t allowed, because it related to the workings of the Labour Party, not the government. Asking the PM questions about his old schoolfriends would almost certainly be disallowed on similar grounds.

XXX @ 21

Asking the PM questions about his old schoolfriends would almost certainly be disallowed on similar grounds.

Hmm. I doubt it because he would be asked to present an opinion regarding his own views on the subject. We see questions like that all the time. ‘Is the PM aware that…’, ‘Does the PM argee with..’, type things.

He could be asked whether or not he would support a law to cap profits of gas companies, without too much hassle, for example.

I can remember John Major being asked to condemn a huge paypacket for some chairman and he answered with a straightforward ‘Yes, sir’.