Waiting to Serve / Working for Real-power
May’s election has ended more than her authority over her party.
What else?
For the immediate future it has ended speculations, perpetuated by the “free-press” lead by the likes of George Osbourne about the,
1. Disintegration of the Labour party,
2. Suitability of Corbyn, and
3. Dangers of the ‘Left’
Does it mean a big immediate future for Labour?
No, these observations cannot be allowed to distract the Labour leadership from the task of building for a future with real-power.
Therefore, “we are waiting to serve” can only be statement of intent beyond immediate future.
What is ‘real-power’ means?
“Serving the people” for Labour cannot be simply becoming the winning party with over 326 MPs in the parliament.
1. Practically it is the strength of the local power base to with stand the global-market power.
2. Strategically it is about making alliances across traditional party lines and old-fashioned class boundaries. That is, bringing in larger body of people who may from past-counts be considered to be ideologically different /opposite or even single-issue campaigners.
Labour needs ‘real power’?
When unions were alternative power centres, 326 MPs may have been enough to ‘enjoy’ real power. Even here the history does not support this view.
Since its formation in 1900 Labour managed to be in power for just about 30 years; merely ¼ of the time to date. Of these only Attlee, Wilson and Blair completed their elected terms.
End of ‘unionism’ was on the card as the cold-war was nearing its end and capitalism mutated to become free from nation states.
Blair’s was not old-Labour, he represented the fag-end of Thatcher-revolution:
1. End of unionism and,
2. Hereditary-class capitalism.
Internationally, he represented the thin end of the Anglo-American global hegemony.
Some wrongly identify his New Labour with Emmanuel Macorn new French president’s “3rd way”.
What does across class/ party boundaries mean?
The past slogan “Rich gets richer” included a large number.
In a world only 10 or so persons possessing more than 50% of the wealth the meaning of richness and, its reach and control over their lives are no longer questions.
Get Ravi Sundaralingam’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The richness they are made to believe is more like that of the lawyers and accountants for services rendered to the crooks and thieves who loot peoples’ wealth or the inflated price of £1,000,000 of the houses, which in real terms only worth £30,000.
This no longer convinces even the so called middle-classes.
The majority by experience have realised the propaganda of ‘fear the reds’ is only a cover by those to help,
1. Siphoning off their wealth and,
2. Making their state impotent.
Such is the nature of market-economy left to the speculators to fix even the value of a currency based on the dislike of an elected government.
In a world where jobs in the traditional sense of making a complete product has no meaning, manual labour and computer aided labour are part of the means of production, labour force is scattered among different parts of the world’s communities boundaries of classes have to redefined. Capitalism and even unionism would define these in terms of ‘income’.
Real meaning of the wealth of a country and eventually ‘sovereignty’?
Brexit is the answer from the Right; not about the country in terms of the erosion of state power to the global-market but, against the workers by controlling immigration and, jingoistic rhetoric to fill the voids in their arguments.
May’s election has also helped to expose these fact in a real meaningful sense.
It has finally laid to rest the ‘loony red-bogeyman’ ploy to sway voters against Labour.
These exposures to facts in terms of real experiences enable Labour to look across traditionally defined lines.
What is working for the leadership in this sense?
There are clear indications for the bifurcation of the polity:
(i) ‘Voting trend’ among the ‘new’ under 35s, and (ii) Political shift to the left in the UK & Europe
What is notable among the under 35s?
In general they,
1. Are not constrained by (i) Past British/ Parents countries’ History, (ii) Cold-war history, (iii) Anti-German rhetoric, and (iv) Main-stream media.
2. Are liberal in their (i) out-look, and (ii) have/ had relations across social, racial and even religious boundaries.
3. Are experiencing the different/ negative effects of the global market particularly, (i) Housing, (ii) Pension and, (iii) Education.
4. Are (i) Better educated, (ii) University experienced, (iii) Graduates, and (iv) Travelled to other parts of the world.
5. May have not completely turned against global-market but certainly against market-society.
The election meant many things all disenfranchised subjects but the focus of those who intend on serving them should be in a position to deliver more than the basics and sweeteners.
The older generations approach to internationalism was and still is based on fear and anger while, the newer generations approach it with hope and good will at the expense of what is considered to be ‘knowledge’.
For us,
“Continuing and extending with the work at community levels and building a coalitions of forces of the disenfranchised, and constructing a younger dynamic leadership for the future for real-power is what serving the people means. ‘Consolidation and penetration’ further into variety of communities should be the slogan and purpose.”
*end
