Brief thoughts on the Resolution of Strikes, Clause 4, and other things1. The ‘resolution of strikes’, I suppose, buys time for the elite to get you used to the status quo and seek compensatory and recuperative means outside of work to get around problems caused by the relationship between worker and employer. That usually leads to diminishing demands, or the contraction of the arena wherein one might experience cognitive dissonance.
2. Buys enough time till the new generation are born into a milieu where they don’t have to learn to not do without anything since they were already born into less – which will be taken for all there is.
3. Enables the new generation to see (2) as ‘culture’ or 'natural' as opposed to ‘compensatory and recuperative means’, thus relieving the young of the tensions that comes with knowing one is compensating for not getting what might rightfully be theirs. I suppose if little by little is increasingly perceived to be ‘culture’, we will, more and more, get used to that which our predecessors might have been quite pissed about.
It seems that we can never truly understand the present for want of the personality it takes to get upset over what wasn’t gained in the times of our predecessors. In that, we can say, that the future is corrupted via the young. After all, those born into the push-button-instant gratification ‘Ipod generation’ aren’t really going to miss the slight scratches and pops of the vinyl are they. It is rare that the span of one's cognitive dissonance outlives us.
You know what ‘minimum wage’ is? It is the amount that is thought to be the minimum sum required to keep a personality being constantly reduced by the diminutive experience of life within the capitalist milieu so that it can increasingly mistake less for more.
But of course such a milieu will certainly spew out ‘pragmatists’ who will discount philosophy and critical introspection and equate progress with making the best of the present whilst ignoring the possibility that this can easily be paraphrased with ‘doing one’s best within a bad situation soon to turn ‘good’ because of the success with which their efforts are met with’. What they will then conveniently forget is that one can only reach so far whilst their feet are cemented to the ground.
I suppose, in part, the above, might account for the degeneration of the Labour party’s clause 4 in 1918, drafted by Sidney Webb,
“To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”
…to the one forwarded by Tony Blair in 1995.
“The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.”
I think that just about enables the Labour Party to call itself as such without it being commonly thought to be a misnomer, or without a labour party being formed with the 1918 Clause being their uncompromising mantra. And that just about signals the time when ‘New Labour’ moved to being nothing more than an executive arm of the bourgeoisie, as Marx so eloquently put it.