This is a thread dedicated to the discussion, development, and codification of the theories of Tony Benn. I discussed this with a few Britanons, but I thought we should get things rolling: might write a treatise formalising the ideology tbh. For some introduction to the man, I recommend this documentary: youtu.be/b_xMDMvBYj0 The basics of Benninism are: Britain is ruled by a hereditary bourgeoisie that has cemented its control over almost all existing institutions. Due to the nature of the permanence of the control of this bourgeois class, regular reformist and revolutionary politics is not applicable: the former due to this class' ability to reassert control post-reform, the letter due to the inevitable acquisition of elements of the ruling elite during any revolutionary period, thus allowing the class to reassert control. Instead, a radical form of socialist reformism must be introduced, that seeks to reform the state, the economy, and via extension society through the introduction of radical democracy. Such reform must be bold and decisive, but also progressive (I.E: not done with an immensely short period). Doing this will erode the political and economic power of this "British colonial class" to the point where working class control of the country can be established. To achieve this, international institutions that do not allow for representative control (The EU, WTO, NATO) must be withdrawn from if/when they pose a threat to the reforms, institutions that do have a form of sovereign input or do not conflict with the goals of the Benninite programme (ECHR, UN) are perfectly fine. Praxis is to be achieved threefold: first with electoralism (at both local and national levels), second with industrial action in both a standard (increasing wages, pension luxuries, reduced working hours) & militant manner (pushing for worker ownership where reasonable, logical, and actionable [see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Industries#Lucas_Plan_(1976)]), and thirdly civil society organisations pushing socialist ideals in an educational & organisational manner. A Benninite party in office should endeavour to radically reform institutions into democratic forms and mass introduction of economic democracy. Benninism today would see a economic development roughly as follows: ending of austerity, ending of neoliberalism, establishment of keynesian social democracy, radical social democracy, democratic socialism with worker ownership dominating the economy as a whole, introduction of centralised planning and/or coordination of the economy.
And there we have it, please feel free to ask questions.
Something which sort of relates to "radical democracy" that Paul Cockshott talked is a instantly legally binding "referendum on exploitation" if passed would make exploitation via profits and rent (apart from paying for maintenance costs) illegal, interest on debts wiped and stopping royalty/copyright fees. The reason to make this legal binding is to stop MPs just voting it down since the UK doesn't really have proper referendum legislation. I'm guessing this is an example of using democracy to dismount the British capitalist class? It bypasses relying on MPs and makes it significantly harder for the capitalist class to fight against it if it passed since it was a clear referendum result.
Decent concept but 1) for it to be meaningful it would have to be ready to be enforced pretty quickly 2) is kinda endgame stuff: at that point you have AES.
Luke Butler
There's no way to do that under parliamentary sovereignty. If Parliament was opposed to the ban on exploitation it could just pass a bill cancelling the ban and if necessary revoking its 'legally binding' status (oh no this isn't working out, we're going to have to abandon it, what a shame). The only way you can guard against this sort of reaction is to create a written constitution that ends parliamentary sovereignty or to have a labour movement that can fight back with industrial action.
Anthony Taylor
Uhm, honey, have you heard about revolutionary terror?
This If a communist majority existed in parliament to hold a referendum with such a radical demand then parliament passing a bill enforcing it would not be a problem either. And once we elect a government which would be willing and able to do such a thing we'd already be at an advanced stage of the second british revolution tbh.
Did you read anything about the nature of their institutional power? Fuck a whole load of them got killed in WWI and it changed fuckall.
Kill bad man bad man go away yes.
Austin Campbell
...
Joshua Diaz
Reminder that revolutionary terror is a matter of pragmatism and should be utilised without hesitation when the situation at hand demands it and not wantonly otherwise.
Insistence upon violence, murder and terror as a matter of course for socialism is demented fetishism of terror and violence for its own sake at best and intentional wrecking at worst.
Christopher Fisher
Revolutionary tactics in the UK are pointless. British police/MI5 are some of the best in the world at infiltrating groups. You only need to look at how well the police operates within left wing groups, extreme environmentalist, tiny far right cells and Islamic terrorist groups to see that its not possible to have any sort of "organised" revolution. Moreover since its pretty hard to get large amounts of firearms and unlikely for much support from army makes actually doing anything impossible. A group with shotguns and .762 bolt action rifles arent going to take down a tank. So you are left with the mass, spontaneous revolution that could come about via a period of mass protest/strikes. Here the issue is there just isn't the material conditions for that to happen in the UK, and once it gets bad enough the British capitalist class will do what they did in 1945 and let reform happen hopping in a few decades they can take back control.
Jack Martinez
Tbf the police have been pretty effectively gutted by this conservative government, you're dead right about MI5 though. Anyone interested should look into the "Spycops" debacle, they had agents literally fucking everywhere. And the only mass protests in the UK that would mean anything would be rural ones á la France: and the Shires just don't have any developed class consciousness to enact that right now.
Your disingenuous reduction of revolutionary terror to an administered response demanded by a contingent situation is stemming from moral considerations and/or some kind of perverse utilitarianism. Your version of terror is just another example of the post-modern obsession with trying to control things that are by nature excessive and redoubles nicely the ideals of technocratic industrial societies where everything has to serve a direct function or is immediately labeled suspect.
Terror is the way by which a society in revolutionary turmoil rids itself of the hitherto permeating and institutionalized forms of morals, reaching a moral zero-point upon which it can later build its revolutionary morals and modes of conduct. In practical terms this has always meant peasants, laborers, students grabbing the sovereign right of judgement away from said institutions and, without any pretense for some kind of holy mandate, justification and cover-up for their own acts, becoming themselves sovereigns.
Yes, there could (and arguably should) be established parallel to this violence a more organized institution (the Cheka comes to mind) to combat counter-revolution (which will always be present in every truly revolutionary scenario – as opposed to your ahistoric parody) and serving an overarching strategic goal, but to think that the terror can be under some kind of immediate containment or under central control is asinine.
There's not a single line of fetishism in what I've just written and the only thing I insist on is that you either come off of your ahistoric cloud from the land of fairies or stop pretending to be a communist,faggot.
The west country used to be pretty split between tory and lib dem, with Labour making some gains in various places. Interesting to hear people seeing Yellow Vests as an anti-austerity thing though, bares hope: but I fear someone like Tommy Robinson might hijack it,
Charles James
if only your entire post is overflowing with idealistic nonsense, 'moral zero points', absolute nonsense. Disgraceful for you to post with that flag too while spouting off this borderline religious mystical mumbo jumbo. Not to mention that nothing in that long-winded tirade of yours is at all relevant to question i was concerned with, that is the essential pragmatism of a revolutionary leadership in regard to terror.
Adam Thompson
He's already been trying to
Hudson Reyes
I know he's tried his own marches about brexit, but also I don't see West Country folk being accepting of Robinson being like "its da mudslim's fault" when they turn around and say "what muslims?".
Angel Cruz
It seems to me that this is identical to the program of the CPB (Britain's Road to Socialism) - if so this is pretty based. Or are there any differences
You have to bear in mind the material conditions of the time. Workers and peasants in Russia and China were immunised to violence and lived in a violent society. British workers in 2018 are not used to violence and would not accept it used wantonly as it has been in previous revolutions. The British proles are not armed and so there will never be a violent revolution in this country - it is literally impossible. The CPB advocate (I think) in the program I mentioned above that when a socialist/communist alliance is elected in government it provides arms to the trade unions and begins to take steps to dissolve the army. If the army resist (the bourgeoisie are not armed either so can only act through the army or police) then the workers can and will be able to fight them. This is the 'violent revolution' but it is only possible after the election of a socialist government and should only be pursued as an option if absolutely necessary. In a country with such a long democratic tradition people will not accept the use of violence or the trampling of democratic institutions unless it is in reaction to violence or undemocratic actions from the porkies.
Brayden Allen
I would say the CPB's programme is slightly different because it is about inherently challenging the Bourgeoisie to a confrontation in which you win and then go all-in: whereas Benninism is about eroding the power of the bourgeoisie to a point where they cannot confront you or have to do so at such an early position that they will not be able to pull-it-off regardless. Also Benninism focuses on radically democratising british democratic institutions rather than the CPB program which is far more about creating alternative institutions.
You would have to win over the armed forces or police. Or get arms from overseas sympathisers like the IRA.
I don't see why they'd be any more likely to vote in a Communist government or support arming trade unions. These things are just as 'un-British' as violent revolution.
Why? If they've been demoralised to the extent that they're willing to tolerate a Communist government, they can be used for the purposes of that government.
If the armed forces resist, they will win due to superior training and armament. You have to ensure they don't try.
John Bennett
Can we put this cyclical history meme to bed? TRPF dictates that at some point they will not be able to do this without causing massive and widespread unrest.
Xavier Rogers
Ok that makes sense cheers
Do you have any idea how right-wing these institutions are? Almost all the soldiers seem to be Tommy Robinson fans. This is an impossible suggestion. It is possible some small sections could be won over but very few. The army and police are more likely to support a democratically elected government because the liberal officers won't be able to stomach firing on a 'legitimate' government only the far-right nutters will
A lot easier said than done. You could maybe smuggle in a couple dozen max before MI5 come down on you, and that isn't enough to start a revolution. Think how effective MI5 has been at stopping Islamic terror attacks and at infiltrating socialist orgs in the past. They'd find you out easily.
Well in that case there will never be socialism in this country. You have to be optimistic. They are certainly more likely to vote in communists (we used to have a couple of communist MP's and still have some decent socialists like Dennis Skinner and of course Corbyn, plus the heritage of far-left trade unionists like Scargill in the NUM) than revolt
The army wouldn't likely be demoralised and they wouldn't tolerate a communist government. That's why the trade unions need to be armed and the army attacked (policy-wise not literally) in order to force a confrontation or hopefully force them to back down. If you don't deal with the army decisively you will have a Chile scenario.
They won't necessarily win. They nearly lost in Spain, and their victory was primarily because the workers weren't armed until after the coup attempt by the moderate socialist government. Obviously you want to ensure they don't try - how though? I suppose you advocate violent revolution but the army will certainly not tolerate that and will win because only a small number of proles are armed. The two-stage tactic of being elected, arming the proles and then forcing the hand of the army is more effective for three reasons, firstly because it ensures the proles are armed before any confrontation, secondly because it gives the army a chance to back down (which they wouldn't do in the case of outright revolution) and thirdly because it makes foreign intervention difficult. Any confrontation would be between a democratically elected legitimate government and some coup plotters, so there is no way the US or NATO could justify outright intervention, all they can do is provide tacit support for the army (think Spain). However, in the situation of violent revolution the revolt will be against a democratically elected gov, so the army can pose as the defenders of democracy and thus justify NATO intervention (think Russia).
Angel Wood
This really isn't true tbh, but yeah the armed forces are hardly all reds either
Kayden Richardson
Misconception. Most are apolitical.
If the people are so disenchanted with the status quo that they're voting for Communists, the armed forces will definitely be demoralised too. What scenario do you have in mind where the population is so left-wing that it will vote in a Communist government, and yet the average soldier is so right-wing that he's going to shoot at his fellow Brits to preserve capitalism? The Army draws its personnel from the population.
In Spain the army was split between the two sides. The Republicans would have been defeated immediately if they hadn't retained the support of much of the army. Also the modern-day British Army is much better-trained and armed than the 1936 Spanish Army. Thrashing lightly-armed insurgents while sustaining minimal casualties is their speciality.
By making them decide that shooting their countrymen for the sake of the bourgeoisie is not a good idea. They don't have to be supportive of the revolution, they just have to be apathetic due to how bad conditions have got under capitalism.
Ethan Wright
Ok I actually kind of agree with you here, the army isn't super right-wing I was being way too hyperbolic - it still does have a mostly right wing base though, the officer class are heavily recruited from the tory shires and a lot of normal recruits will be nationalists even if not far-right.
I actually agree with you here as well, the majority of the army will probably be fine with it - I'm mostly thinking of a sort of cabal of rightist officers and their far-right fans in the ranks. However, this rightist section will be large enough to stage a coup of some sort so it would need to be dealt with in some way. I think that arming the workers likely wouldn't be resisted by most of the army but it might be by this section of it
Yes this is true but as you have already pointed out any coup would only be by a small number of officers and most of the army would probably just do nothing or even oppose it so it balances out.
This is obviously the preferable option, which is why hopefully when a confrontation happens the army won't oppose it
I think that this debate/argument stems more from my own poor-wording rather than any real difference of opinion. When I originally said 'take steps against the army to provoke a confrontation' what I meant was more removing right-wing generals, pulling out of NATO, setting up militias not part of the regular forces, democratising the army etc not some sort of full-scale assault on the army. Hopefully such small steps would go unopposed, in which case the revolution has been won with hardly any violence. But if it is resisted it will likely only be by a small section and so the people will win - this is when any revolutionary violence or terror will come in. I doubt revolutionary terror will actually be necessary past this stage because the porkies have no way of resisting once the army are on side - the material conditions are entirely different to when Marx was writing and the porkies were all armed and capable of resisting. I can't exactly imagine a bunch of Norfolk farmers trying to reinstate a Tory government with their little shotguns, financed by the Machiavellian figures of Alan Sugar and Richard Branson.
Easton Cruz
Something worth noting is that no one really knows what would happen in a coup situation in the UK. It hasn't ever really happened before, I would imagine the average squaddie wouldn't like shooting at the public and it would be pretty hard for the on the whole "one nation Tory" officers to morally justify a coup.
Jackson Richardson
Erhm actually the English Civil War started as a coup *tips Tricorn*. But on a real yeah, like there have been two reports of a possible coup in this country: first under Wilson in-case he was actually a Soviet spy, and the second (which I've only heard from uncle who was in the terras) was a few times under Thatcher in-case she caused uprisings based on her policies (they were really worried around the poll tax riots, especially if she had not stepped down). But yeah, nobody knows what would happen: would people come to the streets? I mean places like Liverpool and Manchester don't have army garrisons in the middle of them so could the military really take control of them? What would happen in Norn? Would Holyrood try to UDI? (I mean fuck it could probs get away with it for a bit). What if localities in like Devon or Cornwall were to say "we don't recognise the government" and the police join them? I mean heck the police would likely say no to a military coup in most places. We also (as demonstrated in this thread) have no idea of the actual political leanings of the military itself apart from the officers are upper class and the squaddies are working class. And what about the RAF or the Navy? Heck the spooks are a factor that nobody knows about, sure they love their own power but would that conflict with the army? Would we see spooks instigate protests against a junta because they are worried about their own position? I mean I think about my home town and I realise that the nearest military bases would be taking over other places, over 30k people live here, you get together like ~3% of that and you have enough people to stop a platoon of troops from being able to act effectively. There's also the fact that as mentioned, the British military itself is tiny right now: the police in England and Wales is larger than the entire military (Army, Navy, RAF, support staff). Add to that that around 6k< of the police are armed, how would they react? The concept of a military coup in Britain is just unthinkable because we have never been close to one. The last time there was civil unrest close to it was 400 years ago, sure we've had periods of civil disobedience and mass protest but nothing close to a coup or civil war [Northern Ireland excluding]. It is just inconceivable, and I think that's what makes it so terrifying for everyone involved; nobody knows how the country would react…
Jayden Richardson
I actually think the soldiers would be fertile ground for leftist recruitment in a revolutionary situation. They are heavily drawn from deprived working-class backgrounds and their families would be suffering the most from the economic crisis which would presumably be the background for all this. Those of them that are 'Tommy Robinson fans' are already alienated from the regime.
That sort of fascist coup would create a very tense situation that could easily result in massacres of unarmed protesters. That I think would be enough to bring elements of the Army onside to resist the coup, so there wouldn't be a need for the civilian population to be armed.
The government wouldn't really need that many soldiers to preserve power. It could abandon and isolate some of the bigger cities, which would rapidly run out of basic provisions. That's why I think you need to rely on winning over part of the army.
The police are more right-wing than the military IMO.
All these ways of arriving at socialism are pretty unthinkable in the current paradigm.
Alexander King
Not really, for a military coup to be able to effect control what it needs to do is A) destroy the existing government B) ensure no alternative government can be established C) effect control as if it were an existing government D) garner recognition from the populace and/or the international community as a legitimate government. If a military coup were to say focus purely on London and abandon Liverpool, Greater Manchester, Glasgow, and Edinburgh to their own devices it could not enforce A properly, certainly not enforce B to any degree, and by its very nature not be able to achieve C. A military coup succeeds or fails in its first few days: in a country were the only major city is the capital (like say Ireland) then control of the capital is enough. However the UK is rather dispersed with major metro areas all around. A military regime could not afford to leave Greater Manchester for a time where it could "starve it out" (this ignoring the effective impossibility of actually maintaining a siege in a civil conflict situation, Syria is a great example of this). So yeah, you can't just "Starve out the cities" because controlling them is what you inherently need to make a government work. And if you give it a week the Liverpool Soviet is going to be too powerful to take be force. A few years back I would have agreed, but consider this: the number of (especially older) police have been given "early retirement", their powers have been stripped by this government, and their funding has been drastically reduced by this government. One of Corbyn's main election pledges was to reverse funding cuts for the police, increase their pay, and increase their number by 10k at the least. So, should Corbyn be in power and undertake these measures, he would garner a lot of loyalty from the police force itself. To add to that, they will have a built-in anti-establishment sentiment from the near decade of tory abuse. Also to add to that there is little chance of them siding with fascist street movements (Read Tommy Robinson) due to their frequent quarrels with them and Robinson's ACAB tendencies. As such in a coup scenario, I can see them supporting a Corbyn-led government. Well that is with on exception, as Danny Dyer put it "The Largest Firm* in the Country": South Yorkshire Police. But honestly the whole load of them deserve to be locked up the fucking cunts: so make of that what you will. This is also a fair point.
*for our non-british friend, this is a group of football hooligans or "ultras"
Jackson Clark
Yeah I agree with you here, generally the shire tories are often actually in favour of helping the poor - its in the high tory tradition. Our military is not as right wing as the military in Spain or Germany
I actually laughed out loud at this, thank you
This is actually a good point, no city I can think of actually has a military base in it, they are all in the countryside (unless you count Horse Guards Parade or something), a coup is geographically very difficult
This is a good point. Police as well are generally working class I think and unlike in america aren't all massive racists etc - I think apart from incidents like Orgreave, acab is fairly redundant in the UK and actually just alienates the proles
Arming the trade unions has no drawbacks and serves as a useful guarantor against counter-revolution. I agree that it likely won't be necessary but do it anyway because there are no drawbacks.
It's worth bearing in mind that in any situation in which communists are very popular fascists would also be strong - even though Blackshirts are probably impossible in the 21st century I could totally imagine some Bolsonaro or even Viktor Orban (but more extreme) style strongman with a party that worshipped the police as traditional fascists used to. I doubt any fascist movement in such a tense situation would be as comical as Robinson's thugs.
Easton Bell
Apart from Edinburgh Castle, Windsor Castle, Buckingham, Horse Guards, and Woolich I cannot think of any others. I've been living in Manch for 2 years and there is a terra's office (not a base, an office with a carpark) and that's all I've seen. The military would have an easier time of taking rural Moray than Moss Side.
Daniel Sanchez
Glasgow has Faslane, it's not in the city of course but I can't imagine it being hard to send ships down river. That and the fucking nukes.
David Wright
Do you really think some madcap general would launch a fucking nuclear missile at London if it had a communist government? That's not going to happen. Plus the only people with the power to launch nukes are the PM (who would be a communist) and the individual submarine commanders who would no way do something as retarded as nuke their own country.
Eli Adams
Plenty of TA centres though. Granted, your average reservist would probably be a bit more sympathetic than your average reg, but still - they're pretty common.
Carter Gutierrez
Well the thing is I dunno how the navy would react to a coup: also I doubt you could get a sub into the Clyde remember when it got stuck a few years back?
100% they wouldn't, nobody has even ever prepared to use nukes in this country they mostly just exist to wave at the yanks in-case they threatened to take theirs away and to act as a jobs programme to get subs built.
I unironically didn't consider the terras: tbh most of them tend to be either rural proles (while he was a trucker-driver my uncle was a terra, he's a weird one) or middle class LARPers. IMO they wouldn't support a coup instinctively purely because they would be too moralist about it (the middle class lot) or they are weirdo libertarians (the rural proles). Regardless the TA centres don't keep the terras there they are scattered all over the place (unlike the army who obviously live on barracks). It would be difficult to even organise the terras for a coup attempt, and besides you never use reservists for this exact reason (you have to give them a reason to call them up, which kinda gives-up the ghost. In turkey they used conscripts and told them it was for anti-terror purposes and when they found out it was a coup they basically surrendered).
