21.6.16
Brexit is a fake revolt – working-class culture is being hijacked to help the elite
What dismays me most about the EU debate is that what people say it is about and what it is really about are quite different. Paul Mason in the Guardian analyses the problem clearly.
To people getting ready for the mother of all revolts on Thursday, I want to point out the crucial difference between a real revolt and a fake one. The elite does not usually lead the real ones. In a real revolt, the rich and powerful usually head for the hills, terrified. Nor are the Sun and the Daily Mail usually to be found egging on a real insurrection. ...
I want to have one last go at convincing you that leaving now, under these conditions, would be a disaster. First, let’s recognise the problem. For people in the working classes, wages are at rock bottom. Their employers treat them like dirt. Their high streets are lined with empty shops. Their grownup kids cannot afford to buy a home. Class sizes at school are too high. NHS waiting times are too long. ...
But a Brexit led by Ukip and the Tory right will not make any of these things better: it will make them worse. Take a look at the people leading the Brexit movement. Nigel Farage, Neil Hamilton, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove. They have fought all their lives for one objective: to give more power to employers and less to workers. Many leading Brexiters are on record as wanting to privatise the NHS. They revelled in the destruction of the working-class communities and cultures capable of staging real revolt. Sir James Dyson moved his factory to Malaysia, so much did he love the British workforce. They talk about defying the “elite”. But they are the elite.
Comments:
<< Home
While I agree that the arguments used to leave EU are quite bad ones, being somewhat undecided, if brexit is on-the-net good or bad, the Mason's argument seems rather unconvincing.
The problem is that many 'liberal' (i.e. leftist, not classical-liberal) policies, while having 'good intentions' to help workers actually have exactly the opposite effect. That does not necesarilly mean that having policy that "favours" companies has a good effect on the workers; however having neutral policies does, and somehow having neutral policy is percieved as "favouring companies".
Privatising NHS might not be such a bad idea given the current state. The question is the actual performance of such a feat.
Post a Comment
The problem is that many 'liberal' (i.e. leftist, not classical-liberal) policies, while having 'good intentions' to help workers actually have exactly the opposite effect. That does not necesarilly mean that having policy that "favours" companies has a good effect on the workers; however having neutral policies does, and somehow having neutral policy is percieved as "favouring companies".
Privatising NHS might not be such a bad idea given the current state. The question is the actual performance of such a feat.
<< Home
