"The trouble with the Labour Party leadership and the trade union leadership, they're quite willing to applaud millions on the streets of the Philippines or in Eastern Europe, without understanding the need to also produce millions of people on the streets of Britain"
About this Quote
Scargill’s line is a scolding, not a meditation: a veteran street-fighter watching Britain’s institutional left admire revolt abroad while outsourcing the hard part at home. The phrasing weaponizes “millions” as both moral metric and practical benchmark. It’s not enough to be on the right side of history in Manila or Warsaw; solidarity, he implies, has become a spectator sport, safely consumed at a distance.
The subtext is a critique of Labour and union leadership as managerial, not insurgent. “Quite willing to applaud” lands like an accusation of complacency: they’ll clap for other people’s risk because it costs them nothing. “Without understanding the need” suggests a deeper failure than cowardice - a strategic amnesia about how power actually shifts. In Scargill’s worldview, legitimacy comes from visible mass disruption, not committee rooms, not triangulation, not clever messaging. Streets are leverage.
Context matters. Scargill is speaking out of the late Cold War moment when “people power” uprisings in the Philippines (1986) and Eastern Europe (1989) were packaged in the West as proof that history favors liberal democracy. British center-left leaders could celebrate these events without threatening domestic arrangements - and, crucially, without endorsing unrest that might target their own political order. Scargill flips that script: if you praise popular mobilization as a democratic virtue, you’re morally cornered into accepting it as a domestic necessity.
It’s also a reminder of his own bruising era - the miners’ strike and the trauma of defeat - when the absence of wider, coordinated mass action in Britain was felt as a betrayal. The line is less nostalgia than a demand: stop admiring uprisings; start building one.
The subtext is a critique of Labour and union leadership as managerial, not insurgent. “Quite willing to applaud” lands like an accusation of complacency: they’ll clap for other people’s risk because it costs them nothing. “Without understanding the need” suggests a deeper failure than cowardice - a strategic amnesia about how power actually shifts. In Scargill’s worldview, legitimacy comes from visible mass disruption, not committee rooms, not triangulation, not clever messaging. Streets are leverage.
Context matters. Scargill is speaking out of the late Cold War moment when “people power” uprisings in the Philippines (1986) and Eastern Europe (1989) were packaged in the West as proof that history favors liberal democracy. British center-left leaders could celebrate these events without threatening domestic arrangements - and, crucially, without endorsing unrest that might target their own political order. Scargill flips that script: if you praise popular mobilization as a democratic virtue, you’re morally cornered into accepting it as a domestic necessity.
It’s also a reminder of his own bruising era - the miners’ strike and the trauma of defeat - when the absence of wider, coordinated mass action in Britain was felt as a betrayal. The line is less nostalgia than a demand: stop admiring uprisings; start building one.
Quote Details
| Topic | Leadership |
|---|
More Quotes by Arthur
Add to List
