Death and Post-politics
The death of modernism, the death of politics, the death of socialism, the death of the left-right divide. These are themes which have pervaded certain quarters since long before I was alive. Yet the counter-attack on the linguistic, cultural, postmodern turn of scholarship persists. Socialist ideals persist, driving millions of people to attack a system they only vaguely perceive through the fog of the media.
Having read through both of the first linked-to posts in this article by Bob from Brockley, I’m thoroughly bored with reading the same tired obituaries of modernist politics. Labour and capital will never disappear; they are endemic to capitalism. I concede, the critiques of capitalism advanced by the left may rely too heavily upon codes which had relevance for a past generation.
Yet one of the defining features of our purportedly post-historical era has been the resurgence of mass movements. Disorganised and unreconstructed after the defeats of the Thatcher era these movements may be, but they avowedly declaim that history, modernism, the left-right divide is far from dead. Alliances between ‘revolutionary’ left and reactionary right make no arguments to the contrary.
In fact, quite the opposite; the alliance between the SWP, Galloway and the mad mullahs was precisely the ‘deal breaker’ for many of the groups on the revolutionary left. Eventually even the SWP were repelled by the full consequences of their opportunist politics, and hence we now have two RESPECT organisations, not one. There are examples dating back before RESPECT also.
One we’ve been talking about here was the alliance between the hard Labour left in the days of the GLC and the Irish Republican movement, construed by the left as anti-imperialist. This sort of left-communist deviancy is a parody of socialist anti-imperialism. That many movements have anti-imperialism in common does not unite them. The most current debate on the subject is of course Venezuela.
Socialists of all groups are trying to ascertain what is going on in Venezuela, but the majority of them are certainly not of the opinion that Chavez is to be supported merely because he is anti-imperialist. With the left drummed out of its complacency by defeat after defeat, the lessons may finally be learned that nationalist, populist demagogues cannot be supported simply because they are anti-US imperialism.
That route leads to certain defeat. In Venezuela, the engagement has been much more nuanced, much more constructive than what certain elements of the linked to blog posts seem to be aware. Socialist internationalists have been focusing on the grassroots movement – though, undeniably, some, like Alan Woods of the IMT have not learned their lessons and are thrilled at being confided in by ‘comrade’ Chavez.
Allow me to posit a somewhat different view to the vaunted death of left and right. Going to work is a subversive act. Our workplaces are seething cauldrons where relations of production are most obviously illustrated by the very action of coming to work, i.e. the addition of the forces of production. Though less evident in some workplaces than others – on a global scale as well as a national scale – this is a fact.
My own workplace has been just a little transformed by the NUT declaration of a strike. The most complacent teachers are changed and talk now ceaselessly about the strike, the role of the NUT, whether or not NASUWT will cover our classes and so forth. Every minute one is aware of a growing radicalisation, indeed a growing polarisation that gathers up all former political differences, such as pro-war and anti-war, and makes them irrelevant.
Frustrated by bureaucracy, charmed and alienated by capitalism, the opportunities for this radicalisation are few and far between these days. Only the most active unions, such as the FBU and the RMT, persist with such working class militancy. Yet this is not a sign of the death of the power of the organised proletariat, which is what all my opening ‘deaths’ are code for. This is not that.
Throughout the Nineties, throughout the rhetoric about the end of boom-and-bust economies, organised labour and revolutionary socialism survive in their various redoubts. Battered about, demotivated, disheartened as much by eleven years of relatively unfruitful Labour government as by the open fissures created by the Thatcherite defeats, neither of these have gone away.
In fact, both ideologically and in practice, both thrive. Revolutionary socialism has been driven from Labour only to find the first overtures of a new mass party may well be playing. From Eagleton to Wood to Zizek, academia has not allowed the new mass movements to proceed unaccompanied by new developments in Marxist theory either. Though I say it on the eve of a Labour defeat at the polls and a possible economic catastrophe, I haven’t given up.
In fact I see a lot to be hopeful about. Let the postmodernists talk, let them have their conferences on cultural studies and the death of causality. Just because they can’t outline a meta-narrative of history doesn’t mean there isn’t one. In truth, post-modernism, with its total relativism, more often rips the carpet out from under its own feet than it does from under the feet of revolutionary socialism.
By “this post”, I presume you mean this (if any of your readers want to follow you there).
The Fat Man’s post (and the Jura Watchmaker’s amplification of it) make a similar point to you about the “death of history” brigade. I’ve taken up a similar position here.
However, I think you are wrong to see the second campism of the idiot left as marginal. I have many friends who worhsip Chavez simply because he “stands up” to America – not active Trots, of course, but left-wing ordinary people, cannon fodder on anti-war demos. How many people shouted “We are all Hezbollah” on Stop the War marches? The support for the IRA you describe as “left-communist deviancy” (a bit of an insult to left communists no?) was ubiquitous on the Labour left when I was a Party member in the late 1980s.
I also think it is completely wrong to say “the SWP were repelled by the full consequences of their opportunist politics”. To be sure, many honest rank and file SWPers were only to happy to escape that alliance, but its leadership only made the break because the opportunism wasn’t working for them any more. They continue to spout all sorts of nonsense about Islamists in the Middle East.
Long live modernism. Long live class struggle. Labour and capital WILL dissappear one day.
(Editor: Comment has been edited to insert coding, so that links appear behind text).
Hey Bob – yeah that’s the post I was talking about. I’ve edited your post by the way to insert links into text – looks a little better.
Perhaps, Bob, you and I move in different circles. I don’t know anyone who vigorously defends the abuses of Chavez’ regime. From extreme left, which is, I suppose, where I stand, to moderate Labour Left, no one I know heralds Chavez, the man, as the outbreak of a new socialism.
The second campism of the idiot left is marginal as far as I have ever seen it. I mean, don’t get me wrong, the Left has anti-American prejudices – but in fairness to that Left, this is something encouraged by both the conservative and the liberal media. It’s not just down to any given part of any political spectrum.
I didn’t shout “We are all Hezbollah” – though I marched beside people who did. And from where I was standing, they weren’t ordinary, run of the mill leftists. They were Muslims, inflamed by ethno-nationalist prejudices, which have been played upon by their ‘community leaders’ in order to whip up political support.
On the marches in London where “From the River to the Sea” was chanted, I didn’t see that many trade union banners. Outside of the beginning of the march, when they were standing around selling their papers, I didn’t see many socialists either.
As for the IRA supporters and the rest, it was the extreme “enemy of my enemy is my friend” idiots I’m calling left-communists. The sort of people who swung from ultra-leftism to popular frontism at the drop of a hat. Who thought that the Red Brigades and so on were going to bring about the revolution.
Those people, though they seem to have had a lot of clout in London because of the preponderance of the Irish, developed an influence out of all proportion. They weren’t representative of the wider movement – representative of the SWP leadership perhaps, who called for critical support for the Provos in NI.
While we’re talking about the SWP leadership, I think that plenty of every-day SWP members were repelled by the tactics of the leadership. To some extent, however large or small we place it, that is bound to have had an effect on the tactics adopted by the leadership. The actual experience of the SWP membership in coalition must have been rough – with even some of the elected RESPECT members voting for reactionary policies.
I think the SWP leadership are barmy – but like most of the sects, their leadership is a clique which reproduces itself. I mean just look at how long Cliff and Grant were in charge of their respective outfits. I don’t necessarily tar all the members of the SWP or SP or any of the sects with the same brush. We’d resent that if people did it to Labour.
Of those I have spoken to, many seem normal, leftist activists whose primary concern is the day-to-day battle of convincing people, supporting workers and all the rest of it. Many of them leave the discussions about Chavez et al to others, beyond being vaguely glad that someone is standing up to the Americans.
While that is a naive political sentiment, it’s certainly one I can understand. It’s one I went through as a kid, while forming my own political opinions. It’s our responsibility to argue against it, and to use reason to undermine the positions of those who espouse it as a viable view.
Overall though, I can only name a handful of people who have even that vague anti-Americanism, support Chavez mentality. Everyone else who takes an interest has heard the stories, regularly published by groups like the AWL, about Chavez and his antics, despite the good things he has done. So I conclude that second campism is marginal.
Thanks for kind edit.
I hope you are right! I think probably I spend too much time with middle class people. Most trade unionists, as you say, have no time for that kind of shit.
If you are unfortunate enough to visit a university campus, you will find plenty of students – and lecturers for that matter – wearing Palestinian scarves and Che t-shirts, who don’t read Workers Liberty very thoroughly. Yes, these folks are marginal to the real left, the left that fights for social justice through the unions and local campaigns. But they come out in force on Stop the War marches.
Oh yeah, I know that sort well. I hate them passionately. The young pseudo-political wannabe. Never likely to be an endangered species, but still far from core to the real organisations of the left, as you acknowledge.