Political splits and class consciousness
A while ago I wrote an article on the subject of Roy Hattersley and social mobility. Tom Miller kindly wrote out his own thoughts in reference to mine (a flattering experience which I shamelessly pursue from other writers). In that article, I suggested that the split between Labour and the SDP was the result of a material and inevitable historical process and Tom asks; “What I want to know is why he thinks that the response of splitting is implied by the stimulus of economic crisis.”
Economic crisis (as we’re witnessing right now) is part of a process of retrenchment against workers. Wildcat strikes are currently breaking out all over the UK because firms are trying to use foreign nationals as a lever to break the organisation and concessions of workers in this country. On a macro scale, a lot of the summits have been about the intensification of exploitation in areas around the periphery of the developed capitalist world – e.g. the Pacific. Nationalisation of the banks is part of it too.
This assumption is based on the labour theory of value, wherein the worker receives less remuneration than the value of what he produces. An irreducible element of class struggle is the battle between capitalist and worker over the amount of surplus (i.e. the difference between the value of remuneration and the value of the product) – and a secondary battle is how this surplus is later used. Both battles are fought constantly, but more acutely at times of crisis, when the battle is one of life or death for the capitalist and thus for the worker.
An active awareness of this is not possessed by all members of society. In a society where actually naming the leaders of the three major political parties is an ability not possessed by everyone, how could it be? Despite this, and because it is part of a process intrinsic to every working day, millions have it to some degree or another. With this partial awareness, even those involved in the political process can appoint themselves subjective goals without fully appreciating the objective system in which they stand. This is called false consciousness. In this I am following Lukacs’ History and Class Consciousness (the chapter on Class Consciousness, specifically page 50 and following). This false consciousness is at the root of any potential Labour split.
As crisis intensifies class struggle, the attempt by bosses to claw back overheads by sacking workers, reducing pay, below inflation payrises etc will drive workers towards the organisations which aim to win the struggle. This is the role of the communist party, as it would have been referred to by Marx, Engels and so forth. By making people understand their position within the class structures of society, and thereby pointing towards what actions they can take to win their struggles, the communist party will demolish this false consciousness, this misunderstanding of the objective situation which is a function of bourgeois hegemony.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, one of the sites of this process was within the Labour Party – whether via Militant Labour or via Socialist Appeal and so forth. Even non-sectarian Labour activists had an appreciable grasp of these realities. However Labour was (and is) a party the leadership of which is opposed to class struggle; indeed Labour does not entirely consist of, nor does it aim entirely to represent, the working class. This is a contradiction; at once within the one political party there are those working to expose the ‘real’ class relations of society and there are those working to ‘mystify’ and obscure them.
Rhetoric by the Marxism Today strand began to mirror Foucault or Poulantzas or Laclau and Mouffe. Talk of power relations rather than class relations or of class in a vague and debasing manner; of an alliance between radical minorities; vague talk of freedom without qualifying the context in which freedom can be achieved. This was the language of struggle for those who believed in what they were doing but who lacked the theoretical apparatus to grasp the inadequacies of their strategy. This was the language of those with false consciousness, who perceived only piecemeal what had to be done.
Today things are a bit more obvious, which demonstrates the state of decay within the Labour Party. There is no spectrum of politics on which Geoffrey Robinson can sit side by side with the NUJ members he employs, who are struggling for a decent wage. Objectively speaking, their interests lie in opposite directions. That is not to say that the interests of one cannot be subordinated to the other. We exist in definite historical circumstances, where Robinson is a member of the Labour Party worth £30 million and he will probably prefer to take a hit financially than suffer the potential consequences of not paying out.
Robinson is an extreme example, because he actually owns a few businesses. Less extreme, apart from the already mentioned group of intellectuals around Marxism Today, would be the leaders of both the SDP and the Labour Party. They rejected wholesale the Marxist analysis of capitalism, but had nothing to put in its place except the amelioration of the effects of capitalism, which was honest enough in its conception. Yet at root it involved an acceptance of capitalism itself and the desire for a healthy capitalist economy to fund such social initiatives as are necessary – and indeed during the 1970s, this was reflected in the economic thinking of the Labour governments, which had already begun adapting to monetarism.
In this regard, Labour has hardly moved further than Ramsay McDonald. Moreover, this lack of revolutionary self-awareness (to borrow a phrase from Gramsci’s Socialist Culture) led to the abasement and paralysis of the Labour movement’s leadership before the oncoming beast of organised Capital. The announcements by the Callaghan government, for example, about wage retardation, almost caused a General Strike and the distrust of the workers at a time when Capital was on the offensive and the whole labour movement needed to stand together.
The Limehouse declaration actually directly enshrines the contradictions: “We seek to reverse Britain’s economic decline. We want to create an open, classless and more equal society, one which rejects ugly prejudices based upon sex, race or religion.” Every Parliamentarian and trade union bureaucrat had to choose either the section which speaks of a healthy private sector or the section which supports the abolition of class entirely, but they misunderstood that it was a choice at all.
Ultimately this logic is the same logic which underpins New Labour, it is simply that New Labour represents a new evolution in the Labour leadership that reflects a certain degree of decomposition in the strength of the organised working class, and a certain degree of reaction within the institutions which govern the Labour Party.
Shirley Williams, in the midst of the split between Labour and the SDP spoke of how she would return to Labour if Labour returned to its socialist roots. The false consciousness here is manifest, since the SDP represented a right-wing split from a Labour they openly attacked as too radical. To say this is not to attack Shirley Williams’ honesty or integrity; I’m sure she genuinely believed in what she was saying, but objectively she did not understand the role the SDP was playing.
It’s a bit like Tony Blair in his Marxism Today years, or in his speech to the Fabians about Christian Socialism. It’s the same man, and he represents not a decisive break but a continual evolution in the light of specific historical and material factors which no longer could restrict that evolution.
It is these objective conditions, and the false consciousness which is part of bourgeois hegemony and therefore part of capitalism which makes a split in Labour possible. Should socialists succeed in the reorganisation of the working class and the harnessing of the desperate and radical energies currently being generated by capitalism in crisis, either this reorganisation will bypass Labour or it will pick up the party and change it totally out of recognition from that which it is or has ever been.
That is not to impute teleological connotations to history, of course. Such tension will only be applied if we succeed; failure is always an option too.
(This post was originally written on January 31st, 2009 and was later edited to present a tighter, more cogent argument).
Worth noting that many Labour politicians see their interests more with the capitalists than with the workers, not because of ideological confusion – as might be the case with rank and file trade unionists in some cases – but actual material interest.
There’s the hope of later getting jobs with big companies, like all of the New Labour ex-ministers have, or eventually getting into the House of Lords and working for big businesses there. For the senior union leaders, there’s a similar possibility of a seat in the House of Lords…
That is certainly an issue, but it’s not the only issue. Think about it logically. There are the ‘golden boy’ politicians – like Ed Balls – who went to Oxbridge and who probably genuinely believe that their ideas are going to help people.
Then there are the “former rank and file” politicians – like Hazel Blears – who came up from the ranks and basically consider speaking on behalf of the working class to be their birthright, regardless of what they say.
Ideological “confusion” is part and parcel of the human condition under capitalism, until such times as our subjective senses touch on the objective realities of our place in the class structure.
Oh I’m sure the inducements help people along in their transition from subjective idealist to rat bastard – but the nature of hegemony and the control of discourse exerted by capitalism also must be considered.
Good point. Still, we can’t actually know what people believe – only what they say they believe.
Obviously we want to encourage people to consider the material interests rather than try to guess at the beliefs of individuals. Otherwise there’s the danger of getting lost as to solutions and ending up thinking that “better” leaders are all that’s needed.
For example, Jerry Hicks, who is running against incumbent Derek Simpson for position of general secretary of Unite-Amicus, favours the traditional “average wage of a skilled worker” rather than the six figure salary that Simpson is paid. For sure, Simpson might have all the right beliefs, his material circumstances make it easier to lapse into a comfort zone. If elected, it’d be hard for Hicks to renege on his promises – and unlikely given his thirty year record as a militant.
It will be interesting to see the impact of the vote on the government, for even if Hicks loses he’s sure to pose a big challenge to the current softly-softly approach of Unite with regards Labour’s failure to adopt pro-worker policies and continued adherence to Thatcherism.
Dave, I think this article, now tightened to remove any undue sense of historical determinism in respect of the Labour party or anyone else, is a very useful contribution to the debate, and hard though I might try I find it difficult to find fault with the main thrust of the argument around the (agenntial) need for the Left (and I think you may dispute who should be ‘allowed’ that descriptor)to focus (back) in on the objective interests. I think your core argument around the way diverse ‘subject positions’, at the expense of the objective primary of interest, have had a potentially negative influence on the Left’s struggle, is just about spot on, and it is this core argument that needs now a wider audience.
And this raises the first question about the blogoland debate you are pursuing by seeking to wring answers and contributions out from fellow bloggers ( a directness ceratinly not to be ashamed of as, as one of those ‘wrung’, I can say I’ve enjoyed the experience.
The question is simple enough, but one which is often shied away from in the blogosophere as part of its newly developed etiquette of autopoiesis, if I can put it like that as shorthand for my enduring suspicion of the way the blogososphere is developing (cf LNMF?)). What is the intended readership both of the blog itself and the written ideas that may be formulated through bloggery but disemminated elsewhere?
This is to say that, in this article and other related ones you have developed, you are now fast approaching ‘small canon’ status with a good deal of coherence, and while obviously some of the stuff you have written might need to be ‘rigorised’ as you have done to this one, it is probably getting to the point that I suspect you have intended – moving it beyond the blogosphere and into the real world. I don’t know what you have planned, though I think you have made reference somewhere or other to a ‘paper’ you were preparing, but perhapse now is the time to break definitively with blog etiquette and develop your plans for intellectual forward thrust?
My other main point about your article is, while perhaps more substantive, again not a critique but an issue of consequence. It surrounds the possible consequence of what might happen in the event (note the determined non-determinism)of a completely (re)newed upsurge in unfalse consciousness. What. speciifically would happen to the array of ‘radical’ subject positions which in media form at least are adopted primarily by the bourgeoisie but also in less obvious media form (because of media instutionalisation) by the working class.
This is an issue which I’m only really starting to grapple with now, but relates to early rather half-hearted and, you could argue, falsely conscious claims on my own part that the rich/hegemonising (depending which way you look at it) array of subject positions that have arisen with (post 1960′s) modernity do have some lasting value as long as they (and the ‘rights’ to them) are interlaced appropriately in new/nascent democratic forms/norms in a way which both continues to both recognise the primacy of class relations and to maintain inter-subjectivity as a key (Kantian?) ethical driver.
You can see I still struggle here, as I still use the figurative term ‘interlace’ as a ‘cop-out’ phrase, in exactly the same way as Laclalu and Mouffe adopted the term ”piercing’ (of material conditions) when they run out of intellectual rope with which to hang themselves.
Notwithstanding that, and playing out a little more rope than is wise with you around, Mr Semple, what I am seeking is probably not too far removed from what Habermas has been digging around for for around 30 years now (and he’s got a bigger spade), which I’ll shorthand here as a ‘space’ somewhere ‘beyond’ false consciousness but in which can be created a ‘public sphere’ where democratically never-to-be-finished ‘inter-subjectivity’ and ‘reflexive modernity’ plays effective second fiddle to the enduring materiality of class relations (and in the end, relations of material equality).
And yes, I know that makes me sound a) like a pretentious git showing off because I’ve looked at some words by Habermas b) even if I get away with that, perhaps dangeroulsly close to the inevitablity of ‘post-conservatism’ of post-modernism, and especially to the unresolved tensions of modernity/alienation set out by Baudrillard in the The Intelligence of Evil; The Lucidity Pact.
In which case, heh ho, so be it. There’s worse things than being a pretentious git, unless you start making a distinct subject position out of it, in which case there probably aren’t. Maybe more exploration to follow in a post coming to a blog near you soon, in which I’ll attempt to relate the growth of Pontins Holiday bookings to Habermas’ underrated attempts to reclaim modernity and to develop the notion of post-democratic democracy (my terms, not his).
In the meantime, on the specifics of ‘retrenchment’ I find Bob Jessop’s (The Future of Capitalism)analysis of ‘spatio-temporal fixes both confusing and enlightening, and I liked what I saw of Paul Pierson’s ‘New Politics of the Welfare State’(or some very similar title) before it went back to the library, although both seem very suddenly out of date given events since mid-2008.