Cruddas offers no way out
I’m bored writing about Jon Cruddas. Every time that he opens his mouth, several sections of the chatterati trip over themselves to do homage, yet behind his veneer of radicalism there is not just a hollowness but a little Neil Kinnock waiting to burst out. So, instead of writing about Cruddas again, I’m going to link to my greatest hits collection.
“If Jon Cruddas is the future of the Left, we’re fucked” – a critique of Cruddas’ position following an interview he gave. In the interview, Cruddas basically comes across as Blair-lite and this is my attempt at debunking him.
“Events, dear boy, events” – part of an extended riposte to Tom Miller demonstrating the structure/agency and tactical disagreements of radical liberalism and Marxist materialism in trying to formulate ideas about what to do next.
“The widest possible movements and hegemonic strategy” – a discussion, with the aid of Raymond Williams, about Gramsci’s hegemony (which Cruddas is often talking about) and how Compass reduces such a revolutionary concept to electoral strategy.
“Cruddas is all piss and wind…” – an article which discusses Cruddas and the history of th soft-left, and how supporting them will simply involve re-running the 1980s, with the soft-left supporting the bad guys and emerging as another New Labour.
Other people have been considering Cruddas’ most recent words. Sunny at LibCon has a ten point plan to save Labour; HarpyMarx is not impressed with Cruddas, nor is Ten Percent, but Raincoat Optimism is. The Guardian on the other hand manages to write the most asinine post in the universe, making my case for me that political commentary should not a professional enterprise, but left to the amateurs who are just plain better at it.
At least he is saying something!! Our party is sleepwalkintg towards oblivion.It is very good to hear someone talking about values other than acuring wealth or status.
Chris, saying something isn’t the problem. Lots of different people have been saying things about the state of the party. There was even a leadership challenge around the issue. So what are you talking about?
The problem is transmitting words into action and actually changing things – and it’s not happening. One of the reasons for which is that Cruddas is all talk, much like Compass. Their political strategy is the Left wing version of New Labour – conferences and press releases.
Really? Is this even necessary? I get that you hate Cruddas more than you hate Melanie Phillips. But as far as I can see we’re all on the left. Sure, you don’t agree with all his arguments. But rather than slamming someone on the left every time they say something that isn’t as radical as you want, perhaps we could better spend our time attacking the right? Just a thought.
I don’t hate Cruddas more than I hate Melanie Phillips, but yeah, you’re absolutely right. In the five minutes it took me to write this article, I could have changed the course of the government, united the Labour Party and still had time left over for a cup of tea.
Well changing things is up to all of us!
If you ask me the focus on Cruddas is as misplaced as the focus on Brown.
The lecture was a perhaps too academic for my liking – but then, Cruddas is not putting himself forward as a leader.
I was disappointed that he said nothing of local campaigning, of building local coalitions between “progressives”, as he has in the past.
but yeah, you’re absolutely right. In the five minutes it took me to write this article
The point still stands though doesn’t it?
Do we really need to get angry about how someone else on the left isn’t following the same line as you or I or others?
I think its totally legitimate that a leftwinger would criticise another leftwinger if s/he thought that that person was being counterproductive to that cause. I fail to see Sunny’s point exactly, he was scathing recently of SWP ambiguity re the Taliban, for obvious reasons. This, without fail, is attacking elements of the left that seem absurd, and it seems I support Sunny more than he does himself.
With regards to Cruddas however, his lecture, and the many articles he has drawn on and published in the Guardian, Staggers etc, demonstrate his appeal to the left camp of the party, his political aplomb, his enthusiasm for a shift away, not only from the right (in itself, mere symbolism) but from Hobbesian or classical liberal ethics of individualism, and his sturdy engagement with other prominent philosophies (right communitarianism, right republicanism etc).
His voice as party intellectual, managed with his down to earth politics, his appeal to the traditional Labour stock in its time of vulnerability (hence his being an MP in Dagenham), and his grounded historical accuracy, well, I think you’re being a tad harsh TCF, I really do. But you’re a nice sort, you’ll come around in time….
Yes of course we do, Sunny, because the attitude of other people on the Left affects our general course – especially when they are being built up by the media.
I’m furious that such an empty blazer as Cruddas is the frontrunner to succeed Gordon Brown from the Left. And I feel the need to write about why I’m furious.
Which, incidentally, is more productive from the point of view of fellow Leftists than writing about Melanie Phillips, whom we universally ignore or make fun of, whatever she may say. Articles on her are for a neutral crowd, to inspire them to Leftism.
Yet it is no more nor less valid than talking to the people who control the course of the movement as it is now – i.e. each other – about where we’re going, who our leaders are and so on and so forth.
Which, incidentally, is why you’ve cited one of these articles on Pickled Politics in the past.
I too think it’s perfectly valid to engage in criticism of the Cruddas/Compass approach, not least since harking back to Tawney, somewhat wilfully misinterpreting Keir Hardie’s career, and invoking a vague ‘ethical socialism’ – over and above building on an analysis of the material and objective interests of the working class(es) in the context of 21st century capitalism – is inimical to any move productive move forward by the Left.
That’s not something for full debate here (as I’m drafting other stuff on this), and not do I think Dave is claiming the current piece is a massive addition to his canon, but I think TCF has been pretty consistent on this for quite a while now, and is working towards an approach that goes beyond ‘conferences and press releases’.
So fair enough, I say.
I feel a bit of an outsider writing about this debate – apologies for intruding. I don’t know much about the details of the philosophical debate your party is having. Which position is philosophically more coherent and “correct” I do not know.
But from an outsider’s point of view (the view of a large number of people, the likes of whom you will need to convince to get into power) were Cruddas adopting a lot of the things being floated he would be unelectable. At the moment UK politics simply won’t accept much of the thinking that plays out in this blog. I’m not saying it will never be the case that it will, nor that it isn’t worth writing about and trying for, but it won’t happen now.
Cruddas isn’t just writing for the party. What he says will be carefully picked over by people in both other parties. Anything too far left will be used later in evidence.
I doubt very much that you can conflate “outsiders” into one group, Barney, especially not with the dig about how anything “too far left” will be used later in evidence.
Barney
Nice of you to engage. At one level, you’re right. Offer a ‘far left’ set of policies to the electorate tomorrow, ‘advertised’ via the usual channels, and you probably won’t get elected, altough the evidence suggests that there’s more electoral appetite for some of what Cruddas is proposing than I think you’re accepting.
But what this blog is about is not just about electoral politics as they stand at the moment. Go to Luke Akehurst or and Labourlist for that. This blog’s about challenging in blogwords, and seeking ways through blogwords to develop real actions, which challenge the all pervasive power relations between capital and labour which make the electoral system what it is, and electorates vote the way they do for a systematically restricted choice of policies.
Utopian? Unrealistic goals? Well that’s what was said of the Social Democratic Federation in the 1890s, but it was their actions that created the platform for a politics that was very different in the 1920s to what it had been in 1895.
I’m furious that such an empty blazer as Cruddas is the frontrunner to succeed Gordon Brown from the Left. And I feel the need to write about why I’m furious.
But this seems to me as exactly the problem. What we have is a situation where certain sections of the left, who don’t like the attention that other sections of the left are getting, attacking them vociferously.
Now, you have your own icons. And I like John McDonnell too. But I’d like a left where both are allowed to grow, put forward their arguments and convince people. We are all roughly on the same side remember?
Let me put it this way. If your ‘crew’ is better at constructing arguments, convincing people, and winning widespread support, then I’d be glad to see people flock to your annual event (let’s say, for example).
On the other hand, if Compass are doing a better job and getting out there, then Jon Cruddas will inevitably get the discussion going.
The hard-left isn’t in competition with the soft-left, they are both in competition with the right.
Instead of slagging each other off and calling each other traitors, why not see them as allies on a different plane to yours, and try and build a bigger following?
Sorry, above comment by me.
Also, good to see you guys are extending to becoming a group blog. That’s the way to go.
I think you should recruit a few more to the blog and make it a hub for those think on similar lines (ideologically).
I’m sure I wrote a comment above… but has it vanished now?
Barney – as it stands Labour is about to be wiped out by the Tories, yet there’s little policy difference between them.
Socialist policies might lose Labour votes in your area, Barney – but Cruddas is focused on the trad Labour vote, which in recent years has become less interested in a party that has abandoned working people for the super-rich.
Your comments are usually pre-approved Sunny, but you picked a different user name so it awaited moderation.
On the subject of competition, actually there are certain circumstances when the hard and soft left are in competition. Also, the playing field is far from equal. The more radical one’s ideas, the harder it is to fight for them in the face of the current hegemonic ideology – and this bears no relation to how correct those ideas are.
Finally, my key gripe above is that Cruddas is being built up. Not building himself up through the efforts of local organization, but being built up by people with key positions in the media and in the Party. This is what differentiates him from McDonnell and it seems a perfectly valid grounds for criticizing someone who has in the past gone on about the need to rebuild the party’s mass base.
Oh and yeah, I have always liked the group blog idea and we’ve always had a few other commentators than myself. If you come across any other people who seem to think like Paul and I, do push them this way.
Look at him on Compass, we shall fight the 42 Day detention, he was telling us come on fight lets get going, we did and he then voted for Brown, he always votes for the government, your either New labour or your labour you cannot be both. His voting records speaks everything I want to know. Real left wing people believe in something and are willing to fight for it, not turn you into a New labour voting machine, he did the same with Welfare reforms giving a great speech then not bothering to turn up to vote.
These people would not have lived in the 1950 1960 1970, they would have gone across the floor faster then lightening to the Lib Dem’s.
The major problem I have Jon Cruddas is that he has proved himself untrustworthy and frankly his voting record is very little in difference to Hazel Blears! He speaks left votes right. Compass backed the campaign organised by the PCS union over the Welfare Reform Bill. I was at the meeting/lobby of Parliament where Neal Lawson condemned the plans of these reforms and argued about the importance of a social security system yet the MP associated with Compass, Cruddas, voted for the Welfare Reform Bill. Same with the majority of Compass members were against 42 days yet Cruddas voted for it.
We know this, yet why do many good lefties back this man as he failed to, at the end of the day, to sever his connection to NL. When will the rose tinted glasses slip?
Paul: thank you! But my point was purely about the criticisms of Cruddas and his not being able to adopt positions significantly more radical than he is currently espousing. I’m perfectly happy to accept that there is support for what he is suggesting.
Re your discussion of the purpose of the blog…I agree absolutely. Not utopian at all. It is a very plausible model. But I would say that getting Labour elected in the next few years is probably quite important – particularly if you want to mitigate the excesses of the Capitalist system for those people who have to put up with it now.
Charlie: Yes Labour will be annihilated in all probability. I imagine they will shift to the left – I think perhaps this is a good thing. But were he to seize the reins post-Brown and promptly swing massively left, Labour would probably get panned again.
Dave: No of course you can’t group outsiders into one group (except of course “outsiders”). But as I said ‘an’ outsider’s point of view I didn’t do so. I was merely claiming that my view – that were Cruddas to adopt many of the policies called for on this blog he would be unelectable – is shared by a large number of the outsiders. Which it probably is. As for the “dig”; it wasn’t. It was a statement about ideological space. The “too far” was implicitly defined extensionally as “what the other parties would attack”.
Surely the purpose of a political party is not just to win elections? That’s the easy part; you find out where the electorate “are” and then tell them what they want to hear. The hard part is having an idea and getting large numbers of other people to accept it too.
Personally I wouldn’t care if Labour was out of power for another 18 years if the Party learned the difference between the two, since it is also the difference between New Labour and anyone who is genuinely Left-wing. Organisation not opportunism.
Well personally Dave this seemed to me the importance of Cruddas’ lecture, to re-examine the party from Hardie to Harman, and conclude that we need to pick and choose the elements of liberalism (i.e. the radical stuff of Tawney and not the classical stuff of Smith and Hobbes) that seem to fit. My goodness, this a lesson in society in general, but for this reason Cruddas’ moment was not mere electoral campaigning, hence the message behind this;
“…whether Labour returns to government or it turns to opposition we need a fundamental re-examination of our identity and the kind of society we’d hope to create…”
The history of the party has little enough to do with RH Tawney. As admirable as his academic work is – and I’m a big fan – his work has zero relevance, and indeed as radical as it is, takes exactly the same view that Cruddas and his soft left predecessors have espoused in the past of actual working class, activist-based socialism.
Cruddas’ “moment” was nothing but electoral campaigning. He has yet to do anything else – as befits a man who can’t distinguish by the only principled act of which he is capable (i.e. voting in parliament) between himself and New Labour. Cruddas has had the opportunity to kick start things on terms favourable to the Left and has failed every time.
Well I disagree, the Toynbee article recently articulating her embrace of Cruddas’ and proposing some schemes herself (PR popped up of course) that was all electoral campaigning, Cruddas, however, spelt a way out of the age old socialist problematic, that being the ethical void being filled in by liberal ethics, or what Trotsky himself called the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle.
Cruddas, from within parliament, is the only decent, mainstream politician talking about the key differences in socialism and liberalism (and not just neo-liberalism either) and promoting the former. I agree with you, and not necessarily with Sunny, that we can criticise the left in order to save our corner so to speak, but Cruddas definitely isn’t a counter-productive element to socialism, he may not be a rebel on his voting record, but his socialism, fully realised, has the capabilities of a political continental shift, namely because it is engaged with an ethical shake-up, a praxis proper. And he’s popular to boot, I’m excited.
Well obviously I’m missing something because I know a dozen or so “age old socialist problematics” but I have yet to see one which Cruddas points the way out of. As I’ve addressed elsewhere, this ethics nonsense (the like of which Lawson is a great fan) is simply a rhetorical way to appeal to middle class guilt and excuse themselves the responsibility of decisively altering the power structures of the State and society. Or even mentioning them.
As for Cruddas being the “only decent, mainstream politician talking about the key differences in socialism and liberalism” I don’t think Cruddas knows what socialism is. He’s openly come out against “scientific socialism” and the only other type is the paternalistic rubbish of the Fabians or the ethical consumerist rubbish of Lawson et al.
Also, since when are Labour MPs like John McDonnell less “mainstream” than Cruddas? Does Cruddas get some sort of filip because he was offered a cabinet post?
I think you do know what he means by socialism, and I think you know he knows what socialism is too. Perhaps he doesn’t put his heart into a mechanistic socialism, or a socialism that is defined on viewing history as a determinant, rather he promotes a civilian-based socialism (or left communitarianism) where the state is a kind of regulatory overseer against an intrusive market. This in many ways is more Marx than Marxism, the former observing man making his [/her] own history, which separates us from the animal kingdom, as opposed to Marxism, which if Marx was sure of one thing, it was that he was not…you know the rest.
Cruddas mentioned early Marx in his lecture, and I don’t doubt it had something to do with the link I’ve made above.
Tough one but yes Cruddas is more mainstream than McDonnell, but that doesn’t mean that McDonnell isn’t mainstream, and nor did I mean to imply such a thing.
A mechanistic socialism? See I was taking you seriously right up until that point. Because Marx said he wasn’t a Marxist, reacting against the sort of mechanical determinism you describe – but you conveniently leave out the other half of his famous saying from the 18th Brumaire. Man makes history, but he does not make it as he chooses. He makes history out of the material given to him from the past.
History is not a determinant, in the Marxian view, any more than gravity determines *how* water will flow downhill – but this doesn’t mean that Marx is condoning the attempt to make water flow uphill. Which is what Lawson’s ethical consumerist claptrap is, and what this “redefinition” of the State is. If you had read any of Marx’ views on the State, the market or capitalism for that matter you would understand that far from being “more Marx than Marxism” (pithy phrase, pity it’s meaningless) it is anti-Marx (and Marxism).
Actually I was quoting Engels from *The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man* and applying it communitarian democracy, which, more to my point, is more Marx than dictatorial communism or Stalinism.
Of course it was the reformist models that troubled Marx specifically in the 18th Brumaire, and of course I understand historical materialism to know that you don’t choose history, though you can make it. And my reasonably non-controversial point is that left communitarianism is appealing to re-democratising of civic life, like the architect Le Corbusier noted, the way in which to re-democratise civic life is to make all civic institutions the foreground, rather than both a foreground and a background. Dictatorial socialism, a perversion of early Marx, is background – a deceptive totality – where the foreground, or the civic is made to feel empowered, though of course it is not, for the “background” is already the totality.
You can see that I was not having a pop at Marx, but rather saying that communitarianism is in gratitude to early Marx, the Marx of participation, the Marx of anti classical liberal ethics, and Cruddas recognised that himself, and said so.
Let me come clean, I was attempting to quote The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man, but the quote I had in mind was this one;
“the animal merely uses its environment, and brings about changes in it simply by its presence; man by his changes makes it serve his ends, masters it. This is the final, essential distinction between man and other animals, and once again it is labour that brings about this distinction.”
I’ll get back to this later tonight, but I’m out for a few birthday bevvies. Needless to say I have my copy of Engels “transition” sitting by the screen for when I return lagered up.
Oh that proves to be a lot of fun. Have a good night, and happy birthday, I look forward to continuing this at another time.
Ah, that’s what happened to my comment. Anyway:
On the subject of competition, actually there are certain circumstances when the hard and soft left are in competition. Also, the playing field is far from equal. The more radical one’s ideas, the harder it is to fight for them in the face of the current hegemonic ideology – and this bears no relation to how correct those ideas are.
But this is the wrong way to look at it, as I keep stressing. Let’s take Dan Hannan as an example. He is pretty right of the party and not in the mainstream. Yet the way he makes his arguments gets him a solid base. Not enough to be elected, but a solid base nevertheless.
My first point is that just because you’re on the fringes doesn’t mean you can’t be popular, as you seem to imply.
Secondly, right-wingers are strategic enough to know that while Dan Hannan’s views are an embarassment, someone has to keep making them otherwise the consensus cannot be shifted to the right.
So the centre-right don’t criticise him, but privately egg him on and support him when he’s under attack. The hard-right similarly don’t attack the centre right on the premise the centre right don’t go far enough. Because the know that first the centre right has to become the consensus, and then they can become the centre-right consensus (and not the hard-right as they previously were).
And this is how right-wingers managed to ease out the traditional moderate Republicans out of the party and push the consensus to the political right over the 70s, 80s and 90s.
Your problem comes out of the frustration that when the centre right is in power, they pay little attention to the hard-right.
That is a separate issue, and is a result of:
- the hard-right not being organised enough
- them having the same cats in a sack mentality as you.
In fact this infects lefties everywhere, including the USA, where Blue Dog conservative Democrats end up fucking over the mainstream liberal wing of the party (as they are now) because they care more about ideological differences than the health of the movement as a whole.
I’m not implying that by being on the fringes you can’t be popular. John McDonnell for example is pretty far Left but is very popular amongst the activist base of the Labour Party. That’s not what I said. What I said was that arguing for the fringe positions is harder than arguing for positions closer to the political centre – so one can be popular but come up against others with coalitions of the political centre-left, centre and centre-right. And that is, I suspect, what will happen with Cruddas.
To prevent the party swinging Left, Cruddas will be anointed by the rump of New Labour and his own supporters.
As for the rest, the Right criticize the far-right, the far-right criticize the Right. The BNP and the Tories criticize each other, and the scorn poured by the Tories on UKIP is often hilarious. Now they’re in different parties, so there’s a partisan rather than a principled basis to it – let’s face it, some elements of both the Tories and UKIP shade into each other and into the BNP. But even within parties, you find elements criticizing each other: John Redwood being a good case in point.
Finally my problem has nothing to do with the “soft” Left paying no attention to me when they’re in power. My problem is that while they are out of power, they court the activist vote – which is naturally further to the Left than the leadership at any given time – and when in power they transmogrify from “soft” Left to centre-Right New Labour types.
I’m not implying that by being on the fringes you can’t be popular.
Popular opinion, not just the hardcore base.
What I said was that arguing for the fringe positions is harder than arguing for positions closer to the political centre
I happen to think its the other way around because the hard positions are more ideological. People on the centre-left have to be pragmatic at times.
As for the rest, the Right criticize the far-right, the far-right criticize the Right.
forget the BNP. I mean the centre-right (Tory modernisers) and the libertarian hard-right (Dan Hannan) and old school right (Thatcher, David Davis, Norman Tebbit)
My problem is that while they are out of power, they court the activist vote
That’s always going to be the case. When you’re out of power, you need to get the activist base fired up to campaign. They are your constituency. When in power your constituency also includes right-wingers.
Sunny/Dave; on the subject of distinct voices in a mainstream political party, utilising the radical voices while obtaining a centrist outlook in general seems to be a good strategic line to take, for in affluent areas Labour are not going to stand as their MP a dyed in the wall rebel trot, just as they wouldn’t stick Glenda Jackson in Basildon. So I guess on one level it would be wrong to limit your critical remit to the left alone, but then on another level if you believe that forces in the left are acting/saying/doing counter to what you believe leftist aims are, then for the sake of your corner we should speak up.
But then, as is clear, I don’t think Cruddas’ work is counter productive, in fact quite the opposite. On a strategic level, I can perhaps see why it is necessary to have rightist elements in the Labour party, who win seats in rightist thinking parts of the country. But I do get worried when thinking about coalition forces, big example the Spanish Civil War, a huge leftist coalition seemed to be good for muscle, anarchists, socialists, social-democrats, communists, liberals, but it exasperated, the Stalinist wing hated the Trotskyite wing, the anarchists hated the left wing in general, social-democrats hated the communists and so on. Surely anything but the fascists, but if they had formed a coalition government it would’ve been rife with infighting.
I worry about this with Oskar Lafontaine and Die Linke, his coalition force might pose some problems for Merkel, but too many factions make it hard to formulate a government proper. This is usually the case where opposition parties have been out of government for so long, like in Japan at the moment, the opposition is composed of all sorts, and perhaps this is not destined to fail, but it make things tricky in forming a line, as such.
This hasn’t been the case, to my knowledge, however, in Paraguay, where the current Lugo government were in opposition for 50 years, being the only main opposition for that long it has all above mentioned elements of government, including those who want more ties with Chavez, and those who favour the more centred approach as in Peru or Chile.
Nonetheless, strategically it seems OK to keep quiet about elements of your party you despise, like I’m sure many do with Tom Harris, but how far do you let this go, until the entire party has drifted to the right, or like now when leftist voices inside the Labour party are fringe voices. Sometimes breaking silence might mean avoiding an identity crisis later on, and of course this can easily be juggled with pouring scorn on the right/Tories too.
Well I don’t know what “popular opinion” is but if you mean opinion outside of the Westminster bubble, I’d say McDonnell beats Cruddas. At the very least neither are “popular” if any definition of popular stretched to “well known” amongst normal people who aren’t you, me and the people who think and act like we do.
As for thinking it’s easier to argue for the hard Left, come spend time with me on street stalls advocating communism and then say that.
On the right-far right thing, the BNP in this situation occupies an analogous position to the hard Left of Labour and the other hard Left groups outside of Labour: the Scottish Socialist Party for example. Within each ideological spectrum (the Left, the Right) all sides criticize each other. In the US, moderate Republicans whose position is secure have criticized Christian fundamentalism too.
Finally, when you’re in power your constituency is the same as when you’re out of power. The Right is never our constituency because the Right doesn’t elect us.
in affluent areas Labour are not going to stand……they wouldn’t stick Glenda Jackson in Basildon
What about Peter Mandelson in Hartlepool?
Carl
‘in affluent areas they’re not going to stand in their area a dyed in the wool rebel Trot’.
Yeah, I know it’s not MPdom, but I’m about as dyed in the wool Trot as you can get unless you get technical about Trotskyims, in which case I’m not even a bit Trot, and I won the safest possible Tory farming council seat in my leafy borough with a 600% increase in the ‘Trot vote’, something I never tire of telling people. Look up the amusing explanations on UK polling report, which include the assertion that they must have built a big housing estate between elections.
No, not utterly replicable (I’m not just any Trot, I’m a local Trot who can do spreadsheets), but an indication at least that the ‘put in a candidate who is likely to be acceptable to our party’s stereotyped vision of a thick electorate’ may not always be appropriate. For there lies, as you say, Glenda Jackson.
RO: Your comments that I wish to address (because I don’t see our disagreement on Cruddas going anywhere in the short term) are the following.
“[Cruddas] promotes a civilian-based socialism (or left communitarianism) where the state is a kind of regulatory overseer against an intrusive market. This in many ways is more Marx than Marxism, the former observing man making his [/her] own history, which separates us from the animal kingdom, as opposed to Marxism, which if Marx was sure of one thing, it was that he was not…you know the rest.”
Yes, Cruddas promotes such a thing – Marx doesn’t, nor does Engels. I’ve now read again, cover to cover, Engels “Transition” and I think pp16-7 are a clear denunciation of Lawson’s ethical consumerism/producerism. As for Marx, even as early as his critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Marx clearly prefigures his own view of the State as the product of the property relations of society, especially if read together with his support for Feuerbach’s materialism.
So exactly which elements of Marx and Cruddas coincide? Incidentally this opposition between “early” and “late” Marx is a tad ridiculous – Marx “early” corpus is nowhere near complete enough to draw such conclusions. It’s like looking at archaeopteryx and looking at the starling and claiming that they are opposite forms of life, going in different directions.
On which basis, I don’t understand what you are saying here:
“Of course it was the reformist models that troubled Marx specifically in the 18th Brumaire, and of course I understand historical materialism to know that you don’t choose history, though you can make it. And my reasonably non-controversial point is that left communitarianism is appealing to re-democratising of civic life, like the architect Le Corbusier noted, the way in which to re-democratise civic life is to make all civic institutions the foreground, rather than both a foreground and a background. Dictatorial socialism, a perversion of early Marx, is background – a deceptive totality – where the foreground, or the civic is made to feel empowered, though of course it is not, for the “background” is already the totality.”
I shall ignore for a moment that some of the phrases used above (E.g. your citation of Le Corbusier) seem either completely obscure or self-evident to the point where you can’t mean what I think you mean. We can come back to that.
What bothers me here is your attempt to co-opt “early Marx” to an argument against “dictatorial socialism”. I’m presuming by dictatorial socialism you mean the proletarian dictatorship. What I fail to see is how such a thing is a perversion of “early” Marx. All the key elements are there in what is traditionally considered “early” Marx.
There’s a fantastic paragraph in Marx’ Critique mentioned earlier in which Marx basically outlines his conception of the revolutionary proletariat, the universality of the proletariat and so on. By “dictatorship” I assume you know that Marx is referring not to the form and content of the State but to how the State is purportedly consituted to represent and regulate competing interests in a social totality but is in reality created to defend a class interest, until the ‘universal class’ (i.e. the proletariat) emancipates itself.
Now you can disagree with what Marx says – I’m talking in massive abstractions here, so it’s not the most succinct argument in defence of Marx (and Marxism) – but you can’t say he didn’t say that, or that the concept of proletarian dictatorship is a perversion of “early” Marx. It simply isn’t. The practical realization of the proletarian dictatorship is a different matter – and the system of analysis commonly called Marxism offers plenty of insights into that.
As for this bit about how “dictatorial socialism” makes the civic feel empowered because it seems like waffle, being neither true of the theory of proletarian dictatorship and especially not true of the realities of Stalinism, which did exactly the oppposite to the civic. But as I say, I may be missing something.
Well OK I did expect exceptions to the rule Rory and Paul, but I’m sure my point does still stand that there may be, at some strategic level, a reason why New Labour have kept leftist voices up at the front because in many parts of the country it goes without saying, leftwingers are popular. The same rule applies to right wing elements of the party, they serve some strategic force. But I reserve the right to criticise them, no one is arguing to the contrary, but I also reserve the right to criticise them even if I might be accused of instigating infighting, often appearing to be detrimental to an incumbent party, but if I thought such elements were destroying the party in other ways – brutal right shifts acknowledged – then in spite of the charge, an infight may be what eventually comes to save the day.
I also think that this is Cruddas’ main crux; whether Labour wins next election or it becomes opposition, it is necessary to re-examine its identity. What I take from this is that Labour’s place in parliament is not to base its identity on a contradistinction to the Tories, it has a dignified position of its own, and we risk losing that position with Hobbesian-individualistic liberal ethics. But more to the point, the Labour party is not just a party of tunnel vision, not just a party that scrapes four more years, it’s vision extends way further, Cruddas’ appeals to philosophy (understandable given his PhD) and future vision excite me a great deal. We’ve had a party based on spin, we’ve now got a party run by number buffs, but now we did to take what is best from those two (namely destroy the spin, get the numbers right) and inject a little moral philosophy into the churn.
By the way Paul, that is a tremendous story, I’m hardly surprised you never tire of telling people.
Dave;
You’ve given me a lot to swallow there, my simple illustration was to show that Cruddas’ left communitarianism project has at the heart of it an ideal of civic participatory democracy, that transcends the limits of top-down democracy. Where I realise the general definition of proletarian dictatorship, I think the subject is for a different time. If you were to ask me where I saw the existence of the state after the emancipation of the proletariat and on the transitory phase from state socialism to communism proper, I might be able to formulate some very far reaching opinions, but at the moment I’m addressing the beginning stages of mainstream political ideas that re-democratise the way we control our own public institutions.
Lenin observed “Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing.” Now of course Cruddas’ ideas are not to reach this end, neither is it necessarily my opinion that people cannot be free simultaneously to the existence of a state (another of Lenin’s, via Marx’, maxims), but certainly the core message is true, that the working class should play a major part in the participation and control of their institutions, only this can be achieved without appeals to dictatorship, even in its “emancipatory” Leninist form. Incidentally, to your point, I’m not conflating Marx’ opinion of dictatorship to the commonly held definition of dictatorship, that being autonomous at best, top-down and militaristic at worst.
Lastly control of civic institutions is not waffle, but I will concede that left communitarianism is in its beginning stages, but it does owe its sentiments to the kind of participationism appealed to by Marx’ view of political transition. But from here on I can only talk about my opinions of the matter. I’m statist, yet I see massive shortcomings in top-down politics, therefore left communitarianism, at the moment appeals to me, inasmuch as the state serves as a vanguard to protect private institutions from inflitrating public ones, owned and controlled by the natural beneficiaries of those institutions; namely the working class. Any wider comments on where I view the state after soft socialism, I will reserve for when the topic is only on abstract political philosophy.
Most of what you’ve said there doesn’t address my point. In fact some flatly contradicts my point without offering any contrary argumentation.
Most obviously you simply have not addressed, either to retract or support, your earlier contention about how “late” Marx was different in principled respect of “early” Marx, nor how the proletarian dictatorship (or dictatorial socialism) was a perversion of this “early” Marx. I think in this regard, you haven’t a leg to stand on – and I think this renders the argument that left communitarianism has anything to do with Marx about as banal as arguing that Marx had something to do with Rousseau. It’s obviously true but it confers absolutely nothing of analytical worth. It is rhetoric, just as Cruddas’ reference to Marx are rhetorical worthlessness.
This was also connected to your point about left communitarianism as an inverse to “dictatorial socialism” – redemocratising civic life by making civic institutions the foreground. Not only is this not derived in any sense from Marx, it flatly contradicts both what “early” Marx explicitly stated but also the whole tenor and direction of Marxist analysis as evidenced in Marx and Engels’ writings. As I said above, at this point I’m not interested in what left-communitarianism proclaims itself as – I will happily eviscerate such backward and uncomplex notions of the State another time. What I am interested in is the rhetoric which you and Cruddas have used in explaining your political vision.
What you said was, “Dictatorial socialism, a perversion of early Marx, is background – a deceptive totality – where the foreground, or the civic is made to feel empowered, though of course it is not, for the “background” is already the totality.” I think this is to grossly misunderstand Marx, and to switch our respective positions. Without recognizing the class content of the State (which, incidentally, in 19th Century political philosophy is distinct from civil society, though you seem to continually conflate the two), you endorse a narrow class interest as the social totality – and all the representative institutions in the world won’t correct matters, for reasons which (ironically, given your “early” Marx bit) “early” Marx expounds upon when speaking of the tendency of bureaucracy to form a State within a State, and the State to reflect the property relations of civil society.
It’s also, as I said, and as I think you misunderstood, to speak a nonsense about dictatorial socialism. Neither practical “dictatorial socialism” (i.e. the dictatorship of Stalin etc) made the civil feel empowered, nor does the theoretical model of the proletarian dictatorship offer the potential to empower “the civic” as against a background totality (whatever that means).
It seems to me that this rhetoric demonstrates a political illteracy on the level with Iain Dale claiming the BNP is left-wing or Sinn Fein claiming the legacy of such disparate figures as Padraig Pearse and Karl Marx. And what I’ve asked you to do is defend the contentions you have made through this rhetoric, not to offer a straight up or down justification of left-communitarianism.
As for thinking it’s easier to argue for the hard Left, come spend time with me on street stalls advocating communism and then say that.
Well then there’s your problem – you’re not talking in a language people can easily relate to or ideas that people seem attracted by.
The right on the other hand, even the hard right (not the BNP lot) use language and ideals people subscribe to,.. even if they don’t explain what’s required to get there.
In the US, moderate Republicans whose position is secure have criticized Christian fundamentalism too.
No – I’m talking about the difference between moderate Republicans and the more hard-right nutjobs like Rush Limbaugh, the Fox News people and Ann Coulter etc. You’re not that far off the radar like the Christinists.
Finally, when you’re in power your constituency is the same as when you’re out of power. The Right is never our constituency because the Right doesn’t elect us.
But there is a centre-ground of swing-voters who do. And they also have to be kept on side.
How would you know what language I do or do not talk when on a street stall? I’m a teacher, Sunny; there’s a wonderful educational concept called differentiation.
Secondly, I think that makes my point for me: talking in a language people can easily relate to or ideas people seem attacted by is not an objective yardstick, it is of course tempered by dominant themes, common sense, the easily accessible elements of a hegemonic ideology. And revolutionary ideologies come at those from the opposite angle to which people are accustomed. As I said, this doesn’t make them any more or less ‘correct’, objectively speaking.
Moderate Republicans criticize Rush Limbaugh. Wasn’t there a Republican Senator who recently gave a speech denouncing Glenn Beck for that matter? What’s your point?
Finally, yeah there is a centre ground of swing voters – but that’s not the ideological Right, and moreover there’s nothing intrinsic to the notion of a centre-ground of swing voters that suggests we have to move Right to win them over. Or move centre, for that matter. That’s faulty logic – it also escapes the purpose of genuine political activism, which is to change opinions, not just mirror them.
How would you know what language I do or do not talk when on a street stall?
I’m going by what you say. My view is that if someone can’t translate their ideas into a language people can relate to then there’s a problem because they’ll never get widespread support.
If you’re only talking to people who are used to your lexicon and style, then you won’t convince many people. Is that right or wrong? (leave aside the matter of whether what you say is correct or not).
Moderate Republicans criticize Rush Limbaugh. Wasn’t there a Republican Senator who recently gave a speech denouncing Glenn Beck for that matter? What’s your point?
My point is seeemples. There is much more logical discipline on the right to concentrate on the left, than spend time attacking their own side.
That’s faulty logic – it also escapes the purpose of genuine political activism, which is to change opinions, not just mirror them.
If you genuinely want to shift public opinion then you have to talk to them in a language they can relate to (which you’re loath to do). The swing voters aren’t ideologically right, but they’re not ideologically left either. They’re in the centre. From where you stand, you’d have to move rightwards to attract them and keep them. That’s the difference in governing vs activism.
I’m not only talking to people using my lexicon and style, moreover I have more than one lexicon and style. As does virtually everyone who moves in different social circles.
As for there being more discipline on the Right, I disagree. I think the Right is just as prone to infighting as any other political group. Difference is, most Lefties genuinely care about issues of political principle over issues of demagoguery so the infighting can have worse results than simply two people not speaking to each other.
Lastly, I’m not loath of speak to people in a language they can relate to. Believe it or not, Sunny, there’s a reason I’m a competent activist as well as taking an interest in all this theory malarky. But here’s a key point; there should be no difference between governing and activism. In order to become the government, you need to be activist…why does the activism stop after you’re sworn in?
It did with Obama – and probably will with Cruddas (though he’s not much for doing anything activist other than talking a good show to the people who already agree with him). This is the difference; I’m looking for an activist movement that will overturn political orthodoxy and the present State and re-write our manuals on how governing is done. And I’d say there’s a mandate for that right now.
So why is Cruddas wasting out time with speeches and the sort of high falutin’ rhetoric you have pointed out again and again don’t connect with the swing vote?
OK, I’m going to keep this short, I didn’t like you comparing me with politically illiterate wally’s, that was unfair, a tad ad hominem too.
It was when you said that Cruddas has come out strongly against scientific socialism, which was how Marxism was distinguished from utopian socialism, that I started thinking about Marxism.
As you know, the difference in early and late Marx is the difference between philosophical and economic studies, although much has been said on how Marx can correctly be bracketed three times; philosophical, economic and historical – which frankly I’m dubious of, seeing as the historical fits both major categories without controversy.
The early, Young Hegelian, Marx – which runs up until The German Ideology I believe – laid more emphasis on quashing individualist ethics and philosophies in general, such as Stirner’s Ego and its own. It was Stirner’s opinion that certain authoritarian institutions curbed people from acting in their self-interest – what was called ethical egotism – whereas Marx, polemicising against Stirner’s individualism, noted that these institutions didn’t necessarily come into conflict with self-interest, simply because self-interest, or what the nature of individuals actually is, becomes clear when they start to realise their worth in the world. In short, our material conditions mediate our nature – human nature is mediated as such – so rather than see an end to all institutions on the erroneous charge that they curb our freedom, we should change the institutions to suit our freedom.
That seems a pretty reasonable synopsis for Marx’ guidelines for a transitional socialist period.
Now granted Cruddas’ lecture doesn’t bear all the formal qualities of early Marx, and he has written off the scientific socialism when he said this, regarding Anthony Crosland’s model of social democracy;
“The Future of Socialism (1956) was for many of us always out there on the horizon – a revisionist answer to orthodox Marxism whilst also an assault on the foundations of market economics neo-classical theory.”
and yes left communitarianism, even in its early days, doesn’t smell of Marxism in its totality, but then participationist socialism is also hundreds of years old. Perhaps there is as much to thank Wat Tyler for, for Cruddas turn. But what I will say is, if there are any parallels, it is that Cruddas wants a reinvigorated working class presence in public institutions, and he is fearful of left wing reliance on individualistic liberal ethics. It’s clear to see that these things are important in The German Ideology, also, and therefore early Marx. Though I am under no illusion that Cruddas is now a Marxist, he is dipping into the box of ideas that happens to legimitmately home Marx, to which I am grateful.
Now, although I like where Cruddas is going with this, it remains simply this. The title to my blog entry on this is called *I like where Cruddas is going*, for the reasons I’ve stated above. There is still plenty to be done, and of course if this project was left dormant now, it would count for nothing and I, along with other supporters, should throw their hands up in the air. But as of now, I completely welcome this direction, I think its lost in the Labour party, and for me to withdraw my support for the party in pursuit of other alliances, would seem to me to be a vindication of the right wing, New Labourites that have hijacked the party. At the very least, Cruddas in his lecture recognises that inside the party there are strong forces working against the working classes, and though Dave Osler may say well done for pointing out the obvious, Jon, it is at least evidently helpful that a popular member of the party is providing the intellectual muscle behind a real sea change in the politics of the modern day Labour party.
Lastly, I’m not loath of speak to people in a language they can relate to. Believe it or not, Sunny, there’s a reason I’m a competent activist as well as taking an interest in all this theory malarky
Well that’s fine. Then why are you complaining that explaining communism is difficult? That is the nature of the work you’re doing – I’m not sure how that’s any form of complaint or how that’s relevant.
But here’s a key point; there should be no difference between governing and activism. In order to become the government, you need to be activist…why does the activism stop after you’re sworn in?
Because once you’re elected, you’re representing the entire country – even the people who didn’t vote for you.
This is the difference; I’m looking for an activist movement
Well, then go and build it. I’m not stopping you. How your work will be easier if you keep attacking the centre-left though is beyond me.
So why is Cruddas wasting out time with speeches and the sort of high falutin’ rhetoric you have pointed out again and again don’t connect with the swing vote?
Well, he has high minded rhetoric and he does local community organising – so I’m not slating him. There is a space for both. What you’re doing is criticising him for not being left enough. I’m saying he doesn’t need to be – it’s your job to develop and push and organise the hard-left, not his.
My only criticism of Cruddas is made by Soho Politico – that he ends up positioning himself on the centre-left and therefore his policies. He should infact be pushing those policies as the mainstream centre view.
Believe it or not, we on the right have political principles… Perhaps we have a slightly better history of pragmatism and compromise though.
Also, not to hijack the line of argument, but Dave do you seriously not care if free market Tory bastards like me run the country for another 18 years? Given that much time we could seriously screw the working class.
Raincoat Optimism, this has now got too long to continue responding in comments – also I don’t see the value of responding when you just ignore what you have written in the previous answer (and fair chunks of my replies) to concentrate on things which weren’t originally being disputed or discussed.
Expect a longer challenge to Cruddas, Crosland and the epistemological assumptions being made here written up into an article some time over the next week. Basically I think you are wrong about Marx, I think both you and Cruddas flagrantly misuse references to Marx. And lastly and leastly, where “early” Marx starts and ends is fluid: from “the Holy Family” and “the German ideology” you have key words on historical materialism so this is certainly nothing to do with Marx the Young Hegelian (!!!!) – but as I said, I’ll come back to this.
The rest of you, I’ve had a long flight and a shitty day; I’ve got to write up the articles for Saturday and Sunday and find time for a birthday party and continue with my dissection of Hannah Arendt. Expect replies sometimes early next week – but replies will be forthcoming.
I’ve read through this comments thread again now, and I’m sticking to what I say, there are parallels in what Cruddas has said in his agenda for communitarianism and Marx’ polemics that feature in the German Ideology. Now these parallels could just be as relevant as the parallels between communitarianism and other socially committed items in history, what makes Marx so special? Well if I’m correct scientific socialism was the term used by Engels to signify Marx/Engels’ later work which was empirical in its conclusions (if I’m wrong here it doesn’t affect my conclusion too much). And why did Cruddas mention early Marx? Well the parallel is fairly strong that Marx in TGI polemicised against the individualism of Max Stirner (see comment #49), and Cruddas opined that self-interest and individualism (of the Hobbesian type) have permeated the Labour party, and its through a proper realisation of the socialist grounds the party was born out of that we can cut these elements out.
I’ve look through, I’m sure I’ve missed nothing out, I’m drawing pretty hefty paralells here. See #49 for an outline of what I’m under no illusion.
By scientific I think Karl and Freddy meant that they looked at history and economics, helping workers’ organisations get a sense of the past struggles and understand how the capitalists’ rule.
The utopian approach would be to expect that working people can be empowered without self-activity, without learning about past struggles and considering economics.
Robert Owen as a utopian tried to convince fellow factory owners to empower working people. When this didn’t work he had a scientific approach and backed workers self-activity in the form of trade unions.