And what reform means to me as well
This is a companion post to Dave’s TCF post from earlier this week ‘Reform –what it means to me’.
If I had had time to involve myself earlier this week, it would simply have been a comment within the robust debate that took place between Dave, Sunny from LibCon/Pickled Politics, Tim Flatman from the possibly late and utterly lamented Provisional BBC, Dan of Don Paskini fame, and Guy, Anthony, David and James, all in their different ways representing or speaking up for the new Power 2010 project largely funded by the Joseph Rowntree charitable trusts.
It’s also a separate post because I promised to do one in response of Guy’s original post, carried at the Third Estate, having seen a several hundred word response over there disappear into the ether because of an IT glitch at my end. That comment, the substantive elements of which I bring forth again here, also included a response to Salman of the Third Estate himself, who seemed to suggest that I could not legitimately comment on Power 2010 because I remain in the Labour party, and because the Labour government invaded and occupied Iraq. That is an interesting viewpoint, especially in the context of Guy’s post and its focus on building broad coalition, but it is not my main issue here, and will be picked up in a separate post.
So to the main issue…..
If I tried to pick up on all the comments in the debate on Dave’s post I’d be here till Christmas, so I’ll home in on what is really at the root of this robust disagreement, and indeed at the root of many robust disagreements that play themselves out at Though Cowards Flinch’ as Sunny rightly points out above, there’s no likelihood of agreement on the basics because Dave and other commenters, himself included, are operating in different ‘frames’ and have different conceptions of ‘what change means’.
The change Dave (and I, which is essentially why we blog together) wants is a fundamental change in the relationship between labour and capital – in material favour of labour, obviously. This is, it is worth stressing, the inverse of what Conservatives tend to want, and have been particularly successful in getting over the last 30 years or so, namely a material change in favour of capital. That’s straightforward enough, and I won’t bother tracking back on why exactly Dave and I define the ‘change we want’ in those terms. It’s all in Marx.
In the past, such material change in favour of labour has been successfully brought about. There are two main instances of that in the last century or so.
The first was in the late 19th/early 20th century. Labour won major concessions from capital, because capital, and government on its behalf, was scared about what would happen if it didn’t give these concessions. As just one example of the material change in favour of Labour, old age pensions were established.
The second was in the 1930’s and through the second world war. The capitalist class became scared about what would happen if further concessions were not accorded, and immediately after the war, a much better deal was given to labour than had been the case. One example of this is the establishment of the National Health Service, which was a major concession in spite of some last minute trickery exerted by consultants on behalf of the ruling class, and the investment of a massive amount of money in their continued privilege at the expense of a properly funded primary and preventative health service. Labour is now feeling the effects of that late trickery, and the measure is the massively divergent life expectancy of the ruling class and the working class.
In respect of both these major concessions, history has been re-written to portray them as the result of liberal thinkers. On the first occasion, the Fabians took the credit for what was achieved, and they still benefit from taking that credit. On the second occasion John Maynard Keynes got the credit, and he is now a hero of the liberal left.
The efforts of the Fabians and the Keynesians were indeed praiseworthy, but they did not cause what happened; they wrote about it and codified the concessions. The working classes and its propensity for solidaristic action are what brought the concessions; in the 1890s it was the strikes and marches organized by the Marxist Social Democratic Federation, alongside the remarkable growth in the new manual and ‘unkskilled’ unions, and in the 1930s it was both the then recent memory of the Russian Revolution and the union solidarity in various countries around the world which brought about what we now know as the Welfare State.
Both these major concessions are what I would call reform. You do not have to be a revolutionary socialist (and indeed I am not) to understand that the way to bring about proper reform, the benefits of which the working classes actually experience on a daily basis, is via militancy.
I have covered both these periods of labour militancy, in some detail, here and here. For an alternative ‘Fabian’ account which still, inadvertently almost, accepts that the root cause of change in favour of labour was worker militancy, I recommend Francis Williams’ 1950 tome ‘Fifty Years March’.
By contrast, the kind of reforms that the proponents of Power 2010 have not brought material benefit to labour, in terms of living and working conditions, through concessions from capital. As Dave set out in one of the comments on his post, any material changes that have been brought about around the same time and in the same broad environment as that in which liberals have been seeking their type of change is much less likely to be as a result of liberal activity (e.g. Charter 88) than as a result of worker militancy. The new liberals, of the type associated with Power 2010 and the Convention on Modern Liberty, are simply doing what the Fabians did a hundred years ago – writing their own version of history to make themselves the heroes.
More importantly though, the change to which this new political class of liberal insiders masquerading as outsiders (on the basis that they do not align themselves to a political party) now aspire is not change which is of material importance to the working class. I cannot express this any better than Tim Flatman did in a comment to an earlier post of mine in which I set out how the Convention of Modern Liberty’s unwillingness to confront the very biggest illiberty in the UK – its immigration policy – showed the organization up as the liberal elite it really is. Tim said at the time:
‘The Tories commitment to liberty is shown up by their opposition to the most important liberties, including freedom of movement (immigration), freedom to organise politically (trade union legislation as one small part of that) and freedom to control your own body (abortion).
Like everything else, understanding of the meaning of liberty is class-based. The liberties they are concerned with (freedom for being “snooped on” etc) are only really important if you have the other more fundamental liberties guaranteed, ie if you’re a rich male British citizen.’
And so, in my and Dave’s view, projects like Project 2010 are part of the problem, not party of the solution, and that will be the case however successful they are in their own terms.
For me and Dave, the liberal, metropolitan elite which soaks up human and financial resources in the name of civil liberties and ‘reform’ are, in part, responsible for the fact that since the second world war there have been no further major material advances for labour, and why over the last 30 years capital has got away with rolling back many of the concessions that labour had extracted.
Why, Dave and I would question, is it appropriate to join coalitionary force with them when they insist on seeking to undertake actions which history has proven provide for lesser material gain for labour than working class militancy?
History is on Dave’s and my side, if history is done properly. It is strange, then, that the liberal elite of the type Dave engages with at TCF is always so keen to suggest that our version of how to be leftwing is so ‘unrealistic’, and unlikely to achieve anything soon. There is no doubt that the liberal commentariat has developed a powerful discourse about how ‘change’ can be affected through cosy coalitions and coalescence with the powerful, but the power of that discourse (supported as it is by a liberal media) does not make it right.
This is in no way to suggest that the likes of Guy and Anthony are bad people. They are well-meaning; their heart is in the right place; they sincerely believe that the surface change they seek will benefit everyone in the long run.
And therein lies both the sadness that I feel, AND the anger that Dave expresses.
We both know that the resources of the type that Guy and Anthony and James and David – talented and committed all - could bring, and of the type that the Joseph Rowntrees Trusts could provide, could do so, so much more to effect real material change. James suggests that there is not enough time and resource to run Power 2010 as he would wish, but that this is all they can get so they must get on with it. If Dave and I were given similar sims, we could achieve more than anything Power 2010 will ever achieve, I dare say. (We did apply for finding. Our application around the development of grassroots media was dismissed out of hand.)
Dave is angry because he knows that at least one generation – the one I belong to – has let his generation down by allowing itself to be taken in by cosy notions of liberal change (and as I’ll be setting out soon, the Labour left has been complicit in this too).
He has every right to be angry, because he understands history. I do not express anger, because the guilt of being part of the generation that let Dave down leads to a saddened determination that Dave and his comrades get a proper crack of the whip at effecting real change this time round, unstifled by the cautious voices of ‘realism’ (for which read defeatism) that the 1960s-influenced liberal of my generation became so adept at using.
In a comment on Dave’s piece, Sunny notes that there will no agreement because we’re in different places; while Dave and I are ‘local campaigners on economic issues’, Guy, Anthony, David and James are ‘civil liberties campaigners’ operating within and effectively for the London-based elite. He seems to suggest that this is ok – that’s it a personal choice, and that the choice of the liberal elite to remain with its own is valid.
I’m sorry. It’s not ok when it comes down to it. Guy and Anthony and David and James may be very decent, honourable, capable people – I’ve no reason to doubt that – but if they are serious about liberty they should abandon their cosy world of cosy, media-friendly but ultimately insignificant change. If they want to be real freedom fighters, there are more important freedoms than the ones they fight for now.
“Salman of the Third Estate himself, who seemed to suggest that I could not legitimately comment on Power 2010 because I remain in the Labour party, and because the Labour government invaded and occupied Iraq.”
That wasn’t what I was getting at Paul. You can legtimately comment on whatever you like. At least until after the revolution
My point was in response to your criticism of Power2010 which, in that particular comment, stemmed largely from it being backed by the Rowntree Trusts. I felt you concentrated too much on your dislike of the organisation and largely ignored the ideas Guy was expressing. Now I happen to agree with most, if not all, of your ideas. But if instead of discussing them, I just pointed out that your party is a neo-liberal, neo-conservative war machine, we wouldn’t get very far.
I’m very glad you’ve set out this detailed ideological analysis. Again I’m very much in agreement with a lot of what you say. But I think it’s unfair to write people like Guy off as talented individuals wasting their time because they’re fighting a slightly different battle. Nor do I see democratic reform and wealth redistrubution as mutually exclusive. The latter is certainly not the determined goal of the former, but it is quite likely to be a side-effect. At present people are disenchanted with politics, they opt out because they see the two main parties as essentially the same and don’t believe their vote will make a difference. That will only change when New Labour’s stranglehold over ‘progressive’, and I use the term very loosely, politics is ended by proportional representation. I want to see socialists in Parliament. I want to see Greens. I want to see Salma Yaqoob sitting next to George Galloway in the House of Commons. I have a great deal of respect for class warriors like yourself fighting the good fight within Labour. But I don’t believe the party will ever return to its roots now. Blair and Brown have done far more damage to this country than Thatcher – their gutting of Labour into a soulless husk has made a consensus of her vision. There simply aren’t enough good people left in Labour to turn that around. And if I’m right, there will be no electoral vehicle for class politics until we have democratic reform.
Thanks,
You claim: “Anthony complains that £70,000 from JRCT is not enough to do what Power 2010 really could do, but that this is all they can get so they must get on with it.” I have never said anything of the sort. a) I have no complaints about JRCT’s generosity to the various causes it supports, including OurKingdom. b) I have no idea what they grant to Power 2010, which I am not a part of – I back what it is doing from outside. Therefore I cannot have made such a complaint. Therefore please delete this assertion from the blog.
kind of you to say “the likes of Guy and Anthony are bad people. They are well-meaning; their heart is in the right place; they sincerely believe that the surface change they seek will benefit everyone in the long run.” Better than DS saying “fuck you”. And on your own blog!
I presume Paul meant to type “the likes of Guy and Anthony *aren’t* bad people…” etc. I, on the other hand, genuinely did mean “fuck you” after your (badly argued) whiny maggot impersonation.
It looks like Anthony’s comment has really got you rattled, Dave.
I’ve avoided getting involved in the discussion on this blog (despite, like Anthony, being misquoted and misrepresented) because others have already pointed out very patiently where Dave is wrong and I don’t like getting involved in abusive swearing matches on blogs where no one listens.
It’s hypocritical of you as well, Dave, given you demanded that a sweary comment by Denim Justice directed at you be deleted from Liberal Conspiracy.
I’m tempted to conclude that you can dish it out but can’t take it.
*shrugs* If that were the case, why wouldn’t I simply delete your comment?
You’re the one indulging in personal attacks, calling me a hypocrite. The closest I’ve come is to make fun of Anthony’s rather pompous comment about the difficulty of his job, or to reply in kind to a couple of rather smug remarks by James (Edit: at least, before this new series of replies, particularly Anthony’s drawing of attention to ‘f*ck you’ comment).
It occurs to me, though, that the three of you (Anthony, James and yourself) have spent as much time telling me how I’m waffling and how previous posters have answered my points etc etc as you have addressing the issues. But whatever floats your boat.
Incidentally, “abusive swearing matches”? I said “fuck you” twice (now thrice) – hardly a swearing match, and, in my view, fully called for based on Anthony’s rather dimissive second reply.
Alright, alright, enough of his handbag flinging. I didn’t see Anthony make that point about JRRT money either – so I think it needs to be substantiated.
I think this is a much stronger criticism than the one Dave made earlier, and in this case I think we’re getting somewhere.
Though I feel Salman has made some good points ahead of me (I’m not a fan of Galloway though, and I’m open to persuasion on Salma Yaqoob, who’s style I like but who’s party I can’t stand). The attack on the Third Estate Blog was an attack on the JRRT and its quite easy to throw similar accusations at the Labour Party (many do).
—————-
On to the post:
The efforts of the Fabians and the Keynesians were indeed praiseworthy, but they did not cause what happened; they wrote about it and codified the concessions.
I think it’s more than that. Both Keynes and the Fabians gave intellectual cover and political gravitas to the reforms, and that cannot be discounted. Keynes did a ton of research and he made arguments forcefully that won the battle of ideas and led to his policies being implemented. To dismiss so easily is folly for reasons I’ll come to below.
——-
By contrast, the kind of reforms that the proponents of Power 2010 have not brought material benefit to labour, in terms of living and working conditions, through concessions from capital.
Not necessarily. As Salman points out above, in many cases electoral reform can also bring about increased political participation that can push through more change.
———–
The Tories commitment to liberty is shown up by their opposition to the most important liberties, including freedom of movement (immigration), freedom to organise politically (trade union legislation as one small part of that) and freedom to control your own body (abortion).
I didn’t see this before and I think that is a very powerful argument. I’ll certainly adopt it and say that I’ve always been favour of all three. And I’d say most lefties there were too.
Though I agree that the framing of the debate should be re-examined.
———-
For me and Dave, the liberal, metropolitan elite which soaks up human and financial resources in the name of civil liberties and ‘reform’ are, in part, responsible for the fact that since the second world war there have been no further major material advances for labour, and why over the last 30 years capital has got away with rolling back many of the concessions that labour had extracted.
Here is where I have the most substantive disagreement.
Major reasons why capital has won the battle over labour is because:
- capital has been better organised
- capital has made intellectually stronger arguments that have sometimes been proved through evidence
- capital has been better at making its case to the public in arguments that have proved more persuasive (Dave Osler wrote about this a while back, asking how Marxists would persuade people to give up their iPods which were the fruits of capitalism).
- labour has found it difficult to articulate the big projects it wants and why. The environmentalism movement has been one of the few that has done well over the last 30 years I’d say because it has done this better.
- in fact my list is long. But I make these arguments all the time: that essentially labour has run out of steam for the time being. You can’t just keep telling people to read Marx: the solutions have to come in new ways and in new contexts.
——–
History is on Dave’s and my side, if history is done properly. It is strange, then, that the liberal elite of the type Dave engages with at TCF is always so keen to suggest that our version of how to be leftwing is so ‘unrealistic’, and unlikely to achieve anything soon.
But you just admitted Capital has won the battles over the last 30 years? Longer term history may be on your side but the recent trends don’t bode well. And you’re not pushing back the tide either, well.
It may not be ‘unrealistic’ in that sense. I’m happy for people to push the boat out in any coalition. What annoys me is when people expect that the change can come without preparing the ground and shifting it in your direction first.
———–
We both know that the resources of the type that Guy and Anthony and James and David – talented and committed all – could bring, and of the type that the Joseph Rowntrees Trusts could provide, could do so, so much more to effect real material change.
Hey, I can quite easily turn around and say that in-fact, if people gave me the money I could put it to way better use, especially when it comes to online media.
But I don’t see these arguments as holding any value.
———-
Dave is angry because he knows that at least one generation – the one I belong to – has let his generation down by allowing itself to be taken in by cosy notions of liberal change
No no no. this is the height of delusion. There are plenty of hardcore lefties out there. There are plenty of SWPers out there who are still very radical. On the left, ‘liberal change’ is still a small-scale activity.
Your problem is that people have changed. Militancy is no longer as popular as it used to be. Today’s left is also incapable of articulating its demands in a populist and easy way. The few that do (Compass) get attacked on this blog too for not being radical enough.
In other words the lefties are radical, but their problem is they can’t persuade anyone outside their small gang to be equally radical. The liberal-left on the other hand is better able to articulate arguments and muster resources.
Obama is a good example. His foot-soldiers may have been the unions knocking doors in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but his money came from liberal-lefties. They are the ones who helped him put out foot-soldiers, build a massive technological infrastructure and win the election.
If your view is that the liberal-left is the enemy because its not as radical as the hard-left, then I’m afraid you’ve already alienated your natural allies, and pushed yourself into an even smaller coalition. That will ensure even further marginalisation of the labour project, not its eventual victory. And history has shown that.
The trick, in my view, is to build an effective coalition of the socialist left and the liberal-left, and inject a bit of revolutionary fervour in the liberals and a bit of pragmatism in the socialists.
And then construct arguments and plans that satisfy both and keep pushing the country left-wards.
Sunny, I’m sure that Paul will substantiate or retract his comment next time he checks in.
For the rest of your comments, I’ll be back either late this evening or tomorrow to answer them and no doubt Paul will have something sooner than that.
Blimey
Do you people never go to bed? What’s wrong with you all?
Anyway, thanks for comments. It still feels a little strange for people to read my stuff all the way through.
I’ve not time to get through all comments at this quick sitting, so I’ll start with Anthony and the Joseph Rowntree money as that seems to be an impediment to going forward.
Anhonh @2 then: I’m happy in the first instance to change the wording to something like ‘expressing the need for more money than is currently made availabe’, taking out the Rowntree reference.
Perhaps though, I should explain where I got the 70k from and seek clarification from you on why you find this a bit of the piece you want me to delete, rather than simply be corrected on.
The 70k I identify (and I accept that you don’t mention it in your own comments, and that I’m extrapolating) is shown under the ‘grants paid’ bit of the JRCT (not JRRT) website for July 2009. I can’t remember exactly how it is described, but I had assumed from the context that it was a grant for the Power 2010 project. I don’t kno what other grant monies you may have had from JRF, or whatever, so I simply used this as an example because I wanted to give readers a general feel for the scale of the funding made available.
If this 70k is not for the Power 2010 project, I do of course apologise wholeheartedly for not having done the research solidly enough.
If it is for the 2010 project, I think it’s worth stressing that I quoted it in order to draw out the very real opportunity costs associated with supporting an endeavour like this.
Of course I’d like to have a discussion with the staff and trustees of JRCT about why they make the decisions they do about their money, the kind ‘change they want to see’ (to borrow Sunny’s phrase), the extent to which they have thought this out in the context of some of the really very good JRF research focused on material disadvantage and how complementary they seek to make the two Trusts’ actions. However, it seems to me (and I have tried, via my own funding approaches) that they are not particularly open to such discussion (and this is reflected in a very stand-alone position amongst other charitable funders, I would argue). This, while it is only a minor point in my attempt at ‘grand narrative’, I thought it was worth trying to draw out. If I have failed to do so totally accurately, I again apologise.
In your turn, Anthony, perhaps you would set out why you felt such offence at my interpretation? Was it that you feel you can’t run the risk of even being seen to be ungrateful to JRCT /the Trusts (a position I would understand), or is it simply the fact that I inserted the 70k figure as an example of what I thought you meant?
As I’ve said, I wouldn’t want this (for me) relatively small point to get in the way of the main debate, but having said that I think the whole opportunity cost argument, to which this refers, is at the core of that debate (and I’ll come back to that in my response to Salman about his view that Labour is dead as a militant/progressive force, because again I think that’s an opportunity cost issue worth arguing out).
More later – probably tonight, realistically.
Oh, the are/are’t thing was just a typo, I assume. I’ll correct now.
Paul – thanks for your response and the change but it is still misleading. There is also an important issue here about philanthropy, resources, funding change etc, and a big US debate on this (see Mike Edwards in oD). But for now I’d just like to get the record straight. You have changed what you say to: “Anthony suggests that that there are not enough resources to run Power 2010 as he would wish, but that this is all they can get so they must get on with it.” Briefly: I have made no suggestion of any kind about Power 2010’s funding. If you want to know, personally I think Power 2010 seems well resourced from what I can make out. But I have never commented on it, nor expressed any “wish” about it, you have put words into my mouth which do not belong there. Therefore I would like you to remove any suggestion that I made them.
You ask: “In your turn, Anthony, perhaps you would set out why you felt such offence at my interpretation? Was it that you feel you can’t run the risk of even being seen to be ungrateful to JRCT /the Trusts (a position I would understand), or is it simply the fact that I inserted the 70k figure as an example of what I thought you meant?”
First, I have no idea what your £70K figure refers to if you don’t. Second, the JRCT is an active supporter of OurKingdom. Can I “run the risk of even being seen to be ungrateful” in these circumstances, as you put it? You bet I can. It’s exactly the kind of risk I like. But it is a risk that I will take for myself. Not one that you should undertake on my behalf with no evidence.
My basic view is that I think this country needs more funders like the JRCT and the JRRT and the JRF. We would be in a hugely worse place without them. At least in the US there is an ecology of progressive funders, here we are far too dependent on Rowntrees. Given this I think they do a great job and if there is a problem is with the people they fund, who all too often don’t deliver well enough. ‘Never blame funders’ is one of my mottos. If you want a democratic revolution (let alone a social and economic revolution) don’t go around _expecting_ support from above! The most important thing is to get public support and interest – even from a few thousand people.
I’ve just posted the following to the comments thread of the third estate, but it is relevent to the debate currently going on here, so I’ll post it here too:
I’d say I was sympathetic to Power2010, its way of operating appeals, if by change to democracy means more representation, and more participation. I reserve these sentiments to my social-democratic alter-ego. And if we want DEMOCRACY NOW!, or at least a social democracy now, these are the measures we have to prepare (at this stage I wondered what it was I had said to be included in the list of people Salmon mentioned in this posthttp://thethirdestate.net/2009/11/if-i-ruled-the-world-my-idea-for-power2010/ , is it *how* I perceive democracy, or how I suggest we *achieve* democracy, more of which I will now detail).
I use the terms social-democratic alter-ego seriously, as apprehension of a possible disagreement with Dave Semple, who’d spent some time debating me on his comments thread re: Jon Cruddas. The possible disagreement does not emenate from that debate, but it has gone some way into informing it, namely the nature of transition. I don’t believe we have any major disagreements on how we approach the Labour party, I imagine that we are both socialists with entryist tendencies. I’m sure that any differences we have on the end product, or rather the End, is not enough to warrant a particularly huge falling out at this stage. But as to whether he sees social democracy as a benefit to the transition phase may be the point of departure.
I feel that every Marxist should have a social-democratic alter-ego for the purposes of the transition phase, for I take a stand at the quasi-Leninist position of inequality and capitalism being the impetus needed for social revolution. Having said this, Lenin himself should not be held accountable (even if the legend is untrue that he ever posited such a thing. As an aside, I take very seriously this notion that the concept needn’t have a concrete referent in order to exist, for example, God, whether such a thing exists or not, has an affect on the doings of the world, even if this takes the form of an unshaking christian legacy), for the pursuits of late capitalist protest have engendered what I mean. Allow me to explain what I mean.
Take for example Naomi Klein’s book No Logo, Nick Cohen repeats in his book What’s Left that even Hollywood is anti-capitalist in the sense that it promotes Klein, Moore, Pilger and all the other half-arsed stuff. But anyone with a little bit of sense can see the problem here. When Starbucks for example went fair trade, raised wages, took it upon themselves to address workers rights this was a victory for Klein, this was a victory for the no logoers.
But it was not necessarily a victory for socialism, as time spent in socialist groups in universities, who spend much time sticking boycott coca cola stickers to drinks machines, will seem to contradict. We seem to have only succeeded in making capitalism better, we now more Soros’, Turners’ and Gates’. This has not changed the logic of capital itself, and as much as this hurts to say, starbucks do not decide the logic of capital, so to choose to be antagonistic towards them, or Cocoa cola, or macdonalds, only seems to contribute to the logic of capital, which is not damaged by using recyclable cups, going fair trade, paying its workers a quid more.
Where this looks like a criticism of certain brands, it’s not. My point here is this, our social-democratic alter-ego should allow for these shifts in ethics, for better conditions are better than worse conditions. And if you, like me, are convinced that the logic of capital is abhorrent, you will not be phased by the efforts to change democracy from within the parameters we have.
I argued elsewhere that revolution cannot exist in the capitalist framework, the socialistic end of history cannot exist where capitalism is the international economic hegemon, thus proving my anti-Stalinist tendencies, so the framework must be changed. This is a long-term project. So to want democracy now, must entail that alter-ego, a temporary transitional phase. But to view your End as a no logoer, that is detrimental to the project, and capitalism is the only benefactor, because lets not forget the main scope of the capitalist project, to nip in the bud ones pursuit of change, if the logic of capital detects a change that doesn’t assault the existing logic of capital, consider the job done. Consider the green revolution, fair trade, even to some extent unionisation. These don’t end capitalism, they demand that capitalism allow for it. And my social-democratic alter-ego likes green, likes fair trade, likes unions, but my Marxism constantly reminds me that these are transitional phases, not Ends.
If you’ve got this far, apologies, this had no structure and was all written inside the small text box so I couldn’t properly check for paragraphing and so on. Plus its my lunch-hour, so I’m not fussed, but I am hungry.
My conclusion is power2010 might be good for ideas, pariticpation methods, and for this I am happy to agree and follow its development. But until the logic of capital is challenged, power will be concentrated to and determined by capitalism.
I am interested in the different ideas of how to achieve change from this discussion.
The root of the disagreement appears to be about whether there is one correct way to campaign for change (Paul’n'Dave’s argument) or many different ways (Sunny’s).
There is a related question about whether the specific route chosen by Power2010 is (a) likely to be effective in achieving its specific aims and (b) effective in assisting with wider aims.
Personally, I don’t think there is one correct way to campaign for change, for two reasons:
1. There isn’t any single campaigning technique or approach which is currently proving itself to be overwhelmingly effective.
2. Different people have different strengths, some are better suited to “insider” campaigning, others to community organising. (It’s like how the best political campaigns don’t simply require people to spend all their time knocking on doors and delivering leaflets, but have a variety of opportunities to volunteer in different ways).
That said, I think that too many of the resources available to us are put into “insider” campaigns (think tanks and lobby groups) and not enough into grassroots community organising.
On the second question – whether or not Power2010 will be effective – I think that depends on how they are getting contributions, how the process for choosing the top 5 will work, and what their strategy is to make it in decision-makers’ self interest to sign up.
I’m not a fish Carl
Oh Salman I’m so sorry, of course you’re not a fish I apologise. But if you were a fish you’d be a rainbow trout, bright, full of meidicinal sperm, and made of skittles
Full of medicinal sperm? Well that’s something to tell the girls I suppose…
i like what Don p Carl have said above
what bit did you like Sunny, the social-democratic alter-ego bit, or me saying Salman has medicinal sperm?
Carl, I did have possibly the funniest, wittiest reply known to man, but it seems to have been deleted. I’m guessing humour, unlike telling people to ‘fuck off’, is banned on the left. Not my blog, not my rules, and I’m getting seriously off topic here anyway, but it is a point I’ve often considered. Dour leftist puritanism is one of the reasons socialism just isn’t cool anymore.
Although now it seems to be back, so it could just have been my computer being an arse, in which case I apologise for venting several years of pent up frustration on this blog. I’ll shut up now.
Well I didn’t see comment 15 before my reply to Sunny, maybe Paul and Dave hate sperm? Incidentally I did feel the ‘fuck off’ was a little rude, shows limited vocab my ol’ pa would say. I once saw Leon Greenman, holocaust survivor, give a talk in Basildon. It was chaired by a local Labour MP, who, when giving her 10 min bit, was told to fuck off by a gang of local anarchists. They lost that argument before it started.
Right, where were we now? I’ll post responses one by one to try to keep some semblance of order in my head.
Anthony @2: my sincere apologies. It’s taken me two goes, in a more haste-less speed manner, but I’ve now discovered it wasn’t you who referred to limited time and resources for Power 2010 (which I now recognise you are not formally connected with); it was in fact James who said this @3 in the comments on Dave Semple’s post (and Sunny made briefer reference to resource limits @1 on the same post). James did not make specific reference to JRCT funding, but I have already defended my reference to that above, and I maintain that that is justified in relation to my ‘opportunity costs’ argument which I’ll bring forth again in responses to follow.
I hope you’ll accept that no offence was intended and that the slip was merely a result of reading all the comments at one go and trying to digest who said what as quickly as I could. I’ve changed the post accordingly.
On your general support for the Rowntree funding approach, I’ll pick this up as part of my response to Salman on the opportunity cost theme, if that’s ok.
By the way, I didn’t actually know what Ourkingdom was until I googled it. I think as a tangent to this debate there’s the question of whether that’s because of my narrowness of mind, or the project’s limited appeal/reach to people like me. Or both?
Salman
Thanks for this.
On your explanation of your comment at your place….ah, I see now. I’m just too dim-witted to get it first time round but I see what your point was now.
Perhaps I was a bit too elliptic in my own comment (a little bit scathing about Rowntree funding), but it was a quickie from the hip. Heh ho.
On your more substantive points, I think our main area of disagreement is around your view that there aren’t enough good people left in Labour left to take forward class-based politics, and that the only recourse is to try and get PR adopted so we can wangle a few socialists in.
First, I don’t buy the notion that the Labour party is a hopeless case incapable of a proper and effective swing to the left; it may look like that if all that is seen is the parliamentary party, but there remains a whole infrastruture behind that which is still mouch more robust than anything else the left has to offer at the moment. I’m no Labour tribalist saying that – I only joined the party 9 years ago in my late thirties – I simply think that what evidence there is (and Dave Semple has rightly suggested elsewhere that a stronger evidence base is needed)suggests that there is still a good deal of potential.
Turn back the clock 30 years and what you are saying is precisely what people said about the Labour party then, but it underwent a transformation (not all for the better, certainly) in the 1980s. I could pull out quote after quote after quote from books written back then which talk about the death of the Labour party and all its values.
I’m not saying that this will always be the case – there may be a tipping point to terminal decline – but it’s not now (though I accept in certain parts of the country e.g. the South West, it may be in bigger danger).
With this as background, we come back to the main point – now is not the time for leftwingers to be devoting limited resources and engergies to battles which are only in the end about peripheral freedoms. Establishing PR just so I can hear Salma Yaqoob (about whom I have no opinion at all) in parliament might be a victory of sorts, but it’s not a key victory.
Again and again, I’ll come back to it. I’m not particularly against any of the limited reforms that Power 2010 seeks, but they are not the real deal, and the resources devoted to that kind of struggle would be much better used elsewhere.
Nor am I suggesting that what I’ve described as this type of ‘liberal elite’ project is the main waste of resource – the main waste is the waste within the Labour party , other parties of the left, and within compliant trade unionism. But it is a waste, and when Sunny says (I think somewhere, to Dave) that we shouldn’t be fussed about it because it’s no skin off our nose, I think that’s wrong. No-one plans a business without at least some implicit assessment of opportunity costs, and there’s no reason a political struggle should be planned/enacted without such assessment.
Guy @4:
I think your main point here is with Dave Semple, and his combative attitude to the comments streams.
Dave doesn’t need my slow-witted help to defend himself, but I have in any event in the main post sought to set out a little a) why Dave and I, perhaps a bit of an ‘odd couple’ at first sight, blog together b) why I defend Dave’s right to get really angry and sweary from time to time while often being a little bit more restrained myself; I’m part of the generation of the left that buggered things up for Dave, and while I’m sad to see some of the history of the left of the 1980s about to be repeated unless we get our act together quite quickly, it is quite understandable that Dave gets angry at the waste.
Sunny @5
As ever, Sunny, while we may disagree on stuff, I’m grateful to you for the time and energy you devote to arguing it out at TCF, and I’m heartened that you think we might be making at least some progress.
On your points:
Yes, I acknowledge that talking of Keynes and the Webbs simply ‘codifying’ the change was a little bit extreme, and a rhetorical device to force the point.
I also appreciate full well the importance of the ideational in creating change – indeed I’m doing a post at the moment about how the broad idea of ‘hospitality’ has been so important to the development of a relatively civilised immigration policy in Spain, as opposed to the policy in the Uk which is the discursive product of racism (and empire?).
And we could talk till the cows come hime – indeed sociologist and political theorists do so – about the relative importance of and relationship between agency/structure/ideas. My point though is that the project of the Power 2010 type has no real ‘material’ within that relationship, or least none which is in the interests of the working class.
My response to your claim that increase political participation can result from electoral reform is the one you would expect. So? What good is the increased opportunity to get someone else voted in if that doesn’t end up having a material effect on power relations between capital and labour (see Carl’s comments further down). There’s simply no evidence that devoting energy to getting George Galloway or Salma Yaqoob a seat in parliament, or whatever, will lead to people having better working conditions, and it doesn’t seem very likely to me that there is a causal link. As such, and as ever, it’s therefore a waste of resource to struggle for that to the exclusion of other more important (extra-parliamentary) change.
I’m glad you liked Tim F’s powerful and concise statement on freedom. I treasure it.
I’m not disputing that capital has made the more powerful arguments, with a worldwide media developed to make its case. Bit I can’t see why the fact that capital has become more powerful over the last 30 years because labour has not got its act together should be an argument for labour just abandoning the cause and leaving the poor to their lot. Surely the argument should be that we screwed up for a generation and that it’s now time to get it right.
I’m sorry, Sunny – i have a major problem with your casual ontological assertion that ‘people have changed’. We could go back to the structure/agency thing, but let’s not. All I’ll say is that the empirical evidence of the willingness of people to be militant in what the consider a just cause is all around us. To suggest people are less desirous of major material change is just a cop out.
I accept that people like me need to make a stronger more coherent case for the militancy to which I aspire, plus set up the organisational structures (within and around Labour for that case to be enacted) and that is precisely what i’m seeking to develop. I also know full well, and you know that I know, that such work is not done by reading out Marx to people (we have talked about this around the left new media idea), and I think to put your argument in such a way is maybe a little bit too sardonic, though you’d already written loads so I’ll let you off.
I’ll pick that up in my next and pending monster post on Labour Party organisation and the left, aimed fair and sqaure at the LRC plus anyone else who wants to get to the nitty gritty.
“First, I don’t buy the notion that the Labour party is a hopeless case incapable of a proper and effective swing to the left; it may look like that if all that is seen is the parliamentary party”
- The parliamentary party is the only thing that’s going to make a real material impact in terms of relations of production, civil liberties, human rights, economic structure, foreign policy. At the end of the day, it’s what counts. It’s what crowned Gordon Brown and it’s what prevented John McDonnell from ever having a chance to turn things around. It’s filled with spineless, supine, obsequious New Labourite careerists.
“but there remains a whole infrastruture behind that which is still mouch more robust than anything else the left has to offer at the moment.”
- Then my answer to you is simple: just do it. The country’s been waiting twelve years for you to turn things around. But the infrastructure is still selecting those same spineless, supine, obsequious New Labourite careerists at each election. Brown’s on his way out and who’s the favourite to replace him? David Miliband. If you think you can make a difference, by all means try, I’ll support you from a safe distance, but we’re sick of waiting. If PR can deliver the mechanism necessary to see real socialists in parliament, then I think that’s a battle worth fighting. What’s more, the rise of smaller left parties may, in the end, be the only thing capable of giving Labour the kick up the arse it needs to come round to your way of thinking. People deserve a choice and they deserve a better one than being shot in the head by the Tories or shot in the foot by Labour.
Carl @11
Thanks for this. Yes, I understand where you’re coming from with the alter-ego notion. I kind of ’sense’ the compromises I make on a daily basis
I prefer, myself, to try to get away from the usual ‘are you a revoltionary or are you a reformer? ‘ distinction, because I don’t think it helps me think things through straight.
In the end, effective and material change will onyl be brought about by a challenge to capital that either scares it into temporary submission (reform) or makes them come out and fight (revolution). For labour, it’s the same tactics for starters, and it’s not really in our gift to know where it’ll end up, though as someone who’d prefer their any revolution to come with tasteful soft furnsishing and cocoa at the end of it all, I know how I’d like it too.
Not classicly Marxist, I know, but I’m not a Marxist, or at least I don’t think so. I’m a wishy washy neo-Kantian/Arendtian (On Violence) if anything, though that reminds me I must answer Dave’s post on ‘reason’ (and refer to the Confucian ‘dao’).
Salman @25:
One of the reasons I’m so slow getting back to comments is that I try to focus on ‘just doing it’ as much as I can. I’m not the only one ‘just doing it’, thankfully.
Yes, you’ve been waiting 12 years. Fair enough, and the ball is in my/our court. Accepted.
I disagree somewhat re: parliamentary importance – I’ll pick that up later.
I agree re: other small left parties and part of the ‘just doing it’has to be for the Labour left to develop a more humble relationship with some of them, and to push that accommodation with them through at infrastructural/rule book level.
And in passing (as rehearsal for another post, what the Labour left must not do (as it did in the 1980s) is rest on the its laurels after the early easy enough intra-party and localised (incl local govt) successes to come.
But I digress – back to ‘just doing it….’
Thanks Paul for your careful response. I accept no offense intended and it was a slip. But as you now agree I didn’t suggest anything about Power2010’s resources, can you please remove this from your original post.
I am sad but not surprised you had not registered OurKingdom. We need better marketing for sure. But also, your interest is as you describe focused on reviving a narrow, traditional notion of ‘the left’ whilst OK is about a debate on the future of the UK as a whole. We work hard to have contributions from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, for example, and even the way London is policed (which is equally not part of the Westminster story – there is a big difference between SW1 and London as a whole) and encourage engagement with the arguments for an English Parliament, another non-elite, non-Westminster theme, which I suspect you may regard as a distraction. Anyway, you have heard of OurKingdom now!
May I add a PS, as your approach is thoughtful. Can you really believe that “History is on Dave’s and my side, if history is done properly”. It is teleological enough to claim that you know enough to be on the side of history. But that history should be on YOUR side, is a touch much. More worrying is the suggestion “if history is done properly”. Who does the doing? Who decides what is “proper”? Isn’t it contradictory, I mean doesn’t it give the game away to claim that history itself has a side, which means a direction, the whole of history no less, but then, oh dear, provided it is “done” by someone or something who knows what is proper. But why isn’t this someone or thing part of history? And if they are not, if they are outside history and history depends on their behaving “properly”, then surely history does not have an already determined direction of “side”. Just a small query. And thanks for the constructive tone of your reply.
Paul I don’t doubt you’re doing as much as you can. As I said, I have a lot of respect for you and the old Labourites like you. But my point is, twelve years is too long to run on faith alone. We need to start seeing changes now. Labour is heading for a spell in opposition. And while the Tories are busy wrecking the country, the shape of that opposition will be crucial. If John McDonnell or someone like him becomes the leader and tries to turn the party’s fortunes around by reconnecting with its roots, then there’s a chance. But if, as is predicted, David Miliband or any other Blairite clone takes the helm, then what? Where’s the line? How far’s too far?
Anthony
That phraseology was really just a a bit of throwaway rhetoric designed to avoid picking all the epistemological complexities of historical intepretation, because the piece was already getting longer than I had intended.
What it alludes to, but glosses over in the interests of relative brevity, is the need challenge a narrow dominant narrative of 20th centruy history which places elite agents like Keynes at the heart and relegates the importance of the mass movements which created the environment for him to do his great work (cf Skidelki’s homily). It’s an attempt to be EP Thompson in one sentence, which ain’t easy, I accept. The ‘properly’ is therefore a bit tongue in cheek.
Well spotted, though.
Salman
Amused to see myself described an an ‘old Labourite’. I don’t think of myself as anything of the sort – old, yes, but I don’t seek a return to ‘old Labour’ traditions in their post-war up to 1979 sense (which is their usual one). I aspire to the more radical ILP tradition fused with the more sensible bits of the 1980s New Urban Left, some post-modern insight thrown in, and with a bit of Habermasian communicative logic stirred in to the mix or good measure (oh, and a touch of Arendtian ‘On Violence). I call it Labour’s Fifth Tradition – not sure if it’ll catch on.
The phenomena of violence produces/is the impetus with which to exceed and take over power, I’m not sure if such a thing was ever in the Labour party’s vocabulary, pre- or post-1979, I like it though. Violence as the will to power, I’ve argued before, with reference to Arendt, that violence as a path to the political absolute is essentially socialism’s christian heritage, demythologised, obviously. If you’re interested that is here [http://zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs/article/view/160/266]
“Guy and Anthony and David and James may be very decent, honourable, capable people – I’ve no reason to doubt that – but if they are serious about liberty they should abandon their cosy world of cosy, media-friendly but ultimately insignificant change.”
This is a well-argued and detailed argument, even if I disagree fundamental on some points of analysis (which unfortunately there isn’t time to go into in depth).
What I would like to address is this paragraph — I do think you’re slightly misrepresenting my position into something considerably more pigeon-holed than it is. I too, to a certain extent, am in favour of more fundamental changes to the status quo that you outline, particularly in education, which I wish to see taken away from the current public/private divide to an even less profit-driven or centrally interfered with line — I recommend analysing the Swedish system (that is, the way it actually works, rather than the way the Conservatives are wont to claim it works).
I’m also in favour of limiting ownership of the media to a larger degree, and other ways of incentivising diversity in the media such as through start-up funds for smaller media outlets and extending free online content in the mainstream media (which looks set to decrease).
The difference is that I still think reforms that the cosy, friendly liberal elite do believe in are sometimes very important, too. Top of the list is electoral and constitutional reform, which I think is incredibly important if only as a means of giving mass movements better ways to influence the political elite. And I don’t think that the only reform that is fundamentally important is that which changes the balance of power between Labour and Capital, though I suspect this is a point of departure. Don’t get me wrong, I think this is a very important point of analysis, but there are other concerns to citizens, such as their civil relationship to government. Sometimes these concerns go beyond the ordinary boundaries — the current debacle regarding the copyright debate is evidence of that, where the interests of businesses and, indeed, labour are genuinely divided, and the concern is more relevant to fundamental liberty than simple market freedom or workers rights.
So like Sunny, I’m happy to support your ‘fundamental’ reforms if I believe that they are right, and transform our way of life into something better. Equally, I’m happy to support reforms of the cosy liberal elite, so long as I believe that they improve life in the United Kingdom. And I don’t see why we should seek to separate support for more minor reforms from support for major ones — segregation of pressure for reform cannot have any good consequences.
Incidentally, I do sometimes think that a big issue with the immigration debate, and liberty, is that it gets bogged down in a “free borders vs. controlled immigration” area, which simplifies it and is not at all constructive. For example, there is a huge argument waiting to be had, but that hardly even gets mentioned, as to how exactly, if immigration is to be controlled, if it is, by government. Should it be done on the country’s economic interests, a la points system, or on the basis of some ideal of equity in the treatment of those who wish to enter — taking into account their needs as well as ours? Though the debate about freedom of movement is very important, the detail of how governments control immigration as well as whether they do so is just as important, to me at least.
“Amused to see myself described an an ‘old Labourite’. I don’t think of myself as anything of the sort – old, yes, but I don’t seek a return to ‘old Labour’ traditions in their post-war up to 1979 sense (which is their usual one). I aspire to the more radical ILP tradition fused with the more sensible bits of the 1980s New Urban Left, some post-modern insight thrown in, and with a bit of Habermasian communicative logic stirred in to the mix or good measure (oh, and a touch of Arendtian ‘On Violence). I call it Labour’s Fifth Tradition – not sure if it’ll catch on.”
Well I wish you luck and I wish I didn’t have to say you’re gonna need it. The Labour Party had expelled its genuine revolutionary socialists even before they had their first MP elected.
You mean apart from the Communist Party members who were Labour MPs? Or Dave Nellist and Terry Fields, who were Militant Tendency members, a Trotskyist revolutionary group, whilst sitting in Parliament?
As well as Nellist and Fields, Dave and Salman, it was relatively recently that members of the Socialist Appeal, Ted Grant, Alan Woods and the like, were expelled from the Labour party. They are entryist (thus Trots) and revolutionary socialists, whilst also being avowed supporters of the Labour movement, which in this country means the Labour party.
I was merely dwelling on the revolutionary MPs.
But Trotskyism is not by nature entryist, nor is entryism by nature Trotskyist, so I’m not sure what your second sentence was getting at.
I was going back a bit further than Nellist, even though Militant were eventually expelled themselves. Of course there have been revolutionary socialists in the Labour party. But the decision taken in its founding years to exclude the hard left was a clear indication that Labour has never been anything other than a left social-democratic party whose socialist fringes have waxed and waned. Of course there’s a place for social democracy, I’d hate to see this country without it and the current debacle over health reform in America is the best reason why, but I don’t think we should be under any illusions that come the glorious day, it will be Labour breaking the shackles of the world’s workers.
Dave, entryism itself is simply a way of entering into an organisation with intent to infiltrate, recruit etc, and obviously is not limited to Trots. In fact there is an element to which Lenin’s Left Wing Communism is entryist, re the social-democratic unions (if my memory serves me correctly, it’s easily been 10 years since I’ve read that). Anyway, when talking about far left entryism into the party of the labour movement, we usually appeal to Trotsky’s French Turn [http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/entry-tactic]
‘I don’t think we should be under any illusions that come the glorious day, it will be Labour breaking the shackles of the world’s workers’
I see what you’re saying Salman, but take something that Mark Fischer said, when he gave a lecture on Marxism recently at Eton said ‘I assured the audience that the whole point of Marxists’ identification with the working class was its universalism.’ [http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/792/culturefit.php] The very reason British marxists should remain tied to the Labour party, and not join fringe yoke like SWP, or any of the other Trot splits, is because the party is historically linked to the Labour movement, and is henceforth the site of working class universalism. New Labour neo-liberalism is its inappropriate thorn, those careerists should not be vindicated by socialists jumping ship. If the socialist fringes have waxed and waned, it’s high time for us on the far left of the Labour party to pull our weight, uncover our social-democratic alter-ego (do warn me if I start using this term too often btw).
The who point of Marxist identification with the working class is indeed its universalism – but that’s got nothing to do with the Labour Party.
There is a qualitative difference between a Labour Party, however bourgeois, that at least professes to support the working class and will enact social democratic measures accordingly, and what Labour is today. Thus I would argue, if Labour can still claim to be the dominant site of working class activism (which is doubtful), that it is vestigial and in the process of being removed entirely rather than following a cycle of waxing and waning.
Seeing such a cycle through the history of Labour is to simplify things to a useless determinism.
Carl, Reuben’s quoted that argument to me over and over and I can never buy it. No left-wing political party deserves the right to be unchallenged – no matter what constituency it claims to represent – if that party is not the right vehicle for change. I just can’t accept that because the Labour party was once the locus for progressive working class political activity that it should always be, regardless of its leadership and its policies. That smacks too much of blind faith. It’s precisely this kind of thinking which has allowed New Labour to get away with so much. They’re not a transient thorn. They made a calculated, and very correct decision, that they can afford a sharp move to the middle ground because their core will support them no matter what. As long as they believe they can get away with that, New Labour will remain entrenched.
The workers of Venezuela once owed their loyalty to the social democratic AD party. Indeed their largest trade union remains linked it it. But AD was not the right vehicle for a country that desperately needed change. That’s why Chavez has won their support, without any reliance on historical links or organisation, because he is the right vehicle and the right voice. Parties cannot just be viewed in terms of their history. A week’s a long time in politics and a decade’s even longer. We have to look at their policies here and now and make informed decisions about the change they are likely to bring. Otherwise we’re betraying our own principles, all in the name of some ideological committment to a homogenous, united, organised, class-conscious working class of the last century that thanks to Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown, no longer exists.
Interesting extension to the discussion, comrades.
I tend to side with Salman and Dave (against Carl and it would appear Reuben) if the latter are claiming some kind (whatecver kind) of ongoing right of the Labour party and its activists to identify themselves as having THE link in perpuity to to the working class.
Where I differ from Dave and Salman is that, for the moment, i think there is more opportunity to (re)establish that link productively than there is via other organisational routes. Not necessarily everywhere, but in many places.
Dave is right (from another post) that my evidence base for claiming this is relatively week (though some stuff fomr Syed and Whiteley from 2002 I’m waiting for at the moment may go some way to filling that gap (or disproving what I have to say) but even so I think it’s valid enough to set out a proposition on the basis of my (admittedly) regional experience.
Alongside this, I’d argue with Salman, for example, that it is insufficient to argue that the LP is no longer in a position to unite with the working class without also seeking to set out what the alternative organisational structure are, either locally to him or at a national level, or both (I accept of course that his whole life does not happebn ‘on blog’ just as mine doesn’t, and that he may be doing this); certainly I know, though, that this is what Dave is exploring actively in his local area.
The outcome of NOT exploring class-focused organisational structures but at the same time dismissing the validity of LP without, I would argue, an evidence base for doing so, is a drift to the comfy, easy politics of the type that my and Dave’s complementary OPs criticised; they look efficient and they are well organised, but they have no real value (at the very least in an opp. cost frame)in terms of material benefit for the working class.
“Alongside this, I’d argue with Salman, for example, that it is insufficient to argue that the LP is no longer in a position to unite with the working class without also seeking to set out what the alternative organisational structure are”
You’re quite right. I don’t have all the answers. We all of us are facing some very bleak times. We’ve just seen the greatest progressive mass movement in modern political history followed by exactly the sort of crisis in capitalism that should have seen workers flocking to the red flag. Instead the hard left is in a shambles, Labour’s core vote is staying at home, Nick Griffin’s on Question Time and New Labour’s hegemony looks unbreakable, at least in the near future. As for me, I have to admit, I’ve been in the wilderness for a while. I was very active in Respect in its early years, but its split has left me cold to both sides.
I’m now a member of the Greens and if you’ve read my interviews on The Third Estate you’ll notice a lot of them focus on forging a Red-Green alliance and advancing the Greens as a party not just for fluffy middle class eco warriors, but the old class warriors as well. I’m very encouraged by the Green Left movement, by Peter Tatchell’s involvement and the fact that Derek Wall was the last male principal speaker. If you look at the Green party manifesto, there can be no doubt, it is an explicitly socialist party in every sense. It doesn’t matter whether it has historical ties to the trade union movement. It matters where it is going and where it can take us and I’m going to fight as hard as I can to see the first Green MPs sitting in Parliament next year.
Bringing this back to the beginning, that’s one of the main reasons I see the fight for democratic reform as a crucial political struggle. As to whether I believe far right gains are part of the price – I’m half Asian and a socialist. If the far right come to power, I’m first against the wall. They need to be fought with every last breath in every way possible. In communities, in hearts and minds, on councils, in the debating chamber, on the streets if necessary. But not by restricting democracy. As Caroline Lucas told me:
“If the BNP started winning seats under first-past-the post, would we suspend democracy to stop them getting elected? Of course not. I deplore their racism, ignorance and lies. However, I believe the best way to challenge them is to address the factors which drive individuals to vote for far right parties. If we treat the disease, the symptoms will go away.”
So basically Dave Semple and Paul Cotterill are attacking Salman, Sunny, Guy, Anthony Barnett, Power2010, CoML etc for not being left-wing enough…. when Dave and Paul are in the f****** New Labour Party? Are you kidding me?
John @46: See my comment at Salman’s article.
I’ve been away for a few days so didn’t get a chance to reply.
So here we go:
Paul C: My point though is that the project of the Power 2010 type has no real ‘material’ within that relationship, or least none which is in the interests of the working class.
First, the Labour party and the left-coalition is not just about economic issues to help the working classes. That coalition is too small now anything useful electorally. Sometimes social issues matter more and sometimes the concerns of the middle classes also have to be taken into account (or at least people who see themselves as middle class).
If you’re serious about using the Labour Party as a vehicle of change then you’d also look into the different demographics that vote for Labour and what reasons they vote Labour.
———————-
My response to your claim that increase political participation can result from electoral reform is the one you would expect. So? What good is the increased opportunity to get someone else voted in if that doesn’t end up having a material effect on power relations between capital and labour
It does – because elections are about sending clear signals to politicians and policy makers. If the electoral system forces them to shift left-wards then that has a huge impact. If lefties don’t have any alternative to Labour then the party takes their support for granted and moves right-wards.
It also, in certain constituencies, forces the party to stay on its toes and not take the local voting block for granted (as they have done in many areas and allowed the BNP to grow.
———–
Bit I can’t see why the fact that capital has become more powerful over the last 30 years because labour has not got its act together should be an argument for labour just abandoning the cause and leaving the poor to their lot. Surely the argument should be that we screwed up for a generation and that it’s now time to get it right.
I’m not saying you abandon the cause at all. I’m saying that firstly Labour has lost the battles over the last 30 years. Why? You can’t blame the media because it’s been around before. And in many ways organised labour can be more effective than the media. And the country has shifted left-wards on social issues and right-wards on economic issues.
You blaming the media is an easy way to not accept blame for labour’s failings: that they’ve not managed to build a coherent and populist agenda nor a bigger coalition on changing demographics and ways of life.
Yes you need to get it right. But the way you’re going about it now is not different to the past, and isn’t building you any coalitions is it?
———-
I’m going to have a debate about the future of the left on Libcon from tomorrow. We can then carry on.
Paul @30 – I see what you mean, history could have been, and could still be different, in a fundamental sense. I agree! But philosophically, this means history does not take sides and no outcome is inevitable. Re Keynes, in Skidelski’s new short book he The Return of the Master, he write: “democracy was never an important strand in his [Keynes's] thinking. People, he said, had the right to good government, not to self-government”. (p. 159) So that’s clear. There is no suggestion that without democracy you can’t sustain good government.