What are your priorities?
An article over at Third Estate highlights quite succinctly the essentially liberal programme for reform and defeating the reactionary agenda of whatever government is elected. That this article lacks any kind of critique of capitalism, or the ruling class programme of change which is coming to dominate our political system, is its key weakness. This is, in a nutshell, the reason for my opposition to such groups – not merely that they are not socialist, but because they are distracting from the real business of the moment.
When the author of the article declares that electoral reform must be our first priority and that everything else can wait, he is shockingly wrong. The pickets of the CWU will not wait, waiting will give the government the confidence to attack other unions – like the RMT, and so on and on breaking unions and building the scope for yet more privatisation. Building a coalition to challenge the three-party capitalist consensus will not wait, because every day we do not do so, the BNP get there first, displacing class struggle to racial struggle.
Building campaigns to unite local health service campaigners with the local government workers who are facing job cuts, wage cuts and longer hours won’t wait. Every day waited is a day’s confidence lost in the ability of socialist and labour movement activists to collectively resist the agenda of Labour, and spells utter doom in the face of the even worse Conservative agenda. Just about the only thing that will wait is electoral reform, because whatever system we use to elect the government, it’s still going to be a bourgeois government.
The change from first past the post to some other system will not deliver a government prepared to fight cuts in public services to the death, and to say so is wishful thinking. The reality is that there is no party likely to win an election, no coalition under PR likely to hold a majority that will not be superseded by the essential unity of the Lib-Dems, Labour and the Tories on the issue of cuts. In any case, a mass movement of workers doesn’t require elections to utterly derail the policies of a given government.
That is what we should be working towards, including all who are prepared to face and engage with the needs of the working class, rather than the memes of the commentariat.
(Also see Don Paskini over at Liberal Conspiracy on the question of Power 2010)
That this article lacks any kind of critique of capitalism, or the ruling class programme of change which is coming to dominate our political system, is its key weakness
No, you’re making two errors here.
First, that because the direct association isn’t made, so it must not exist. This is mostly because you’re not that interested in electoral reform – but for a lot of people that represents the best way to empower poor and political disenfranchised members of the public.
The second error is to assume that only economically left policies matter.
I’ve made neither of the above errors.
First, electoral reform will not empower the poor or politically disenfranchised in any meaningful way – which is why it is safe for various capitalist democracies to use it. You can disagree with me, but that’s not an error on my part.
Second, I have not assumed that only left economic policies matter. The core thesis is that primarily class struggle, which is far from merely economic, matters. Or if you prefer a different formulation, only directly organising people for struggle of any description matters.
Of the three examples I gave of things that will not wait, none of them are solely economic. The rise of the BNP on the back of their default oppositionalism to ‘the Establishment’ is certainly not purely economic. Nor is job losses and council cuts, because even those of us who aren’t directly affected in the pocket, are affected by reductions in things like health care.
You may be right that all of these issues either directly or indirectly involve money, but then so does everything – including electoral reform.
I’ll let Owen defend his own words with regards to PR, but I think you’ve misinterpreted the article. He wasn’t saying class struggles can wait. He was saying all ideas for Power2010 other than introducing PR can wait.
I hope that is true.
(Copied and pasted from the comments on my article) Salman’s exactly right. I meant that electoral reform is the most urgent and important constitutional reform to make, since it’s the only reform of that kind which I believe will really help to re-engage people with politics. I wasn’t making any claim at all about its importance or urgency relative to wider political issues like the plight of postal workers or impending public sector cuts. Nor was I claiming that abolishing FPTP would be a panacea for all the ills afflicting British politics.
I thought that my meaning would be clear in context, so apologies if it wasn’t. Not entirely sure your criticisms needed to be made in such a hostile tone though.
I understand better now Owen, thanks for having patience with me. Some of the sentences in your article gave me cause to think otherwise, my mistake.
I sort of agree with you Dave, certainly the workers’ struggles of the moment can’t be put on hold, but I’m wary of all this talk of priorities. It seems that it’s impossible to seriously propose constitutional reforms such as the abolition of the monarchy in left-of-centre circles because one is always told that although, yes, it’s a nice idea, it’s not a high enough priority compared to “bread and butter” issues. Of course, in practice this means that none of this stuff will ever get done and we’ll focus our attention on re-structuring the NHS for the nth time and coming up with new initiatives to appear tough on whatever we’re supposed to be tough on today. I do think that at some point we have to decide that it’s time to deal with some of the “low priority” issues.
Even though I was wrong about Owen’s article, I think this is still an important issue to discuss and I thank Chris for opening it up a bit in a way my OP failed to do.
Personally I don’t think reform of the monarchy is something to focus on at all – and this is not because I don’t believe it can be done, but because I believe that if we focus on the issues of class struggle then it is something which will naturally be accomplished along the way.
Talk of restructuring the NHS or appearing tough on crime or whatever does not focus on class struggle, which for socialists is just short-hand for saying “all those issues which come up day to day between employee and employer, between citizen and government”. Restructuring the NHS and appearing tough on anything are not appropriate responses, bearing in mind that restructuring the NHS usually means privatisation or marketisation, an intervention on the wrong side of class struggle. So of course that isn’t a priority.
So long as our priorities flow naturally from the day to day fights of people, and so long as we can intervene in those fights creatively and win, the larger goals will become integrated with our struggle as we go along.
“The change from first past the post to some other system will not deliver a government prepared to fight cuts in public services to the death, and to say so is wishful thinking.”
Correct, and for a reason: it would be utterly impossible to devise a system of democracy that would, in the short-term, result in such a thing. People take time to be persuaded of a change of direction, and at the moment the wind is blowing overwhelmingly in favour of spending cuts, rather than tax rises. Polling indicates that there’s something like a two-to-one margin.
What a shift of the way we elect politicians may do, over time, is result in a system that delivers more equitable results, or at least increases accountability and representation. It’s about long-term reform, rather than securing short-term impossibilities.
“People take time to be persuaded of a change of direction, and at the moment the wind is blowing overwhelmingly in favour of spending cuts, rather than tax rises. Polling indicates that there’s something like a two-to-one margin.”
Depends on the spending cuts and depends on the tax rises.
According to polling, people would rather see funds for prisoner rehabilitation and international development cut then pay more income tax. Equally, they’d rather see inheritance tax and corporation tax go up than cuts to the police, NHS or schools.
The media pushes the line (and pays for the question to be asked) about “spending cuts” vs “tax rises” in the abstract, but it is a mostly meaningless question. Most people don’t want to pay more tax, and don’t want to receive worse services. They are quite happy with other people paying more tax and getting worse services if it won’t affect them.
“It seems that it’s impossible to seriously propose constitutional reforms such as the abolition of the monarchy in left-of-centre circles because one is always told that although, yes, it’s a nice idea, it’s not a high enough priority compared to “bread and butter” issues. Of course, in practice this means that none of this stuff will ever get done and we’ll focus our attention on”
…important things?
Of so, good. The monarchy is utterly unimportant in the scheme of things, and somewhere there has to be a trade-off. Firstly, reforming the monarchy would be an exhausting process — it would need extensive public consultation, it would take ages to get even the politicians to agree on exactly how to go about it (assuming that the public to begin with assented to abolishing the monarchy), and then it would take ages to sort out all of the constitutional issues that might get in the way. Not to mention the potential international problems.
At the end of the day, as we have a head of state with no real political power, it’s not an issue. What is an issue is Royal prerogative powers, which confusingly, have little to do with the monarchy any more, and everything to do with governments.
“bearing in mind that restructuring the NHS usually means privatisation or marketisation”
Improving consumer choice doesn’t always mean marketisation — for example, see the Swedish school reforms, which introduced choice of the kind it was impossible to build a conventional market on, as independent schools were forbidden to charge ‘top-up’ fees or select academically.
The only way that the dynamics will exist for the overthrow of the capitalist system to become a reality is when the majority feel the need for it to happen. If such an overthrow were to happen it would be better done peacefully than through strife or violence and in that respect electoral reform PR should be seen as a priority enabler.
In reply to Derek: the majority will never favour something while the media is controlled by the overriding right-wing consensus (even the allegedly “left wing” BBC). Thus, education of the masses about the reality of class struggle and the formulation of alternative means of communicating the socialist message is of a much higher priority for the left than getting PR introduced in the UK.
I am a staunch believer in Proportional Representation but in terms of socialist priorities, it’s not top of the list. As has already been remarked, it is a primarily liberal cause, and is a fine example of the ‘softly, softly’ approach to reform that has had little or no real impact outside of maintaining debate. A greater sense of urgency would be welcomed if it upsets the status quo, but if there is still a capitalist consensus it cannot help the socialist cause.
The government which introduces PR (if indeed there is to be one) will gain instant political points for ‘empowering the people’ but will still be as unwilling to listen as they are now, content to exist in their Westminster-centric bubble until election time for the most part. PR will not change accountability (in fact, it could make MPs less accountable if they are simply part of party lists) or transparency in government, but is the equivalent of throwing a dog a bone to keep it quiet.
First, electoral reform will not empower the poor or politically disenfranchised in any meaningful way – which is why it is safe for various capitalist democracies to use it.
Well, since you seem to be opposed to capitalist democracy anyway, I can’t see any reform you think will be meaningful. So I’ll have to disagree but we can’t really go any further on that,
You may be right that all of these issues either directly or indirectly involve money, but then so does everything – including electoral reform.
Well, they involve money directly in the sense that a lot of people may be motivated by feminism and environmentalism and may not view the issues as labour v capital in the way you do, or as a class struggle. I certainly don’t see many issues through the class struggle prism.
This boils down the point made above: if your point is that class struggle should be the only issue and everyone focusing on anything else is not only wasting their time but hurting the left, then it’s a very narrow way of looking and organising in my view.
Sunny, are you not opposed to capitalist democracy? I can think of a dozen reforms which I think will be meaningful, in terms of where power lies – but they don’t begin with the transfer from FPTP to PR. Example: passing the power to build council housing back to councils.
On class struggle, I’ve made several interventions over the years on the subject of identity politics, to explain its class roots. I haven’t been so forthright on environmentalism, but as the divisions in the Green Party in the UK, and internationally, demonstrate, the prism of class and class struggle evidently does exert a pull on Green politics through their basic orientation to capitalism.
You say that if I claim class struggle as the only issue, and that focussing on anything else is hurting the left, then I am being narrow. On the contrary, I think viewing issues through the prism of class struggle takes in the full scope of everything you want to fight for – but is the only consistent way to prioritize between those issues.
Sunny, I’m sure it’s not the case that Dave is ignoring his right to enjoy reforms – utilising his Social-democrat alter-ego no doubt (I will make this a meme) – it’s more the case that he doesn’t want to ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s', so to speak, by which I mean, in the act of supporting some ill-thought reform, render capitalism the only beneficiary.