The future of working class politics?

[Hawkeye Pearce]

I was reading through the immigration thread and it occurred to me that there was a general consensus that the left was fucked and had been for some time. The other point I drew from it was that left wing politics has simply not been relevant to the lives of most working class people in this country for decades.
The reasons for this I think need to be explored so I'm starting this thread in order to elicit responses as to what the future holds and how pro-working class politics can succeed today.
For my parents generation the natural thing to do if you wanted to get involved in working class politics was to join the labour party, for all its repeated betrayals and also take an active part in the union movement. After thatcher came to power and kinnock came into the leadership he immediately pushed out the far left and either sidelined or assimilated the Bennite left and began the process which would turn labour into the new labour beast that we have today. I know that the labour party leadership was likely to betray working class struggles. But in its "old labour" guise at the very least there were people in it who were committed to working class politics, fighting the bosses and struggling for things that mattered to working class communities. Kinnock and Blair destroyed the good elements that were left withing it and effectively turned into a version of the US democrats circa Clinton. The dissappearence of the main vehicle for articulating class politics seems to have left a gaping hole in the political scene. With labour becoming a bourgeois party pure and simple many areas which had always voted labour were totally neglected. You'd think that the far left with its avowedly pro working class agenda would have been able to operate in this vacuum but as we can see with the creation of the galloway vehicle the ruc they have gone down the wretched route of identity politics and opportunistic "anti-imperialism" whilst dumping any attempt at a class analysis of our current situation.
This has meant that there is no medium for communities that have been totally ignored by the labour leaders to express discontent as the left are offering them absolutely nothing apart from pious lectures and empty sloganeering.
What worries me about this is this is not just the growth of the BNP but that there are very serious issues such as anti-trade union laws, longer working hours, pension crisis and massive levels of personal debt that no-one is addressing.

How can this situation be addressed best? What is the way forward from this position?

 

[Crispy]

Should, by definition, come from the working classes.

 

[durruti02]

top op .. will post when i have time!

 

[Hawkeye Pearce]

Should, by definition, come from the working classes.

Indeed it should. I'm not talking in the leninist term of politics here with the glorious vanguard leading the ignorant masses but about a politics based on empowering communities and how those of us who consider ourselves pro-working class can aid this process.

 

[Nigel]

Labour Modernisers Night Of The Long Knives.

I'm pretty sure that John Smith wa assasinated.
Had a Heart Attack While Mountain Walking.
Anyone got any ideas who did it????

 

[rhys gethin]

Hawkeye - When you consider that the working people of China, India and (most of) the Soviet-Union-as-was have suddenly been pulled into the world market, it's hardly surprising that the British working class has been very much weakened, particularly since there's been no major slump since God knows when. Social systems that 'work' are not easily challenged, and it is difficult to mount a serious industrial fight when you are part of a labour market in which other workers will take much less - and obviously the political system will reflect this situation. The TUC allowed the defeat of the miners, and Bliar was able to ignore the biggest demo in British history because of the defeatist atmosphere that has followed.

Clearly, unless the world's workers are going to going to live on grass, very big struggles are in the offing. It seems likely, though, that this is not going to be the centre. Irritatingly, we are just going to have to keep our organizations alive, and WAIT. It is very tedious, but we can still fight small battles: Marx spent time organizing the Soho waiters, I believe. We will be pushed quite a long way back, but things are by no means desperate, unless we are naive enough to believe the blairie-type propaganda. There were long years without a Labour Party when the working people still fought.

 

[cesare]

Good OP - there seems to be a vacuum and no alternative to fill it. One of my instinctive reactions (although I'm not entrenched in this so am interested to hear other views) is that 4/5 ths of Labour's funding comes from the political levies of TU members (need to find that source, was reading it just the other day). All the time there's seemingly unchallenged funding, Labour seems increasingly apathetic to the needs of ordinary w/c folks that just belong to a union and pay their dues over without challenging the political levy which - although relatively small when you look at it on a capita basis - in aggregate supports what Labour isn't doing to represent their interests. Then when you factor in the 'super union' proposals ... increased bureaucracy/sell out at the top etc ... the most immediately obvious example being Amicus (for example) farming out simple advice traditionally given by reps to Thompsons and hence lining the pockets of a law firm perpetuates profit at the expense of the members </rant>

 

[treelover]

Agreed, excellent Op, as OP says, i think we are in a major crisis of representation and yet the far left, etc, has failed completly to take advantage of any vacuum, I think it is quite frightening: for instance; reading US posters Zion's astonishing views on welfare, i am very clear that they will become the norm in the uk, if they are not resisted, yet the Left is totally ignoring this issue which affects millions.

more later

 

[zion]

Ah, my ears are burning...

...though truthfully, as a British citizen, former Liberal Democrat student president and anti-poverty activist, I think it's a little strong to identify my own views as those of a "US poster" pure and simple.

My question would be: what is the purpose of a class-identified politics? Does it not simply perpetuate the horrific abuses of the class system? I would like to see Britain move towards a position where people succeed on their merits, not because they are identified with the struggle of the working class or the accent of the upper middle classes.

The aim of a politics that is friendly towards the interests of those currently poor is to give them as many opportunities as possible to cease being poor. To me, that starts with education: opening as many avenues up as possible for smart kids from poor families to get a great education. It continues with real funding for adult education and training. Give people the chance to become rich - increase social mobility - something which (I understand) Labour has not done that well at. It also involves, as Hawkeye points out, empowering communities so that low-income people can make their voices heard and change policies that oppress them. Organizing work gets harder the further you move away from issues directly affecting the community. For that reason, I see effective empowerment as being dependent on devolution of decision-making authority back down to local governments on local issues.

the British working class has been very much weakened, particularly since there's been no major slump since God knows when.

OMG. No major slump? Poor people must really be hurting without one of those

4/5 ths of Labour's funding comes from the political levies of TU members

This would suggest that unions who aren't finding that Labour meets their needs should coordinate to withhold funding, and possibly found an alternative to the TUC (cf. the AFL/CIO and the "Change to Win" coalition in the US).

 

[Hawkeye Pearce]

Zion...

I have a question for you. I assume from what you've posted that you would be aligned with the democratic party (correct me if i'm wrong here). If that is the case why do you think millions of working class and poor people in the USA vote for Bush and his brand of "moral issues" rather than the dems? Not being polemical as such but I am interested to see what you think.

 

[zion]

Well, if I had a vote (I'll only be able to take American citizenship in about seven years' time)...then yes, I would pretty much certainly vote Democrat.

Let me start by telling you a little story. After the 2004 election day, a pollster interviewed a Bush voter coming out of the polls. Asked why she voted for Bush, she said, "Because I could never imagine voting for a rich man as president". She said this not because she was necessarily stupid, but because Republicans have done a brilliant job of branding Kerry, and the Democratic party more widely, as the party of the wealthy, over-educated, quasi-European elites who want to tell you what's good for you - essentially, as far as I can make out, the hostility to Blair's metropolitan elite supporters is a very similar kind of hostility, even when it comes from the left. In fact, if you want to mobilize the working classes, you should take some lessons from how Republicans have mobilized this anger.

Then we have the crucial element that does not have nearly the same effect in Britain: religion. Over 50% of Americans attend church, and nearly 90% believe in God. The mainline Protestant denominations, like one would find in Britain, have been declining for thirty years, and they have been overtaken by socially conservative churches, often nondenominational, that believe in the Bible as literal truth.

If you believe in the Bible as literal truth in the way that these churches teach it, then it changes your perspective on a whole heap of social issues. You will likely believe that homosexuality is an awful sin, that feminism destroys the traditional family, and that abortion is murder. Furthermore, these issues are likely to take precedence over whether you yourself have a good job with good benefits, because what's more important to deal with than murder? Within its own logic, it makes perfect sense that these people would put their spiritual issues ahead of their material concerns. In Britain, even among the Christians very few subscribe to a literal view of the Bible, and without that view it's hard for beliefs like this to retain a foothold.

So, you mix this cocktail of class resentment against the Democrats and a belief that Democrats are in some way opposed to God's agenda, and the result is that you have a slight majority - among voters - of Republicans.

 

[118118]

...

 

[118118]

anti-poverty activist

I would like to see Britain move towards a position where people succeed on their merits

An anti-povery activist who thinks he should be rich <_< Based on hot air about people having rights, as far as I can tell.

 

[Hawkeye Pearce]

Well, if I had a vote (I'll only be able to take American citizenship in about seven years' time)...then yes, I would pretty much certainly vote Democrat.

Let me start by telling you a little story. After the 2004 election day, a pollster interviewed a Bush voter coming out of the polls. Asked why she voted for Bush, she said, "Because I could never imagine voting for a rich man as president". She said this not because she was necessarily stupid, but because Republicans have done a brilliant job of branding Kerry, and the Democratic party more widely, as the party of the wealthy, over-educated, quasi-European elites who want to tell you what's good for you - essentially, as far as I can make out, the hostility to Blair's metropolitan elite supporters is a very similar kind of hostility, even when it comes from the left. In fact, if you want to mobilize the working classes, you should take some lessons from how Republicans have mobilized this anger.

Then we have the crucial element that does not have nearly the same effect in Britain: religion. Over 50% of Americans attend church, and nearly 90% believe in God. The mainline Protestant denominations, like one would find in Britain, have been declining for thirty years, and they have been overtaken by socially conservative churches, often nondenominational, that believe in the Bible as literal truth.

If you believe in the Bible as literal truth in the way that these churches teach it, then it changes your perspective on a whole heap of social issues. You will likely believe that homosexuality is an awful sin, that feminism destroys the traditional family, and that abortion is murder. Furthermore, these issues are likely to take precedence over whether you yourself have a good job with good benefits, because what's more important to deal with than murder? Within its own logic, it makes perfect sense that these people would put their spiritual issues ahead of their material concerns. In Britain, even among the Christians very few subscribe to a literal view of the Bible, and without that view it's hard for beliefs like this to retain a foothold.

So, you mix this cocktail of class resentment against the Democrats and a belief that Democrats are in some way opposed to God's agenda, and the result is that you have a slight majority - among voters - of Republicans.

From the reading about the situation i've done it seems to me that this is partly true but there is another factor in play here. It is true that the republicans have done a great number on the democrats by portraying themselves as the party of the little guy when in actual fact being the party of the giant corporations. The other point is that the democrats cannot win these people back to them because they have absolutely nothing to offer them. Kerry's platform last time was a little different to bush's but not by much and Hilary Clinton's campaign this time around seems to be focussed on out gunning the republicans on moral issues and the war on terror. The dems offer nothing to those poor and working class people who either vote republican or don't vote at all as they are fundamentally an elite party that had in the past put on social democratic clothing (FDR, Trueman and Johnson especially) but under Clinton abandoned that to pursue the magic "swing voters". That might be why so few people vote at all in the US as both elite party's look so damn similar. Clinton's welfare reform was taken from the workfare policies promoted by right wingers and designed not to help poor people but to appeal to the swing voters and do the work of the corpoate elite.
In 1992 Bush senior was partly destroyed by Ross Perot who ran on an economic nationalist message about jobs dissappearing south to Mexico where the labour was cheap. Shortly after that Gore debated Perot on TV and spent the entire time saying that this process was great for the US (the part of the US that are C.E.O's). That's why the Republicans can so easily win the votes of people who they then promptly shit all over with their policies because the dems offer no real alternative as they are as much part of the system as the republicans are. If no political force talks the language of class then it is very easy for right wing groups to channel the frustration and rage of poor people into the dead end of "moral issues" at least for a time.

 

[zion]

Did you miss the part where I said that I worked for a nonprofit? I'm already writing myself out of the picture when it comes to making more than a living, but no-one is happier than I am when clients of ours get good-paying jobs.

I haven't said anything ascribing rights to people on this thread, or (as far as I can recall) on any other. What I have said is that people in general don't have the right to receive cash payments from the government, and that the aim of policy towards people who are poor should be to give them every chance to not be poor. Where's the hot-air rights talk you object to?

 

[118118]

Sorry, I've never met a lib-dem activist before. Why do you think that people have to work their w ay out of poverty?

Saying that people don't have the right to something, sugests that people do have the right to what they earn.

 

[cesare]

I know virtually nothing about US domestic economic policy and its effect on its own society. Out of my depth and immediate interest, will read the rest of the thread as it goes on though

 

[treelover]

Zion have you heard of these: Ontario Coalition Aginst Poverty,(OCAP)
to me they seem to be on the right track, but again, i cannot believe you are a compassionate person and yet don't accep't peoplle need benefits at certain times in thier life.tbh, I have found your posts on welfare on both threads both depressing and disturbing as it looks like we are to go down the US road

http://www.ocap.ca/

 

[zion]

Hawkeye,

There are some who argue (like Democratic party activist and blogger David Sirota) that the Democrats do need to provide an alternative of the kind you're outlining.

My feeling is that working-class Republican voters - who I feel you do need to win over to win elections - only feel "safe" to vote Democrat if you take some of the moral issues they care about out of play. So, for example, the only time in post-WWII America that a Democratic ticket won a majority of the presidential vote, it was the Southern evangelical Christian and peanut farmer Jimmy Carter. He had other advantages, like Watergate and the end of the Vietnam War, but his faith and his background were crucial elements that put him in office. If you listen to working-class Republican voters here, they don't tend to feel that the parties are pretty much the same: they feel that it would be morally despicable of them to vote for a party that endorsed gay rights or abortion rights. A good proof of my point will be if (pro-life) Bob Casey defeats (highly conservative) Rick Santorum for the senatorial race in Pennsylvania. Remember that parties are not the same here as in the UK. Here, the definition of a Democrat is (for office-holders) very simply "someone who can persuade a majority of eligible primary voters to vote for them". It's not defined by Central Office, and the central party authority has only a very limited ability to sway local races.

I agree that Perot's campaign keyed into the economic nationalist feelings of such people, but you've got to remember too that Perot was also popular because of his personal story. He was the son of a cotton picker (good), an outsider who became a self-made billionaire (great). Truthfully, his actual message came through late in the campaign and was not what got too many people excited.

 

[cesare]

Would be good if this could now be moved to World politics though

 

[zion]

I hadn't heard of them, but thanks for the link.

I think that people do need help at certain times: namely, when they are unable to work to support themselves. Those in that category include some disabled people, some elderly people, some mentally ill people, some sick people. I would prefer in all cases that that help came from the community first without resorting to government assistance, but if it doesn't come from the community then government help is clearly needed. Does that make it clearer?

 

[zion]

118118,

Sorry, I've never met a lib-dem activist before.

Surprise! No. seriously, former Lib Dem activist. I pay no attention to them any more so I can't say whether their current beliefs would square with mine.

Why do you think that people have to work their way out of poverty.

You have a way out of poverty - other than the lottery - that doesn't involve work? Please, tell us all so we can get right to it!

Saying that people don't have the right to something, sugests that people do have the right to what they earn.

Yes, if someone works, I believe that they deserve to get paid for it. What's your point?

 

[shagnasty]

I hadn't heard of them, but thanks for the link.

I think that people do need help at certain times: namely, when they are unable to work to support themselves. Those in that category include some disabled people, some elderly people, some mentally ill people, some sick people. I would prefer in all cases that that help came from the community first without resorting to government assistance, but if it doesn't come from the community then government help is clearly needed. Does that make it clearer?

when that help came from the community you mean parish councils and the deserving poor .benefits for people on hard times should always be a right.in the gb we do not condem people on benefits as the american seem to.

 

[118118]

What's your point?

Haven't got one really. Probably not the place tpo bring it up, but I think that the idea that people have a right to what the earn, a bit irritating. That was the first thing brought up in a "political philosophy" module I sat. Everyone nodded sagely, and I lost all interest.

Maybe I reckon that all our notions of rights and wrongs which we base our lives around are all products of a distribution of wealth. Or if not, its not right. I've cannot earn the sort of moeny I would have been able to, through illness, and suddenly I don't have the same right anymore. Shrug. I didn't think it was very fair to earn 70 odd grand before that, either.

Seems too optimistic that the working class can really work their way into a better standard of living. Maybe a handful but no more. Shrug.

 

[zion]

118118,

Seems too optimistic that the working class can really work their way into a better standard of living.

Maybe that's a cultural difference speaking. It's very American to really believe that you can, and I have seen plenty of poor people (the term "working class" is really not a part of the American lexicon, much like "upper class". 80% of Americans describe themselves as being middle class) rise up to make a comfortable living. Here it's not exceptional: it's the core narrative of the immigrant experience.

Shagnasty,

when that help came from the community you mean parish councils and the deserving poor

No, you're thinking in Victorian terms.

I run a nonprofit called a "community development corporation", which receives only 10% of its funding from government sources of various kinds (As you can see from my other posts, I would like that to be lower). The other 90% (around $550,000 per year) comes from the five towns we operate in, from foundations, banks, corporate sponsorship and local churches. We do not make any determination as to whether the people we see are "deserving": we simply determine whether they're low-income, determine their troubles and try and find solutions for them. Nor are we the only local nonprofit serving low-income people: at last count there were forty in our core town alone. This kind of nonprofit simply doesn't exist in the UK, as far as I know, but that's what I'm thinking of when I talk about "help from the community". It's not as if these towns are wildly rich either: it's just that Americans on average give a great deal to charity, and some of that flows to us.

That's also why it's deeply misleading to consider merely what the US federal government does for the poor as the sum total of assistance available. Nongovernmental assistance exceeds governmental assistance by a considerable margin.

 

[yield]

I run a nonprofit called a "community development corporation", which receives only 10% of its funding from government sources of various kinds (As you can see from my other posts, I would like that to be lower). The other 90% (around $550,000 per year) comes from the five towns we operate in, from foundations, banks, corporate sponsorship and local churches.

I don't want this to turn into the "ask zion about America" thread but these CDC's sound interesting.
When you say foundations do you mean charities? What do the banks and corporations get out of this? Is it a case that they have a tax allowance and would like to see it spent in the local community? Do the CDC's receive funding from local or state government or is that included in the 10% you mention?

...

Hmmmm... difficult questions, returning to the thread topic.

In my opinion the illusion of social mobility masks increasing inequality. The facade of meritocracy and wealth creation hides injustice and power hierachies.
It is (birth) status rather than intelligence that dictates your future. More so in "classless" USA than the UK. Basically the majority of rich people are born rich. There are many factors involved including education, health and nutrition. Of course there are rags-to-riches stories but they are abnormal.

Yet I'm not particularly keen on the traditional class-identified politics as I think the middle class people I know are deluded. As has been discussed many times before in other threads, the levels of debt, be it personal or against property, people have is incredible. That people measure their worth in how much of their future earnings they can borrow is absurd.

At the end of the day your typical British bank manager has more in common with your average Chinese farmer than he does with Bill Gates.

(Struggling with my ideas to words. I'll think more on this.)

 

[Haller]

So, for example, the only time in post-WWII America that a Democratic ticket won a majority of the presidential vote, it was the Southern evangelical Christian and peanut farmer Jimmy Carter. He had other advantages, like Watergate and the end of the Vietnam War, but his faith and his background were crucial elements that put him in office.

That election was such a special case that I can't see it offers any direction forward.

There was a triple-blow to American confidence: defeat in Vietnam, Watergate and the crisis arising from the Arab oil-producing nations flexing their muscles. Three major pillars of the American self-image were simultaneously threatened: military power, the integrity of the White House, economic progress.

In addition, the incumbent was (uniquely?) a man who had never been voted in as Vice-President, let alone President and therefore had limited authority to be in office.

The relevance (and the relevance to Britain) is that barely half the population votes in America, and we're headed in the same direction here. If the Democrats were to attempt to appeal to 'working-class Republican voters,' they'd be wasting their time - the real road to change comes from mobilising the non-voters.

In the same way - to return to the subject of this thread - the future for working-class politics in this country is not a Blairite appeal to working-class Tories. As has been amply demonstrated over the last decade.

 

[treelover]

Well, they must be deluded then, some of the poverty in the US is on a scale lke the worst of eastern europe, its an idelogy pure and simple, and just like the Soviet Union, i hope one day to see its demise.

Maybe that's a cultural difference speaking. It's very American to really believe that you can, and I have seen plenty of poor people (the term "working class" is really not a part of the American lexicon, much like "upper class". 80% of Americans describe themselves as being middle class) rise up to make a comfortable living. Here it's not exceptional: it's the core narrative of the immigrant experience.

 

[rhys gethin]

the British working class has been very much weakened, particularly since there's been no major slump since God knows when.[/I]

OMG. No major slump? Poor people must really be hurting without one of those
QUOTE]

Zion - Yes, I can see you were an active Liberal-Democrat - you have the characteristic glibness. Slumps, obviously, are a normal part of capitalism, and must be taken into account (if you were brought up to believe the weather was always warm you would make no provision for winter). The fantasy that there are no slumps is part of the blairite con, as it is part of the sales-pitch of all pro-capitalist politicians. The fact that working people are deliberately kept ignorant of history is obviously highly relevant to the current weakness of the Movement, which is what we were discussing.

 

[treelover]

yeah, lets ge back on track, the US welfare stuff can go on another thread