The Lefts inability to challenge Labour.

[ViolentPanda]

Why is it out of date VP...

Because while it is still true of some elements of the "hard-left" that they're mired in "minority rights", the whole interest group/identity politics schtick went by the by some time in the mid 1980s for much of "the left", around the time it was realised that it was divisive by anyone with any sense.

have you seen Salma Yaquubs recent piece on the SU blog?

Yes, what do the emotive outpourings of a name-calling Trot have to do with "left" politics?

 

[treelover]

Surely its because the 'name calling Trots' are the public face of the Left:, they are the ones who you see speaking at demos, on Question Time or Newsnight, etc. Of course there are the T/Unionists, Labour lefts, various campaigners, etc, who do their good work largely quietly, but they generally do not get noticed unlike Galloway, German, Salma, etc.

 

[Nigel]

It's fairly obvious what to do, but noone will do it. Maybe they're right, I don't know. A 'successful' left involves a huge amount of money, a lot of compromise, and a focus on dealing with staple issues (and in a way) that most radical elements aren't interested in.

No-one out there gives a fuck about no borders or smashing international capitalism. No-one out there is willing to invest in an untried, absolute and idealist sea change.

The left I've seen appears ideologically opposed to ever being part of a national political system. Either embrace that and stop complaining about its ineffectiveness, or get your act together and take some difficult steps towards the mainstream.

Sounds like labour post Kinnock onwards.

 

[kained&able]

Im my opinion its beacuse the right is easier to market then the left.

Right wingers tend to just be. we want jobs, immegrants bad, they take money. EU BOOOO hiss we want control over our country

Where as the left tend to get bogged down in semantics and philosophy and theres a lot of infighting as to which way would work the best etc etc so nothing ever gets consolidated.

Again my opinion but the left needs to just concentrate on moving a couple inches in the right direction rather then move the whole mile at once.

Also a lot of leftists are anarchists/communists or whatever and don't really engage in the politcial process.

The current system of elction doesn't really help either, proportional respresnetation would help no end as at the moment my vote doesn't really count for anything against the massive conservative or labour support.


dave

 

[ViolentPanda]

Surely its because the 'name calling Trots' are the public face of the Left:, they are the ones who you see speaking at demos, on Question Time or Newsnight, etc. Of course there are the T/Unionists, Labour lefts, various campaigners, etc, who do their good work largely quietly, but they generally do not get noticed unlike Galloway, German, Salma, etc.

I'll fall back on an old question.

What's actually "left" about the likes of Galloway, German and Yaquub? They talk a good socialist talk, but they rarely walk the walk.
Surely it's a measure of the alienation from politics I mentioned earlier that they are perceived by some as "the public face of the left"? I know that when I was a teen and a young adult, even the most politically-naive of my mates knew the difference between the Swappies' idea of "socialism" and the (then still alive, just) "socialism" of the Labour party.
We're reaping what 30 years of neo-liberal governance has sown.

 

[Stoat Boy]

The left need to get back into the battle within Labour.

Hopefully we are heading for a Conservative landslide come the next election and within that term we will hopefully get an independant Scotland which makes Labours chances of winning an election ever again pretty small.

But its going to be a bloody difficult tenure for the Torys when back in power and there are going to have to be some pretty dramatic cuts which are going to hurt so people will turn back to Labour by way of a protest vote. Its the nature of the beast.

And the battle for Labours heart and soul will once again be on the table given that those who promoted the whole 'New' Labour ethos are going to be considered a busted flush.

If anybody is really serious about giving this country a left leaning political look again then Labour, for all its faults, is the only show in town.

As to the Anarchists and other such daftos well they will carry on just pissing in the wind as per usual but for the rest of the left, well they better start signing back up to Labour. There are no other credible options or avenues for the left in this country.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The left need to get back into the battle within Labour.

And yet we know exactly what happens when that occurs; you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour party, a Labour party, expelling members for being left-wing. (with no apology to Neil Kinnock for pastiching him)

Hopefully we are heading for a Conservative landslide come the next election and within that term we will hopefully get an independant Scotland which makes Labours chances of winning an election ever again pretty small.

You're highly unlikely to get a landslide on your current showing, and even if you pick up 8-10 points, you still won't tip the scales into an "unassailable" majority.

But its going to be a bloody difficult tenure for the Torys when back in power and there are going to have to be some pretty dramatic cuts which are going to hurt so people will turn back to Labour by way of a protest vote. Its the nature of the beast.

"Have to be..."? Do you have some information on future economic circumstances that the rest of the world isn't privy to?
Or are you falling back on the Conservative orthodoxy that public sector cuts are the one true method of weathering economic storms?

And the battle for Labours heart and soul will once again be on the table given that those who promoted the whole 'New' Labour ethos are going to be considered a busted flush.

That will very likely depend on whether Brown can swallow his distaste and the natural instinct to vomit and make common cause with the Lib-Dems, who could very well be a handy fulcrum to tip young Cameron into the dung-heap of history.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I reckon that's about the most ahistorical burble I've seen emerge from Urban in a long time.
People don't "make an alternative" because we've been progressively "educated" (pretty much starting with "universal suffrage) into seeing politics as a separate endeavour, undertaken by an elite, rather than being (as it should be) an endeavour of all people, something that doesn't just exert an effect on us, but that we can affect ourselves.
Who is going to get involved in a process they feel divorced from, alienated from, have been taught to regard as something done to them over which they have no control, except for 5 minutes once every 4-5 years?

what in my post is this supposed to contradict? I'm not criticising people for not making TBaldwin's left-wing party, the point I'm making (and it's a quintessentially historical one, actually) is that the reason it doesn't exist is not because The Left isn't trying hard enough or even that they aren't doing the right things. As far as that's the case it's actually a symptom rather than a cause.

In the 19th and 20th Century political parties of labour came into existence because they served a practical purposes for their supporters. Regardless of individual mistakes or different ideologies these parties came into existence across Europe, representing similar sections of society and developing similar policies.

If there was a genuine social imperative/need/desire for this kind of party, then people would be making it and the failings of the old far left wouldn't matter.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

what in my post is this supposed to contradict? I'm not criticising people for not making TBaldwin's left-wing party, the point I'm making (and it's a quintessentially historical one, actually) is that the reason it doesn't exist is not because The Left isn't trying hard enough or even that they aren't doing the right things. As far as that's the case it's actually a symptom rather than a cause.

In the 19th and 20th Century political parties of labour came into existence because they served a practical purposes for their supporters. Regardless of individual mistakes or different ideologies these parties came into existence across Europe, representing similar sections of society and developing similar policies.

If there was a genuine social imperative/need/desire for this kind of party, then people would be making it and the failings of the old far left wouldn't matter.

Yep, I was going to type something along similar lines but couldn't be arsed.

The subjectivist theories about why The Left are so marginal these days always reduce the problem to the moral or political failings of marginal individuals and groups to the detriment of examining the more fundamental shifts in the political, social and economic landscape that have led to the decline of leftist influence. There's this assumption that a significant amount of people want something to the left of New Labour - where's the evidence for this? Naturally there are some, me included, who want this but for various reasons I'd don't think a great many do.

 

[greenman]

The base, in the final analysis, has a mighty effect on the superstructure.

In the case of Britain, the "base" is now finance capitalism, (look at the relevance of the City of London to the British economy) sustained by neo-colonialism and butressed by a sickly superstructural mix of neo-liberal ideology, hedonistic individualism (and consumerism) and nostalgic nationalism.

Mix well, stir in the gradual erosion of the "post war settlement" (in effect a settlement that acceded some ground from the elite to ordinary working people to secure the future of the national elite against Bolshevism or any of its variants) and the gradual construction of a Continental level superstructure that has still not gained the allegiance of all the national ruling class and hey presto - you have what we have.

The inadequacies of Leninism in its various forms are a minor factor in the lack of progress of the Brit left (it has not held back the left in other European countries as much - though it is now a busted flush almost everywhere in the developed world) but the decay of Labourism is a direct result of the aforementioned erosion of the post-war settlement, something that has been the project of a political class that are the expression of the interests of those currently at the apex of this society.

As ever, changes in the base (caused both by technological development and economic and environmental limits) will lead to ideological shift and upheaval, as we are now seeing. It is unlikely that those wedded to nostrums of an earlier stage of economic development will be able to make much of the coming opportunities without significant evolution.....

 

[ViolentPanda]

what in my post is this supposed to contradict? I'm not criticising people for not making TBaldwin's left-wing party, the point I'm making (and it's a quintessentially historical one, actually) is that the reason it doesn't exist is not because The Left isn't trying hard enough or even that they aren't doing the right things. As far as that's the case it's actually a symptom rather than a cause.

In the 19th and 20th Century political parties of labour came into existence because they served a practical purposes for their supporters. Regardless of individual mistakes or different ideologies these parties came into existence across Europe, representing similar sections of society and developing similar policies.

If there was a genuine social imperative/need/desire for this kind of party, then people would be making it and the failings of the old far left wouldn't matter.

To me you're putting the cart before the horse, saying that as the people aren't making a party then there can be no need for one. My point is that people have been progressively alienated from politics by politicians, not from the parties but from engagement in "big politics" full stop. That alienation is a factor in why there's only a small amount of agitation for an alternative, rather than there being no demand because there's no need, IMO.

 

[Lo Siento.]

To me you're putting the cart before the horse, saying that as the people aren't making a party then there can be no need for one. My point is that people have been progressively alienated from politics by politicians, not from the parties but from engagement in "big politics" full stop. That alienation is a factor in why there's only a small amount of agitation for an alternative, rather than there being no demand because there's no need, IMO.

But the people in your sketch lack any kind of agency whatsoever. We all got alienated and disengaged by the mean politicians, now we can't do anything because we're all so depressed.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The base, in the final analysis, has a mighty effect on the superstructure.

In the case of Britain, the "base" is now finance capitalism, (look at the relevance of the City of London to the British economy) sustained by neo-colonialism and butressed by a sickly superstructural mix of neo-liberal ideology, hedonistic individualism (and consumerism) and nostalgic nationalism.

Mix well, stir in the gradual erosion of the "post war settlement" (in effect a settlement that acceded some ground from the elite to ordinary working people to secure the future of the national elite against Bolshevism or any of its variants) and the gradual construction of a Continental level superstructure that has still not gained the allegiance of all the national ruling class and hey presto - you have what we have.

The inadequacies of Leninism in its various forms are a minor factor in the lack of progress of the Brit left (it has not held back the left in other European countries as much - though it is now a busted flush almost everywhere in the developed world) but the decay of Labourism is a direct result of the aforementioned erosion of the post-war settlement, something that has been the project of a political class [i'd say ruling class here myself] that are the expression of the interests of those currently at the apex of this society.

As ever, changes in the base (caused both by technological development and economic and environmental limits) will lead to ideological shift and upheaval, as we are now seeing. It is unlikely that those wedded to nostrums of an earlier stage of economic development will be able to make much of the coming opportunities without significant evolution.....

An excellent synopsis.

 

[TremulousTetra]

But the people in your sketch lack any kind of agency whatsoever. We all got alienated and disengaged by the mean politicians, now we can't do anything because we're all so depressed.

rather the opposite surely. Their agency or is to decide, fuck it, give up, let's concentrate on hedonism. They could spontaneously turn around tomorrow and change their mind, but more likely there will be some events that inspire them in a different direction.

I don't think you can really have been involved in politics in the last 20 years, trying to engage with people about the minimum wage, trade union rights, and host of other issues, without experiencing people's alienation from politics. It's not so much they're not interested, it's more like the belief that you can have any impact. Which is true, on individual cases. It is only when organized, 'when the steam is captured in a piston', it can have driving force.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think the Left have just focused on minority 'rights' so much that they are deemed to be anti-white working class and with nothing to offer them.

It all comes back to the whole 'British jobs for British workers' stuff. The left cannot cope with that and hence get marginalised. Even those leading the Trade Unions seem like frightened rabbits in the head-lights when trying to come to terms with this aspiration.

And to be honest I see no real appetite from those on the left to come to terms with it. They would rather just sneer and get on with protecting which ever flavour of minority right is in fashion this month.

it is absolutely no use for revolutionaries being like nick Griffin and Tony Blair, rushing to the centre ground, supporting capital punishment, because that's what the majority 'want'. You cannot disentangle from 'British jobs for British workers', the FACT the dominant ideas in a society are those of the ruling class. If you want to overthrow the ruling class, there you cant accept the ruling classes ideas.

 

[TremulousTetra]

arse about face this. If normal people wanted a left-wing alternative to Labour they'd make one. They don't, so just activist weirdos are involved, and thus the organisations appeal only to the kind of people convinced by activist weirdos.

I actually agree with that as well, even though its contrary to something I said earlier.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But the people in your sketch lack any kind of agency whatsoever. We all got alienated and disengaged by the mean politicians, now we can't do anything because we're all so depressed.

They don't lack agency, Mr Althusser, they simply don't have much of a mechanism through which to exercise it. Their agency is severely constrained by those with an interest in that being the case.

 

[ViolentPanda]

rather the opposite surely. Their agency or is to decide, fuck it, give up, let's concentrate on hedonism. They could spontaneously to around tomorrow and change their mind, but more likely there will be some events that inspire them in a different direction.

And when your divorce from politics takes place in a setting where consumption happens to be a tried and true method for diversion...

I don't mean you can really have been involved in politics in the last 20 years, trying to engage with people about the minimum wage, trade union rights, and host of other issues, without experiencing people's alienation from politics. It's not so much they're not interested, it's more like the belief that you can have any impact. Which is true, on individual cases. It is only when organized, 'when the steam is captured in a piston', it can have driving force.

Unfortunately, "organisation" is pretty much the main thing people have been "educated" into believing is somehow "wrong", "immoral" or "bad". After all, why would the government have legislated against it if it were good? Look at the trouble that organised labour caused in the 1970s, bodies lying unburied in the streets, mortuaries filled with rubbish....
Well, that's an exaggeration , but that's the sort of "modern British history" kids get taught if they're taught any at all (at least at the secondary school my nephews went to).

 

[Lo Siento.]

They don't lack agency, Mr Althusser, they simply don't have much of a mechanism through which to exercise it. Their agency is severely constrained by those with an interest in that being the case.

what, more constrained that the early 20th century working class that made the Labour Party?!

 

[TremulousTetra]

If we are looking at electoral issues. Things look bleak but it centres on what do you term 'left'. Even the Tories can look left compared to the madness that is new Labour.

For the left known as SP SWP their focus is revolution and their organisations are top down bureaucratic. The rest of the 'left' need to re-shape themselves if you are looking at electoral success. The left in a wider sense is taking on Labour - maybe not in terms of massive industrial action but this may change with events. Post the general election - Labour could be in meltdown. It has to be the long game for the left - there are no short cuts.

I am starting to sound like a stuck record, but IF the ideas most prevalent in any society are those of the ruling class, what is to stop a revolutionary party that isn't tethered/anchored to a revolutionary perspective by a firmly entrenched leadership with a revolutionary perspective, from being dragged to the centre by social forces? Such as a massive influx of members who are not firmly won to revolution as an alternative to capitalism? Like the labour party, the conservative party, and on the surface the [1]BNP?

I'm not saying am against what you're saying, revolutionary parties do need to change their structures, according to changes in their environment. Im just putting one counter argument. I think there is a difference between a revolutionary party, and some kind of electoral vehicle.

On the topic of an electoral vehicle, I would like to see a party created that is called Democracy. Every time somebody asked a question " what is the solution to x, y z", the answer would be, "democracy". " what would be the answer to the banking problems?" "Democratise it". Then you would gp through the arguments about how you would do this, and how that would benefit society. Is a very simplistic idea, in the same way the fascist have a simple answer to everything, immigration.
Also, every structure of the party would be democratic, as would their candidates'. So any candidate elected would be paid the average wage, with any excess going to the party, strike funds, or something similar. And everybody who was elected, would be somehow sackable by the electorate.


note [1] I think if you look at the constitution of the BNP they have recognized, and dealt with this problem.

Edited to add. I think one of the mistakes that WE made was to go BACK to an old model of an electoral vehicle, reformism. I think the idea above, would provide much more of a halfway house between capitalism and communism/anarchism/democracy. As Los Siento said people haven't read created this model, or even accepted it when he was presented to them. People want something new.

 

[poster342002]

Unfortunately, "organisation" is pretty much the main thing people have been "educated" into believing is somehow "wrong", "immoral" or "bad". After all, why would the government have legislated against it if it were good? Look at the trouble that organised labour caused in the 1970s, bodies lying unburied in the streets, mortuaries filled with rubbish....

Yep. I find that (bolded) type of simplistic idiocy is still repeated back to me by people who never even lived through the era in question when I try (in vain) to convince people that forever meekly bending over backwards to be dutifully fucked over by the employer might - just might - not be entirely in our best interests.

In tlost of ways this is the entire problem. Alongside the left's dimwitted bumblings, the entrenched attitudes= that grovelling servile docility is some sort of virtue is, I beleive, stuck with us for another generation at least.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yep. I find that (bolded) type of simplistic idiocy is still repeated back to me by people who never even lived through the era in question when I try (in vain) to convince people that forever meekly bending over backwards to be dutifully fucked over by the employer might - just might - not be entirely in our best interests.

In tlost of ways this is the entire problem. Alongside the left's dimwitted bumblings, the entrenched attitudes= that grovelling servile docility is some sort of virtue is, I beleive, stuck with us for another generation at least.

It is inevitable that people WILL make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The alternative to the left making history under those circumstances, is for somebody else like the fascist to make history under those circumstances. To not engage, is to relinquish the future to barbarism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

what, more constrained that the early 20th century working class that made the Labour Party?!

As constrained, for different reasons.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It is inevitable that people WILL make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The alternative to the left making history under those circumstances, is for somebody else like the fascist to make history under those circumstances. To not engage, is to relinquish the future to barbarism.

As I read that I had a vision of you, dressed in a serge suit, declaiming that from a soapbox and giving it some with the Lenin hand gestures.

 

[Lo Siento.]

As constrained, for different reasons.

what about modern life is as constraining as Victorian capitalism? equivalents for example of starving if you were unemployed or the level of violence meted out to early workers movements or the realistic prospect of being executed, hung or imprisoned for political conspiracy?

 

[TremulousTetra]

As I read that I had a vision of you, dressed in a serge suit, declaiming that from a soapbox and giving it some with the Lenin hand gestures.

I know, I was being lazy, quoting.

However, the truth is the truth, is it not?

 

[TremulousTetra]

what about modern life is as constraining as Victorian capitalism? equivalents for example of starving if you were unemployed or the level of violence meted out to early workers movements or the realistic prospect of being executed, hung or imprisoned for political conspiracy?

I think you're misunderstanding violent panda. He's not saying this is the way it has to be, he is just explaining the excuses for people.

I realized the word excuses is a loaded term, but they are really excuses. The fact of the matter is, we could all sneeze at once and drowned the bastards in mucus, so why don't we? That is what violent panda is attempting to explain. He is not saying this situation is for ever.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I think you're misunderstanding violent panda. He's not saying this is the way it has to be, he is just explaining the excuses for people.

I realized the word excuses is a loaded term, but they are really excuses. The fact of the matter is, we could all sneeze at once and drowned the bastards in mucus, so why don't we? That is what violent panda is attempting to explain. He is not saying this situation is for ever.

and I'm saying 'the excuses' don't really exist. Or at least are compelling enough to explain why people don't make this left-wing party. That's a more-or-less deliberate choice being made by people.

 

[ViolentPanda]

what about modern life is as constraining as Victorian capitalism? equivalents for example of starving if you were unemployed...

If you're talking about the Victorian era, you'll find there was a rather disgusting thing known colloquially as "the workhouse" that prevented starvation. It helped keep my paternal great-grandfather alive, and hundreds of thousands like him, when there was no work to be found.

...or the level of violence meted out to early workers movements...

Which doesn't need to be used particularly often given the "education" and alienation I've spoken of (although Wapping springs to mind as an exemplar of the fact that plus ca change...

or the realistic prospect of being executed, hung or imprisoned for political conspiracy?

You can still be imprisoned for conspiracy, political or otherwise, and while the state can't lawfully execute anymore, they don't need to when the tools of social control available in the 21st century and the latter half of the 20th century allowed them to operate with so much more finesse.

 

[ViolentPanda]

and I'm saying 'the excuses' don't really exist. Or at least are compelling enough to explain why people don't make this left-wing party. That's a more-or-less deliberate choice being made by people.

If you know no better, then your "deliberate choice" isn't so much choice as acceptance of what they might perceive as the inevitable, isn't it?