Why is the left so marginalised?

[kyser_soze]

Steve&yield - cheers.

Another change is that in many of the old industries people worked and lived together.

Well exactly - plus extended families, regions where everybody were physically connected for all things - famring, mining, factory workers, in a way that was a more easily logical and accessible than maybe it is today.

Definitely. But the bosses call it Hearts and Minds.

The real ones still call it divide and conquer

 

[Prince Rhyus]

Why is the left so marginalised?

Because too many get hung up on the detail and lose the vision as a result - i.e. "for the common good."

Because society has evolved since the 1970s and large sections of the "organised" left have not been seen to evolve with it.

Because the ever-lasting splits and reformations grind people down.

Because the methods of communication are often too "preachy" - very church-like and people don't like being told what to think.

Because the activities of socialists haven't broadened beyond the traditional meetings in the pub in the way that the "non-aligned left/greens" have.

Those an what others have said.

 

[mk12]

Not sure what you mean by this- probably never dead unless we're all killed in some kind of apocalypse or whatever but the point is it is uneven. Britain is at a very low ebb of class struggle at the moment, France less so etc.

Though there was the rather impressive demo in Manchester yesterday 12-1500 on the streets to demand the rianstatement of Karen Reissmann.

But it's going to take an almighty fight in Unison, the labour movement in general and the working class as awhole to resist the privateers and sackers.

An initial step might be linking the different strikes such as the Newham, Manchester, Barnett and Glasgow Unison strikes, via a rank and file network and linking all this with mobilising communities for a public health service under users' and workers' control instead of the fat cats ripping us off- open the books and computer accounts! Show us where the money is going.
Link the struggles etc.

The left should unite in action around struggles like this, demand that the strikers and users lead the struggles and debate how we can actually win.

You just seem to be seeing "the class struggle" as union dominated strikes/demonstrations though.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Class struggle can take many different forms, some in the work place and some in local communities.

But ultimately the power of the working class does lie in the workplace.

Unions are a massively important part of this and given their current state and the total absence of them in many workplaces, need to be totally rebuilt.

 

[Demosthenes]

Well, on the whole I kind of agree with eoin k most of all. Perhaps it's most of all because those defending the status quo have been very sophisticated. Or perhaps they've just been unintentionally sophisticated.

There used to be widespread support for socialism in Britain, resulting in the labour victory in 1945. Even though it wasn't much fun, people elected them twice. But they nationalised loads of things, except the really important ones of food and housing. They'd have done a lot better to nationalise just food and housing and leave everything else alone, - if humanitarianism is the object.

And since then, the compromise has kept socialism at bay, - by keeping a welfare state, making sure hardly anyone starves, and only a few die on the streets, - the overall impression is that things are all right, and the welfare state only gets retrenched gradually. If Capitalism had really been allowed to bite, and there was no welfare state, - I don't think people would have stood for it, even in the Thatcher years.

She was clever in a way, - she didn't abolish the dole, just let it gradually become worth less, - and she left housing benefit intact, and easy to claim. Very generous really. It was left to Blair to really start the retrenchment of the welfare state that we can see happening today.

In a way it's easier for capitalists to unite and get on with it, because they're taking a pragmatic rather than a moral point of view, so they don't have to agree about much, just about keeping property rights intact, and the rest of the legal framework that allows capitalism.

The left should have taken a cue from that perhaps, - one of the problems has been ideological parties insisting that if you wanted to join them you had to be a convert to the faith, rather than just looking for allies who shared their humanitarian aims. From many marxists point of view, a left-wing christian was just as much an enemy as a social democrat, or thatcherite, or if that wasn't their point of view, well, it would still seem that way.

That's just the story of England, - - taking the world as a whole, the left isn't nearly as marginalised. I think it's worth noting that what's brought success to the left in parts of South America is an alliance between christianity (liberation theology) and left-wing groups. It's really important in many places. And would be in power a lot more if it wasn't for the machinations of aspects of the US government, and other bodies.

Basically in England we've had it fairly easy, in comparison to much of the world. And we've been very badly educated, and subject to highly effective and sophisticated capitalist propaganda.

It would take a charismatic leader with TV airtime to change much, I reckon, - but such a person would probably never get airtime, unless he just couldn't be ignored, e.g. because already elected. And how would she get elected, if unable to get access to the media. ?

 

[becky p]

Why is the left so marginalised?

Because too many get hung up on the detail and lose the vision as a result - i.e. "for the common good."

Because society has evolved since the 1970s and large sections of the "organised" left have not been seen to evolve with it.

Because the ever-lasting splits and reformations grind people down.

Because the methods of communication are often too "preachy" - very church-like and people don't like being told what to think.

Because the activities of socialists haven't broadened beyond the traditional meetings in the pub in the way that the "non-aligned left/greens" have.

Those an what others have said.

I read that and agreed with it all. Then i read demowhateveres and the point about Christian Socialists, and agreed with that as well.

Some really interesting and thought stimulating posts on this thread.
Left wing people sure do have problems getting their ideas across and making wider connections. So it is good to see a thread like this.

 

[urbanrevolt]

You just seem to be seeing "the class struggle" as union dominated strikes/demonstrations though.

Not exclusively, no. That was mainly in that example I think- and it is a very important series of struggles going on in Unison at the moment, I feel.

However, I agree with what a lot of people have said. We certainly need to get our message across a lot better but it's not just about getting a message across, it's about developing a collective sense of agency and control, of our own creative power, that can wrest power from the elite currently in control. A very tall order- may be not even possible at all- though history suggests it is possible to take power from an elite it is has not yet on any long term basis led to real power for the working class as a whole.

Unions are important I think but I agree that the class struggle is much wider than merely unions. I also agree with kyser-zose that it's also about being explicitly political- not in the sense of something imported from the outside but soemthing developed together, through discussion and shared experience.

It has to go beyond workplace organisations and struggles- however workplace organisation and political struggle is extremely important even fundamental I think as capitalism functions on the systematised robbery of our collective work.

We do have to relate to the working class as it is now- international, immigrant, not nearly as centralised in large employment places in the industrialised west, though newly emerging industries in countries such as China, India etc are like that often (though even in China migrant labour- in this case from rural areas- is a huge component of the workforce).

We need to find radically new forms of organising. I'm not a religious Marxist- they are not scadre texts or dogmas; our ideas need to be re-elaborated, tested in new realities, connected to real experiences, including to the millions for whom class, revolution, Marx, whatever are alien words and concepts.

As part of the first steps on that journey I think we need to lose our arrogance- the left have got it wrong on lots of things. However, we should also be very wary of a kind of reflex anti-leftism. Many valuable lessons- from the Bolsheviks, from the IWW, from the Chartists, from the anti-colonial struggles, from antiracist, antisexist, gay rights, many more varied and valuable parts of our collective history need to be looked at and considered. Some may be less relevant now than they were- sure but let's not throw it all out.

I think there are real possibilities and even exciting ones to be had in reconsidering our politics and seriously thinking about how we can go forward. I'm a great believer in being grounded in cmapaigns and real struglges and most of my experiences have been in both union struggles and antiracist ones- but I acknowledg eit's a very partial experience as any one persons is of course.

I'm also a fan of sharing and reflecting on those experiences, and of ideas, and theory. We need to be militants but above all we need to be thinking militants, creative human beings using the powers of our imaginations, and our practical organising skills to try to begin to map out the answers.

 

[urbanrevolt]

It would take a charismatic leader with TV airtime to change much, I reckon, - but such a person would probably never get airtime, unless he just couldn't be ignored, e.g. because already elected. And how would she get elected, if unable to get access to the media. ?

Of course control of the media gives the capitalist elite a huge advantage but the solutions have to lie I think in collective action. Having charismatic leaders is not enough or even that desirable. It's not about great leaders so much as discovering collective power, surely?

It is about linking to the popular imagination and telling relevant stories- stories of course based on reality and actually usable as practical examples of how to win, not so much as blueprints as recipes.

 

[mk12]

Not exclusively, no. That was mainly in that example I think- and it is a very important series of struggles going on in Unison at the moment, I feel.

However, I agree with what a lot of people have said. We certainly need to get our message across a lot better but it's not just about getting a message across, it's about developing a collective sense of agency and control, of our own creative power, that can wrest power from the elite currently in control. A very tall order- may be not even possible at all- though history suggests it is possible to take power from an elite it is has not yet on any long term basis led to real power for the working class as a whole.

Unions are important I think but I agree that the class struggle is much wider than merely unions. I also agree with kyser-zose that it's also about being explicitly political- not in the sense of something imported from the outside but soemthing developed together, through discussion and shared experience.

It has to go beyond workplace organisations and struggles- however workplace organisation and political struggle is extremely important even fundamental I think as capitalism functions on the systematised robbery of our collective work.

We do have to relate to the working class as it is now- international, immigrant, not nearly as centralised in large employment places in the industrialised west, though newly emerging industries in countries such as China, India etc are like that often (though even in China migrant labour- in this case from rural areas- is a huge component of the workforce).

We need to find radically new forms of organising. I'm not a religious Marxist- they are not scadre texts or dogmas; our ideas need to be re-elaborated, tested in new realities, connected to real experiences, including to the millions for whom class, revolution, Marx, whatever are alien words and concepts.

As part of the first steps on that journey I think we need to lose our arrogance- the left have got it wrong on lots of things. However, we should also be very wary of a kind of reflex anti-leftism. Many valuable lessons- from the Bolsheviks, from the IWW, from the Chartists, from the anti-colonial struggles, from antiracist, antisexist, gay rights, many more varied and valuable parts of our collective history need to be looked at and considered. Some may be less relevant now than they were- sure but let's not throw it all out.

I think there are real possibilities and even exciting ones to be had in reconsidering our politics and seriously thinking about how we can go forward. I'm a great believer in being grounded in cmapaigns and real struglges and most of my experiences have been in both union struggles and antiracist ones- but I acknowledg eit's a very partial experience as any one persons is of course.

I'm also a fan of sharing and reflecting on those experiences, and of ideas, and theory. We need to be militants but above all we need to be thinking militants, creative human beings using the powers of our imaginations, and our practical organising skills to try to begin to map out the answers.

OK- so all very radical and different in theory. But correct me if I am wrong, PR are a democratic centralist party who get involved in union activity, go to various socialist conferences, go to anti-war/anti-capitalist/no borders a to b marches, sell their papers here and there etc etc etc.

So despite the rhetoric, how are PR any different to other far-left parties? It just seems like you're doing the same thing as the far-left have always done, but trying to take the rhetoric of the liberatarian left. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though.

 

[cockneyrebel]

OK- so all very radical and different in theory. But correct me if I am wrong, PR are a democratic centralist party who get involved in union activity, go to various socialist conferences, go to anti-war/anti-capitalist/no borders a to b marches, sell their papers here and there etc etc etc.

So despite the rhetoric, how are PR any different to other far-left parties? It just seems like you're doing the same thing as the far-left have always done, but trying to take the rhetoric of the liberatarian left. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though.

Firstly PR don't put themselves forward as having all the answers. Secondly nothing anyone does is gonna be different from anything that has gone on in the past. I know you support the IWCA, but everything they've done has been done before, there is nothing ground breaking in their approach.

But this debate is far more than PR, it's about how the whole left is orientating towards the working class, as at the moment 99.9% of working class people don't have any real interaction with the left.

As for what PR are doing, well yeah we do have a journal and part of the ideas in the journal are about trying to get the left to face reality through articles such as "The state of the British Working Class" (http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1542) and various articles that argue that we're not in a time of crisis for capitalism (as most of the left seems to think) and that the tasks of the left are to re-build the unions and to re-build working class organisations. Until the left faces reality I don't think we'll be going anywhere, not if all that is repeated is that a crisis is either here or around the corner. From that point of view I hope that the ideas in our journal can have a wider impact (I know that the SWP leadership reads it because Harman has polemecised against it), indeed I'd far rather that than thinking that PR can just recruit in ones and twos. In the longer term we want those ideas to reach a wider audience, but realisically, given we're so small, our audience is more likely to be other union militants or other people on the left. However obviously people we discuss our ideas in people we meet through campaigns.

As for what PR members do activity wise, well obviously as a group of 30 odd people what impact we have is extremely limited. But most members are getting stuck into local campaigns. UR has been very active in the Karen Reismann campaign, the Sukula campaign as well as organising in his union. For myself I do union stuff, have been involved in a Free Education Campaign as well as Defend Council Housing. I guess what we try and do is practical stuff to build both local campaigns and do what we can to try and start rebuilding the unions. But as said, obviously this is extremely limited. On a national level we've tried to support campaigns like the RMT backed National Stewards Network and the STWC as well as the stuff mentioned when it is national.

But as said PR obviously don't have all the answers and what we can do on practical levels is very limited (although I'd argue some of our members have done some very good work on the ground). So while we try our best in implementing practical stuff as much as anything else we're trying to argue that the left has to face up to the dire state that we're in and try and focus more on rebuilding the unions and rebuilding community campaigns as band wagoning from one national campaign to the next, being sectarian (in the sense of seeing your organisation as more important than the working class) and ignoring basic issues that affect the working class on a day to day basis are getting the left nowhere fast.

PS PR certainly aren't "a party". Indeed no group on the far left is big enough to consider themselves a party (let alone "the party" as many leftists quaintly refer to their organisation by). We're a small network of activists.

As for democratic centralism I do think that the description has such a bad reputation that it's worth using another phrase altogether. But PR is nothing like our predecessor in that regards, whatever description you wanna use. We're not hung up on every member having to repeat the line or airing differences, but obviously we will act collectively as an organisation.

 

[kyser_soze]

'Charismatic leaders'...yeah, cos the world's littered with the successful reigns of charismatic leaders, isn't it?

 

[urbanrevolt]

OK- so all very radical and different in theory. But correct me if I am wrong, PR are a democratic centralist party who get involved in union activity, go to various socialist conferences, go to anti-war/anti-capitalist/no borders a to b marches, sell their papers here and there etc etc etc.

So despite the rhetoric, how are PR any different to other far-left parties? It just seems like you're doing the same thing as the far-left have always done, but trying to take the rhetoric of the liberatarian left. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though.

I agree with CR it's not all about the group you may or may not belong to- if anything I think another problem of the left- including many of the self-styled libertarian left- that whatever a person says is reduced to the group line s/he is a member of e.g. if an SWPer says something sensible some other person will say "You can't trust them they;re in the SWP" - I;ve seen this happen more than once when at meetings with anarchists etc. I think all of us need to get over this kind of sectarianism (though strictly speaking that may not be the right word- 'ame-calling on the basis of group affiliaition' or 'inter-grioup rivalry' may be better though it does hend to elad to the putting of the group's interest before the class as if th eonly answer to anything is join our gang etc)

There is as mk12 is so interested an article in the next journal precisely on democratic centralism and where it has gone wrong and where we- well more precisely the wirter of the article- have some differences- we're not for junking united action but want to see a left that is far more democratic and less obsessed with a line.

I'm not sure what other activity you'd like us to do than the ones you suggest? I guess you might suggest- I'd certainly suggest- be centrally involved in direct action campaigns coming from the workplaces, coming form the communities- yeah we would. You can't just magic them out of thin air though.

Actually on no borders or antideportation work in a couple of instances- the Sukula campaign in Bolton and a campaign in Sheffiield- we have been involved in campaigns that are direct acion coming from the community- including preventing evictions and deportations by the threat of direct action.

A wider point though is what can we- anyone on here - do when the left does not exist as a wider movement and we're left to being in small groups (some smaller than others) or individuals.

It's very difficult- we can discuss ideas and principles and that is important I think but unless backed up in actions- even if necessarily very small and localised words don't amount to much- they need to be tested in action I think.

However, burn-out is a very real possibility in such times- I think I've encoutered more than once personally where enthusiasm for the cause whether a strike or a deportation or any of the other issues which you may suggest leads people into such a pace of activity that precisley because there aren't thousand of us means people get exhausted. It has to be gaurded against and in fact I suspect that is another reason- paradoxiacally and in a sense unfairly- I suspect some people are put off by the sheer commitment that campaign politics elicits.

 

[urbanrevolt]

By the way comments 50 and 58 on the Mark Steel/SWP thread seem relevant to this thread- particularly the debate about (un)democartic centralism and inflation of class struggle hyperbole

 

[treelover]

Maybe because it ignores the concerns of millions of people, people like these who will be hit hard by the welfare reforms and because of this neglect some will look for someone to blame..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7112455.stm

 

[Fruitloop]

Why would they blame the left though? Unless they're a bit mental.

 

[poster342002]

Part of the reason why this has been a very bad decade for the left (in some ways worse than the prceeding years) is that, since 1997, there have been a large number of jingoistic and reactionary "national events" that have helped to shore-up rightwing and jingoistic attitudes: the Diana hyperbole, the Queen's Jubilee, the way almost every other year seemed to be some special war anniversary or other, the revivial of "Armistace Day" in addition to Remembrance Sunday and the accompanying profusion of mass-silences for any event the establishment cared to call for, the gaining of the Olympics, the London bombings ... all of those were events that favoured and engedered a popular mood to the right rather than left - nomatter how much the cod-left made facile attempts to "reclaim" any of them.

In lots of ways, it was a bit like having a "falklands factor" every other year.

 

[kyser_soze]

Why would they blame the left though? Unless they're a bit mental.

 

[Spion]

No, but the left's perception of the working class, it's imagery etc is still, AFAICS, rooted in the past of heavy, manual labour. It's easier to romaticise someone working in a mine or in a big factory than the lot of a call centre worker. The left has never really updated it's mythology to incorporate the changes that the w/c has been through.

Is this really true tho? I suspect it's a bit of a chap made of dried wheat stalks

 

[treelover]

I meant some will look for scapegoats, such as migrants ,etc

Why would they blame the left though? Unless they're a bit mental.

 

[kyser_soze]

Is this really true tho? I suspect it's a bit of a chap made of dried wheat stalks

So where's the mythology of the contemporary left then? Where are the tales to fire the blood, the images that can transcend terdious discussion of idelogy? There aren't any, and identity politics is FAR from being a strawman.

 

[nosos]

So where's the mythology of the contemporary left then? Where are the tales to fire the blood, the images that can transcend terdious discussion of idelogy?

Ditto liberalism. Both have their foundations in Enlightenment rationalism and beacuse of this they have difficulty recognising how important collective identification and an ethos are.

Eta: I'm sure I've seen you criticise Marxism for being a secular religion. What's the difference between a secular religion and a political movement with an ethos and mythology?

 

[mk12]

Is this really true tho? I suspect it's a bit of a chap made of dried wheat stalks

I'm sure I remember you saying how the agency of change is the industrial working class, only recently.

 

[_angel_]

Maybe because it ignores the concerns of millions of people, people like these who will be hit hard by the welfare reforms and because of this neglect some will look for someone to blame..

*sigh* he can put all the crackpot training schemes on offer in the world but until he can convince an employer it's a good idea to employ a single mum when her two sons schools have been continuously shut for the past two weeks I suspect nowt'll change.

 

[kyser_soze]

Ditto liberalism. Both have their foundations in Enlightenment rationalism and beacuse of this they have difficulty recognising how important collective identification and an ethos are.

Eta: I'm sure I've seen you criticise Marxism for being a secular religion. What's the difference between a secular religion and a political movement with an ethos and mythology?

My crit was Marxists who behave like it's a religion, rather than Marxism itself.

On topic...put it this way, what's more easy to create a stirring in the heart - the image of a steel worker or someone sat behind a checkout?

Actually, and this is my own bugbear (I even wrote to the ASA about it)...why no complaints over the portrayl of female call centre staff as battery hens in a large number of daytime TV insurance company adds? Where's the solidarity with people being demeaned by being compared to poultry?

 

[nosos]

That is rather dark actually.

 

[Spion]

I'm sure I remember you saying how the agency of change is the industrial working class, only recently.

I said the working class, not 'industrial'. Although I would think that on a global scale the working class is predominantly industrial

 

[butchersapron]

My crit was Marxists who behave like it's a religion, rather than Marxism itself.

On topic...put it this way, what's more easy to create a stirring in the heart - the image of a steel worker or someone sat behind a checkout?

Actually, and this is my own bugbear (I even wrote to the ASA about it)...why no complaints over the portrayl of female call centre staff as battery hens in a large number of daytime TV insurance company adds? Where's the solidarity with people being demeaned by being compared to poultry?

Where's the complaint about the conditions that allow people to be treated like poultry - never mind the appearance.

 

[kyser_soze]

Cos the ASA don't deal with that.

 

[Dillinger4]

Where's the complaint about the conditions that allow people to be treated like poultry - never mind the appearance.

Seconded.

 

[poster342002]

*sigh* he can put all the crackpot training schemes on offer in the world but until he can convince an employer it's a good idea to employ a single mum when her two sons schools have been continuously shut for the past two weeks I suspect nowt'll change.

The whole idea is that the claimant isn't supposed to be able to win.