Why we need a politics of coalitions
I need to get around to writing a bigger and fuller article on this, but I have to do that about so many issues that I end up putting all of them on the back-burner. Too much to say and not enough time. So I’ll start with shorter posts that I can build into a bigger article.
There’s a discussion going on between David Semple and Tom Miller about the nature of Compass and how it relates to left-wing politics. David is a Marxist – an intelligent, non-authoritarian one, but on the far-left nevertheless on class politics. Tom supports the centre-left group Compass (disclosure: I’m also a member).
In this blog post, David states:
The concept of hegemony becomes reduced to electoral strategy. Where we should be thinking about how to overturn the institutions, practices and ideas which sustain these ’subject positions’, too many socialists of the ’soft Left’ (as it has traditionally been known) want to think instead how we can ameliorate our own programme to better subsume these subject positions on their own terms. It is from this perspective that I’ve always viewed Compass, and its repudiation of the notion of the working class.
To my understanding, David thinks ‘soft-left’ organisations will only push things so far, whereas if the working classes are to be liberated then you need nothing short of an overthrow of capitalism. Hence, by supporting and getting absorbed into a soft-left agenda, then the revolution is further delayed. If I’m wrong, he can correct me.
My problem with this viewpoint is several-fold, and I take the example of the conservative movement in America for this. The hardcore right-wingers of America (Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh etc) have been able to pull the conservative agenda towards them over the last few decades because they build a massive base. Republicans generally are quite a disciplined bunch. Centrist Republicans don’t attack the hardcore right-wingers and vice versa. They know that to pull America slowly right-wards, it takes a lot of coalition building & putting out ideas and arguments that persuade the public.
My view is essentially the same. The socialist left, which believe more in the purity of their arguments than electoral power, are there to push the envelope and continually argue for a more radical world. I support the green movements similarly, for constantly pushing forward a more radical agenda in the hope of shifting the centre ground to their policies.
But at the end of the day there’s only two ways political ideas can win: winning political power, or building a mass movement (that changes attitudes, and leads to legislation). Unfortunately, the far left has neither. Even worse, the ideas are simply a rehashment of old-school Marxism, which are becoming less relevant as the world goes on.
Not to say the centre-left is any better to be honest. Compass is good at getting people riled up and taking action on various issues but it remains a campaigning organisation than an ideas one. Their vision of the world is mostly nice, but it’s not really new. You may argue: so what? I would argue that if those ideas are already not in wide circulation then you’ve either failed to make the case effectively (so need better marketing/packaging) or they’re just not very popular. Either way, a new strategy is needed.
Going back to political positioning. It’s my view that while the socialist left are fine in sticking to their ideologically rigid positions: they also need to understand that there will never be any movement leftwards unless they support centre-left organisations to gain political power. Newt Gingrich perhaps best illustrated this through his ‘Contract With America’.
Of course, Tony Blair fucked it up, because now hardly anyone trusts New Labour as a political vehicle for the left. But that doesn’t mean the basic strategy is wrong. After all, the conservatives in America implemented it to great effect, though it took them several decades.
But when David says he needs to be, “thinking about how to overturn the institutions, practices and ideas”, then the only way to do is through building a broad base of support for those ideas. You don’t have to take the electoral power route, but the revolution won’t come if you have neither popular support now political power (unless you plan a violent revolution which, frankly, is not a viable option). This is why I support the electoral strategy plan.
But there is a broader problem that deeply infects the left. There are no broad campaigning organisations. There is little energy (except with the green and the civil liberties movements), and there is little in the way of new ideas that persuade people why they’re at the crisis they are in. People on the left are just throwing out broad plattitudes (summarised as: ‘capitalism is finished! yay!’). People keep talking about building broad progressive movements, but actually not doing anything towards that end.
Disclaimer: There are just a jumble of thoughts and ideas. I need to articulate it better later, but I thought at least I’d throw it out there.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Economy,Party politics
Don’t Compass have various ideas about how to reform capitalism, and bring about a better social democracy? They might not be extremely new ideas, but then again Obama didn’t have that many new ideas that weren’t already argued before he got to power, and he did all right. I would say the emphasis shouldn’t only be on generating new ideas (although this is very important in the long run) but also on winning the arguments for those ideas, phrasing and communicating them in the right way to the electorate and the media, and then using them to gain electoral power and popular support.
I do think the Left needs to get off its Dead Donkey and stop declaring the death of capitalism now that the credit crunch has hit. What might be more useful is, “Where do we go from here?”
Heh.
Let me clarify one or two things, without necessarily re-hashing my argument over here.
I’m not one of the “end of capitalism is nigh” types – indeed such types are much more likely to be found amongst the media that amongst anything that can be called “the Left”. I believe that capitalism needs to end, but it won’t do it of its own accord. I deal with some of those arguments here: http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/?p=391
On the role of the Marxist Left, and this is directed to Sunny’s article, it is an opinion that Marxism is becoming less relevant as the world goes on – and it’s one you haven’t supported. Far from being a ‘rehashing’ of ‘old-school Marxism’, there are swathes of the Marxist Left who have extended the analytical system of Marx into new realms – the Cultural Turn didn’t just happen for postmodernists.
That Marx = old is a pretty bad argument. So are Adam Smith, JS Mill and a bunch of others, upon whose ideas the major political philosophies are built. Even Ayn Rand is dead. But so what?
I don’t disagree with some of the contentions you make – but I do disagree with the conclusions you draw from them. For example, I agree, a broad base must be built by the far Left. That goes without saying really – the problem from the p.o.v. of the soft Left is that they want to build this by calling the leadership of any political movement and asking for parley. The far Left is more inclined to do it by going to the members and making their own arguments directly.
There are notable exceptions obviously – the SWP is just as happy as Compass to involve NGOs on the (otherwise democratically elected) governing bodies of various campaigns. Moreover, the ‘far’ Left has a relevance in the workplace that the communitarian platitudes of the soft Left can never have – simply because we have a clearer understanding of a) what the struggle is and b) how to win it.
Don’t get me wrong – as regards building beyond the shopfloor the far Left leaves a lot to be desired. I’m not directing critique in one direction. But to jump from “need to broad base” to “electoral coalition” skips a bunch of steps – not least of which is a detailed critique of the State, the role of representative institutions under capitalism and half a dozen other key concepts of the last two hundred years of political economy.
I don’t mind that you disagree with me – I wouldn’t blog if I minded that – but your argument is only implicit at some important points, and this makes it more difficult to grapple with.
To pick a second contention which I agree with, while challenging your conclusion, I’d choose the following: “I would argue that if those ideas are already not in wide circulation then you’ve either failed to make the case effectively (so need better marketing/packaging) or they’re just not very popular.”
It’s blindingly obvious to say that the far Left has failed to make its case – but to answer the question why (and thus draw conclusions as to rectifying the situation) is much more complicated. Firstly, why does anyone think anything? Hegemony is not established simply by persuading a majority – not least because there are cultural, institutional and other factors lying in the path.
Secondly, what about tactics? During key struggles in the past, when the far Left played an important role, could it simply be that wrong choices were made and that this curtailed for a long time our ability to convince anyone?
The Stalinist period, for example, turned a lot of people off communism – but it doesn’t logically follow that communist revolution always produces Stalin. That’s a viable argument to be sure – but it was one that deliberately received great currency for reasons that go way beyond the individual merits of the argument. The same has been true of the SWP and their electoral coalition – but it doesn’t follow that ‘the theory’ (as though it can be reduced to a monolith) is wrong.
Finally – and this is probably the most important point. I am not of the opinion that ‘supporting’ a soft-Left agenda will delay the revolution. Letting the soft Left set the agenda will certainly set back the overthrow of capitalism, but as I explicitly say in my article, co-operation with the soft Left is not just advisable, it is necessary – we must not, however, make the same mistake as has been made in the past and become adjuncts of people in Parliament who might for a while profess our faith.
This was the case with the Socialist Campaign Group – about half of which travelled onwards to Blairism, as I also said. But the soft Left are not the direct representatives of Capital and we have a duty to collaborate on a minimum programme, even while leaving the door open to criticism and critique.
ha ha glad you are some sort of revolutionary Sunny.
The problem the left has ALWAYS had is the Judean Peoples Front vs The Peoples Front of Judea.
Splitters!
Sunny
A good, intelligent and intellectually open post of the type the Left needs right now.
It is interesting to see oyur note that David, as a Marxist, is not authoritarian. This suggest that most Marxists you encounter are in fact authoritarians and that David stands out from the crowd. I have to say this is not my experience, however limited, of recent Marxsit thinkers. I wodner if you might be doing a bit of StrawMarxist attacking there.
This is an important area of discussion, perhaps the most important for the Left at the moment. Like oyu, I am busy generating seferal thousand words as my own contribution, but find that having my labour exploited gest in the way, but in brief……
I think you are deeply wrong with your call for a coalition to emulate the rightwing coalition. That is is because you are seeking a coalitrion with people on the wrong side of the divide. There is one obvious interest grup the soft left is leaving out from its coalition, in its 30 year old and enduring obsession with ‘identity politics (subtly fused witrh the green movement). That interest group is those who are exploited through their labour.
I hope I will make more sense in my essay, when I’ve finished it.
Very interesting thoughts Sunny. Good article and one that needs and deserves some thought.
Just two thoughts for now. Firstly, I’m not totally sure that ‘green’ and ‘left’ are quite as close as this article seems to hold – at least in general terms.
I remember well that trade unions like the miners (my grandad was in the NUM way back when) were not altogether fans of green thought. Sure, many greens can be of the left, and vise versa, but I don’t think that the relationship is as well-defined as that article holds.
Secondly, ‘People keep talking about building broad progressive movements, but actually not doing anything towards that end. Fair comment, but isn’t that also known as apathy? Or, put another way, evidence of underlying right-wing belief?
What is understated here is that the leftist battle, the battle to a more’socialised’ world, cannot be conducted solely at the level of big issues like, say, the continuation of a public NHS and the rallying point.
Rather it needs to be conducted almost at the level of living the cause: that is, leftism proper, the pgamut of progressive policies that (to use an old term) redistribute and equalise. Talkboards are filled with demands for tax-cuts, a hard line on immigrants, fewer ‘jobsworths’ and the like; yet this everyday rightism seems to be a lower priority for the article. That could also be extended to other areas of policy such as policing where the demand for, ‘something to be done,’ about the chav on the corner has a distinctly rightist tinge. In many areas, it is not as though right-wing thought was rammed down the throat of an unwilling public – the public actively beckoned it into their society.
I’d like to see follow-up articles look more at how campaigning could swim with this tide. As the article says, Blair did it. 1997-1999 was probably the most progressive period of government any of us will see for a long time.
And on that note, it would not hurt some on the left to get over themselves about Iraq. The left has alwas had a robust defence policy. Atomic weapons and energy, for example, have always developed under Labour, not tory governments.
The article is a cut above though Sunny – every credit.
What, pickled?
“Of course, Tony Blair fucked it up, because now hardly anyone trusts New Labour as a political vehicle for the left.”
What confusion. New Labour was never MEANT to be a political vehicle of the left. Blair always made that clear, as did Brown. You don’t encompass free markets wholeheartedly, encourage capital inflow and business into London and expect people still to think you are “of the left”. The Left was supposed to have been left in the past.
Ideologically lightweight Blair thought his party understood that Left/Right was of the past. He was right to hope for this, but wrong about (Old) Labour.
Yet this divide is STILL of the past, despite the present economic turmoil.
Or are you lot about to resuscitate Clause 4?
The truth is Labour f**ked up Blair and with that your party’s chance of doing any lasting good, unless the Tories come to your rescue.
Cherie, your devotion to your husband is touching, but really…
This is an interesting debate.
I think ‘Blairsupporter’ is the one who is really living in the past here. You can’t keep painting the Blairite dichotomy of New and Old Labour as propaganda to make the left look old, when in fact, there is clearly another generation of young lefties who are mostly younger than the Blairites. As a friend of mine once said ‘the third way leads to a dead end’. You have to pick which side of the fence you are on – normal working class people or the priveliged and wealthy of our society. This is why Blair failed and why we need to bring the Labour Party back to the left. Different policies perhaps to 20 or 30 years ago but certainly a restoration of the Labour Party’s values.
As for the debate between the ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ left or social democrats and socialists, my first point is that we have to work together, otherwise all of our agendas are sold out. Now, I think David makes a very good point about electoralism. Many Compass supporters backed Blair wholeheartedly with the view that we need electoral success. Whilst the latter part is fair enough it seemed too many people abandoned their critical faculties in this move. New Labour should have been challenged earlier. Public services should be in public hands. We should have reversed (at least some!) of Thatcher’s union laws. And we should be less concerned with nuclear weapon renewal and illegal wars than we are with healthcare and education.
A social democratic agenda would of course bring the party to the left again. At the moment I believe it would also actually be electorally more popular. What needs to be remembered however is our values throughout this process. If the right-wing press start attacking us should we reject our values again? No, whilst keeping electoral aims in sight, we must keep hold of our values because the long-lasting damage of losing them does us more damage than one election defeat.