Uncompromising: or why the left rarely wins
By Emma.
So, the 99% movement.
I don’t write about movement politics much, because it’s not my area of speciality. I’m an evolutionary not revolutionary socialist, and my chosen path for attempting to affect societal change is through the Labour Party. Party politics isn’t perfect, in fact it’s frustrating as hell sometimes, but in my long experience, it is the best way to achieve a majority of your objectives.
But the collective nature of Parties, the slow rate of change and the hierarchical structures don’t appeal to, or work for, everyone. Those who believe in revolutionary change, those focused on a single issue, those who prefer to work outside of traditional democracy.
So we have among the broad left, two distinctive traditions, which for brevity’s sake I shall refer to as the political left and the civil left.
Unlike Anthony Painter, I don’t feel that the most constructive way for the political left to engage with the civil left is to sneer them into submission. I agree with him (and with Sunny Hundal) that these movements can tend to elitism and internal division, but that doesn’t mean that all those involved in such movements are wrong.
I don’t know about Anthony, but my first instinct when faced with a large group of people willing to give up their Saturday afternoons to politically engaged action isn’t to mock them, but to wish they - or at least some of them - were doing so for the Labour Party. I don’t believe that belittling the action they are currently taking is the best way to do that.
For the most part, I (and I think Anthony) want what they want - a fairer world with better systems to manage that fairness over the longer term. I am concerned that the vagueness of such demands may mean that protests like this are lead to eventual disappointment and disillusionment. But unlike Anthony, I hope that isn’t the case.
This is not to say that all campaign movements achieve nothing. There are a list of legislative achievements that were brought about – at least in part – by people protesting creating the energy and space that supported politicians in getting legislation through. From the Poll Tax to the recent debacle over Forestry the political Left have been aided by the Civil left kicking up a stink about issues close to their heart. I have been told by former ministers when trying to pass challenging legislation on Climate Change that the noise of the protesters outside their windows pushing them to go as far as possible helped shore up support within the system. That’s a good example of the political and civil left coming together, bringing all their strengths to a common cause.
It is also worth remembering that protest doesn’t simply belong to the left – despite the stereotypes in Anthony’s article. Some of the most successful protests of the New labour years were organised by the right wing against high fuel prices and road charging. The Countryside Alliance march may not have stopped the ban on fox hunting, but I suspect it had a considerable amount to do with it being one of Blair’s major regrets. And that regret will impact on other potential policies. I suspect several other measures were quietly shelved that might otherwise have found a champion.
However, just as I don’t agree with Anthony’s attitude to the protesters, I equally can’t agree with Sue Marsh’s response. Her attitude to the political left is a scornful and demeaning as Anthony’s to the civil left. It denies the demands of democracy and the paradigm withing which politicians must operate, and berates them for not living up to an ideal that the paradigm fails. Politicians are far, far from perfect. But so are protesters. They both exist within different restrictive structures and change what they can.
So now we have a face off between two sets of people with broadly similar objectives but very different methods. If the right want a reason to be cheerful, it’s this: That instead of pooling our effort and resources – or at least working together where we can – we’re at each others throats over the methods we use.
But here I offer something that Anthony “Mandelsonian triangulation” and self described “happy little, card carrying, Blairite” Sue Marsh might both appreciate: A third way.
Labour should not try to own the protests. It speaks too much to the easy stereotypes of our party in opposition. But neither should we condemn them. I haven’t seen the Boulton and Co Interview in which Ed is reported to have said “protests aren’t the solution to the problems out there’” so I don’t know if it followed with a cheery “but good luck to those raising these issues” or a continued condemnation. If the latter that’s a shame, because getting political activists out on the street is a tough ask and we in the Party could do with more of them.
The civil left and the political left need to stop wasting their firepower on each other and concentrate on what unites rather than divides them. If the civil left continue to push away those who could help them - that’s a shame. If the political left deny itself a possibility to build up its activist base, that’s a shame too.
Because if both sides are too busy sniping at each other to actually focus on the civil and political battles we need to win, that’s a tragedy.
UPDATE: edited to add the words “Sue Marsh”.
Tags: 99% movement, Anthony Painter, Labour, Protest, Sue Marsh, Sunny Hundal
Tuesday, October 18th 2011 at 19:01
Hmmmmm……
I’d like to see where I’ve said this or even implied this:
“But here I offer something that Anthony “Mandelsonian triangulation” and self described “happy little, card carrying, Blairite” might both appreciate”
……Because I don’t see some protestors on the steps of St Paul’s who want to overthrow capitalism as a strong wind of political change that makes me a “Mandelsonian triangulation/card carrying Blairite…..I think you’ve misjudged this though I do often appreciate your blog.
Tuesday, October 18th 2011 at 19:21
Anthony, you’ve used the phrase “Mandelsonian triangulation” in your own response to Will Davis’s comment on your article.
However, I omitted the words “Sue Marsh” who was the self described “happy little, card carrying, Blairite”, which I admit completely changed the meaning of the sentence. I’ve now edited this. Apologies for any confusion/offence caused.
Tuesday, October 18th 2011 at 19:28
I think you’re probably right Emma.
As soon as politicians start to realise just how badly they’ve gone astray, I’ll dust off my card
That said when we’re a year or two off an election, I’ll stop berating and go back to supporting.
Parties do actually have to earn my support though.
Tuesday, October 18th 2011 at 20:06
I can tell you that a few of those people who blocked Westminster Bridge on Sunday 9th to oppose the Health Reform Bill were Labour members but rather more were trade unionists and former members of the Labour Party who are totally disillusioned with our sham system of representative democracy, which is neither representative nor democratic. The Labour Party has been part of the problem for at least the last 15 years; without New Labour’s health service reforms, Lansley’s Bill would not be possible. The only thing New Labour can be commended for is that they did put more money into health and education, albeit in a paternalistic, authoritarian, bureaucratic way.
The old politics is dead and there’s no point reanimating the corpse: the cancer of corruption, cronyism and corporatism has destroyed what little pretence of democracy we once had. The new politics is less about left versus right, more about authoritarian versus libertarian (in the true sense). Our leaders are clueless on both the left and the right: timid rabbits caught in the headlights of a global capitalist juggernaut careering totally out of control. They all gleefully filled up the tank of that juggernaut in happier days but now it’s coming to destroy them and itself in the process. Good. What use are leaders who pay more attention to tabloid headlines than the needs of real people, anyway?
The old hierarchical structures of political parties – and even groups like Compass and traditional unions – are inevitably prone to corruption and complacency, which leads to a total lack of the vision and inspiration which are needed now to deal with unprecedented crises. The inspiration today is all coming from the bottom up. People are starting to realise that they need to empower themselves, because no politician is ever going to do it for them. This is the future. The Labour Party needs to understand that or it will be consigned to history.
Tuesday, October 18th 2011 at 20:21
I didn’t use it in any reference to myself….it was in rebuttal to Will’s point that either you went along with the protests or you are a Mandelsonian triangulator….so your correction still leaves a very misleading impression I’m afraid….
But the core thesis is more worrying. That this represents a viable political future. Maybe I’ve misread it and capitalism is about to fall. Or maybe I haven’t…..
Tuesday, October 18th 2011 at 20:43
Really enjoyed this article Emma – especially as I also enjoyed both Anthony’s and Sue’s. Politically I’m closer to Anthony’s position – but I guess “civilly” I’m reasonably in tune with Sue’s as well – perhaps not that article in particular – but I read her blog regularly and share her frustrations with the tormented ordeal that the government (and not just the current one) put disabled people through.
I feel the “occupy” protests are of necessity vague – they’re saying simply that the richest financiers caused the problems which most of now suffer because of, and they’re the only ones now benefiting – and it’s not fair, and it’s time something was done about it. Simplistic – naive as well perhaps – but hard to knock.
But I don’t think they all want the overthrow of the capitalist system, or even oppose all cuts – they’re just demonstrating their frustration – and as you say – Good Luck to them !
I can’t really subscribe though to the view that it’s impossible to have a voice in the more formal political system. I joined the Labour party after the 2009 European elections – disgusted that we’d sunk to a level where BNP members were elected.
I haven’t changed the world since then, or the Labour Party, but I am part of the local exec, I have stood (unsuccessfully – but with 40% of the vote) for local council (and we increased our councillors from 0 to 2 !) , and I have conversed with countless real politicians via twitter, and other social media – and met many of them in real life – including the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown. So I think it’s fairly accessible – and some of the people who think they are disenfranchised might find that if they looked in the right places.
Tuesday, October 18th 2011 at 20:53
I’m afraid full agreement was precisely the impression given in your response.
As with the idea that engaging with the civil left is akin to accepting the inevitable death of capitalism thesis, you seem to offer very simplistic either/or options.
Tuesday, October 18th 2011 at 21:09
In response to Will accusing me of Mandelsonian triangulation, I wrote:
“@Will Because that’s the choice right: Mandelsonian triangulation or chanting on the steps of St Paul’s.”
Pretty obvious I was rejecting his false dualism if you ask me….but I would have thought the comradely thing to do would have been to acknowledge the misreading/confusion and then move on instead of sticking to the what is, though inadvertent I’m sure, a misrepresentation.
Now, number 7 of the Occupy LSX manifesto states:
7 We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world’s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the rich.
Now, do you think Labour should associate itself with a protest whose aim is to abolish profit and end military spending? How do you think that will play out?
Tuesday, October 18th 2011 at 21:20
I’ll be completely honest. When I read that comment, my heart sank. Because, coupled with your article, I did think you meant it. I honestly did. And that depressed me a lot. So I’m very pleased you don’t. But I don’t tend to jump to opinions, so it might be worth wondering for a moment why I did.
On your more substantive point (because I’m a little tired of arguing about a quote I only used to facilitate a bad pun) do I think those words – or anything like them – should appear in the next manifesto? No. Do I think that people whose objective is greater equality have some common cause with Labour? Yes.
To reject the whole movement, the people and the sentiment, is foolish when there can and should be far better ways to ensure that the political and civil left achieve anything. At the very least, rather than attacking them, turn the other cheek.
Wednesday, October 19th 2011 at 12:13
Emma – As someone on the “civil left”, its heartening to see this sort of good-natured, thoughtful response from people on the “political left” (within which I count friends whose politics I respect and share).
Just a couple of thoughts, if I may.
As far as most of the people I know on the civil left are concerned, if you were to ask them whether they thought capitalism was going to collapse or be overthrown tomorrow, or even in the medium-term, they’d probably all say no. If you were to ask them whether, in the absence of any serious prospect today of an actual revolution, they wouldn’t welcome meaningful changes that addressed their concerns, they would probably all say yes. I’d be stunned if they didn’t anyway.
So this evolutionary/revolutionary divide that you draw is not as hard and fast as you may think. Actually, the real debate within the left is over the degree of change that’s required. The fact that revolution isn’t in immediate prospect isn’t going to prevent those of us on the civil left from stating the plain fact that capitalism, as it exists today, is not working for the vast majority of people, and that the problems are far from superficial policy-level issues that can be sorted out with a bit of tinkering at the margins.
The most prominent, popular figures in the global civil left, people like Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky, have been quite clear that the current protests have to be part of a sustained, years-long effort to address the fundamental problems of wealth and political inequality, which are becoming increasingly obvious to all, and unsustainable in practical terms. In the first instance, its about getting a message and a critique onto the agenda, and mobilising pressure on politicians and the major centres of power, in the hope of winning some incremental victories. That’s the focus for now, and we’ll see where it takes us.
No one thinks camping outside St Pauls will overthrow a two-hundred year old economic system, though it may suit members of Labour’s right-wing to portray us in that way. It saves them from having to engage sensibly with the substantive issues at stake, or with the civil left as it actually exists. Arguing with a few placards instead is a lot easier for them.
I think we need a progressive left inside and outside the Labour Party, and hope that productive dialogue between the two sides can continue.