The far left and the general election
Posted on Friday 7 May, 2010
Filed Under The left
ENGELS famously compared election results to a thermometer capable of registering the political temperature among the working class. If yesterday’s outcome is anything to go by, it is distinctly nippy for the time of year.
The next few days will doubtless see the Marxist left advance the same excuses for its poor performance that it put forward in 2005 and in 2001 and in 1997 and in [insert date of contest here].
Far left candidates were squeezed by the pressure to vote Labour to keep the Tories out, Socialist Worker is already arguing on its website. OK, comrades. So when wasn’t this the case? When will it not be the case in future?
The other all-purpose platitude is the claim that the appalling results are irrelevant anyway because ‘the real struggle is outside Parliament’. Like all good truisms, such an assertion is logically unassailable. But if that is so, why bother walking down the parliamentary road to lost deposits?
The blogger most closely associated with Respect is glossing over the collapse of his earlier fantasies about his party holding the balance of power in a hung parliament perspective with an incisive post about speed cameras in Swindon.
The point is, if left groups attempt to play at mainstream politics, they will be judged by the yardsticks of mainstream politics. And the principal yardstick of mainstream politics is winning seats.
Scrabbling around for votes in many instances lower even than those secured by local whackjobs banking on the support of their mum and their mates from down the pub can only have demoralised the many activists who invested their personal energies in such efforts.
There are two cohesive strategies open to the serious class struggle left right now. Option one is putting together a permanent socialist party capable of encompassing a wide range of leftwing opinion and then settling down for at least a decade of hard graft putting down roots in local communities.
Such a formation might just – as the Scottish Socialist Party experience proved before it was wrecked by a combination of one man’s rampant priapism and the machinations of actually existing democratic centralism – cross a low proportional representation threshold.
There is not the slightest evidence that the far left as currently constituted is capable of rising to the dizzying heights of elementary common sense. The prospect is rather that it will instead stick to the brand of classic Leninist microsect building entirely out of step with British conditions, while continuing to flit lightmindedly from one electoral flag of convenience to another.
Hint, guys: even standing under the same name in two elections running would represent some kind of progress on this front. You really should give it a try sometime.
The other option is to promote basic socialist ideas – in a fashion that will inevitably fall far, far short of a full Marxist understanding of class politics – inside the Labour Party. The space available to do so is highly limited.
But it does exist, and may marginally expand if there is some sort of intellectual reassertion of social democracy within Labourism in the coming period.
Attending ward meetings may not seem much of a step forward for the world revolution. It hardly promises the sort of white knuckle ride that will appeal to newly-radicalised young activists, or even many older comrades who have been there, seen it, done that. I guess that dialectics can be deceptive, right?
However, such is the degree to which class consciousness has been eroded by decades of industrial defeat and free market fundamentalism that no other approach is even remotely feasible.
Or is it really impossible even for the most delusional SWPer not to see the contradiction inherent in running headlines such as ‘TUSC tapping anger against Labour’ over the news that star Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition candidates picked up under 2% of the poll yesterday? Attempts to talk up failure will fool few observers.
There is a final warning on offer in last night’s voting statistics. The British National Party now has a palpable base several hundred strong in every working class area in Britain, something that need not have happened if the radical left had been able to articulate discontent at the base of society.
The dangers of not embracing sobriety should be plain to all.
<<Go back
Comments
125 Responses to “The far left and the general election”
Leave a Reply
Here’s McShane-owitz pretending to be a Bisto kid and engaging in inverted snobbery …
http://hurryupharry.org/2010/05/10/summing-it-up-in-no-more-than-140-characters/#comments
Enough to make a hyena puke, innit?
In future I’ll just donate my vote directly to Goldman Sachs etc. and short-circuit the process. Radio 4 (Robert Peston) says the markets “just won’t wait” and I’d hate to upset them by voting “wrong” next time. Welcome to the new fuedalism.
I expect they’ll execute Brown outside the Gerkin around lunchtime…to appease the Gods.
Bill Corr’s reference to “McShane-owitz” is enough to make many of those who don’t share his anti-semitism puke, and I’d like to add my voice to those objecting to his presence.
So what do ‘the markets’ do in countries like Germany that have PR and perennial coalition government? I suspect that the City of London is rather dismayed that there’s no Pinochet to come along and spare us from having to put up with politics and elections.
JOHNNO – I think you are the one making a lot of assumptions.You accept that Respect “attracts their support and has a comparatively high % of Muslim candidates”, and what I am saying is that given Respect’s inability to extend beyond that core support they might choose to focus on it exclusively.
“You give the sense that Muslims are the other” I don’t choose to, if that is the impression you took it is a wrong one.
“The statement assumes that the only people opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are Muslims”. It most certainly doesn’t.I don’t expect them to drop their opposition to imperialist wars, which are of concern across the community, and there are people outside Respect opposed to the wars, so I don’t know what the Hell you’re on about.
” any anti war party will ultimately have to pander to their as yet secret objectives”. Nonsense on stilts.
“And finally it assumes Muslims can in no way be left-wing and can only pretend to be left-wing.”No,my argument has been that Respect’s appeal to the Muslim community has been a cross-class one, and that because it has far more success in its core constituency than actual left forces and very little outside it, it is more likely to become even more focused on what unites the community and ignore the class divisions within it.
Try to read more and abuse less in future.
Skidmarx seems to think I believe McShane-owitz to be Jewish. I never gave the matter any thought.
If I knew McShane-owitz to be Jewish I would not think less of him. Or more.
He’s a party-line EUphiliac and pro-Turkish membership of the EU.
He also saw fit to spout ludicrous snatched-out-of-thin-air invented figures about vast regiments of wimmin trafficked in and around London with an eye to grabbing a dramatic headline and for no other reason.
Will that do?
Concerning Afghanistan, my very brief sojourn in that ghastly mess of a country convinced me that Britain should not give one bullet, one penny or one drop of blood to the inhabitants. Or to the Pakistanis. Or to the Iraqs.
And as for whether Afghani women shuffle along in blackout curtains or strut around in itsy-witsy teeny-weeny polka-dot bikinis, I am wholly indifferent.
If the latter, there would be fewer Afghans showing up in Blighty reciting “Me refugee!”
No True Believing Muslim can really be a Socialist or Communist at heart, Skidmarx.
Don’t take my word for it; there are more than enough online Islamic theologians and scholars who will confirm what I just said at exhaustive length. Believe them.
Skidmarx is spot on:
Dave, so what exactly must Corr do before you try and rein him in? Has he got to start pasting in links to David Irving or the NPD?
Perhaps Bill Corr will only be dealt with once he starts on singing his admiration for Horst Wessel?
Really, Dave, libertarianism is one thing, but encouraging out right bigotry and the peddler of BNP propaganda Bill Corr, is another.
“Racist!” “Racist!”
McShane is NOT Jewish; QED referring to him as McShane-owitz cannot be considered anti-Semitic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300719.html
There are people round here who simply refuse to use all their brains.
David Irving is a proven historical falsifier. Enough said.
As for the NPD, I have no strong views one way or the other. They are probably as uncool, uncouth and ill-dressed as the thoroughly unlovely stalwarts of the BNP but you can be certain that they are firmly opposed to German cities turning into sqaulid re-creations of Anatolian villages and to Germany being enriched by honour killings, female genital mutilations and forced marriages.
They probably don’t feel keen on Moroccan and Kurdish gangs engaging in criminality in every German city and town.
Some people would squeal that holding such non-PC opinions makes them racists.
I’d generously assume them to be on the right lines.
Here, by popular request, is a little about the NPD:
http://www.npd-sh.de/index.php?sprachen/englisch/
The reference to Sir Oswald deserves to be deleted pronto, but the rest of the text isn’t too bad.
As noted in the text, the 5% hurdle is the one which the NPD, and other minor parties, finds an obstacle.
The slogan DEUTSCHLAND AUS DEUTSCHEN is enough to enrage the doubleplusgoodthinkful and enlightened of Germany, who are undoubtedly convinced that Germany needs a few hundred thousand more Kurds, Moroccans and Somalis to be truly enriched, vibrant and multicultural.
A weeny bit about the well-known gentile and enthusiast for war Denis McShane and Khalid Mahmood …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Mahmood
… there was a time people fled to New South Wales after such exposure but now it hardly matters for long.
ShitPants,
I have to say I was surprised by your comments as they were at best ill thought out. I had you down as a lot smarter than that.
Respect will do what every other party does and try to attract as many votes as possible around some core values. Respects core values are Social Democratic, which you seem to think is strange (as for some reason you think they could drop left pretensions). In fact you directly correlate the “reinforcing of orientation on the Muslim community and dropping the left pretensions”!!!! Clearly this means to you that deep down Respect is some Muslim front hiding its true agenda and not some genuine party going for as many votes as it can get. It also means you believe courting Muslims more equals dropping left policies, which again plays to the idea that Muslims are closet reactionaries/extremists with needs that are different to the rest of the population and who are intent on imposing their barbaric practices on us all. The truth is that minority communities, being among the poorest demographic, tend to be social democratic because guess what they need public services too. And of course the left are often more sympathetic to the discrimination of minority groups than the right so this attracts them to our side, though with Muslims I do wonder sometimes if that is the case.
JOHNNO – the fundamental assumption you seem to be making is that when I talk of Respect dropping its left pretensions (perhaps I should have said far left pretensions to make it clearer) I must be saying that the only alternative is for it to be a far right racist organisation. A lot of things could be further from the truth.
Setting up Respect made sense in the wake of the War on Terror when the attack on civil liberties affested the Muslim community disproportionately, but the split came when those around Galloway thought that they would have a broader appeal without the influence of the SWP. In order to retain support from far left activists they nmuddies the waters at the time by trying to focus the split on John Rees’ alleged incompetence, but the major part of their shtick was always that they could appeal to Muslims in a way the SWP could not.
I don’t think Repsect have moved on policy, they were always Social Democratic in the truer sense of the term. So I fail to see what pretensions they have had. I also don’t anticapte either,
1. A move away from these core values
2. An attempt to become an exclusively Muslim party
3. If 2 were to happen I don’t think that would affect 1
JOHNNO – I’m afraid the last was written before I had the chance to read your last comment. I don’t think it fundamentally changes what I’m trying to say.
To continue, I’d say that maximising its vote is Respect’s core agenda rather than its social democracy. Certainly its appeal is as much to small shopkeepers, the unemployed and the occasionally employed as much as it is to organised workers. I don’t think Respect is a Muslim front hiding an Islamofascist agenda, but that as it becomes clearer that almost all of it support comes from the Muslim community its strategy for survival in its present form is likely to push it to appeal on even more of a non-class basis than it does now. Courting Muslims all the more on a non-class basis does mean being less left, but that in no way implies that Muslims are more reactionary/extremist than others.
As to your crack about socialistunity, I’ll say the same to you as I’ve said before, check their archive and you’ll discover that I was quite polite and cautious for the first few months I commented on that site[you can find the first comment I made here], while Respect Renewal supporters were constantly abusive to anyone who disagreed with them, eventually getting to the place you seem to be at now. As I said before, by adopting such a screenname I may ask for it a bit, but if you want to have a polite discussion, lay off the abuse.
“The truer sense of the term”? Is that 19th century social democracy(marxism),those of the British SDP in the 80s, or traitional labourism? Assuming the last, that was never a static facotr, always waiting to be compromised by its proximity to power. Is that what you expect of Respect.
To diverge for a moment I was talking to a Green supporter last night who was disappointed that their manifesto this time round had talked less about the environment and more about social issues. I said it wasn’t that surprising given the ecomic ctisis, but thinking about it it does flag up that the space left to the left of New Labour does provide an opportunity for non-working class forces like the Greens and Respect to make an appeal there, but that their lack of class politics is likely to make their commitment to socialist policies even more transitory. The Greens don’t have the same history of trying to displace the far left that Respect has, which is why I’d broadly welcome Caroline Lucas’ victory, and be somewhat glad that Respect has failed, though still less in the belief that she will carry the struggle forward than that we will have a bit more chance to see that voting Green doesn’t make any basic difference.
As another aside to Dave, if socialists go back into the Labour Party aren’t they likely to be kicked out like the Militant if they achieve any real influence?And your general perspective does seem more mechanical than dialectical in its perspective of slow evolutionary advance ignore the discontinuities and leaps of history, I might respectfully suggest.
Back to JOHNNO – they had pretensions at the time of the split that they were just as left as the SWP.I don’t see them admitted becoming a Muslim party, just that their orientation will become more to that community as a whole.Though if you don’t think 2 would affect 1, I think your understanding of class may be a little faulty.
All parties try to maximise votes, and I don’t agree Respect will focus solely on the Muslim community. I would actually anticiapte an attempt to move beyond the anti war image (not that they won’t be anti war) and onto more solidly Social Democratic grounds. So they will promote more greatly their community work, opposing cuts to local services and the like.
Any new party must attempt to defend the base they have built up before moving beyond that base. If Respect ever come to ditch their Social Democracy this will have nothing to do with courting more Muslims but courting Middle England!
Having said that whether the dissapointment of the election results demoralises the party and as a result they wither I cannot say. I certainly hope they can survive and that they recognise Rome was not built in a day.
“Though if you don’t think 2 would affect 1, I think your understanding of class may be a little faulty.”
This goes back to the idea/empirical fact of minority communities supporting left of centre parties. I think you are too class minded when trying to explain the realties of modern society. (That doesn’t mean I don’t think left parties should be class based just that explaining reality must bear in mind other things). Though as I also said generally speaking minority communities tend to be among the lower social classifications.
Here’s the word on HP
http://hurryupharry.org/2010/05/10/tories-and-lib-dems-agree-deal/
Remember, O happy campers, that Grinning Tony and Surly Gordon have done such a spiffing job of building a vibrant and fairer Britain over the last 13 years that the UK now has to borrow eight quid a day for every one of you JUST TO MEET CURRENT EXPENDITURE.
Such acuity and brilliance!
JOHNNO. How can a so called radical socialist party like respect be anti war. Surely they must be prepared for war to win socialism. Maybe after reading Marx all those years ago I have become confused. Or maybe it is you JOHNNO that is confused.
JOHNNO – I think you are too class minded when trying to explain the realties of modern society.
Me and Marxists for the last 160 years. The reason the SWP used to call for a vote for social democratic party like Labour was that such a vote showed a basic identification with the working class, calling for such a vote without there being any such connection seems to be a step backwards which requires some explanation.
The last time I had a discussion with johng about this he defended the SWP’s position partly on the basis that there was a “shifting locus of reformism”. That doesn’t seem to have been the case in this election, where the left vote has tended to stay with Labour. And here’s some words of Chris Harman’s I quoted then:
But the term can also be used to reinforce the illusion that minor changes in the running of parts of the system are all that is necessary to improve the situation of the mass of people. By the same token, those who see their fight as an “anti-neoliberal” one can move on to see it as “anti-capitalist”, but they can also slip back into conciliation with the system. Rhetoric and slogans have a role in politics, but they are not a substitute for clarity about the enemy and how to fight it.
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=399
This would seem to fit Respect now that the bandwagon has stopped rolling.
I am not a supporter of Respect by the way. Call it defeatism if you will but these days I tend to get excited by any remotely left of centre victory and get saddened when they are defeated. In fact no one would have been happier than me if the AWL had performed well in this election!!-Which ties in with your identification with the working class argument. And let’s be clear Respect were never radical socialist to paraphrase Mr Glegsa.
So Chris Harman’s words about knowing the enemy are fine but in a period of almost total defeat knowing your friends is more important!
However, in relation to explaining society as it actually is then of course class in central to Marxists but not the whole story. This is important to our debate because I don’t accept Respect will move away from Social Democracy if they court Muslims more. (Though I don’t think this will happen) Part of this is for class reasons, minority groups tend be in the lower social classes etc but another reason is that the left tend to be active against discrimination, are more sympathetic to immigrants etc and therefore minority communities in Europe tend to vote for Social Democratic parties. Because of this fact I found your argument that Respect would drop its left pretensions when reinforcing its orientation on the Muslim community not only ill though out but pretty offensive. Ill thought out because empirically it doesn’t stand it and offensive because the word pretension indicates to me that Respect are promoting policies they don’t really believe in and sooner or later they will reveal their true position. Having debated endless Islamophobes you get suspicious of this suspicion of the political motives of Muslims or parties in any way connected to Muslims.
When the split in Respect occured, the Renewal supporters derided the idea that they were a tight-wing split. The move towards social democracy exposes their position as one of pretension. And social democracy is based on the working class and they aren’t. Good post at the tOMB
Well I never took Respect for being anything other than Social Democratic, just ask Galloway! If others had different ideas that is more to do with their delusions than anyone else’s pretensions.
Yes, communities that are generally poor and oppressed tend to vote social democratic. But the more Respect wished to maximise its vote in the community the more it had to appeal to the lowest common denominator (within the community, not within society in general). This was always likely to lead to a dilution of what general socialist politics it had.
There was also the pretension that IT was the left-of-labour left,seen in the argument at the time of the split that it as a minority of Respect should take over the name because it had the MP and most of the councillors, and over the recent election where some of its supporters derided TUSC, but still demanded the SWP actively campaign for Respect candidates. I think its inability to exert a hegemony over the far left is a good thing to come out of its defeat.
There were still claims that Respect represented radical socialism as recently as March, though I might agree that the author of the comment linked to is one of their more deluded fans, Respect was trying to bridge that gap. While some like Cardinal Newman and Mark Perryman were always fairly open social democrats, and maybe the hint could have been taken from Galloway’s rant about dead Russians at their first conference at about Trotskyists at the second, there were always those around Socialist Resistance and Southwark Respect who thought it would be more than that.
It seems a waste of time to spend too much time kicking a dead horse. I’ll just say that the word “pretension” is not that much of an insult, and if you were uncertain of my meaning you could have asked before lauching a tirade. Reading into people’s comments what isn’t there would seem to make you more like Jim Denham than I am.
JImmy Glesga – saying that Respect can’t be anti-war if it isn’t against wars in all circumstances is like saying that someone can’t be anti-capitalist if they have a bank account: it’s fatuous. It’s a convenient shorthand.
I still think it was an ill thought out comment, I still think you directly linked courting Muslims with dropping left politics, a position I reject for reasons already given. And I still think Respect were only ever Social Democratic, so I reject there have been any pretensions.
Though we both seem to agree that being compared to Denham is about as bad as insults get!