Where to now, Labour Left?
Whilst we at Shiraz have always been a proudly disparate bunch, it is doublessly clear that there are several friends of this blog whose politics would loosely be definable as “Labour Left”. You may well have read their sites before, as well as this one - and if you haven’t then you should.
Indeed, until very recently I myself would broadly have fallen into that category. I was never totally comfortable with attempts by sections of the left to pull away from the Labour Party, which I had been brought up since childhood to see as “my” party, and which latterly I had come to see as a vehicle via which the Labour Movement could exercise its influence in the party political field: Lenin’s classic formulation of the “bourgeois workers’ party” could not describe it better. In spite of a brief spell as a member of the Socialist Alliance, I quickly rejoined Labour and argued tooth and nail with comrades that things hadn’t changed so very much.
It is now self-evident that I was wrong. The sheer scale and weight of the evidence of the past few years demonstrates that the Labour Party is not now, nor feasibly ever could be again, a vehicle for working class participation in politics. Not only do I refer to the nauseating and shameful policies of the past decade, from University tuition fees to the war on Iraq. I do not merely seek to address the unbelievable corruption in “our” government, from the dodgy dossier to cash for honours at Westminster, to “our” Ken’s lavishing of telephone-number salaries on the coterie of Socialist Action members in his administration. That is all important, but I do not merely refer to those things. I also refer to the fact that there is clearly no way to improve things within the Labour Party.
Even back in the days of Callaghan, Wilson, Jack Jones and Frank Chapple, or even going back previously to Gaitskell’s time, Labour leaderships and governments would routinely ignore the decisions taken by “democratic” party conferences. The membership would become outraged, but nothing much would happen. The brief, failed flare-up during the Benn era was an exception to this rule. What I think the shrinking remnants of the Labour Left have to accept, is that such a rising will never and could never happen again. With the “Bournemouth Deal”, the unions surrendered even the right to pretend to influence decisions made over party policy. Further, their leaderships (with notable exceptions) still seem happy enough to be used as cash cows within the party structures, whilst even left-controlled Executives conduct such struggles as they can manage outside of that arena. And anyone who believes that the CLPs are anything other than the driving force of the party’s right, is deluding him/herself beyond belief.
Further, the complete bankruptcy of the party in the eyes of the public is demonstrated by Thursday’s electoral melt-down. This was capped off by a man who struggles to tie his shoelaces beating “our” Ken Livingstone to the London mayoralty. This in spite of a Labour campaign in London which at times was so hysterical as to give the impression that we were witnessing an election between the SPD and the Nazis in 1933, not a fight between a tired and tarnished mayor and an upper class fop in 2008. A lot has been made of the fact that Livingstone’s vote in London was better than Labour’s nationally. Not only is that a false comparison (had he been running for Sheriff of Surrey, one imagines he would have had a total kicking rather than losing narrowly), but it also fosters delusions on the left. Some people almost seem to be under the impression that Livingstone got as good a vote as he did because of his left-wing political stances. Now, whilst it is undoubtedly true that Livingstone’s stance on the Iraq war did him no harm, it is simply untrue that Britain’s richest city is a giant reservoir of left-wing voters. The fact that the left tends to be a closed circle not only politically but in terms of people’s whole lives (it is dominated by relatively secure, unionised and middle-class public sector workers), we don’t see quite the same picture of what a broad spectrum of the public thinks, as those people actually do. The reality is that it’s highly unlikely Livingstone would have gained those extra votes (with which he still lost the election) on the back of being marginally to Brown’s left. Indeed an endorsement from the RMT or other active London unions would almost certainly have lost him more votes than he would have gained. It is sadly the case that the unions - and I remain a proud trade unionist - cannot always carry their own membership’s votes by endorsing a candidate, let alone those of the wider public.
Why then do people stay in the Labour Party? The usual answer from LP members (including my friends Stroppy, Dave and MarshaJane) is something along the lines of “what else is there to do”? Well, that is not an adequate answer, comrades. You need to come up with a reason to be in what is very much New Labour’s party, a party with a shattered “left” that is impotent and, in many cases, not that left wing, and a party which has no moral authority at all to lay claim upon the loyalties of ordinary working people in this country. I and others who remain outside (my own LP membership expired last year and I have not renewed it) need not explain ourselves - the evidence is there for all to see.
Indeed, the best I have seen thus far in terms of strategies offered by online Labour leftists is “J4L 08″, AKA a repeat of John McDonnell’s 2007 attempt to launch a challenge to Gordon Brown. Even the aforementioned MarshaJane Thompson, who worked on McDonnell’s first campaign, appears in her post on the subject to concede that not only would McDonnell not win but also that his candidacy would rely on the endorsement of right-wingers even to get on the ballot paper. A flop in the making therefore, even if McDonnell should “succeed” in losing to Brown on a cross party vote rather than “failing” even to get to that stage.
There is, it seems to me, no alternative to the slow and patient work of building a working class political movement outside of the Labour Party. Such a stance may even entail endorsing a vote for certain Labour candidates at times, or candidates from other parties such as the Socialist Party or the Greens. I’m prepared to cherry pick in that sense. What I’m no longer prepared to do is pretend that the right-wing husk which is today’s Labour Party in any sense represents me or my interests. Time to wake up and smell the coffee, comrades.
John A said,
May 4, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Imagine a spectrum from 1-10, with 1 being the ideal far-left position and 10 being the worst-case scenario. The fact that we’re trying to keep Britain’s politics towards number 5 rather than number 6 might seem petty and rubbish to you, but it is a reasonable fight to take part in.
Alternatively, which broad-based, developing working-class political movement is there? The Left List looks like a dead end to me, based on that vote.
Jules said,
May 4, 2008 at 12:19 pm
The working class alternative to Labour has been tried and tested on countless occasions - SSP, SLP, SA, RESPECT (1), RESPECT (2), Lest List, Solidarity, Green Socialist Alliance - and they’ve all amounted to next to nothing.
Usually trots just blame other trots for not being trotty enough (ultra left, opportunist blah blah) but this isn’t an adequate explanation - is it really just a problem of cadre, or are the objective conditions (concrete situation) just not ripe for the left of labour project?
voltairespriest said,
May 4, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Again, if either of you can come up with any positive reason to join the Labour Party, rather than “everything else is well rubbish”, then I’ll be more than willing to listen. The fact is that the “left” (a term used very broadly in certain Labour circles) has no actual way to gain influence or traction within the Labour Party. Ergo John, you have no means to move anything at all from “6 to 5″ or anywhere else.
I precisely didn’t say that there was a pre-existing alternative project for you to join. But then until you realise that the one to which you still cleave is dead, we can’t move forward.
Jules said,
May 4, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Reasons to join/support:
1. It’s where the unions are
2. It’s better than the tories
3. Attempts to build a left alternative have failed miserably (perhaps VP could explain why he thinks this is - all Scargill, Galloway, Rees, Sheriden, Taffee’s etc faults?)
Janine said,
May 4, 2008 at 12:45 pm
1. It’s not where my union is. Nor several others. And it’s certainly not where most of the rank and file are. And those that are still there have voluntarily surrendered their right to any say. The tiny and tenuous link between Labour and the unions is just about enough to justify voting for socialist Labour candidates (whereas, for example, I wouldn’t vote for a US Democrat no matter how left wing they are), but it is not enough to justify wholesale support for Labour.
2. Sorry, didn’t Volty say he wanted a *positive* reason?
3. Ditto.
curly said,
May 4, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Look like the Brown Matrix is heading down the pan then!
Jules said,
May 4, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Still Janine - the RMT (I presume that’s the union you refer to) is part of a small number of exceptional cases is it not? Most trade unionists are members of LP affiliated unions. That means something.
Negative and positive are different sides of the same dialectical coin. I don’t think the distinction is particularly useful here.
voltaires_priest said,
May 4, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“It’s where the unions are” - Actually Jules those unions that remain affiliated are no more than cash cows, as the New Labour leadership well know. My own union (TGWU - Unite) being among them.
“It’s better than the Tories” - so are the Lib Dems and Greens. I wouldn’t rule out specific circumstances for calling for a vote for a LP candidate (unlike Janine I’d say the same for voting US Democrat). However it’s not a reason to join a party that the left can’t influence even if it wants to.
“Attempts to build a left alternative have failed miserably” - This is the same “Everything else is really really rubbish though” argument that the LP left comes up with all the time. It’s important (to address your later point) to stress the negativity of this argument precisely because it proposes nothing positively, whatsoever. It’s an argument for not trying new things because new things haven’t worked before. It ignores the fact that the LP left is dead and proposes giving it CPR for the next two decades (having failed to revive it for the last two, indeed having seen its position weaken as it shrank) just in case. Ergo, it’s nonsense at best.
twp77 said,
May 4, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I think Volty’s post misses the far bigger picture. The problem is comrades that it’s not about joining this or that - it’s about working together and it is a long term process of rebuilding the left in Britain generally. Personally I think the LRC and current Labour Left is in a very important position at the moment. The LRC has opened itself up to working with those both inside and outside the LP. That means that the RMT, FBU and CWU (who will possibly be disaffiliating from the LP very soon) are still participating in left politics even after disaffiliating from the LP. For me this means something. I see the LRC very much as the embryo of a new LP. Some people don’t. Some see it as always being in the current LP but these are the discussions that we are having. I do not think the time is right just yet to leave the LP as I think wee need to be in a much stronger position and have much more support amongst LP voters before doing so. We need to be able to bring a good chunk of people with us and we shall see how it goes. Some of us are in it for the long haul.
The problem is that there seems to be little if any patience on the far left. Everyone is jumping around but not really going anywhere. For all of the cynicism that it obvious from old lefties one cannot really believe that the LP is the same as the Conservative Party. It’s time to realise where we are at and go from there instead of damning everyone because we are not where we would like to be.
voltaires_priest said,
May 4, 2008 at 2:48 pm
So the bigger picture that I’m missing is… what? You plainly agree with me about the LP, albeit that the timescales are different. As for those who think there’s a future in remaining in, I hardly think it’s uncomradely to ask them to come up with some kind of concrete reason for doing so beyond “it’s raining outside”.
John A said,
May 4, 2008 at 3:18 pm
It’s not uncomradely to ask that - and my answer would be that the two party system is not congenial to going outside and that if Labour ever want to regain power they’ll have to get new ideas. Where will those ideas come from? If there are a critical mass of real lefties then maybe we can give them some.
“As for those who think there’s a future in remaining in, I hardly think it’s uncomradely to ask them to come up with some kind of concrete reason for doing so beyond “it’s raining outside”.”
Those inside are not getting wet. To extend the metaphor.
voltaires_priest said,
May 4, 2008 at 3:23 pm
And, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record John, via what non-existent mechanism in the party do you and the legions of left wingers that don’t exist in anything like significant enough numbers propose to exercise the influence that you still won’t have after the general election?
Jules said,
May 4, 2008 at 3:29 pm
VP - with cash comes influence. Now I know the unions have been massively sidelined but to suggest that their influence is non existent isn’t quite true either, many of New Labour’s big business backers are likely to jump ship to the tories and this may tip the balance more towards the LPs traditional base as the LP becoming increasing reliant on union donations once again.
You want positives - minimum wage, working families tax credits, increased investment in public services, improved trade union rights and sure start are some I can think of. Now I’m aware of the difficencies in all of these things so I don’t want a list. The point however is that the tories would reverse all of the these except probably the first one (although they did oppose it when it was introduced).
I’m not saying join the LP - I’m not a member myself - but I reckon the left fucking around trying to build a “new party” at this juncture will just be a waste of time - certainly all the evidence points that way. Critically back Labour against the tories in the elections whist involving ourselves in grassroots campaigns and promoting working class politics, not building another deposit losing left “coalition”.
And shit.
John A said,
May 4, 2008 at 3:54 pm
By the same mechanisms by which the right took over the party in 1994.
Waterloo Sunset said,
May 4, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Volty- Welcome to the anti Labour left comrade.
Jules- The working class alternative to Labour has been tried and tested on countless occasions - SSP, SLP, SA, RESPECT (1), RESPECT (2), Lest List, Solidarity, Green Socialist Alliance - and they’ve all amounted to next to nothing.
True. On the other hand, exactly the same could be said of the various attempts to reclaim the Labour Party. Revolution is certainly not on the cards. But I don’t really see the difference in the Labour Left’s position- we’re not given a timescale, we’re not even given any convincing tactics. How long are we supposed to wait round for the fucking Rapture to arrive precisely?
I’m not saying join the LP - I’m not a member myself - but I reckon the left fucking around trying to build a “new party” at this juncture will just be a waste of time - certainly all the evidence points that way. Critically back Labour against the tories in the elections whist involving ourselves in grassroots campaigns and promoting working class politics, not building another deposit losing left “coalition”.
I’d broadly agree with most of that though. Certainly on a national level- I think it’s arguably possible for activists to build very localised small scale alternatives at the moment, depending on specific circumstances. I’d agree on the importance of grassroots struggle as well- it’s the best route out of the current quagmire I think. We’re in a situation where the goal has to be for the left to gain the trust of the class. We start by actually proving ourselves to be relevant. At the moment, we’re anything but.
However, what do we do if the campaign directly relates to New Labour? A campaign against council housing being sold off, say. Do you really think we can both campaign against the Labour Party and tell the class to vote for them? Without damaging our laughably small credibility any further?
TWP- I do not think the time is right just yet to leave the LP as I think wee need to be in a much stronger position and have much more support amongst LP voters before doing so. We need to be able to bring a good chunk of people with us and we shall see how it goes.
But the class has already split into pro and anti Labour sections. Staying with the Labour Party at best alienates as many people as it helps with. We’re talking about sections of the class who have completely lost any faith in mainstream politics. And with those people, allying yourself with the establishment is counterproductive. And, worse, allows the BNP to present themselves as anti-establishment by default…
The problem is that there seems to be little if any patience on the far left. Everyone is jumping around but not really going anywhere. For all of the cynicism that it obvious from old lefties one cannot really believe that the LP is the same as the Conservative Party. It’s time to realise where we are at and go from there instead of damning everyone because we are not where we would like to be.
That is part of the problem. We need to stop seeing every anti war demo/anti globalisation riot/promising motion at the local branch meeting/delete according to your tradition as a sign things have turned the corner. This isn’t going to be fixed quickly. But the other problem is that parts of the left prefer to stick with familar tactics, even if they’ve repeatedly failed, then take the risk of going for the unknown. That applies pretty much across the board at the moment. Equally, far too many comrades are still prioritising sectional party interests over the interests of the class. That doesn’t only apply to the Labour left, but they’re a particuarly stark example of it. The brutal truth is that for the bulk of the Labour left, if a Blairite is standing against a genuine left winger they’ll back the former, at least publically. Because they’ll get expelled if they don’t.
Janine said,
May 4, 2008 at 6:23 pm
RMT, … FBU, PCS, NUT, NASUWT, UCU, …
(and yes, I’m aware that some of those are for apolitical reasons, but the point still stands)
… and do you really think that the average member of Unite! feels that the Labour Party is ‘where they are at’?!
twp77 said,
May 4, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Waterloo I take your points but I sincerely believe it is an evolving process. Originally the LRC did not have members who were not in the LP, but this was changed at the last AGM. This is a positive step towards a real consolidation of the left both inside and outside the party.
The point about who to back in elections is an important one and not one I believe will go away. I believe if the RMT did run candidates in London we would’ve had a serious choice as to who to back and a major discussion about whether or not it would be the right time to break. It is absolutely true that advocating votes for candidates outside the party would indeed get LRC members expelled which is why we don’t do it at this point in time. But, this is a tactical issue - not a principles issue - and one which is directly tied into whether or not it would be beneficial to break from the LP at this moment.
I also think you are not being completely clear with the claim that the people that voted for the BNP are those who we want to be attracting to a left party because they are “anti-establishment”. People who are voting for the LP, however reluctantly, are not necessarily “pro-establishment”. Many people who I have personally spoken to still vote for the LP with many reservations. I don’t think the large majority of Labour voters or members of the LP are gung ho for Brown. This is the situation we are at right now. Of course we want to attract those who have becomed disillusioned with the LP and left politics altogether - but let’s not dismiss what we do have to work with in the meantime.
Tramping the dirt down said,
May 4, 2008 at 7:10 pm
[...] everywhere online there are Tories making hay out of Thursday’s defeat. Socialist Unity and Shiraz Socialist have led the way in considering what all of this means for the orientation of socialists within the [...]
d.z. bodenberg said,
May 4, 2008 at 8:22 pm
VP asked: via what non-existent mechanism in the party do you and the legions of left wingers that don’t exist in anything like significant enough numbers propose to exercise the influence that you still won’t have after the general election?
John A answered:
By the same mechanisms by which the right took over the party in 1994.
Hang on. I joined the LP shortly before the right took over the party, shortly after John Smith (oh what a great fighter for the labour movement) died.
So how did they take over the party?
- Support of the mass media - barely had Smith’s heart stopped beating, the Standard had run a headline very similar to “Why Tony Blair (”who he” was the general reaction at the time, which was to change rapidly within the next weeks) Must Be The Next Labour Leader” - in particular the Murdoch empire
- Using the willingness of a large section of the party and LP supporters to accept next to anything as long as they would buy the “and then we will get the Tories out and then uncover our really socialist, honest, programme (maybe in the second term)” argument
- Destroying the party-union political link, making it a one-way financial link with next-to nothing in return
- Using the then-existent democratic structures to destroy party democracy
- Turning conference into a rally
- Turning the party into little more than a group of subs-paying cheerleaders, without any say in party policy, manifesto, etc.
- etc. etc.
So please tell me - as the right used party democracy to destroy that party democracy, how are “the Labour left” going to “do the same” again? Or do you mean “do the same” in the sense of “get the support of the media”? Or “use disillusionment of Labour voters and members to get them to support anything - but in this case maybe a far-left manifesto”?
If so, bloody hell. What drugs are you all on? I want some.
d.z. bodenberg said,
May 4, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Oh, yeah, I forgot - and if there’s even a hint of even a minor section of the TU bureaucracy wanting to get anything for their election fund donations, the “small matter” of state funding will crop up - a cross-party consensus between the Tories and the PLP (to get the labour movement out of politics once and for all) and the LibDems (to get some hands on some serious cash).
Incorrigible Sceptic said,
May 4, 2008 at 10:39 pm
ROTFLMAO, again. Voltaire’s Priest, you should be doing comedy on Channel 4.
Back on 23 March you announced, with serene confidence in your telepathic connection with the masses, that “most people” think the liberation of Iraq was “a disaster”. Now you admit - in passing, and hoping, correctly, that your comrades won’t even notice it or comment on it - that “the left tends to be a closed circle”, so “we don’t see quite the same picture of what a broad spectrum of the public thinks as those people actually do”. Can you even see the glaring contradiction there, you fucking moron?
Who's the moron? said,
May 4, 2008 at 10:41 pm
“your comrades”? He’s not a member of any grouplet as everyone who reads this regularly knows.
reader said,
May 4, 2008 at 11:02 pm
In real life, I’ve never these days meet a normal person who supports the Iraq war. Reason why? Normal people aren’t as stupid as blogosphere-dwelling New Labour idealogues. The only people I have met who support the Iraq war are: 1 New Labour MP, and a few upper class Blairite scum yuppy students from Surrey who think they represent the masses, but are in fact parasites upon the masses.
Come to think of it they are also the only people I’ve ever met who openly admit to liking New Labour.
Now I personally don’t exist in a closed circle, since the Iraq war I’ve worked as a caterer, in a post-room, and shifting furniture, plus the friends of my family are a pretty lower middle-class/working class bunch. Back in 2003 I knew a few racists who supported the Iraq war because “if we kill ‘em less of them can come over here” and “they’re all terrorists” - yep, unlike New Labour idealogues, I know just how “progressive” these “British values” are, and the thought of the kind of people who choose to become squaddies getting their hands on Iraqis breaks my heart…well we’ve seen the results of that, so, maybe the “enlightenment” wankers were surprised by the torture, but I wasn’t, and I have no doubt a great deal more goes on than is revealed.
Anyway, even back in 2003, I didn’t meet one single progressive or trade unionist or intelligent person in general who supported the war.
In the past few years, the pool of people I know who support the Iraq war has shrunk to zero. I know Labour voters, communist activists, Liberal Democrats, and sadly, being from SE London, I know BNP voters and Tories…yet none of them are in favour of neo-conservatism, and few admit to ever having doubted that the war would be a disaster…
of course, the above is based on people who have an opinion…if “Incorrigible Sceptic”, in his apologism for the Iraq War, wants to gloat about the tragic apathetical depoliticisation of a large part of the population which couldn’t even place Iraq on amap, let alone offer an opinion about the war, then he is welcome to, but for someone who endorses the status quo to then use the god-awful poltiical ignorance in this coutnry to jsutify the status quo by pointing at the masses and saying “look, they don’t care, we lent them money to buy gadgets”, then that’s about as sick as it gets, don’t you think?
Unfortunately for Incorrigible Sceptic, even thoguh the above is ture, I would still say that a clear majority of people identifies the war as a failure, despite their depoliticisation and apthy.
So I would like to know who are these sections of the “masses” who support the Iraq War? Because I know some pretty disgustingly reactionary sections of the masses, but non, I repeat none, who support the Iraq war.
Like I say, it is really funny when yuppy students and MP’s inform me that the working class actually supports the war though.
Incorrigible Sceptic is clearly a New Labour idealogue, a fanatic who can’t be reasoned with. Let him wank himself off to dreams of the global neo-con revolution…the rest of us “morons” will keep on working to create our own revolution. I guess that’s the difference between real leftists - who are active in the real world - and “decent leftists” - who only exist on blogs.
voltairespriest said,
May 4, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Spot on, Who’s The Moron. The “Incorrigible Sceptic” clearly can’t see that Iraq war supporters these days are a circle so closed as to make the Left look really quite switched on. Ergo, either Mr/Ms Sceptic or myself clearly is a “fucking moron”, but I’m pretty sure it ain’t me.
modernityblog said,
May 5, 2008 at 12:09 am
as part of the fight back, my small contribution: Boris Johnson Watch! http://borisjohnsonwatch.wordpress.com/
Contributions welcomed!
Renegade Eye said,
May 5, 2008 at 3:27 am
What about a 30 year approach? You should think long term about reforming.
in the US we don’t even have a fake labor party.
Incorrigible Sceptic said,
May 5, 2008 at 4:29 am
Still laughing, losers. Please, misrepresent what I wrote some more. There’s a grim amusement in watching the great heritage of the British left being squandered by people who are so stupid that they can’t even read carefully, let alone respond to what they read without absurd self-aggrandisement and pathetic self-absorption. That’s one way to cope with decades of defeat and uselessness, I guess, you poor sad losers.
Janine said,
May 5, 2008 at 5:11 am
Incorrigible Sceptic has certinaly convinced me. Silver-tongued devil.
voltairespriest said,
May 5, 2008 at 8:47 am
Aye. It’s the sheer eloquence and crisp logic of the arguments that just can’t be beaten. All he needed to do for the coup de grace was to post a picture of himself in his bedroom making an “L” sign on his forehead and we’d have been done for…
runia said,
May 5, 2008 at 11:25 am
Reader said “In real life, I’ve never these days meet a normal person who supports the Iraq war… The only people I have met who support the Iraq war are: 1 New Labour MP, and a few upper class Blairite scum yuppy students from Surrey who think they represent the masses, but are in fact parasites upon the masses.”
I support it and I’m not, and have no prospect of becoming, a New Labour MP, I live a long way north of Watford and am a low paid worker.
Actually, in polls, most ‘normal’ British people supported it at the time and, more importantly, so did most Iraqis. In fact consistently in Iraqi opinion polls to this day most people say it was a good thing that the US/UK did invade, whatever they say should happen now.
Maybe it has something to do with removing one of the most murderous and oppressive totalitarian dictatorships around and introducing freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of the press, universal suffrage, autonomy for Iraqi Kurdistan etc.
A bourgeois revolution from above, if you like.
There would be no independent Iraqi labour movement to make solidarity with without liberation from the tyranny of the Ba’ath Party.
That they went about it incredibly stupidly without a plan for what to do once they had defeated the Ba’athist state is another issue and one where I would probably agree with everyone else here.
Waterloo Sunset said,
May 5, 2008 at 6:15 pm
TwP-
The point about who to back in elections is an important one and not one I believe will go away. I believe if the RMT did run candidates in London we would’ve had a serious choice as to who to back and a major discussion about whether or not it would be the right time to break. It is absolutely true that advocating votes for candidates outside the party would indeed get LRC members expelled which is why we don’t do it at this point in time. But, this is a tactical issue - not a principles issue - and one which is directly tied into whether or not it would be beneficial to break from the LP at this moment.
Can tactics be seperated from principles that easily? Because that’s the issue I think. You’re having to take into account whether the move would lead to you being expelled from the party, as opposed to just looking at the merits of the individual case alone.
I also think you are not being completely clear with the claim that the people that voted for the BNP are those who we want to be attracting to a left party because they are “anti-establishment”. People who are voting for the LP, however reluctantly, are not necessarily “pro-establishment”. Many people who I have personally spoken to still vote for the LP with many reservations. I don’t think the large majority of Labour voters or members of the LP are gung ho for Brown. This is the situation we are at right now. Of course we want to attract those who have becomed disillusioned with the LP and left politics altogether - but let’s not dismiss what we do have to work with in the meantime.
I think I have been a bit unclear there. I don’t think Labour Party voters or activists are pro-establishment- at least not from their perspective. I’d see the Labour Party as an institution to be so however.
What I’m suggesting is that we’re currently facing a strong fascist movement. And I do tend to come at these issues from the perspective of a militant anti fascist first and foremost. And in the working class areas where the BNP is gaining support, we’re talking about people who feel the Labour Party has betrayed them. And for someone like myself to ally myself with the establishment in that case, whether direct advocation of the Labour Party or “Don’t Vote Nazi” sloganising, would be highly counterproductive in terms of undermining the BNP’s support.
Runia-
Actually, in polls, most ‘normal’ British people supported it at the time and, more importantly, so did most Iraqis. In fact consistently in Iraqi opinion polls to this day most people say it was a good thing that the US/UK did invade, whatever they say should happen now.
Do you have direct citations for those polls? I’m not doubting you, but I’m interested in methodology and timing.
Jules said,
May 5, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Waterloo
“what do we do if the campaign directly relates to New Labour? A campaign against council housing being sold off, say. Do you really think we can both campaign against the Labour Party and tell the class to vote for them? Without damaging our laughably small credibility any further?”
I think the best thing socialists can do is be honest with people. That means as well as supporting the class in struggle also arguing that the election of tory government would be extremely bad for working people. Better that than radical posturing. I would have hoped by now the far left would be honest or aware enough to acknowledge that we are shit at the electoral game and shouldn’t bother trying again until we’ve got our act together, in all likelihood in different social circumstances.
Andrew Coates said,
May 6, 2008 at 9:09 am
Voltaire: thatw as the conclusion I drew, but rather earlier. Eeven after resigning from Labour and publicly backing (reported in EADT regional newspaper) the SA the newly elected Labour MP (Jammie Cann - Ipswich) said to me a couple of months later, “When are you going to rejoin the sensible party?” I went on to become a SA Election Agent during the by-election afetr Cann died, and I must say the behaviour of the SWP when you get close to them is enough to put you off that part of the left for a long time. As was the Liz Davis episode (she was of course one of the other Briefing comrades, like Mike, who left the LP to join the SA, and their decision influenced me strongly). Long and slow progress is all we can attempt. In the meantime I do a little (a very little) work from time to time for the local party in purely local spheres.
Personally I have the feeling, no more than that, that an extra-parliamentary opposition may arise and that the left would grow from that - rather than from left union leaders (who have proved too caught up in the traditonal loyal lobby role to a Labour government to do much). After all that’s how opposition, blocked in very other quarter (as now), boiled up in 68 and its aftermath (in 1970s Britain, for example).
Rejoining Labour after the SA collapsed would have been feasible, if I hadn’t participated fully in the whole Members’ Forums process and seen how the inner-party democracy was being washed away. It’s not just that the remaining local parties are often Blairite: it’s that opposition is so wearied and diverse, and the Blairites-Brownites are articulate and desperate to cling into power, and that socialist ideology is a diminishing factor in the Labour Party (even if it was always very broad and vague it was a kind of cement), that it’s hard to see anything like a renewal that the LRC projects coming along soon.
As for the Greens: I am working on something about that, particularly in view of their win of 13 Councillors and the status of Official Opposition in Norwich. Provisional remark (from a Norwich comrade this Sunday): they are not pro-union.
Euripides Trousers said,
May 6, 2008 at 9:28 am
I don’t think the LRC has any illusions in a renewal of the party being round the corner, but then I think it’s misleading to speak of the LRC having an opinion on these things. There is a range of opinions on all subjects, including those which we have conference policy on. Maybe the decades of domination of the left by Leninist groups makes it difficult to understand how a left grouping might not have “a line” on everything. I even heard one comrade recently comparing the LRC to the Militant FFS.
As a Labour Party member, I can’t honestly strongly advise many non-members to join these days. By all means do, and help us in the fight for the party, and be with us if and when there is a split, but those outside the party have plenty of other things they can do to further the cause of socialism (turn to the unions, anyone?)
I would say that, at a regional and national level, standing left candidates against Labour is utterly pointless and futile at the moment. There will be no credible alternative to the left of Labour unless and until the whole Labour left and the major trade unions are involved with it. The LRC should position itself to fight for socialism in the party in the mean time and be prepared to lead the split if and when it happens, but it cannot and will not happen without the major unions.
modernityblog said,
May 6, 2008 at 2:03 pm
it increasingly looks as if the Blairite-Brown alliance will utterly decimate the Labour Party politically, detach it from its few remaining supporters and try to occupy a nebulous “middle ground” on the basis of some technocratic administration, but not putting forward anything socially progressive or useful
and then a shiny new Tory party steps forward, to which Brown has no political answer and election defeat looms
it seems to me that national politics will revert back to the 18th C Whigs Vs. Tories, with New Lab as the none too radical Whigs
and we shouldn’t underestimate the BNP in these circumstances, as the simplicity of their politics and the potential disintegration of Labour will assist them
Jim Denham said,
May 6, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Over at Stroppyblog, guest contributor George Binnette Peterson (who I believe may be related to one of Shiraz’s contributors) has some interesting thoughts on this subject. No clear conclusions (neither have I, btw), but worth reading:
http://stroppyblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/guest-post-following-may-day-debacle.html
Jack R said,
May 7, 2008 at 6:58 pm
on the ‘no good alternative’, isn’t the number of people who’ve remained in the Labour Party rather than trying to build one at least part of the reason why it doesn’t exist?
d.z. bodenberg said,
May 7, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Come on, I want to know: how are those who want to, and claim to be able to do, going to “reclaim the Labour Party”? I’m interested. Please tell.
Darren said,
May 7, 2008 at 8:59 pm
“Come on, I want to know: how are those who want to, and claim to be able to do, going to “reclaim the Labour Party”? I’m interested. Please tell.”
D.Z
Two words: ‘Socialist Appeal’
Euripides Trousers said,
May 8, 2008 at 9:01 am
I already posted above my position, as someone fighting within the Labour Party.
I’m not optimistic but any tiny chance we have for socialism in the medium term future in this country will come from the Labour Party or from those within it.
Any other electoral project else is even more of a waste of time than sitting around at poorly-attended LP branch meetings once a month debating James Purnell’s hair.
d.z. bodenberg said,
May 8, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Darren: is that why even the “very young boy” who posts here has a full beard? Twenty, getting on sixty? (Note to myself: must shave before people (very dull people) assume I’m part of a secret Marxist fraction in the SPD which distributes long tracts by Alan Woods).
Mr. Trousers: who is James Purnell? An image of James/Jemima Harries springs to mind, but that is surely someone else.
reader said,
May 8, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Runia:
{I support it and I’m not, and have no prospect of becoming, a New Labour MP, I live a long way north of Watford and am a low paid worker.
Actually, in polls, most ‘normal’ British people supported it at the time}
I remember there was a surge just before the war started. There’s a lot of patriotism and racism amongst the British public. As I said, I did meet people who supproted the war, but certainly not for pgrogressive reasons. Also, support was pretty low both before and after the patriotic fervour surrounding the declaration of war ended. You msut find you are in a strong minority today, and that most who agree with you about the war are right-wing and not progressive or motivated by internationalism.
{and, more importantly, so did most Iraqis. In fact consistently in Iraqi opinion polls to this day most people say it was a good thing that the US/UK did invade, whatever they say should happen now.}
Well firstly I doubt the accfuracy or validity of any opinion polls coming out of one of the most repressive coutnries int he world, a country with a government that tortures even more people than Saddam Hussein did.
In any case, let’s accept your premise that the war had popular support among the Iraqis according to opinion polls. I’d stills ay there is a strong air of hypocrisy running through this line of argument. Hamas were elected by the Palestinian people, but the “decents” don’t accept that. Hugo Chavez - mild bourgeois reformer - is hugely popular amongst the Venezuelan working class, yet the decents (rightly) don’t drop their entire politics ont he basis of an opinion poll. I say “rightly” because of course you have to have an overall analysis of the world and not just stop arguing against something because it is momentarily popular. What is hypocritical though is that these people will hold up some elections and some opinion polls (in a repressive state like Iraq for example!) as giving legitimacy to an occupation/puppet government, but in other cases will ignore this, pointing that when the electorate votes for a totalitarian, then this can’t be democractic, because dmeocracy is defined according to x/y/z liberal idealist principles, nothing more nothing less, and therefore, any deviation from that is undemocratic.
So at least us Leninists are consistent in that we openly state that there is no democracy whilst the means of production are privately owned (i.e., whilst people cannot decide what to do with their own economy), instead of holding up the slectively used argument that any force against an elected government or a government with popular opinion poll ratings is wrong (I say selective because Israel’s use of force gaainst Hamas is not considered worng, neither is the economic sabotage of Venezuela by its pro-White House elite or by the pentagon).
Another point on Iraq is that it’s hypocritical because Iraqi public opinion couldn’t influence the invasion one way or another - accomodating themselves to a limited set of options presented to them doesn’t mean Iraqis “chose” the war. That’s an ahistorical way of lookign at it: what put the Iraqis in such a desperate position in 2003 that some may have even been prepared to accept invasion by the USA?
So I would say that putting it like this ignores the basis of the poverty of Iraq and all third world countries: the subordinate relation of their bourgeoisie in relation to the bourgeoisie of imperialist states. Lenin’s theory of imeprialism explained this long ago: overaccumulated capital from the imperialist states must be exported to the semi-colonial world unless it is to stagnate at home and cause an economic crisis. By having turned most of the world into dumping grounds for their capital, the imperialist blocs (EU, Russia, USA, Japan) ensure a chronic state of underdevelopment in the third world, due to the bourgeoisie of the semi-colonies being constantly on the edge of ruin due to the primacy of imeprialist capital. Of course, the imperialsit bourgeoisie must back the borugeoisie in the semi-colonies as a class (though they might feud with sections of them over exact terms and conditions), because it’s this class which maintains the semi-colonial state which is there to protect private property - without it, the imperialist capital would be expropriated.
So, 1.) the idea of a bourgeois revolution from above does not apply to Iraq, because Iraq was alreayd bourgeois, therefore the invasion of Iraq was not a revolution, just a particularly bloody political restructuring - property relations in Iraq did not change, society was not restructured, the faces just changed (and not even to such a great extent).
2.) the war wa snot desirable, ebcause it’s purpose was to remove a totalitarian regime which had resisted to a certain extent the particular penetrative advances of imperialist capital towards Iraq. This is why Saddam after the 1980’s = Bad, but House of Saud/Pinochet/Musharraf = Good. You will never persuade the imperialists to oppose regimes which are profitable for them, live with it runia, it won’t happen, they are not motivated by idealism.
3.) follwoing on from 2.), the purpose of the war has been to open up Iraq to further restructuring of the economy. There is a planned privatisation of many state assets (something no “decent” supports at home, but it’s alright regarding Iraq), and the oil giants have already peldged that Iraq must step up oil production at lwoer prices, robbing the Iraqi economy of a huge amount of wealth, thereby increasing Iraq’s economic subordination, and exacerbating the material factors which create the conditions for brutal oppression in Iraq and in msot of the third world (and pelase dont point to me to “democratic” third world regimes, ok, I have lived under one, my family right now lives under one, in South America, there is nothing “democratic” about 40% ubnder the poverty line, day to day gang wars in your streets, and elections whereby any vote for a moderately reofrmist leader will lead to an economic crisis, due to the major imeprialist corporations and their oligarchic “national bourgeois” friends being able to simply pull the plug on the economy until they get what they want - and what’s more, they get ot blame the left for daring to make “populist” promises like, umm, putting food on people’s tables!).
4.) so following on from 2.) and 3.), the decents have a highly naive first-worldist fixation with rights *on paper*. Guess what, Stalin’s Soviet Union had great rights *on paper*. however when there is no material basis for those rights, they don’t mean anything (NB I do oppose attempts to take away rights on paper, however, I do not accept that a right existing on paper is neough in itself) - right to free speech means little when you don’t have access to any media, right to “free movement” means little when you can’t afford petrol, right to abortion means little when there are no clinics, etc.
5.) furthermore, by exacerbating the poverty or the thrid world, imperialist expansion takes away material rights, even when it simultaneously utilises a “human rights” rhetoric (not usually the case nayway, historically and currently most of the rhetoric is baout order and business climate, not human rights), and in addition to this, by exacerbating this poverty, imperialism creates a climate where liberal ideology becomes meaningless and even the rights on paper which it sometimes promotes come to be seen as dispensible.
6.) when it comes down to it, in any popular revoltuion against any semi-colonial state or its repressive actions designed to keep the order necessarry to ensure private property, the imeprialists will back the beleaguered state and uphold the status quo created by imprialism in the first place
7.) regarding Iraq and economic interest: Saddam Hussein’s anti-oil union laws haven’t even been repealed by the occupiers and their collaborationist govt. What wierd oversight for people who were so fanatical about “liberal plurarilism” that they spent billions of public money and risked other peoples lives in a war for it. You’d thinkt hen that they fanatically go around ensuring liberal human rights for everyone. Yet, they haven’t. Odd. I can only conclude the war was not about ideology, or at the very least that when the ideological factor clashes with the factor of economic interest, the ideological factor wins.
8.) Regardless of a snapshot of public opinion taken in time, what happens when the US bourgeoisie wants its profit, and all the 14 permanent miltiary bases in Iraq are utilised to back whoever can best ensure the looting of Iraq’s wealth (not jsut natural, I am referring to the penetration of the entire economy by imeprialist capital). Whose side tdo you take then? How far do you go in your defence of the Iraqi state and the “civilising” occupation?
So considering all the above, why would any opinion poll convince you to back a war which in the long run exists for these purposes - to step up the exploitation of Iraq at the hands of imperialism, to provide a base for imperialism in the middle east to step up its exploitation of the rest of the region,a nd to give a lesson to any population anywhere int he world whichw ants to resist the doctrines of liberalisation, proofiteering, and private property at the expense of their lands?
{That they went about it incredibly stupidly without a plan for what to do once they had defeated the Ba’athist state is another issue and one where I would probably agree with everyone else here}
They aren’t stupid, the people who carried out the war did very well from it, I don’t see them maimed by bombs, I don’t see them slaving away for someone else’s profit in an oil field, I don’t see them livin in a refugee camp, I don’t see them funding the war with their taxes. I see a huge profit made from Iraq by British and american business classes, subsidised primarily by the Iraqi people (kept in check by a puppet state), and to a lesser but very significant extent by their own taxpaying workers!
reader said,
May 8, 2008 at 4:34 pm
{very least that when the ideological factor clashes with the factor of economic interest, the ideological factor wins.}
oops, I mean, the economic factor wins
runia said,
May 9, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“I remember there was a surge just before the war started. There’s a lot of patriotism and racism amongst the British public. As I said, I did meet people who supproted the war, but certainly not for pgrogressive reasons.”
The same could be said for many people opposing the war. The idea of ‘why waste British lives for the sake of foreigners’ seemed a popular view and still does amongst many people I’ve talked to about it.
“Well firstly I doubt the accfuracy or validity of any opinion polls coming out of one of the most repressive coutnries int he world, a country with a government that tortures even more people than Saddam Hussein did.”
Do you mean that, or is it just a ridiculous assertion for rhetorical effect?
“In any case, let’s accept your premise that the war had popular support among the Iraqis according to opinion polls. I’d stills ay there is a strong air of hypocrisy running through this line of argument.”
I have never claimed that the rulers of USA/UK aren’t hypocrites or are consistent or have honourable motives.
I don’t believe that UK fought WW2 for honourable reasons but to try and protect the empire. It is still a bloody good thing the allies won for billions of people who escaped the rule of German or Japanese totalitarianism.
“What is hypocritical though is that these people will hold up some elections and some opinion polls (in a repressive state like Iraq for example!) as giving legitimacy to an occupation/puppet government, but in other cases will ignore this, pointing that when the electorate votes for a totalitarian, then this can’t be democractic, because dmeocracy is defined according to x/y/z liberal idealist principles, nothing more nothing less, and therefore, any deviation from that is undemocratic.”
Except that this point doesn’t hold up for Iraq because people do, within certain limits usual in war time, have those democratic freedoms in Iraq, hence the existence of an independent labour movement, various legal political parties and other civil organisations, a free press etc.
“So at least us Leninists are consistent in that we openly state that there is no democracy whilst the means of production are privately owned”
I think many Leninists would dispute that. Are you really saying it makes no difference whether you live under a bourgeois democracy or a totalitarian dictatorship?
“Lenin’s theory of imeprialism explained this long ago: overaccumulated capital from the imperialist states must be exported to the semi-colonial world unless it is to stagnate at home and cause an economic crisis.”
The trouble with this is that Lenin wrote Imperialism the Highest stage of capitalism at a time when imperialism meant full blown empires with colonialism etc. That isn’t anything like Iraq today. There is an element of imperialism in terms of exploiting Iraqi resources by US/UK companies, but it is not the same thing. Is it also any worse than Saddam fleecing the Iraqi people while also denying basic democratic rights?
“So, 1.) the idea of a bourgeois revolution from above does not apply to Iraq, because Iraq was alreayd bourgeois, therefore the invasion of Iraq was not a revolution, just a particularly bloody political restructuring - property relations in Iraq did not change, society was not restructured, the faces just changed (and not even to such a great extent).”
I meant a bourgeois *democratic* revolution from above.
“2.) the war wa snot desirable, ebcause it’s purpose was to remove a totalitarian regime which had resisted to a certain extent the particular penetrative advances of imperialist capital towards Iraq.”
I’m not convinced that Iraqis who have had a massive improvement, such as in Iraqi Kurdistan, will be mourning the defeat of the Ba’athists as a defeat for anti-imperialism and nor do I see why they should.
“You will never persuade the imperialists to oppose regimes which are profitable for them, live with it runia, it won’t happen, they are not motivated by idealism.”
No, but the analogy with WW2 is good again, if they do the right thing for the wrong reasons then good. I expect no consistency from them.
The worst thing they did in Iraq was at the end of Gulf War 1 when they got the oppositionists to rise up and then left them in the lurch to be slaughtered by the Ba’athists. They should have removed the regime then.
reader said,
May 9, 2008 at 8:15 pm
{I think many Leninists would dispute that. Are you really saying it makes no difference whether you live under a bourgeois democracy or a totalitarian dictatorship?}
Of course I know there is a difference, I never claimed otherwise. But my point is that true* Leninsits do not point to an opinion poll or an election as a definitive point which justifies a governments actions in itself. We support armed revolution against the borugeois state whether or not it is a liberal democracy.
On the other hand, we have the champions of free market liberalism, who claim, legalistically, that liberal democracy is *the* pinnacle of what we can acheive, and that no resistance which overrides a government with an electoral mandate to carry out certain polciies is acceptable, in the final analysis. Yet, when Chavez or Hamas are elcted - in internationally designated free and fair elections (not that by *my* terminology any election in a bourgeois state is free and fair, but if they want to claim moral high ground due to their own criteria, then they should apply those criteria equally) - then suddenly, they are very mute ont he economic sabotage and imeprialist-sponsored terrorism carried out against these regimes.
This is why the claim that the Iraqi state and government are legitimate due to elections (which took palce under a foreign occupation and a totalitarian regime which, despite your protestations, has been shown to torture more people thaneven Hussein’s regime did), and that as it invites occupying troops therefore that expresses the will of Iraqis and therefore no resistence is legitimate, is hypocritical.
{The same could be said for many people opposing the war. The idea of ‘why waste British lives for the sake of foreigners’ seemed a popular view and still does amongst many people I’ve talked to about it.}
This is true. One criticism I have of the STWC leadership is the emphasis of how the war was unpopular amongst the British public. In relaity, the British public cannot be said to have consistently opposed the war, much less for the right reasons: and in any case, it isn’t the sensibilities of the British public that is the main issue here.
NB I am not a moralist, and I don’t seek collective punishment for any Brits for the war. Britain isn’t a workers state or a true democracy, and therefore, there is no colelctive responsibility.
Having said this, I think it’s compeltely legitimate to emphasise the betrayal that this war represented for British workers,a nd the cost it ha had on them. I don’t expect the wokring class of Britain to be endlessly altruisatic, because we live under an aggressively selfish system. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with us anti-war activists emphasising the fact that working clas kids are ocming home in body bags as part of this war, and that money which could be spent on schools, hospital, transport, welfare and hosuing (as you are a low paid worker I am sure you know that despite the HP New Labourites rhetoric, these things are in fact not in a good shape, and that the strain on our infrastructure is maming lot sof people’s day to day lives pretty hard, and causing a rise in racism). Us emphasising this is not “little englandism” as I have heard it described by some of the more “head in the clouds” neo-con intellectuals at HP: it can be empirically proven that certain business itnerests did very well out of the war on Iraq, and it’s entirely correct that we hsould emphasis the ocntradiction here to miltiary families and those who sympathise with them, even if those people are hardly fully-fledged marxists. when the need for war inherent in capitalism starts hurting the native population of the imeprialist countries, it is the duty of antiwar ativists to exploitthis to the full and tear apart patriotism and miltiarism at the seams. I make no apology for that. HP often see this as opportunism or sinister. I’m sorry, but can you imagine a more bourgeois attitude than saying that thiose who exploit public discontent are simpyl opprotunist and must be “condemned”, whilst defending those who profit at the expense of causing social disocontent in the fisrt place?
And no, FWIW, I do not thinkt he anti-war movement represented a great social movement, in fact, I’m very critical of it. However,w hat is true is that the “no blood for oil” line became accepted as recieved wisdom even amongst people who aren’t particularly miltiant, and what is also true is that military recruitment and respect for traditional politics in Britain are in a crisis. I credit the Iraq war with a lot of this,a nd this is good because it marks a move away from belief that the British state can be a progressive force, and a move away from the idea there is such a thing as a “good war” carried out by a borugeois state. So for that, I’m sorry if the spread of isolationism worries you, but unfortunately that’s the natural result when a hierarchical imperialist state orders its population to pay the cost of war, whislt others profit.
On the other hand, supporters of the war still hold to that model, that it is fair for the masses to die for their bosses gain. You may see that as “selfless” or as a desire to sacrifice ones life for the sake of Iraqis, but in fact this idea - the idea of a “good war”, the idea that the working classes must continue to suffer war just to defend even worse threats to the admittedly imperfect status quo - is one of the central ideological weapons used to keep us in the gutter and to keep our bosses at the top. In fact, one of the great myths that htis rsts on is WW2: Which brings us on to:
{I don’t believe that UK fought WW2 for honourable reasons but to try and protect the empire. It is still a bloody good thing the allies won for billions of people who escaped the rule of German or Japanese totalitarianism.}
I take Trotsky’s line of defeat to both sides. WW2 was a consequence of the heightened scramble between the imeprialist states to offload huge amounts of productive cpaital into limited markets. There is no reason to propose the system which caused the crisis as a solution. International working class solidarity was the only way WW2 could have been prevented, and fascism defeated.
I see nothing to celebrate in workers firing at each other, or in the carpet bombing of German workers and the nuking of Japan, The diea that they were “saved” from totalitarianism by the self-interest of the British, French and US bourgeoisie is disingenious. It was bourgeois self-interest that lead to that crisis in the first place, it was bourgeois self-interest which led to a decade of depression and then a bloody 6 year war. And it was workers who paid with their lives and loved ones on both sides just to defend one set of bosses interests against another, it was workers who suffered pretty much 30 years of austerity after the start of the Depression, just so that the rulign class could destroy huge amounts of socially useful capital so that they could begin re-accumulating. So no, we have nothing to be thankful for. It was mine and your grandparents (in my case only paternal) who starved, killed and were killed, maimed and were maimed, just to defend the status quo. The bosses could never have fought the war themselves. What’s the lesson we learn from this? That the workers untied would have defeated the bosses easily. So if you want to really learn a lesson from WW2 (and importantly, from the decade which preceeded it and which necessitated it), then learn the lesson that workers have no place fighting to defend national capital or our bosses interests.
{The trouble with this is that Lenin wrote Imperialism the Highest stage of capitalism at a time when imperialism meant full blown empires with colonialism etc. That isn’t anything like Iraq today. There is an element of imperialism in terms of exploiting Iraqi resources by US/UK companies, but it is not the same thing. Is it also any worse than Saddam fleecing the Iraqi people while also denying basic democratic rights?}
Lenin wasn’t taking baout *colonialism*, he was talking about *imperialism*, which he defined as monopoly capitalism.
As I said, imperialism is not the same as colonialism, it is not defined as exploiting resources. Imperialism arises because the capital accumulated within a state - the original bounds of a capitalist market, and the expression of one bourgeoisie’s rule over a particular territory - outgrows the bounds of that state,a dn therefore must be exproted, unless it is to stagnate at home and provoke frequent and deep recessions which would make cpaitlaism impossible. Therefore it has to be exported. The act of exporting capital on a massive scale to the third world is imperialism. It’s effect is to create a structurally dependent and subordinate third world bourgeoisie (whose interest, as I said before, lies in being a vassal for imeprialism to their own state, and whose power lies largely in protecting, via the state, imperialsit capital, in return for a nice paycheck in the form of aid - hence Saddam’s love affair with Ronald Reagan, who he praised even whilst in his US army prison cell), and a chronically crisis ridden economy, which is frequently having to accomodate exported capital ehich crowds oput national capital and pushes the national bourgeoisie perpetually to the brink of bankrupcy unless they can aggressively open up new markets and step up explotiation continuously and aggressively. Which all explains why the third world is what it is, and why the third world bourgeoisie cannot afford democratic concessions, while the fimperialist bourgeoisie can.
{I’m not convinced that Iraqis who have had a massive improvement, such as in Iraqi Kurdistan, will be mourning the defeat of the Ba’athists as a defeat for anti-imperialism and nor do I see why they should.}
I wouldn’t expect anyone to mourn the defeats of Ba’athists, whilst our bourgeoisie was doing business with Saddam Hussein, as usual only the far left which highlighted his crimes.
In addition, this isn’t much of a defence of the invasion. historically all empires have sought to divide and rule, and is any hierarchical global system, it’s possible to exploit existing grudges between communities to get them to unite under existing community leaders, and seek to cut a deal with the empire, in order to secure short-term economic advantage over other communities.
Now what we should support is Kurds’ right to self-determination under a democratic, socialist Kurdish state, which comprises Kurdish regions not just in Iraq, but Turkey and Iran. The imperialists, the Kurdish leaders, and the puppet Iraqi govt. certainly do not want this, rather they want, in return for certain democratic concession, to open up the region for further penetration by imperialist capital, under the enforcement, ultimately, of the US backed Iraqi state.
So pointing the Kurdish support for the invasiond oesn’t cut it. All empires must have a give and take process, and must have some sections of the popualtion which back them, in order to operate at all. The divide and rule trick was even used by the conquistadors when they landed in America and exploited the Tlaxcallan’s grudge against their vicious and brutal Aztec exploiters in order to use the former to overthrow the latters empire and create a new hierarchy where they were ALL subordinated - even if some more thna others.
the case in Iraq is the same. Prior to the invasion, ALL Iraqis were subordinated to US and European cpaital, via Saddam. After the invasion, ALL Iraqis are subordinated to the same cpaital (but to different respective extents), via a different government.
So clearly the answer is for each nation in Iraq to support each other in their fight to end their economic and poltiical domination and the right to control their own resources economy. We shouldn’t encourage natioanlism which pits one set of opressed third world workers against another, instead we should support unity of all the oppressed against all oppressors.
Anything less is just a rip-off of Kurds via divide and rule tactics, and also it is the use of Kurdish workers as a battering ram against the itnerests of the majority of other workers in the region.
and one more thing:
{Except that this point doesn’t hold up for Iraq because people do, within certain limits usual in war time, have those democratic freedoms in Iraq, hence the existence of an independent labour movement, various legal political parties and other civil organisations, a free press etc.}
This is just wrong, the Iraq regime is internationally recognised as being as repressive as Saddam’s.
The extent to which you have differing political parties is the extent to which the country has framented under the control of various communal leaders, who maintain their own propaganda outlets and party machines based on ethnic loyalties and control by force of particular neighbourhoods. If you think brutal and bloody war between different ethnic communtiies is pluralism, then I’m afriad you’re wrong, Iraq today is “democratic” int he sense that post-Tuito Yougoslavia was “democratic” - undopubtedly you can now express opinions you copuldn’t before, undoubtedly more regional barons and clerics now vie for control and therefore you get a “diversity of opinion”, however, God help you if you happen to express your “opinion” of the particular racket which controls your particular part of the ocuntry - and yes, the appleis to the Iraqi state too, which is little more than a sectarian, semi-fascist crime racket.
So, whislt the above does not deligitimise in itself your claim that the invasion could be progressive - sure, soemtime the breakdown of law and order is part of a move towards soemthing better - let’s not pretend that the current tyranny of anarchy in Iraq represents “democracy”, that’s laughable and undermines your own position.
Regarding labour unions: you didn’t answer the question about oil unions still being illegal and Saddam Hussein’s 1998 laws not having been repealed. Considering Iraq’s economy is pretty much dependent on oil, how can a country where oil unions are illegal in any sense be said to have a governemnt which encourages trade unionism? Likewise, the extent to which workers have been able to assert themselves increasingly since the occupation seems to me to just be to the extent that the new governemnt hasn’t been able to control the coutnry as effectively as Saddam could. The ocucpiers certainly didn’t encourage trade unionism, in fact if you check up on your facts, you will find that they *even* opposed the creation of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions. Likewise, there is quite a lot of evidence that rade unionism has thrived best in areas controlled by the Mahdi Army, i.e. areas where the occupation - despite, nto ebcause of - its intentions, has not yet been able to establish the same degree of control over the coutnry which Saddam did.
So if you support Iraqi Trade Unionism, you should be calling for troops out now, you certainly shouldn’t be cheerleading an ocucpation by such states as the US and the UK which, via the IMF, have pushed their business interests across the whole world and supproted the decimation of the organs of workign class slef-representation, and 30 years of sustained attack on pay, conditions, welfare, public and job security pretty muche verywhere one arht (no less in their own states). As workers we should stand with all workers anywhere in their fight against all capital, not encouraging workers to be a part of the destructive expansion of global cpaitalism which lies behind the conditions in which totalitarianism thrives.
reader said,
May 9, 2008 at 8:16 pm
btw I apologise for the very long comment, but, these things are hard to express concisely, well especially for my waffling self
also, I gathered you were worth the effort because you seem to have a genuine cocnern for creating a world free of oppression and exploitation, which is a rare thing these days, and merits engaging with.
reader said,
May 9, 2008 at 8:20 pm
{WW2 was a consequence of the heightened scramble between the imeprialist states to offload huge amounts of productive cpaital into limited markets.}
oops, I meant “unproductive”, though in fact, I should have said “unprofitable”.
Jim Denham said,
May 9, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Interesting stuff, from both runia and reader. We must have a proper discussion about WW2, sometime…the single most important issue, that imho, Trotsky, for all his wisdom, got wrong.
modernityblog said,
May 9, 2008 at 11:18 pm
WW2 is a very big subject, maybe an anniversary post for 6th June 1944? D-Day
Italy 1944? is interesting too
but then again there is the whole nature of the National Govt. how domestic policy was largely left in the hands of Labour, and the social reforms which were introduced from the early 1940s onwards, not forgetting women in the workforce, paternalism, and politically, the Common Wealth party and how the various election results for the Left around this period positively dwarf the contemporary “successes” achieved by various Left grouplets recently
reader said,
May 10, 2008 at 12:18 am
{how the various election results for the Left around this period positively dwarf the contemporary “successes” achieved by various Left grouplets recently}
surely that’s mainly down to the objective situation.
what do you want? do you want the far left in Britain to go out and manufacture social upheaval on a scale comparable to the Great Depression and post-war Europe, despite the fact that we are now acting in context of 30 years of defeat for the working class, and a decade of economic growth and easy credit?
a very public sociologist said,
May 11, 2008 at 8:08 am
I love how threads can wander off topic!
Good post VP. I’ve gone from feeling fairly optimistic about the prospects of the Labour Left not to seeing it go anywhere fast. This is a situation to none of our advantages. I can’t see where it can go and what it can do beyond hunkering down and just waiting for better times to unfold. I wish LRC comrades well but I fear they’re bashing their heads against a brick wall.
» Should we stay or should we go? Though Cowards Flinch: “We all know what happens to those who stand in the middle of the road — they get run down.” - Aneurin Bevan said,
May 12, 2008 at 9:23 pm
[...] Since the disastrous May elections, there have been a number of responses from the Left. Shiraz Socialist asked for reasons to be involved in the Labour Party, and to be honest I couldn’t think of [...]
Miller 2.0 said,
May 12, 2008 at 10:42 pm
My explanation.
runia said,
May 15, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Reader:
It is difficult to debate when you keep shifting your ground.
You: “So at least us Leninists are consistent in that we openly state that there is no democracy whilst the means of production are privately owned”
Me: “Are you really saying it makes no difference whether you live under a bourgeois democracy or a totalitarian dictatorship?”
You: “Of course I know there is a difference, I never claimed otherwise.”
“On the other hand, we have the champions of free market liberalism, who claim, legalistically, that liberal democracy is *the* pinnacle of what we can acheive, and that no resistance which overrides a government with an electoral mandate to carry out certain polciies is acceptable, in the final analysis. Yet, when Chavez or Hamas are elcted - in internationally designated free and fair elections (not that by *my* terminology any election in a bourgeois state is free and fair, but if they want to claim moral high ground due to their own criteria, then they should apply those criteria equally) - then suddenly, they are very mute ont he economic sabotage and imeprialist-sponsored terrorism carried out against these regimes.”
I can’t speak for the ‘champions of free market liberalism’, but I would say for me that it isn’t just about being elected, it is also about maintaining the liberty of the individual and groups of individuals. Freedom of association, freedom of movement and freedom of speech being, I think, the most important.
Hamas are racist theocrats, they have the protocols of the elders of zion in their constitution just for a start, and Chavez is a military officer who is also the president. Both of these are somewhat alarming to me.
“This is why the claim that the Iraqi state and government are legitimate due to elections (which took palce under a foreign occupation and a totalitarian regime which, despite your protestations, has been shown to torture more people thaneven Hussein’s regime did), and that as it invites occupying troops therefore that expresses the will of Iraqis and therefore no resistence is legitimate, is hypocritical.”
Is there any evidence that the election was unfair and people were bullied by the provisional government and the foreign troops to vote a particular way?
The only intimidation I was aware of was of some of the Islamist and Ba’athist militias threatening people with death if they voted. This is why the Sunni vote was so low.
I was about to write that I would like to see how the current Iraqi government “has been shown to torture more people than even Hussein’s regime did” but the idea is so preposterous I shan’t bother. Have you read any histories of Ba’athist Iraq? Do you know about the systematic rape, torture and murder of political opponents? The collective punishment for assassination attempts on Hussein? Deliberately causing the destitution of the marsh Arabs? The gassing of the Kurds? Etc. etc. etc.
“I see nothing wrong with us anti-war activists emphasising the fact that working clas kids are ocming home in body bags as part of this war, and that money which could be spent on schools, hospital, transport, welfare and hosuing (as you are a low paid worker I am sure you know that despite the HP New Labourites rhetoric, these things are in fact not in a good shape, and that the strain on our infrastructure is maming lot sof people’s day to day lives pretty hard, and causing a rise in racism). Us emphasising this is not “little englandism” as I have heard it described by some of the more “head in the clouds” neo-con intellectuals at HP:”
No, but it is populism and it does encourage the little Englanders whether intentionally or not. It doesn’t focus on the rights and wrongs of the argument about whether or not the war is just.
If you were a pacifist who didn’t believe in the concept of a just war the argument would be fair enough. But you’re not.
As for HP, I agree with whoever said they are like Thomas Paine abroad and Edmund Burke at home.
I generally identify with the Labour left and supported McDonnell for leader despite disagreements about Iraq because that isn’t, despite what HP and their mirror image the SWP/STWC might say, the fault line in British politics. It is about whether or not to accept the ‘post-Thatcherite’ consensus.
“On the other hand, supporters of the war still hold to that model, that it is fair for the masses to die for their bosses gain. You may see that as “selfless” or as a desire to sacrifice ones life for the sake of Iraqis, but in fact this idea - the idea of a “good war”, the idea that the working classes must continue to suffer war just to defend even worse threats to the admittedly imperfect status quo - is one of the central ideological weapons used to keep us in the gutter and to keep our bosses at the top.”
So you don’t believe in the concept of a just war? You are a pacifist? If you are a Leninist I seriously doubt it.
I would, by the way, probably have a different attitude if there was conscription rather than a volunteer army (I know about economic conscription and would agree to an extent but there is still a major difference).
“I take Trotsky’s line of defeat to both sides. WW2 was a consequence of the heightened scramble between the imeprialist states to offload huge amounts of productive cpaital into limited markets. There is no reason to propose the system which caused the crisis as a solution. International working class solidarity was the only way WW2 could have been prevented, and fascism defeated.”
I agree with Jim that this is a very interesting discussion to have.
To my mind it is something Trotsky simultaneously got brilliantly right and hopelessly wrong.
He was a visionary when writing on fascism in the early thirties and was one of very few writers who saw what fascism and National Socialism meant in practice. He urged united struggle by the German communists and social democrats, both of which had sizeable militias, to kill the Nazis off as a movement before they could take power.
Where he went wrong was when WW2 started. He believed that neither bourgeois democracy nor Stalinism would survive the war. He believed that either fascism and totalitarianism would triumph or the world workers’ revolution would triumph.
He was wrong. He couldn’t have been more wrong. It is understandable that he was wrong as as late as 1942-1943 it was inconceivable to many that the allies would win.
It is dogmatic to, as the Canonites did, deny the war was over because Trotsky’s perspective has not been realised.
It is all very well to say “There is no reason to propose the system which caused the crisis as a solution” but in the end it did provide the solution and if it hadn’t then billions of people who were otherwise spared would have lived and died under German and Japanese totalitarianism.
“I wouldn’t expect anyone to mourn the defeats of Ba’athists, whilst our bourgeoisie was doing business with Saddam Hussein, as usual only the far left which highlighted his crimes.”
This is more ground shifting.
You said in your previous post: “the war was not desirable, because its purpose was to remove a totalitarian regime which had resisted to a certain extent the particular penetrative advances of imperialist capital towards Iraq.”
“Now what we should support is Kurds’ right to self-determination under a democratic, socialist Kurdish state, which comprises Kurdish regions not just in Iraq,
but Turkey and Iran.”
Hooray, we agree on something!
“The imperialists, the Kurdish leaders, and the puppet Iraqi govt. certainly do not want this, rather they want, in return for certain democratic concession, to open up the region for further penetration by imperialist capital, under the enforcement, ultimately, of the US backed Iraqi state.”
This is ultimatist. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Yes, it is a long way short of genuine Kurdish self-determination which would involve confronting Turkey, and yes the US/UK aren’t consistent. Again, I never thought they were. Nevertheless, in Iraq they are no longer an oppressed minority.
And why is the Iraqi government a puppet? Is that just inevitable to you if there are foreign troops in the country?
There was a free and fair election. Were the West German and Japanese governments for the second half of the last century puppet governments? They’ve both had US and UK troops in for that time.
“This is just wrong, the Iraq regime is internationally recognised as being as repressive as Saddam’s.”
Again, read some history of the Ba’athist state. ‘Internationally recognised’ by whom? The states who did very good business with the Ba’athists or the countless other totalitarian states or both?
“The extent to which you have differing political parties is the extent to which the country has framented under the control of various communal leaders, who maintain their own propaganda outlets and party machines based on ethnic loyalties and control by force of particular neighbourhoods. If you think brutal and bloody war between different ethnic communtiies is pluralism, then I’m afriad you’re wrong, Iraq today is “democratic” int he sense that post-Tuito Yougoslavia was ‘democratic’”.
Yugoslavia is a good analogy. Iraq and Yugoslavia had similar ways of removing ethnic conflict which was to abolish any political right except to praise the government. In both cases the fact that when the repressive government lost its authority or was removed ethnic conflict broke out doesn’t mean that there was no problem before. It means that people didn’t express their differences as it would mean prosecution, possibly imprisonment, possibly torture and possibly death.
“undoubtedly you can now express opinions you couldn’t before”
This is a passing comment, a one liner, but is incredibly important.
“Regarding labour unions: you didn’t answer the question about oil unions still being illegal and Saddam Hussein’s 1998 laws not having been repealed. Considering Iraq’s economy is pretty much dependent on oil, how can a country where oil unions are illegal in any sense be said to have a governemnt which encourages trade unionism?”
Well, given that there are restrictions on union in both USA and UK it is hardly suprising.
Like I said, I’m not a down the line defender of them and I have no illusions in their consistency.
“Likewise, the extent to which workers have been able to assert themselves increasingly since the occupation seems to me to just be to the extent that the new governemnt hasn’t been able to control the coutnry as effectively as Saddam could. The ocucpiers certainly didn’t encourage trade unionism, in fact if you check up on your facts, you will find that they *even* opposed the creation of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions. Likewise, there is quite a lot of evidence that rade unionism has thrived best in areas controlled by the Mahdi Army, i.e. areas where the occupation - despite, nto ebcause of - its intentions, has not yet been able to establish the same degree of control over the coutnry which Saddam did.”
It is only because of the removal of the Ba’athists that there is an independent labour movement. The government repealed laws banning trade unions and other civil organisations.
These facts can not be obfuscated or rationalised out of existence.
“So if you support Iraqi Trade Unionism, you should be calling for troops out now, you certainly shouldn’t be cheerleading an ocucpation by such states as the US and the UK”
I’ll leave the cheerleading to dubya.
Given what you’ve said yourself about the ethnic conflict and religious militias that exist now what on earth do you think it would be like without the elected government and the US/UK forces, who remain at their invitation, to hold out?
There would not be any kind of free labour movement then.