The bumpy road to freedom

 

There are two stories that have dominated the news this week. The main news has been totally dominated by the announcement by Boris Johnson that all Covid restrictions would be lifted by June 21st - very handily just in time for Wimbledon the quintessential English sporting event which nobody English ever wins. The other news, of rather less interest to the media is that in what appears to be a blatant piece of anti-left manoeuvring the Labour Party has prevented three candidates from standing for the Mayor’s post in Liverpool.

In some ways these two stories seem entirely unrelated. But both are examples of the triumph of dogma over principle. If the Tories had an opposition that actually spent as much energy on attacking them as they do attempting (unsuccessfully) to appeal to Tory voters it is unlikely that the fact that 122,070 people are dead would be allowed to keep escaping the collective memory of the mass media. It is not just a failure of a tame scientific community or of a media, that allows the press to laud as the Daily Mail puts it “the road to freedom”. It is a total failure of opposition.

Liverpool in uproar

Liverpool was on track to have its first ever black, female Mayor, Anna Rothery, but a candidate endorsed by Jeremy Corbyn and most of the Campaign Group was not going to be popular with Labour’s central committee: David Evans, Claire Ainsley and Assaf Kaplan. I should add that I have no evidence that any of that triumvirate were responsible for preventing her from standing, but I doubt they would have been sidling up to SirKeith and whispering “not a good idea” in his ear.

Rothery was raised in Liverpool 8 (Toxteth) one of the most deprived areas in the U.K. and attended a comprehensive school before going on to study sociology at university. By any stretch of the imagination her story is an inspiration but she has now been told that she will not even be reconsidered for the readvertised post. Of course, Twitter is up in arms but the mass media have very little to say. According to Labourlist Labour Party sources say the decision to remover Rothery plus two other female candidates - Wendy Simon and Ann O’Byrne - was related to corruption allegations made against former Mayor Joe Anderson. Interestingly, the police are not investigating any of the three, and apparently the allegations are being made against right wing candidate Ann O’Byrne, which does raise the issue of why Wendy Simon and Anna Rothery should be excluded, even if as those unnamed sources say there are “concerns linked to the Liverpool corruption investigations, and it has been said that the causes are “serious”.

The ongoing purge of the left from Labour is part of a deliberate strategy by SirKeith to appear “electable”. As I have noted previously this strategy is based on a theory of the “new working class” first developed by Communications Director Claire Ainsley whilst she was director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. According to her analysis this new working class are in insecure, gig work and are patriotic, hard working and care about nationhood and local communities. They are also, though this is not trumpeted by Ainsley, likely to be racist, sexist and driven by individualism. These so-called core values, really just petty minded vindictiveness, are now driving Labour’s policies. The result of this is that Labour far from offering even a social democratic alternative is firmly in the hands of people who think, look and act like Conservatives. 

Death, democracy and damnation

Whilst the left obsess about the affront to their own esteem by the jettisoning of anything remotely Corbynist including the man himself, the reality is that the failure of the Queen’s Opposition (to give them their rather anachronistic title) to oppose has allowed the Government to oversee the worst response to the Covid pandemic anywhere in the World with the only proper scrutiny seemingly coming from Piers Morgan. For those who point out that the UK’s death toll is the 5th highest (behind USA, Brazil, Mexico and India) we have a higher per capita death rate than any of those countries and indeed the highest per capita death rate of any of the G20 nations.

But, Covid should not be reduced to just death rates. Of course 122,070 families grieving is a colossal tragedy, but Covid has also pointed up major weaknesses in our political and democratic systems. The cronyism of the Tories in handing out over £11 billion of contracts to their friends, in many cases to companies that had no previous history of providing such services, is not just outrageous but shows the moral bankruptcy at the heart of the system. The Good Law Project had a court ruling which showed, without question, that Matt Hancock had lied about the extent of corruption and when asked if Hancock should resign the inclination of SirKeith was to back him up. If he had said no he should not resign he should be sacked pending his trial for misuse of public funds then just maybe SirKeith would have looked like an Opposition Leader rather than Matt Hancock’s bagman.

All of this is consistent with the way in which the political and democratic culture of the U.K. has been eroded over the past few years. From the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn to the failure to take responsibility for the nations health the political class in this country have failed to show either leadership or morality. It is difficult not to reach a conclusion that the entire system is now so corrupted that it is almost an impossibility to overcome it. Of course, that is a significant leap for anybody that believes that all we need to do is change the leadership or the electoral system and all will fall into place.

A kick in the ballots

A functioning democracy does not just consist of the opportunity for people to cast a ballot on a regular basis. When the franchise was restricted (and it still is if you are under 18, or in some elections under 16), there was an imperative to extend the franchise to working class people, to those without property, to women, to younger citizens etc. These campaigns were important in that they were symbolic of equal rights for all sectors of the community. They were opposed, every extension of the franchise has been bitterly opposed, because those with wealth and power did not want to risk losing the latter. Their wealth was always pretty safe if truth be told. As the franchise was extended that same powerful elite came to realise that actually extending the franchise far from threatening their power allowed them to strengthen it. People who were otherwise likely to feel, literally, disenfranchised and therefore attracted toward what the powerful would regard as ‘revolutionary’ politics now believed that they had a stake in the system. As somebody said to me only this week “people died to get me the vote, I have to use it, so I will continue to vote Labour”. The first part of that sentence is clearly true, the second part possibly flows from the first but how you use your vote is entirely up to you. Personally, I will be voting for the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) candidate in the forthcoming Welsh Senedd elections.

But that is a digression from the point. Social systems can only maintain themselves effectively through two routes. One is by fear and oppression. The traditional means that ruling classes have used throughout the ages. The other is by obtaining the illusion of legitimacy. Most political philosophers have grappled with the idea of legitimacy and from where it comes. David Hume, a Tory, believed the legitimacy of the state derived from people’s opinion that they had a duty to obey. The idea of a duty to obey is also found in Kant, though he was talking about morality generally rather than politics specifically. Ruling classes have never shied away from force, but as society has developed have found that democracy offers an easier way to maintain their legitimacy.

Of course democracy is desirable, but if democracy is undermined by the very system it purports to support then it points to major difficulties with the system. Socialism, as opposed to “democratic socialism” (often neither democrat nor socialist), has never been on the ballot. This is because parliamentary democracy exists to legitimise the capitalist economy and socialism is a belief system that cannot co-exist alongside free market capitalism, even if as Marx believed capitalism would be the midwife of socialism. Which is why the Labour Party has never been a socialist party. At no point in the history of Labour has it stood in an election to transform capitalism. Not in 1900, not in 1930, not even in 1945 or 2017 or 2019. And definitely not in 1997 or 2024. It has stood at best to reform the worst excesses of capital, but mostly to simply legitimise it.

Labour has spent more time in opposition than in Government. It is usually rather good at it, pushing the Government and holding them to account. But they have now abandoned any pretence that they even think reform is possible. Supporting legislation that will allow agents of the state to commit crime with impunity, backing law breaking by Ministers, failing to support an increase in Corporation Tax, I could go on. But, most importantly, this lack of a socialist backbone has allowed the British government to allow Covid 19 to kill 122,070, mostly, ordinary people without ensuring that these failures are constantly being pushed as part of an agenda to delegitimise the Government. The failure to provide the workforce with PPE, the deaths of workers forced to work without adequate safety precautions, the abject failure of the SERCO test and trace system, the late decisions to go into lockdown and the early decisions to come out, the inconsistencies in messages leaving many people completely unaware of what the rules were should have been part of a consistent opposition refrain ensuring that the media, who are not without blame here, had to report it. Instead, well, nothing really.

Legitimacy

This failure of opposition is hardly a canny strategy setting up Labour to sweep into power. It has simply allowed the Tories to claim credit they do not deserve for the success (if indeed it is a success) of the vaccination programme, and allowed them to continue to rise in the polls. This is not just a disaster for Labour or for SirKeith, or for the poor who are so easily forgotten in this, it is a disaster for democracy. The legitimacy of the very system itself is now brought into question. But apart from the odd blogger (with an audience not more than a couple of hundred) or podcasters (whose audience is not any bigger) who is raising this as an issue which should concern us?

But hold on a minute, you might say, what has this to do with the failure to pick a well liked black woman as the candidate for Mayor of Liverpool? Sadly, this is just one further manifestation of the corruption at the heart of the political system. Perhaps the only Labour MP who has impressed recently has been Zarah Sultana and one wonders whether an up and coming Zarah would make it past central casting. If the Government is corrupt (it is) then it helps if the Opposition can claim some kind of moral superiority. When the Opposition are conducting a purge of members merely for supporting the previous leader any moral authority it might claim is gone.

Whether we are bound by an invisible social contract (as believed for example by Jean Jacques Rousseau) or we are simply too busy living our day-to-day lives to be concerned with who is actually running things, the fact is that we have grown accustomed to the idea that somebody or some bodies, are making decisions which will somehow allow us to continue to exist. Covid has disrupted that belief. It was never a great belief to begin with. On Twitter the other day somebody berated me for initiating a discussion group and then declared that they wanted a leader, somebody to follow. As Robert Paul Wolff has argued: “Taking responsibility for one’s actions means making the final decision about what one should do.” 

Ceding autonomy

We cede a large part of our life to the likes of Boris Johnson and SirKeith and provided the decisions they take accord with those we would have taken ourselves we are happy enough for them to rule and for us to live our lives in whatever way makes us happy. Political legitimacy relies on that dynamic, that the ruled (or at least a majority  of them) are prepared to give up their autonomy either for the greater good, or simply for expediency. Some people will point out that only a small percentage vote for the Government and therefore it is not true to say that they are taking the decisions that a majority want. As Lenin noted what we regard as democracy is “restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for the rich and a snare and a deception for the exploited, for the poor..” What this means though is that whilst we do not always get the government we want, even opposing that government (whether electorally or otherwise) if there is no intent to change the system of government is providing it with the legitimacy to carry on serving those it wants to.

The absolute failure of the British establishment to protect its own populace from the ravages of Covid, and the way in which the Labour Party and the media have singularly failed to present an alternative vision, shows that in a time of crisis that which normally remains hidden is actually the truth. That truth is that capitalist democracy is not democratic. It is no longer a means by which individuals can allow others to take decisions they might have taken themselves, if that was ever true. It is, in short, in a crisis of legitimacy. Can this be solved by changing the Government, or the processes by which that Government is determined? Capitalism is remarkably resilient so rule nothing out, but this lack of legitimacy means that it is possible that a space is about to open up where issues of democracy, freedom, equality and, dare I say the word, socialism will have not only a hearing but a willing audience looking for answers to questions they never even knew they had. It is into that space that the left, if we can get our act together, must flood to direct that conversation toward progress and not allow the regressive elements to hold sway.

Whilst you’re here. If you like what you’ve read please subscribe by using the widget at the top left.

Can I encourage you to listen to The Socialist Hour podcast. Episode 2, featuring discussions with academic socialist Russ Jackson, NHS campaigner Ann Marcial and the Dangerous Globe is on Mixcloud now: https://www.mixcloud.com/SocialistHour/socialist-hour-episode-2-walls-come-tumbling-down/

And for a great listen, I recommend Project Coups regular shows on Mixcloud. This week featuring an interview with Game of Thrones actor Miltos Yerolemou (Arya’s sword teacher) : https://www.mixcloud.com/incapablestaircase/project-coup-2130-22022021/

And another new kid on the block, Thelma and Tom look left https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/thelma-and-tom-look-left/

Please write to Julian Assange who is still in Belmarsh: https://writejulian.com

Socialist reading: Please support the following socialist blogs

Mike Stanton https://penumbrage.com/2021/02/21/not-another-manifesto/

Charlotte Hughes https://thepoorsideof.life/

Rachael Swindon http://rachaelswindon.blogspot.com/

Jonathan Cooke https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/

Kitty Sue Jones: https://politicsandinsights.org

And avoid the MSM and support these left wing sources instead:

Dangerous Globe: https://dangerousglobe.com

The Canary https://www.thecanary.co/

Skwawkbox https://skwawkbox.org/

Counterfire  https://www.counterfire.org/

Morning Star: https://morningstaronline.co.uk

Byline Times: https://bylinetimes.come

The spectre haunting the left

 

In 1844 Marx and Engels wrote “A spectre is haunting Europe...” as the opening line of The Manifesto of the Communist Party. They continued “The spectre is communism”.  If I was to repeat those words today I might say: “A spectre is haunting left politics in Britain. The spectre of the Labour Party.”  It is clear that the Labour Party, like one of the dementors in Harry Potter, suck the oxygen out of political debate. By which I mean that before those on the left can move on, they have to reckon with their attitude to Labour. 

Many on the left never believed that Labour was anything than a diversion from real politics, and whilst they temporarily ceased hostilities during Corbyn’s leadership, their instincts were always to see electoral politics as in opposition to the class based, often trade union based, struggles that could effectively challenge modern capitalism.

On the other hand, the Labour Party has always offered a home to those who believe, largely because they want to rather than that they have any evidence, that real change could only be achieved through parliamentary legislation. Thousands upon thousands of activists who proudly proclaim their socialism have spent a good deal of time and effort supporting a Labour Party that has arguably done more to damage socialism than to take it forward.

Revolution

On the other hand, the self proclaimed “revolutionary left” have formed smaller parties: the Socialist Workers Party, Workers Revolutionary Party, Militant (now the Socialist Party), the various configurations of the Communist Party, Workers Power, the list goes on. All these parties have one thing in common and that is, in one form or another, they all claim to be Marxist. But also, and they might not want to admit this, they have been parasitic upon the Labour Party. Swarming around it, denigrating it, but crucially seeking to lure its members away from futile reformism toward the class-based, revolutionary politics they all practice.

John Callaghan, an academic, wrote a book called The Far Left In British Politics in 1987. He is exceptionally hostile to the left, particularly outside the Labour Party and much of what he says has to be read in that light. Nonetheless, he makes an interesting point in his chapter on Militant, the most successful of the entryist groups. He notes: “Militant’s disdain for its rivals is no stronger than the hubris with which it describes itself...it represents the conviction that to qualify as a genuine Leninist party it is necessary to possess a monopoly of truth and prescience.”

Whilst Callaghan is entirely dismissive of the activities of the left his critique is not without some merit. The failure of much of the British left has not been so much in failing to foment revolution. But, rather their inability to work constructively together to build coalitions without resorting to dogma the minute the battle is won. They are not entirely self-obsessed, of course. Militant had great success in Liverpool and as a leading light in the anti-poll tax campaign. The Socialist Workers Party were instrumental in a number of strikes and were the forerunners of the Stop The War Coalition, now led by members of Counterfire who themselves split from the SWP in 2010. My point is not that these groups have no place or use but rather that their considerable organisational heft is focussed foremost on recruiting members to their own organisations. Organisations for whom democracy amounts to the ability to vote for a ‘slate’ of those favoured by the organisations leadership.

Back to reform?

So, what does all this mean for those of us who favour unity but reject both reformism and Marxist-Leninism? Immediately I feel the need to clarify that statement as it is likely to draw criticism from both those still in Labour and members of the revolutionary parties. If we reject reformism, it does not mean we reject reforms. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago it would be a strange position for somebody who professes an interest in class politics to oppose reforms which alleviate the conditions of working class people. By the same token rejecting the organisations purporting to be Marxist-Leninist does not mean that we reject Marxism (or at least a version of it). It is worth remembering that when Marx was asked about the proliferation of communist groups claiming to be Marxist he famously said “All I know is I’m not a Marxist”.

So, what are we rejecting? Since we launched the online discussion group there has been considerable debate among those involved in the private groups we set up mainly to distribute the Zoom meeting details. Different groupings have pursued different questions depending on the interests and other affiliations of those involved. What I have found interesting is that it did not take long for people to start to adopt contradictory positions and to passionately defend one position against a rival one. Occasionally, this has spilled over if not quite into acrimony into some barbed comments about how the holder of one view has little idea what they are talking about.

Let me be clear here. We are trying to establish a grass roots discussion group and it was, more or less, inevitable that people involved would discuss things, that they would take up opposing positions and that they would seek to establish that they are right meaning, by definition the other person is wrong.

Occupy or vote?

One interesting little diversion involved a proposal to occupy parliament. This became counter posed to establishing a new left wing political party. The debate comes down to direct action versus electoralism. Personally, in a pandemic I don’t want to get arrested with 6 other people storming the House of Commons and as anybody who has been following this blog will know I don’t believe that an electoral party to the left of the Labour Party is a viable option. But, I also don’t see these as two mutually exclusive options.

As we go forward if enough people want to form a direct action group I would support their right to do so. If others felt we should stand candidates, I’d support that too. They are simply not opposed. Some people would support one or the other, some would support both and some would support neither. At this early stage of our development we couldn’t even agree a common hashtag we are some way from storming the citadels of power either physically or through the ballot box. Is it not possible that the same movement could support both options?

What the “dispute” shows is a major weakness of left politics. In simple terms we are accustomed to seeing politics as oppositional and once sides are drawn you can only be on one side of the line. This is part of the legacy handed down to us by the Marxist-Leninist left. There simply is no room in such a politics for agreeing to disagree. This is one of the reasons why the left splinters into factional fighting. Jeremy Corbyn, shortly after he won the Labour leadership, said that he wanted to do politics differently. Sadly, both the media and the PLP undermined the project. But, as with many things, his instincts were right. We can’t keep repeating the mistakes of the past and learning nothing from them. The sectarian politics of the past have not taken us forward as a movement because although ‘we are many’ we are many who mostly refuse to get on with one another.

Principles

Agreeing to disagree on tactics does not mean abandoning our principles. It does not mean, for example, tolerating racism, sexism or classism. It does not mean turning a blind eye to the oppression of vulnerable individuals. But it does mean that whether you pursue those goals in or out of a party, through direct action or the ballot box, or simply by engaging on social media nobody else has the right to tell you that your way is wrong and you must pursue their favoured strategy or you are a Tory enabler or worse. It is time for the left to leave the politics of the playground behind.

Too often the left have splintered around points of principle that could easily co-exist. The Labour left refuse to talk to the left groups outside of their party. The left groups refuse to even acknowledge each other, let alone talk. Can anybody tell me how this is helping to transform society?

Nobody, not Jeremy Corbyn, not Karl Marx, and especially not me, has a monopoly on being right. Everybody makes mistakes. Some of those mistakes are minor - getting a figure wrong in a debate about taxation, for example; some are major - supporting a candidate who claims to be for unity but who once in power spends a good deal of energy attacking anybody who is to the left of them. But, there is a frightening tendency among people on the left to see mistakes, even minor ones, as failures of principle. To reduce everything to a matter of principle.

Purging dissent

This is a weakness of left politics. It means that joining a left organisation becomes akin to taking an oath of loyalty to the one true socialism. Every position, every debate, every strategy is handed down to you and your role is simply to spread the word. Dissent is not allowed in such a scenario for dissent is treated as a weakness. Most of this has nothing to do with politics but is organisational in origin. And this tendency to disparage dissent has its mirror in Labour who might like to think of themselves as the adults in the room but in reality in the hands of the right have no interest in freedom of speech or dissenting positions. After all, divided parties don’t win elections, do they? Better to purge the dissenters early in an example of strong leadership imposing unity.

For the so-called far left purging dissent is made easier by avoiding democracy altogether. The leading members, usually a Central Committee elected by nobody, decide the policies and strategies. The role of members is to take those policies out to the wider movement. But, what type of socialism is it that allows no debate? What type of socialism commands its followers to only follow, yet expects them to be able to lead in the wider World? If this is socialism, all I know is that I’m no socialist.

It is this spectre of Labour that has in many ways caused the polarisation among the British left. The choice became join Labour and spend time fighting the right for control of the party. Or, renounce Labour and join a revolutionary group who, whilst far more focussed on socialist politics, see ordinary members as foot soldiers to take a message decided by others out into the World. Of course there was always a third option which was to absorb yourself into community or trade union politics. It was as if you could have reformism, revolutionism or trade unionism but no combination of the three. 

Does it have to be this way? Deciding broad principle that any socialist could support should not be an impossible task. The strategies and policies required to achieve these principles can be the subject of debate and difference. But that doesn’t mean that you have to end up hating others if your view does not win out. It just means trying harder to win the arguments next time. And, people are far more likely to respond positively to those arguments if you have shown a willingness to engage in meaningful debate previously, and accepted that sometimes it is okay to agree to simply disagree. That’s democracy!

Whilst you’re here. If you like what you’ve read please subscribe by using the widget at the top left.

To get involved in the project discussed in this blog either DM me on Twitter, leave a reply on Facebook or email me at the address above.

Can I encourage you to listen to The Socialist Hour podcast. Episode 2, featuring discussions with academic socialist Russ Jackson, NHS campaigner Ann Marcial and the Dangerous Globe is on Mixcloud now: https://www.mixcloud.com/SocialistHour/socialist-hour-episode-2-walls-come-tumbling-down/

And for a great listen, I recommend Project Coups regular shows on Mixcloud: https://www.mixcloud.com/incapablestaircase/gloo-1200-16022021/

You can sign up for the Peace and Justice Project headed by Jeremy Corbyn here https://thecorbynproject.com 

Please write to Julian Assange who is still in Belmarsh: https://writejulian.com

Socialist reading: Please support the following socialist blogs

Charlotte Hughes https://thepoorsideof.life/

Rachael Swindon http://rachaelswindon.blogspot.com/

Jonathan Cook https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/

Kitty Sue Jones: https://politicsandinsights.org

And avoid the MSM and support these left wing sources instead:

Dangerous Globe: https://dangerousglobe.com

The Canary https://www.thecanary.co/

Skwawkbox https://skwawkbox.org/

Counterfire  https://www.counterfire.org/

Morning Star: https://morningstaronline.co.uk

Byline Times: https://bylinetimes.com

Support workers struggles by using the brilliant interactive strike map: https://strikemap.wordpress.com/2020/12/18/strike-map/

Organising for socialism

I realise that not everybody agrees with my analysis of Labour. People I thought would have come to the same conclusion as me months ago keep telling me that they are hanging on in there. The problem, or maybe it’s not a problem, for the Labour left is that there is always another vote around the corner. Not too long ago we all had to stay in to vote for the left slate on the NEC, then it was to pass motions opposing the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn, then to pass motions in support of those suspended for opposing the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn, or to pass motions of no confidence in SirKeith and his mate Dave ‘the big suspender’ Evans. Now it is to campaign for left candidates in the local elections (or national elections if you are in Wales or Scotland), followed by getting delegates to conference to vote through “socialist policies”. Or even less likely to vote for left candidates in a fantasy Labour leadership election. And then, like Groundhog Day, it all starts again.

We are still told that leaving Labour, or worse still not voting for them, is giving the Tories a victory. As if Labour is not itself a conservative party. Plenty of people fall for this not because they have any love for SirKeith or the patriotic nonsense he and his cronies spout but because they believe in parliamentary democracy. Many people did not agree with my analysis of proportional representation as essentially a means to establish a permanent Conservative coalition. That’s their right, of course, but the figures produced by the Electoral Reform Society show clearly that under all the proposed systems the balance of power would be in the hands of the Lib Dem’s. 

My opposition to PR is not that it gives the Tories power, any more than support for PR should hinge on whether it deprives the Tories of power. In real terms those things are irrelevant. My opposition is not even whether PR is fairer or not, though personally (and again the ERS figures support this view even if they do not reach this conclusion) I don’t think it is, but rather that it is an absolute diversion from struggles that really matter. In my honest opinion PR is an example of left posturing over issues that will not substantially change things for the better for those we claim to be representing.

Parliamentary democracy

For far too long the left has obsessed about parliamentary democracy in a belief that it is possible to create socialism through electoral means. If enough people vote for socialist policies then we can bring in socialism by mandating it from Westminster, Holyrood or Cardiff Bay. I live in Wales where we have a system of PR and a pretty permanent Labour government. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation “almost a quarter of people in Wales are in poverty (700,000) living precarious and insecure lives. The risk for children alone was higher with 3 in 10 children living in poverty. Wales has lower pay for people in every sector than in the rest of the UK.” If this is socialism in action it is a little short of what generations of socialists have been fighting for. Welsh socialists will tell you that devolution is limited and that Westminster is responsible. They will also point out that for much of their rule they have had to work with coalition partners who have been less than enthusiastic with some of their policies.

All of this, of course, is true. But, at Westminster level Labour has won elections and have they ever introduced socialism, or anything close to it? I know the words National Health Service jumped into many people’s brains at that question. So let’s just remind ourselves of the circumstances that led to the creation of the NHS. There is little doubt that the very existence of the NHS owes a great debt to its main political advocate, Nye Bevan, who was passionate about a national health service, as Anthony Broxton notes he saw the NHS in socialist terms: “A free health service is pure socialism, and as such is opposed to the hedonism of capitalist society.” It was bitterly opposed by the British Medical Association and although the Conservatives, led by Winston Churchill, voted against it 21 times their 1945 manifesto promised: “The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.” The truth is that the NHS came out of the Beveridge Report of 1942. More significantly, in order to keep the doctors onside Bevan had to compromise and allow them to maintain their private practices. In effect, whatever claims for socialism can be made for the NHS (and I do not doubt that the concept of ‘free at the point of use’ was Bevan’s vision) from its outset the socialism was undermined by allowing some to buy their way around waiting lists.

If Labour in 1945 was the best that parliamentary socialism could hope for, and compared to the absolute lack of passion in today’s Labour Party seems like revolutionary communism, the truth is that Labour’s famed “passion” for the NHS has been lukewarm since day one. It is often forgotten that Nye Bevan resigned from the front bench  in 1951 after Labour’s Chancellor Hugh Gaitskell introduced charges into the NHS. He was also opposed to Labour’s plans for military spending and as such was mocked as anti-American. In truth most of Labour’s right-wing had actually opposed universal healthcare, and in their hands they have chipped away at the one policy that could be said to be unequivocally socialist in formation. As Norman Ira Gelman wrote in an academic paper in 1954 “students of British politics are now reasonably well agreed  that the Attlee cabinet of 1945-51 accomplished little in the way of distinctively socialist legislation.”

The pinnacle of socialist achievement

Gelman cites a number of sources who agree that the main goal of the Attlee government was to pursue policies that: “did nothing to demonstrate decisively that they had passed beyond the Keynesian-Beveridge position of making capitalism work.” This was only 8 years after the National Health Act was passed, and yet somehow that fact eludes the modern Labour left who cite the Attlee government as the pinnacle of socialist achievement.

(Norman Ira Gelman (1954) ‘Bevanism: A philosophy for British Labour’ The Journal of Politics Vol. 16, No. 4 (Nov., 1954), pp. 645-663)

It’s not that I am desperate to trash Labour’s past but anybody who reads this blog regularly will know that I am always concerned about the way the past has been filtered. Although normally it is the right I have in my sights, Labour’s left have also been responsible for creating a version of Labour history that plays down entirely the failure of the Labour Party to take forward what is supposed to be our goal. As Eduard Bernstein said “The movement is everything, the ultimate goal is nothing.” It is almost the reformist creed, but more importantly it is the reason that both left and right airbrush the past to present an image of progress and success.

In some respects none of this matters. But, in an internet age where people have access to information at the press of a button, more information has not created a better informed, more politically literate electorate. The proliferation of misinformation means that crank theories and right-wing ranting gets equal billing with carefully researched and scientific knowledge. Which makes it more important than ever that we provide people with the tools to discriminate between valid opinion based on evidence and what, for want of a better phrase, we can call ‘fake news’.

Left myth making

What has all this to do with organising for socialism, you might ask? The wider point here is that whilst socialists may consider themselves better informed and more open to reason that does not mean we are not prone to believing that which we want to believe regardless of evidence to the contrary. The Labour left’s refrain that “the Labour Party was a socialist party” is just one example of how we can create our own myths to justify the actions we intend to take. 

Let me be clear here. I can’t stop people believing any particular interpretation of history. Neither can I prevent people remaining loyal to a party that has long since lost its appeal to many on the left. What I can do is try to pick my way through the debris of our history to try to see what it might tell us about the present. Which is what I attempt to do in this blog. You can tell me if I succeed or not. What I can also do is get together with other socialists in a forum that respects debate and discussion as the means to clarify our thoughts.

When I tweeted, in the wake of the launch of the Peace and Justice Project, whether anybody would be prepared to join an online discussion group, I fully expected it to go the way of most of my tweets - 3 likes and obscurity. When people who did not even follow me starting replying “yes” and “count me in” I started to think I might have hit upon something. An online discussion group of disparate individuals united only in their desire for radical social change seems both an obvious response to the crisis facing the left and the least likely to succeed. People join parties and movements with leaders and structures, they don’t join loose knit coalitions of people who have only a vague idea of where they are heading or how they are going to get there.

Socialists without a political home

All of which makes it even more pleasing that last Tuesday evening 35 of us met on Zoom, that ubiquitous tool of organisation, to discuss our prospects for what we might achieve during a pandemic. I’m not going to write a full account of what happened or name any individuals here as that would be to ignore the fact that they were in a private meeting and therefore entitled to expect Chatham House rules to apply. There were a few participants who were Labour members and a couple who joined primarily to advocate for particular causes. But on the whole the people who took part were pretty much like me. Socialists with no particular home who wanted to be able to discuss socialism with others who, pretty much, agreed that socialism was a good thing.

Some headlines though are certainly worth drawing out. It was obvious from replies I received that despite the impression that we are all at Zoom meetings two or three nights a week, a number of people had never attended a Zoom meeting before. A number of those still haven’t. I think this is important for we tend to take both technical competence, and more importantly, technical confidence, for granted. Indeed, this issue of confidence is crucial.

It may not surprise you to know that I don’t lack confidence to speak at meetings. But I have always been aware that not everybody shares this attribute (being a big mouth!) In meetings it is very easy to assume that the quiet ones just have nothing to say, but I can assure you that many of those quiet ones do nothing but talk outside the formal constraints of a meeting. I have experienced the elevated heart rate, sweaty palms and dryness in the throat at meetings where, for various reasons, I have not felt comfortable. But the thing I’ve noticed, and have been guilty of myself, is that meetings of the left are often dominated by those most confident to speak. Very often white men (of which I also have to plead guilty). So any new organisation has to find ways to allow those voices effectively silenced to have an opportunity to speak, but be comfortable doing so.

Inclusivity and respect

Our discussion group tried to be inclusive and respectful to everybody, but as we were Zoom newbies it was also slightly chaotic. The issues that came up were those which most of us would talk about if we had a night out with socialist friends:

• should we stay in Labour?
• how do we counteract the mainstream media?
• are we just creating another echo chamber?
• how do we support local, community based campaigns?

Unsurprisingly given that we only had 80 minutes we didn’t work out any particular answers. Though it has set us up for some interesting discussion going forward.

You might think that a meeting of 35 people on one Tuesday evening in February is hardly earth shattering news. And you would, of course, be right. We got no coverage in the media, no motions condemning or applauding us and as far as I know there were no questions asked in the House. This meeting compared to some taking place (I can think of some with more speakers than we had participants) does not seem particularly worthy of a blog post, other than that I was there. But, and this might be a big but, the demoralised state of the left in Britain calls for a different than usual type of response. 

Organising online rallies in which a narrow group of people tell us what we want to hear, passing motions in Labour Party meetings that are routinely ignored (other than to prompt further suspensions), or fantasising about a new party taking political power is, to be frank, business as usual. If, and this is also a big if, we are to put ourselves in a position to take advantage of the inevitable crisis in capitalism I strongly believe that we need to find new ways to organise. No more top down, bureaucratic structures providing a career path for some and hard work to support those careers for the rest of us. We need to build a genuine bottom up movement in which ordinary people can build socialism whilst at the same time learning about themselves, developing skills and building their confidence. I don’t know whether we can achieve that but I am prepared to put some effort in to take this project forward in the hope, and it is no more than hope at this stage, that we can achieve something democratic, innovative and, perhaps, epoch changing. If you are reading this and this sounds like a project you could support then feel free to get involved.

Whilst you’re here. If you like what you’ve read please subscribe by using the widget at the top left.

To get involved in the project discussed in this blog either DM me on Twitter, leave a reply on Facebook or email me at the address above.

Can I encourage you to listen to The Socialist Hour podcast. Episode 1 is on Mixcloud now: https://www.mixcloud.com/SocialistHour/socialist-hour-episode-1-a-change-is-gonna-come/

And for a great listen, I recommend Project Coups regular shows on Mixcloud: https://www.mixcloud.com/incapablestaircase/jules-rules-project-coup-gem-2130-08022021/

https://www.mixcloud.com/incapablestaircase/jules-rules-project-coup-gem-2130-08022021/

You can sign up for the Peace and Justice Project headed by Jeremy Corbyn here https://thecorbynproject.com 

Please write to Julian Assange who is still in Belmarsh: https://writejulian.com

Socialist reading: Please support the following socialist blogs

Charlotte Hughes https://thepoorsideof.life/

Rachael Swindon http://rachaelswindon.blogspot.com/

Jonathan Cooke https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/

And avoid the MSM and support these left wing sources instead:

Dangerous Globe: https://dangerousglobe.com

The Canary https://www.thecanary.co/

Skwawkbox https://skwawkbox.org/

Counterfire  https://www.counterfire.org/

Morning Star: https://morningstaronline.co.uk/

Byline Times: https://bylinetimes.com

Support workers struggles by using the brilliant interactive strike map: https://strikemap.wordpress.com/2020/12/18/strike-map/

The left: losing direction?

 

I think it was Tears for Fears who sang ‘Everybody wants to rule the World’. They were wrong actually, most people are happy enough to be ruled they would just like their rulers to do so with a bit of compassion. The problem is that, as we now know, we have created a political class that is as incompetent as it is corrupt. A class that rules in the interest only of those who subscribe to their warped vision of society. Once upon a time it was feasible to argue that the U.K. was, in many ways, better than the USA because where they had a one party state with a red and blue option, we had a multi party system allowing for the electorate to choose between competing visions of the World.

No choice

Frankly, that was always a myth. The choice has always been between naked, profit before people capitalism or benevolent, care for the poor capitalism. The idea that it might be capitalism that was actually the problem has been kept away from public debate and relegated to the fringes of political discussion. Occasionally, you’ll certainly hear liberal commentators laying into the capitalist system. You might be fooled into thinking that they want radical change, but if they were genuine socialists I can assure you that their views would be ridiculed and marginalised.

Despite all the evidence that capitalism is responsible for massive inbalances of wealth and opportunity people, including people on the left, keep inventing ways in which they can make the system work simply by coming up with schemes to leverage the system for radical ends. I should be clear here. I discussed reform or revolution last week and, as a follower of Rosa Luxemburg I am not arguing that we cannot pressurise capitalism via legitimate extra-parliamentary means. The real problem I have with reforms is that they take a considerable effort to win only to be rolled back on a whim.

Of course, since the defeat of the Corbyn vision in December 2019 those of us on the left have been scrabbling around trying to find ways of regaining the initiative. This has mostly involved one of three options. The first is probably the most naive, in my opinion, but I have seen it touted on various left wing social media sites. Roughly speaking it involves remaining in a Labour Party which has now moved so far from Jeremy’s vision that it appears to be a completely different party altogether. The idea is that as the mostly left wing membership is still, largely, in control in the constituencies it will be possible to send left wing delegates and policies to conference in order to force the leadership to adopt a left wing manifesto.

Labour’s left losing streak

I admire the tenacity of those who refuse to leave, but I have to say that given recent events this strategy, promoted by Momentum amongst others, simply cannot be successful. I don’t know quite what World some people inhabit but the stitching up of the NEC, the appointment of the left hostile General Secretary David Evans, the ditching of all policy that was remotely left wing, the removal of the whip from Jeremy Corbyn, the suspensions of those who spoke out against this  and the handing of a veto over parliamentary candidates to the General Secretary should tell you one thing. There is simply no way that the right are going to allow the left to hijack conference to promote any agenda, let alone one that SirKeith and his backers consider an electoral liability.

SirKeith and his majority PLP backers are very happy to take advice from expensive consultants on how to be more right-wing. Wrap yourself in the Union Jack, wear smart business suits and lay into immigrants and, apparently, disillusioned ex-Labour voters in the “Red Wall” will come flooding back. As I have pointed out previously this is entirely consistent with a view of the so-called “new working class” promoted by Labour’s Head of Policy Claire Ainsley. For those in the constituencies wanting to influence Labour my suggestion would be buy a smart suit, call yourself a consultancy and charge £3000 a day, and then and only then might you be able to dictate policy. Palestinian flag waving, scruffy lefties demanding nationalisation and more public spending represent everything that consultants hate about Labour. Well, that and democracy too.

The other options include leaving the party. For many what is needed is a new left wing party maintaining the policies that Jeremy promoted and which were far more popular than either Labour’s right or the media like to admit. Many hoped that the Peace and Justice Project would be that party. I have to be honest if Jeremy Corbyn was to leave the party and take 10 or more of the Campaign Group with him a new party could attract a considerable number of new members. But if Jeremy had any intention of leaving the party he would not be putting quite as much effort into staying as he is. And, realistically, far too many of the Campaign Group seem no less enamoured of their jobs than their right wing counterparts. In which case any new party would be one of the existing left parties or a brand new party. 

Breaking through

It is going to be difficult for any new left-wing party to break through the current electoral system. Although people argue that we have almost 4 years to bring about this transformation and establish a new “People’s Party” it is not quite that simple. Recent internal polling by the Labour Party suggested that 77.8% of 2019 Labour voters were remaining loyal to Labour. To be clear 22.2% of Labour voters amounts to over 2 million voters, which is a lot more votes than any left-wing party has ever managed in England or Wales. Half of those voters - over 1.1 million people - are planning to vote for somebody other than the main parties. Again, that’s a lot of people. But, if you assume they are spread equally throughout the 572 constituencies (unlikely I know) that amounts to just under 2,000 votes per constituency. 

Here’s a proposition. Were I in a party trying to inject socialism into the system I would have as a first rule that candidates should only stand in constituencies which had a minimum of 1,000 members. This might seem high, but frankly if the party cannot attract that many members how does it expect to attract enough voters to avoid being humiliated. I believe 1,000 would be the minimum needed in most constituencies to allow the party to canvass and leaflet effectively. 

Let me add just a little more context. In 2015 the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition was the most successful of the various left of Labour parties.  It received a total of 36,490 votes for 135 candidates. That amounted to an average 270 votes per candidate. To be fair TUSC (which is dominated by members of the Socialist Party, formerly the Militant Tendency) never expected to win and saw the election primarily as a propaganda exercise. But people on social media thinking of a new party are dreaming of replacing Labour and using parliament to implement some kind of socialist programme.

Members don’t win elections

Members don’t win elections but they provide the ground troops and, crucially, the interface with the public. In 2019 Labour attracted roughly 18 votes for each member. At that point there were approximately 560,000 members. So if, and this is a very rough rule of thumb each member translates into 18 votes, then 1000 members could result in 18,000 votes. In fact, 18,000 votes would have won in 54 of the English and Welsh constituencies. Any left party that won 54 seats would become a major parliamentary force, and it would be impossible for them to be ignored. Just think how many newspaper articles or broadcast pieces you saw in 2015 about TUSC. If it was more than one I would be shocked. It’s not because left-wing ideas are unpopular it’s because they are ignored. The only way to change that is to be in a position where you cannot be ignored.

I should add an important caveat to this calculation. Labour has what advertisers call ‘brand awareness’. Labour has dominated the centre-left political ground in the U.K. since, at least, 1945. No party to the left of them has really managed to threaten that hegemony. This has nothing to do with the policies or the leaders. Loyalty to Labour is, for want of a better word, tribal. Jeremy Corbyn seemed to change that and there is no doubt that the policies he outlined were popular. But, how many people voted for the policies rather than the brand? Many of those 2019 voters voted for Blair, Brown and Miliband and most of them could not have named a single policy they stood for. They were voting Labour because Labour was their party. It is not impossible that a particularly hapless leader could lose many of those voters, Corbyn didn’t incidentally, but whether they would move to a radical left party is debatable and highly unlikely. The task facing any new party chasing electoral success is Herculean.

Proportional Representation

The other way to change this is to campaign for a change of electoral system. A number of people on the left are advocates of proportional representation. It’s appeal is obvious. According to the Electoral Reform Society: “..across the U.K. over 22 million votes (70.8%) were ignored because they went to non-elected candidates or were surplus to what the elected candidate needed.” Given those figures it is hard to resist the call of PR.

The ERS model what would happen under a party preference PR system. 

Under this system the Tories lose 77 seats and their majority. What’s not to like? However, strangely enough, the biggest advocates of PR - the Lib Dem’s - get the balance of power. Remind yourself. In 2010 there was a hung parliament the Lib Dem’s had the power to decide whether to support David Cameron’s Conservatives or Gordon Brown’s Labour. They chose the Tories and voted for the austerity measures that almost everybody now concedes were unnecessary. In 2019 Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson, part of that coalition government, made it clear that she would do a deal with the Tories but never make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister. I take no pleasure from the fact she lost her seat. That was a lie. I take great pleasure in the fact she lost her seat.

Apart from my message of ‘never trust a liberal’ you might be interested to know that Swinson who, other than her political posts had briefly worked in public relations was given a professorship at Cranfield School of Management. In case you needed any reminder that the parliamentary right wing gravy train continues to reap rewards for the talentless and the unprincipled.

Fairness

But PR we are told is fairer. Let’s just consider for a moment what fairness in a general election means. A basic rule of democracy is that anybody can stand and be voted for. As far as I can tell, apart from having to raise a deposit of £500 there is no rule preventing any voter from standing in an election. This means that, in theory, an independent candidate can stand and win a parliamentary seat. In 2006 Dai Davies did just that in a by-election in Blaenau Gwent. In 2005 Richard Taylor won Wyre Forest as an independent. Presumably the ERS would prefer electors not to have the opportunity to stand as independents for in their formulation only parties should receive seats based on their percentage of the vote.

Imagine you were a candidate in a parliamentary election. It would be a fair election if you were able to try to convince voters to vote for you, and nobody did anything to prevent that. And, the result would be fair if the candidate with the most votes was declared the winner. If you don’t get the most votes how can anybody think it is unfair that you didn’t win? It would be made even fairer if the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote. Please tell me if I’m missing anything. Advocates of PR will try to convince you that, so called, first past the post, is inherently unfair because if you vote for a candidate who does not win your vote is “meaningless”.

According to the ERS “Overall, 229 of the 650 MPs were elected on less than 50 percent of the constituency vote – in other words, 35 percent of all MPs lack majority support.” What they should say is that in two-thirds of constituencies the winning candidate won more than 50% of the vote. Both Northern Ireland and Scotland have unique voting environments so I’ll put them to one side for a moment but in England and Wales in 406 (71%) of constituencies the winning candidate had more than 50% of the votes cast.

Building the left

Of course, no socialist could favour a system that favoured the Tories, but in each of the alternatives presented by the ERS the major beneficiary is the Lib Dem’s, or to put that another way the Tories second team. In 2019 13,268,000 voters in England and Wales voted Conservative and presumably got the government they wanted. I don’t think they would have regarded their votes as meaningless even in seats where they did not win. Over 5 million Labour voters voted for a winning Labour candidate. Were those votes meaningless? In fact 66% of voters either got the government or the candidate they wanted. I disagree entirely with a view that says that many of these votes were wasted. Or, that any other system would not have resulted in a coalition dominated entirely by the Conservatives. Of course, people in so-called safe seats who favour another party’s candidate may think it unfair that they never get to vote for a winning candidate. But ‘safe’ is relative just ask Caroline Flint or almost any former Labour MP in Scotland.

PR is not a left-wing demand. It is simply a reformist demand using the concept of fairness to promote the Lib Dem’s. That people on the left are falling for this trick shows that even socialists are susceptible to falling for the lure of capitalist democracy as the only form of democracy open to us. As Yanis Varafoukis said at the Peace and Justice launch rally democracy has never been tried because in a capitalist democracy all we can do is shuffle the pack of capitalist reformists. If socialists get anywhere near parliamentary power the long arms of the establishment ensure that they are prevented from attaining it. Don’t think that what happened in Myanmar this week could never happen here.

The goal of socialists is not to prop up the system nor to provide left cover for corrupt capitalist institutions. Rather shouldn’t we be organising ourselves and working with ordinary people to build a movement that can be ready to step in and guide society toward true democracy if and when the capitalist state collapses. This is not to say we ignore parliament or take no interest in their outcomes but that we must lose the fetishisation of parliament as if it is truly a means of bringing about social change. Social action building pressure on existing parties could well be just as effective, even more so, than kidding ourselves and our supporters that all we need is a change of government and things will change. If it were that simple, we would have been living in a socialist paradise ages ago.

Whilst you’re here. If you like what you’ve read please subscribe by using the widget at the top left.

Socialist Discussion Group: a new initiative for the left wing politically homeless who fancy a chat with like-minded people. Interested? DM me on Twitter (@DavMidd) or email me at the address above.

Can I encourage you to listen to The Socialist Hour podcast. Episode 1 is on Mixcloud now: https://www.mixcloud.com/SocialistHour/socialist-hour-episode-1-a-change-is-gonna-come/

And for a great listen, I recommend Project Coups regular shows on Mixcloud:

https://www.mixcloud.com/incapablestaircase/jules-rules-project-coup-gem-2130-01022021/

You can sign up for the Peace and Justice Project headed by Jeremy Corbyn here https://thecorbynproject.com 

Please write to Julian Assange who is still in Belmarsh: https://writejulian.com

Socialist reading: Please support the following socialist blogs

Charlotte Hughes https://thepoorsideof.life/

Rachael Swindon http://rachaelswindon.blogspot.com/

Jonathan Cooke https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/

And avoid the MSM and support these left wing sources instead:

Dangerous Globe: https://dangerousglobe.com

The Canary https://www.thecanary.co/

Skwawkbox https://skwawkbox.org/

Counterfire  https://www.counterfire.org/

Morning Star: https://morningstaronline.co.uk/

Byline Times: https://bylinetimes.com

Support workers struggles by using the brilliant interactive strike map: https://strikemap.wordpress.com/2020/12/18/strike-map/