TO FIGHT AUSTERITY WE
NEED A UNITED LEFT
The urgent need for unity on the
radical left is something that has been eloquently put forward by Dan
Hind on the Al-Jazeera website. Asking a very pertinent
question as to whether there can be a SYRIZA-type organisation in Britain, Hind
draws out some of the most important lessons of the Greek struggle and poses a
challenge to the British left -- can we break out of the ghetto as well?[1]
To plot a possible trajectory we have
to be clear of the political alignment that has emerged for the left under the
Conservative Party-Liberal Democrat coalition government. While Ed Miliband’s
Labour Party might be surging ahead in the polls, the possibility of a Labour
left revival is simply not on the cards. The Labour Party is hollowed out and
bureaucratically controlled and all the best intentions and actions of Labour
left activists will not change that. The Labour left is reduced to the old
argument that there is nothing credible outside the Labour Party. They
mockingly point to all the twisted contortions of the far left in Britain
in the last decade (Socialist Alliance, Scottish Socialist Party, Respect,
Trade Union and Socialist Coalition, Left list, Respect renewal, etc.) to forge
a new unity and conclude that the Labour Party is the only show in town.
But this is not an argument made from
the Labour Party left’s strength, it is an argument about the radical left’s
weakness. They cannot point to any meaningful gains made by the Labour left in
recent years because there hasn't been any. Even the Labour Representation
Committee (LRC), the only significant bastion of the socialist left in the
party, has failed to grow. On the crucial issue of the coalition government’s
spending cuts they couldn't even get any commitment from their municipal
councillors to vote against cuts to local government budgets. Some have claimed
that the Labour Party could act as a dented shield against the coalition
onslaught, but the truth is that the Labour Party is no shield at all.
The most significant recent press
offensive by the Labour Party has been to force the government to re-examine
the west-coast mainline rail franchise deal, not to re-nationalise it but to
try and keep Richard Branson's Virgin Trains on the line. Yet barely a peep
about the privatisation of the National Health Service, including privatising
the pharmacies, some of which are also being taken over by Branson's Virgin
company.
The Labour left is generally principled
on issues like privatisation and fighting austerity, but they are drowned out
by the party apparatus, which is overwhelmingly neoliberal and anti-socialist.
John McDonnell's failure to even get on the leadership ballot in 2010 speaks
volumes. As does the obvious non-growth of the labour left activist base. The
magazine Labour Briefing, which recently became the official organ of
the LRC, probably has a readership of around 500-600 people, smaller than some
of the revolutionary left newspapers.
This is not to say that the Labour left
has no role to play – far from it – they should just face reality squarely in
the face and realise that reclaiming the Labour Party is a dead-end project.
But there is some truth in their
criticism of the revolutionary left. Even where we have built new organisations
that looked like they were about to achieve lift off (Respect, SSP), they
collapsed in ignominy, usually caused by ego clashes and ridiculous control
freakery by various organisations. While some of us criticised the political
basis of these projects, the reality is that the political weaknesses barely
even had time to come to the surface – the inveterate problems of the far left
ran these initiatives into the ground long before they even had a chance to be
put to the test of any kind of political power.
So a Labour left that can't get
anywhere and a revolutionary left that can't get anywhere.
What lessons can we draw from these
”realities”? Certainly pessimism, although understandable, would be the wrong
conclusion. The lesson of SYRIZA shows what can be done if the left gets its
act together, puts aside its own empire-building projects and tries to do
something that might actually make a difference. We have to start from the
objective situation and work backwards – the reality of the cuts and a
potential lost decade to austerity needs to sharpen our minds and our resolve.
Starting from the necessity of a united, credible left we can work backwards to
imagine the steps that we can take to get there.
I would go so far as to say that anyone
at the present time who opposes attempts towards greater unity is, perhaps
unconsciously, holding back the movement. The crisis is so acute and the tasks
of the hour so urgent that we have no time for people who spend their hours
constructing excuses for fragmentation, isolation and weakness. They are the
past, and we desperately need a future.
Dan Hind is right and his voice joins a
growing chorus of others who see the need for unity on the left. Does this mean
every sect and group can just get together? No, of course real differences
emerge. But there is so much that unites us in the current political context
that it is criminal – absolutely criminal – that none of the larger groups are
seriously talking about launching a new united organisation. The three-way
division of the anti-cuts movement is the bitter fruit of this backward
attitude on the British left -- a situation that should deservedly make us a
laughing stock in other countries.
If the success of SYRIZA raises the
benchmark for what the left can achieve then the natural next question is, “How
could we create an organisation like SYRIZA in Britain?“ I think this question
should dominate the discussions on the left in the coming months. But let's be
clear – I am not saying we should just transplant SYRIZA's program and
constitution and graft it onto the British left. Such an attempt would be
artificial. An organisation like SYRIZA means a coalition of the radical left,
united against austerity, united against privatisation, united in action and
united in fighting social oppression. The kind of program that any new
initiative adopts is largely the result of who is involved in it, certainly it
should have an anti-capitalist basis, though it can leave some of the bigger
questions unresolved, at least initially.
Let's focus on the goals that Hind
identifies: "campaign for an end to the country's predatory foreign
policy, for the dismantling of the offshore network, for democratic control of
the central banks, urgent action to address the threat of catastrophic climate
change, and reform of the national media regimes."
Each constituency does not need to
dissolve itself, we just need to ensure checks and balances to prevent
“swamping” of meetings. Each local unit of the organisation would retain
certain autonomy while a national committee was permitted to adopt political
lines, within the remits established at a conference. If an organisation or
individual does not like any of the policies then they should have full freedom
to speak their mind about it, while accepting that there is unity in the
campaigns and actions the organisations agrees to pursue.
Everyone has to accept that they might
be minoritised at some point. But they also have to understand that abandoning
the organisation over a constitutional dispute or over this or that policy
means abandoning the vital struggle for building a credible radical left in
this country. Do people want us to live in glorious isolation for another
decade or more, as people's living standards plummet?
We also have to overcome the very real
difference in size between constituent parts on the left. The Socialist Workers
Party (SWP) for instance is still the largest group on the radical left in Britain,
although it is much smaller than it was when I joined the left in 2001. Members
of the SWP argue that launching a new party is not practical because, as they
will numerically “dominate it”, it would cause problems (as it has in the
past). But there are a number of ways to overcome this, if there is a political
will to make it happen. Changing the culture on the left also means changing
how we “intervene” into campaigns or broad organisations, and taking a more
open approach, transforming sects into networks and “giving of yourself” for
the greater need of the new organisation, these can all be thoroughly healthy
steps to take.
Possible alternatives, definite
pitfalls
The danger is that the left attempts
some kind of united initiative, but limits it to an electoral coalition –
replicating the Socialist Alliance (1999-2004) but without the enthusiasm.
While a genuine socialist alliance would be a step forward from the current
situation, it will suffer the same crisis as the last version, where all the
left groups did their campaigning work under their own banners but stood
together only in the election.
Let's put it bluntly, British people
generally don't vote for electoral coalitions. They are here today and gone
tomorrow, people respect the concept of a party or at least something more
tangible that looks like it is going to last beyond the next internal spat. The
Scottish Socialist Party was credible because it was united and forced the
smaller groups involved to campaign as SSP activists first and foremost.
Putting party before sect is essential to the success of any project, just as
it was in the early days of the Labour Party or any of the Communist parties
internationally.
The Respect débâcle shows the danger of
personality politics (the “great man” view of politics, when the entire project
is hung around one person's neck). But its fragmentation also shows what
happens when large constituent groups (in this case the SWP) act like control
freaks and treat a coalition like their personal property. Although they blamed
the disastrous outcome on John Rees, the fact is that the entire party was
complicit in the mistakes that were made, both opportunism in political terms
and bad practice in the organisational centre of the party. It was a feeling of
loss of control when Galloway started to
criticise the SWP's handling of Respect that led the SWP leadership to "go
nuclear" in the words of one protagonist.[2] While we can be critical of the conduct of Galloway
and some of his positions, the complaint about organisational manoeuvres and
people swamping meetings is one that many on the left will be sadly familiar
with. This kind of practice must stop.
The political problem with Respect was
not so much its “liberal” program, at the end of the day it was largely old
Labour social democratic in much of what it said, the unstable core at the
heart of it was the drive for electoral success with people who had no real
interests in extra-parliamentary movements and struggles. A temporary alliance
with careerists can come back to bite you, as it did for Respect in the east
end of London, where Respect councillors jumped ship, first to the Tories and
Liberal Democrats and then to Labour.
Again this points up the importance of
political movements on the streets and in the workplaces as being paramount,
with elections as a subordinate part of that strategy. Moreover, it means a
much more democratic and accountable relationship between any elected
representatives and the rank and file members, one where they are subordinated
to the wider organisation and struggle, and not seen as its “leaders” merely
because they have been elected to a position within the capitalist state. This
is a point that SYRIZA will also have to debate out in the coming months.
Today the remains of the cycle of left
unity initiatives exists in the form of the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition
(TUSC), an electoral alliance between the SWP and the Socialist Party (CWI), as
well as a handful of independents. But again the TUSC only exists for elections
and has no activist base. It seems to be doubtful that the TUSC can be
transformed into something better; rather it appears to be a marriage of
convenience for the two bigger Trotskyist groups. Its last conference had less
than 60 people at it, despite the fact that the combined membership of the
constituent groups must be over 1000 – real decisions are of course taken by
the SWP and SP party leaderships.
While the past should not be forgotten,
it can be forgiven, if people can prove their earnest support for a new
initiative. Otherwise we are locked in a vicious circle with no way out.
Differences with SYRIZA
Regardless of the subjective problems
of the British left’s sect-building ethos, there are two objective problems if
we consider ourselves in relation to what the Greek left has achieved. The
first is that SYRIZA's success is clearly the result of a country in complete
meltdown. Wage cuts of 40% and closure of important services is at a
qualitatively higher level than anything we have in Britain... so far. We shouldn't
lose sight of the fact that only around 10% of the cuts have gone through, so
worse is to come.
Second, Syriza was launched in 2004 and
has had the best part of a decade to build up its support in elections before
the explosion in 2012. In most elections they received around 5% of the vote,
which to the British left would be nothing short of a breakthrough. Patience
and a long-term view of politics is essential to make such a project work. But
then, maybe the British “explosion” will happen sooner since any new
organisation built will be involved in tenacious struggle against austerity
from day one.
We also could not limit ourselves to
electoral politics as SYRIZA seems to have an inclination to do. While some of
the more radical elements within the coalition are organising forums and
initiatives outside of the parliamentary process, it is essential as part of
our strategy to see elections as a subordinate part of the wider struggle, not
the primary focus. If SYRIZA imagines that it can really reverse the austerity
measures and revive Greece
only through governing the capitalist state they will be in for a rude shock.
When it comes to Greece's
political and economic future, the European Central Bank and the leaders of France and Germany,
not to mention the Greek capitalist class, are all in a far more powerful
position than the parliament in Athens;
removing their support and control mechanisms would be a crucial task for any
radical government.
Campaigning for a united, radical left
formation in Britain
should be an essential part of the Anticapitalist Initiative’s (ACI) work in
the coming months and years. Even more so, 2013 should be the year that serious
steps are made to bring together a re-alignment on the left. We have had our
fingers burnt in the past, but we cannot let past failures haunt us. If we fail
to rise to the challenge, then we will deserve the defeats inflicted on us by
the ruling class.
But the working class and the poor do
not deserve them. It is not their fault the left is so weak – it’s ours. Now we
have to get our house in order so that we can create a movement that can fight
austerity and challenge capitalism.
Simon Hardy is a member of the new Anticapitalist Initiative (ACI), which,
according to its website, seeks "to
search out avenues for unity and co-operation that presents radical and
socialist ideas in a way that is more appealing to new layers of activists. We
will promote activity and struggle that aims to overcome division and
sectarianism and points the way to a new type of society without exploitation
and oppression."
Notes
**END**
Posted here by Glenn
Rikowski
All that is Solid for Glenn Rikowski: http://rikowski.wordpress.com
Posts
