Britain: Fighting Austerity Requires a United Left

by Simon Hardy (ACI, U.K) on October 16, 2012

First published by Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal.

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

[1] Read Dan Hind’s article here http://aje.me/U5lUOj. It subsequently drew a critically examination from Socialist Workers Party member Richard Seymour at his Lenin’s Tomb blog http://www.leninology.com/2012/08/the-problem-of-left-unity.html.

[2] See http://www.socialistunity.com/galloway-on-respect/ and also http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Car-crash-on-the-left.

Further reading from The North Star:

 

{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }

Pham Binh of Occupy Wall Street, Class War Camp October 17, 2012 at 10:39 am

Honest assessments of the left, the far left, and workers’ organizations like this are all too rare. Hats off to Hardy for this. I think the point that electoral alliances with careerist types (rather than movement types) is really right on, as is the fact that most of the left-of-Labour experiments self-destructed over almost stupid, trivial issues rather than as the result of their political contradictions coming to fruition.

By comparison, in the U.S. we don’t even have a national anti-cuts coalition much less three; ditto a Labour party, much less a left break with such a party like Respect or SSP. We have yet to even produce a George Galloway.

Opinion polls since the 2008 crisis show that more people have a favorable opinion of socialism than capitalism and yet the number of organized socialists in America is smaller than it was in 1898 despite the predominance of the recruitment mill model where recruiting and retaining member is priority #1 of these organizations. The unions as we know them are being slowly exterminated along with the post office, public education, and the last vestiges of the New Deal. The revolutions that continue to rock the Arab world have been met here with tremendous confusion, hostility, indifference, and, worst of all, inaction on the part of the self-proclaimed “revolutionary” left.

These events should have served as a wake up call, to (as Samuel L. Jackson so eloquently put it) “wake the fuck up.” But cadavers cannot wake up, and so Platypus isn’t wrong when they say “the left is dead.” Occupy was born in large part because the old left is dead, having passed away quietly as the country slept over the past decade or so. Where the old left was conservative in practice, Occupy was bold and reckless; where the old left was dogmatic, Occupy was fluid and experimental; where the old left focused on debating ancient revolutions circa 1917, 1871, 1936, or 1959, Occupy sought to import the methods of and lessons from revolutionary movements in Egypt, Spain, and Greece circa 2011.

Reply

Christian October 22, 2012 at 2:51 pm

I’m not sure if pulling together existing organizations is the answer, or many just something new and organic starting.

I guess the actual starting point that will happen, irrespective of any wily socialist plotting, is with people. Whatever they call themselves and whatever groups they have been a part of in the past decade, there are a lot of smart Americans with political experience out there. What we need is the ability to say, “hmm… a lot of the things we have tried haven’t quite work out. Let’s abandon our preconceived notions and any attachment to orthodoxies or labels or historical traditions that we like the sound of in books but which really have never been the part of any of our lives. Let’s just use our experience of what works and what doesn’t and lets start working together like a team.”

That would be pretty sweet if that happened.

Reply

Pham Binh of Occupy Wall Street, Class War Camp October 23, 2012 at 11:34 am

I think what we’re looking at is a combination of people in and outside of existing groups through common campaigns that begin to form (political) relationships and networks, locally and nationally.

For example, the Vote Sawant campaign by Seattle Socialist Alternative has won the support of the local Green Party and the Freedom Socialist Party and people from Solidarity and Occupy Seattle are also participating. Although the International Socialist Organization has refused to work with or even endorse the campaign and the same is true for the local anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist-minded groups. Working to create left unity (or more accurately, convergence) where there is none is going to take time, a lot of effort, and even more patience.

These looser networks, relationships, and circles (or “affinity groups” in anarchist lingo) can form the material basis for a proto-party since we are in a pre-party situation/period. At least that’s how I see things.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 26, 2012 at 8:10 am

Saying that doing X “Requires a United Left” is, if taken at face value, an assertion that doing X is impossible.

Imagine if Lenin had said in 1917 that overthrowing capitalist rule, or even just getting Russia out of the imperialist war, ‘requires a united left’, and had actually meant it. There wouldn’t have been the October Revolution! That revolution occurred because Lenin, Trotsky, et al., were willing to break left unity in a very decisive way.

Reply

Pham Binh of Occupy Wall Street, Class War Camp October 26, 2012 at 12:50 pm

Because every situation and context is just like Russia in 1917 and all we need to do is apply the same tactics the Bolsheviks did at that time and in their context.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 26, 2012 at 5:34 pm

Maybe you, Binh, can show us why something called ‘Left unity’ is both possible and necessary to fight capitalist austerity in Britain (the subject of the above article!) today while it was neither possible nor necessary to achieve a much more far-reaching goal in Russia in 1917.

BTW, I am in favor of unity among left groups, and not only avowedly ‘left’ groups, in struggles against the capitalist class or sections thereof, where such unity can be achieved without subordinating the more militant or radical groups to the less militant or radical politics of others.

Reply

Brian S. October 27, 2012 at 9:35 am

@AaronAarons: You could try the dominance of an archaic autocratic political order in Russia; the virtual disintegration of the state in the course of the war; the complete shaking up of Russian society by the war effort; the experience of a popular revolutionary movement that had challenged existing power structures a little more than a decade previously; a revolutionary tradition of some 40 years or more that affected all social classes; a working class movement under the influence of socialist ideas and organisations. Looking out my window I don’t see much of that here.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 27, 2012 at 8:31 am

Yes, and I must apologize for forgetting to insist on the slogans, “All Power to the Soviets”, “Down with the Ten Capitalist Ministers”, and “Land to the Peasants” for the struggle against austerity in Britain.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 27, 2012 at 9:52 am

‘Yes’ in this comment is an expression of my agreement with Pham Binh’s statement that “every situation and context is just like Russia in 1917 and all we need to do is apply the same tactics the Bolsheviks did at that time and in their context.” I foolishly forgot that important rule when I wrote the other comment.

Reply

Aaron Aarons October 27, 2012 at 10:03 pm

How can one talk seriously about a United Left in a country that is one of the major imperialist powers (and is in a close alliance with the major imperialist power) without including the struggle against imperialism and militarism as a condition of unity? And won’t a real left that is struggling against anti-working-class, anti-poor, budget cuts also actively struggle to not only cut, but gut, spending on the military and on the police?

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: