Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
I just made it up to show that other potential grand narratives are to hand if we want them.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Filling the Vacuum 1995
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
I just made it up to show that other potential grand narratives are to hand if we want them.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
I'm sure very few on the broadest definition of the "Left" could disagree with your stated list of aims Louis -- but it aint a "Grand Narrative" to compete with the huge, rich, narrative, and (very patchy in actual outcomes, but experience rich) historical analysis and traditions of Socialism. OR, I'm afraid to say the extensive racist and nationalist ideology of Fascism.
It's when we move beyond the generalities things get complicated, and inevitably do. Both (the various "brands") of revolutionary and reformist Socialism, AND FASCISM , have wide-ranging complete IDEOLOGIES to explain the world and how to change it. Any movement that, in a profound social crisis like today, wants to garner support, has to offer an all encompassing world view to potential supporters. A few feel good phrases doesn't do it. Sorry.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
I was responding to your few good phrases; the headlines of your grand narrative, which have so little contemporary positive purchase that the rich experience they can speak to is in danger of being lost. It is also the case that much of the resonance that your headlines retain is negative. Do you want to spend time re-claiming words, fighting over their 'real' meaning, when hardly anyone else is listening? Or would it be better to try to build on past valuable experience and analysis, in a language that chimes with the second decade of the 21st century rather than that of the 20th? My point isn't that my briefly scribbled list should be the new headlines, rather that the old ones don't work and that new ones that fit task of helping to 'turn the world upside down' are not beyond us...given a bit more time, will and effort (and maybe the courage to let go of the security blanket of old certainties).
Louis MacNeice
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
What BTF says is that there is 'a need for a grand narrative'. Nowwhere does it imply that the iWCA is in itself the grand narrative; the finished product. It does however see it as 'a start'.
In reply to your other remarks about the abject failure of the Left, the central point is again contained in the book. 'We are on the landings and no one else is'. This is a quote from the FN and is over two decades old. The left has not acted on it. It refuses to do so for the some of the reasons you yourself have outlined.
The BNP along with other Euro nationalists have however adopted the strategy. Their success is not down to them taking up issues close to their heart only, but taking up issues dear but to the community they are addressing first. The IWCA pilot scheme strategy went one better. inviting people in the anointed wards to tell us what their central concerns were via surverys. Genuine ones. 'Right wing' issues (anti-social behaviour/drug dealing) were prominent, in all areas. This a result of the 'control and contain' policies of the police. So the question the IWCA was confronted was how to deal with this in a progressive way.
What the working class know very well is that parties like the BNP and the IWCA have little real power. Accordingly they invite them to largely address issues in their immediate locality. If they do so, it is likely they will in turn they will vote for them on the said local issues.
Which is why the 'big' issues you raised very rarely come up on the door step. Instructively, the concerns about mass immigration/identity politics, which are truly toxic, can be seen as a euphimism for a total loss of power in every other area of working class life as well. The IWCA take on mc is not generally advertised as policy, but is more a guide to action, should the divide and rule tactics be implemented locally. The working class recognise exactly that our take on mc comes from a pro-working class rather than anti-immigrant, anti-black motivation.
For example in the London Mayoral election in 2004, the traffic (voters could vote twice for ist and 2nd choice candidates) between the BNP and IWCA was smaller in percentage terms than that of any other party - including perversely between the BNP and the pro Muslim front respect!
Finally, the problem is not with 'Stalinism'. The twin problems are with social democracy which has failed the working class repeatedly, and the Leninist model of organising, which is in itself anti-working class, (and indeed the very opposite of what Marx/Engels recommended) reflecting as it does perfectly the corporate world, (including keeping a permanent space for the woudl be CEO) it claims it is seeking to overthrow.
Ok, I can buy into a lot of that that to a considerable extent. However, Given the profound world crisis that neo-Liberal capitalism has now driven us - I don't agree that a lot of Socialist ideas and analysis has no contemporary relevance. But, yes I accept that a lot of our terminology now seems stale and cliched.
I accept that the combination of Stalinism, and bourgeois reformist "socialism" has seriously "poisoned the well" of the idea of "Socialism" for masses of people. However it's bedrock of ideas, from the Marxist analysis of capitalism as a system (rather than necessarily the "inevitable march to power of a self aware working class due to the unopposable laws of history component) , and the realities of the Socialist case for state ownership of the "commanding heights" of the economy (Clause 4 aint daft in concept), and Overall Planning by a democratic "State of the People" rather than capitalist anarchy, AND the Class based analysis of Socialism (as opposed to for instance the racial nationalist bedrock of fascist ideology) --- Well I don't think that and a lot of other socialist theory and objectives can be thrown away if Humanity is to move on up.
I also accept trhat the Leninist conception of the centralised party, tasked with driving the transformation of society is a real problem - But I'm afraid that without well organised parties to organise and compete for power in society I don't see how change can be achieved. Maybe some of the experiences using new technology in the Arab Spring will be a new development, but in the end the struggle for power, whether through the ballot box, or through direct action if this route is blocked , comes down to serious organisational issues - Political party structure issues..
If new terminology and new analysis, and new organisational forms are needed. fine - but simply renouncing the core Socialist ideas is a waste of resources and experience in my opinion.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Given that people who you would describe as Stalinists, bourgeois reformists and Leninists all call themselves socialists - sometimes even the definite article socialists - you are going to have to spend a lot of time and energy initially differentiating your real socialism from their phoney "socialisms" and subsequently winning the argument between all the competing socialism; all this to protect a 'grand narrative' that has lost its purchase.
Why not look instead at what your 'core socialist ideas' (e.g. the organised political party, state ownership) are meant to achieve; having identified these goals, then a new big story can start to be built around those aims which will echo back long before Marx and much further afield than the borders of Europe. What can also be done is to see if notions such as state ownership and centralised political parties can really deliver your socialist aims in our current context; you're not being asked to renounce anything, rather I'm asking that you say where it is you want to get to and why you think it’s worth going there.
Louis MacNeice
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Given that people who you would describe as Stalinists, bourgeois reformists and Leninists all call themselves socialists - sometimes even the definite article socialists - you are going to have to spend a lot of time and energy initially differentiating your real socialism from their phoney "socialisms" and subsequently winning the argument between all the competing socialism; all this to protect a 'grand narrative' that has lost its purchase.
Why not look instead at what your 'core socialist ideas' (e.g. the organised political party, state ownership) are meant to achieve; having identified these goals, then a new big story can start to be built around those aims which will echo back long before Marx and much further afield than the borders of Europe. What can also be done is to see if notions such as state ownership and centralised political parties can really deliver your socialist aims in our current context; you're not being asked to renounce anything, rather I'm asking that you say where it is you want to get to and why you think it’s worth going there.
Louis MacNeice
I dont think there is any alternative to an ongoing process of competition between different "schools" of claimed "Socialism" going on as people group together to achieve social objectives. It has, does, and will, involve the spending of a LOT of energy between groups as the struggle for influence goes on... but what's new in that -- that is the political process. I don't think "starting from the ground up" - from basic aims and objectives really avoids that process vis a vis all the other "socialist and non socialist movements offering their ideologies and "solutions in the political "market place".
For instance I would say that a lot of the principles that "Socialism" in its broadest sense derives from is the morality of the Judeo Christian tradition - as opposed for instance to the "paganist social Darwinism" which underpins much of fascist ideology. At that level of basic aims though it all gets a bit abstract.
I think there is a pretty solid fund of basic socialist aims and objectives and means to these ends within the broad socialist tradition , without needing to "reinvent the wheel". The major problems that bedevil this tradition , eg, reformist betrayal, stalinism, revolution versus reform, rabid sectarianism, mixed economy versus total nationalisation, socialism in one country versus internationalism, etc, etc, are all debates which will continue as groups form around proposed "answers and strategies, and as these groups , as political movements , respond to the current capitalist crisis. Basically I dont see the need to completely step outside the broad "Socialist" tradition for the solution to the capitalist crisis. So I see the issue as one for "Socialists" to resolve through debate and attempts at mass movement building. A pretty sterile activity in times of long capitalist boom, but one with a large potential audience outside of the hothouse atmosphere of small group (eg , Trotskyist) politics as was the case for so many decades of the long postwar boom.
I suppose , fundamentally, unlike you, I dont think that the general, grand narrative, of "Socialism" in its broadest sense, has lost its purchase permanently with the masses of people who will now be looking for solutions to the obvious failure of capitalism, it just became an apparent irrelevancy in the prosperous West during the Long Boom.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
This isn't what I'm suggesting; rather we could step forward from the particular socialist moment and keep going with a new invigorated period of a much longer and wider egaliatrian tradition.
Louis MacNeice
p.s. if it helps to put this in perspective I write this as an erstwhile self-proclaimed marxist-leninist.
I'm not being funny here, but what "longer and wider egalitarian tradition" is there historically outside of the broad "Socialist" tradition? OK, Plenty of religious examples, eg, early Christianity. Maybe the Levellers during the English Civil War , but generally Socialism in one "school" or another seems to me to pretty much encompass the egalitarian tradition. I'm obviously missing something here, so you'll have to enlarge on your quote somewhat.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Socialism has retrospectively claimed examples such as the Levellers, but they wouldn't, indeed couldn't have called themselves socialists. So rather than seeing socialism as encompassing the egalitarian tradition, why not see it as an historically specific period within that tradition (a period which may have ended). The apparently pressing need to define, defend and promote socialism (whichever is your preferred take on the s word) disappears and we can be left with something more universal and enduring (e.g. my previous hasty and flawed attempt at a big story) to try to articulate in our current circumstances.
Louis MacNeice
There are lots of movements about, and growing, offering a "moral" path which includes egalitarianism in its cocktail , with a "solution" to the current and constant problems of life under capitalism - Islamic Fundamentalism for one. Plus a lot of "alternative lifestyles/values .. within capitalism" type movements - of which the Mondragon co-op movement is one ....as indeed historically is our own Co-operative Movement.
However for me Socialism - a movement based solidly on the class realities of advanced capitalism , and the potential this incredible productivity offers for a rational, planned, democratic society of abundance for all - on a world basis, still offers the best structured ideology for moving humanity forward. I didn't actually think the Levellers WERE socialists, .. I was just pointing out that mass movements and ideologies focussing on egalitarianism are pretty thin on the ground outside of the broad Socialist tradition. So I'm not at all sure what the basis is for your proposal to "move on " from Socialism to "something more universal and enduring". Perhaps you could explain ?
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Louis, do you mind if I half inch this to post elsewhere?
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
'The Ultimate Shambles', with around 250 members. Seriously, I can announce that the comment has already brought some "kudos" from one poster.
Very much continuing with this theme of "what general principles or demands should people make in order to unite around resistance to the capitalist crisis: From an article in the Guardian on the growth worldwide of the idea of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement:
"On Saturday, people will be taking to the streets in almost a thousand cities, 82 countries and six continents. In London, people plan to occupy the Stock Exchange. We are united for global change and united for global democracy: global governance of the people, by the people.
The following manifesto was produced over four months through consultation among groups, activists and people's assemblies in countries such as Britain, Egypt, Tunisia, Germany, Spain, the US, Palestine, Israel, Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, Argentina, India and Australia. We got comments, suggestions, support, and wrote and rewrote it again and again. The text has been supported by Canadian-based Naomi Klein, Indian-based Vandana Shiva, the US-based Michael Hardt and Noam Chomsky, as well as Uruguayan Eduardo Galeano.
"On Saturday, people will be taking to the streets in almost a thousand cities, 82 countries and six continents. In London, people plan to occupy the Stock Exchange. We are united for global change and united for global democracy: global governance of the people, by the people.
The following manifesto was produced over four months through consultation among groups, activists and people's assemblies in countries such as Britain, Egypt, Tunisia, Germany, Spain, the US, Palestine, Israel, Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, Argentina, India and Australia. We got comments, suggestions, support, and wrote and rewrote it again and again. The text has been supported by Canadian-based Naomi Klein, Indian-based Vandana Shiva, the US-based Michael Hardt and Noam Chomsky, as well as Uruguayan Eduardo Galeano.
United for #GlobalDemocracy
On 15 October 2011, united in our diversity, united for global change, we demand global democracy: global governance by the people, for the people. Inspired by our sisters and brothers in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, New York, Palestine-Israel, Spain and Greece, we too call for a regime change: a global regime change.
In the words of Vandana Shiva, the Indian activist, today we demand replacing the G8 with the whole of humanity – the G7,000,000,000.
Undemocratic international institutions are our global Mubarak, our global Assad, our global Gaddafi. These include: the IMF, the WTO, global markets, multinational banks, the G8/G20, the European Central Bank and the UN security council. Like Mubarak and Assad, these institutions must not be allowed to run people's lives without their consent. We are all born equal, rich or poor, woman or man. Every African and Asian is equal to every European and American. Our global institutions must reflect this, or be overturned.
Today, more than ever before, global forces shape people's lives. Our jobs, health, housing, education and pensions are controlled by global banks, markets, tax-havens, corporations and financial crises. Our environment is being destroyed by pollution in other continents. Our safety is determined by international wars and international trade in arms, drugs and natural resources. We are losing control over our lives. This must stop. This will stop. The citizens of the world must get control over the decisions that influence them in all levels – from global to local. That is global democracy. That is what we demand today.
Today, like the Mexican Zapatistas, we say "¡Ya basta! Aquí el pueblo manda y el gobierno obedece": Enough! Here the people command and global institutions obey! Like the Spanish Tomalaplaza we say "Democracia Real Ya": True global democracy now!" Today we call the citizens of the world: let us globalise Tahrir Square! Let us globalise Puerta del Sol!"
Of course the issue now is, how does such a vague and general demand get operationalised into a long term movement against capitalism. From generalised street demos long term political organisations are needed --- back to the issue of the nature of that movement as we have been discussing.
Similar threads
