Surely all struggle has on a large scale failed though, hence we 're in this position now?
There's a danger of people seeing class struggle as being purely workplace struggle, or at least if there's any acknowledgement that it happens outside workplaces the scope with which it's seen is very narrow.
If capitalism is everywhere, then so is the class struggle against it, even if it's not always articulated as such by those involved.
In the past I was pretty cynical about the left's emphasis on trade unions, since in the present day there is the risk of excluding people who are either not in work or working in ununionsied workplaces, especially since many working class people are actually in temporary jobs and zero hours contracts, and in comparison their unionised counterparts can be seen as being in a position of privilege, even if they just have those rights that every worker should be entitled to. I do not dismiss the trade union movement entirely, but it is just one aspect to the struggle, and trade unionism needs to reach beyond the workplace in order to gain new relevance, but that goes for any movement dedicated to class struggle.
For example, I'd see some of the ecological struggles of the 90/00s as having class struggle dynamics within them, as have many other areas not always considered part of the class struggle.
Conversely I see the "ecological struggles" of back then as mainly having a middle-class lifestylist dynamic to them (particularly Climate Camp and the forerunners to it), part of an activist subculture where they can afford to live the most eco-friendly lifestyle possible, buy the nice organic food from their "worker's" co-op rather than a big nasty supermarket, and wear the organic Fairtrade hemp clothes since they can afford to not get everything from Primark. But my past experiences left me rather jaded in that regard. However I still have a romantic view of the road protests of the 90s which did engage the grassroots and people from all walks of life, going far beyond "Swampy" (a hero of mine at the time all the same).
Well the engagement is presumably standard Labour Party engagement - for example I imagine the whole reason why there is a reduced rate for BAME members who go to that event which people are up in arms about is to make it more attractive for them to go. (As cack handed as that is).
What was interesting from one of the recent Novara podcasts was that membership of "BAME Labour" as a group is quite low, compared to the total BAME membership. Which suggests that some people just can't be arsed with it or that signing up isn't that easy. ALSO that having a BAME Labour seat on the NEC (or some other body, I forget which) is far from representative.
In the last few months of my time in Left Unity I finally got round to getting onto the relevant groups and mailing lists of their Disabled People's Caucus, which seemed by then to be promoting the latest news from DPAC etc. I recall them having a huge hang-up over the term "person with disabilities" rather than "disabled person", preferring the latter as it embellished the disabled as an identity (this was something that was also mentioned when I helped work with a friend in the party on getting an anti-ATOS motion to conference). I one commented on their Facebook group that I personally did not see any issue with "person with disabilities" since I did not want to let my disability define my life nor did I see it a core component of my identity. I got a pretty curt reply accusing me of being ignorant of disabled people's politics (or at least their brand of it), and ending on how he saw disability as key to who he was as a person, insinuating that was how all disabled people should see their disability. Again, any view that contradicts groupthink will be dismissed, and in some cases will risk ostracism from the group.
Fast forward two years and I have recently joined the Labour Party, still finding my way around and yet to get my feet wet (intend to attend a ward meeting next month). There is almost certainly a disabled people's caucus or similar organisation in the Labour Party, which I will probably investigate at some point but I don't hold up much hopes that it isn't afflicted by the same narcissistic IDpol that was characteristic of such groups in Left Unity (although LU was pretty notorious for its intense navel gazing and how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin debates). Like with the BAME group, I wonder how representative any disabled people's groups in Labour would be of disabled people as a whole within the party. The Left Unity Disabled People's Caucus didn't really represent my views that often, other than being common allies in fights against the usual suspects. I wonder if there is an elitism at play, and not only, if at all, because of "privilege" in the IDpol sense, but because such groups are predominated by people who have spent their entire political lives arguing for a specific politics, and because their politics drives them to participate in political groups and make their voices heard, they are the most visible and become associated with this groups, something I used to refer to as "dictatorship of the loudest" when it came to why ordinary people (for want of a better term) were underrepresented in left wing organisations in general. Anyone from outside who wants to come on board either (a) decides to tow the line and support the groupthink, (b) keeps quiet regarding points they disagree on, (c) speaks out but gets ignored at best, ganged up on at worst, or (d) decides these people don't speak for them and leave to do their own thing. I've often ended up doing a combination of (b), then (c) on issues that really do stick in my craw, followed eventually by (d).
it is satire, isn’t it?
