post-modernism, cultural relativity and identity politics - attitudes of progressives

[danny la rouge]

It has long gone the time that any socialist argument for working within the Labour party had any credibility. It's not even worth engaging with.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

It has long gone the time that any socialist argument for working within the Labour party had any credibility. It's not even worth engaging with.

It is if you want a career in certain areas.

 

[danny la rouge]

It is if you want a career in certain areas.

That's a separate matter. And it's very clear no socialist argument would shame those people anyway.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

That's a separate matter. And it's very clear no socialist argument would shame those people anyway.

Absolutely - however it is my belief (apologies to the fella if I'm wrong) that articul8 falls into that category, but still likes radical socialism so resorts to ever more tortuous arguments to defend his decision on political lines.

Good luck to him though.

 

[danny la rouge]

I was going to bore everyone with a "My Political Journey" post, but I'll restrict myself to saying that when I let my LPYS membership lapse in the mid 80s, having joined when Foot was Labour leader, it was because I thought Kinnock was steering the party away from what I recognised as socialism then. It is with quite some incredulity that, especially having been through the Blair and Brown years, I find people still arguing it could be a vehicle for socialism more than quarter of a century later.

 

[past caring]

It is with quite some incredulity that, especially having been through the Blair and Brown years, I find people still arguing it could be a vehicle for socialism more than quarter of a century later.

I could fathom it - just about - if the people arguing that position were young and nieve and quite new to political involvement. But articul8 ? He's been around the block a few times. So - fool or charlatan?

 

[articul8]

only this kind

 

[articul8]

I was going to bore everyone with a "My Political Journey" post, but I'll restrict myself to saying that when I let my LPYS membership lapse in the mid 80s, having joined when Foot was Labour leader, it was because I thought Kinnock was steering the party away from what I recognised as socialism then. It is with quite some incredulity that, especially having been through the Blair and Brown years, I find people still arguing it could be a vehicle for socialism more than quarter of a century later.

People could have said the same a generation earlier about the drift of Wilson, or before that about the revisionism of Gaitskell, or before that...

 

[past caring]

And they too would have been right.

 

[articul8]

I don't see in what respect I'm meant to be naive - I've already conceded that the left is highly unlikely to take over the bureaucracy, and that it's influence over the leadership is likely to be at the margins, and that there is likely to come a time when there is a realignment of the left in recognition of the inadequacy of the present Labour set up. I just think that Labour occupies a space which means that there is an opportunity for the left to develop inside by counterposing alternative policy directions (like McDonnell is doing now) - and any split further down the line will be based on something more viable than the existing left fragments - not that it will be built out of the Labour left alone.

I'd see the UNITE/PCS merger as the potential harbinger of a viable left party, but we're talking about a decade away.

 

[danny la rouge]

People could have said the same a generation earlier about the drift of Wilson, or before that about the revisionism of Gaitskell, or before that...

Exactly. I was a kid then, but what your excuse now?

 

[articul8]

Labour is still seen as the only viable alternative government to a Tory or Tory-led one - not only that but other parties barely register any representation at all on a parliamentary level. I may not like it (I don't) but that makes it a strategically critical space to contest at the moment. Not that it's the only way of worthwhile political engagement, far from it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No I don't agree here. The content is not identical, if only because of the party's financial dependence on the unions.

The content is so similar in aim as to be "the same".
Yes, an occasional half-gnawed bone gets thrown the way of organised labour, but let's not pretend it's anything more than a pay-off aimed at shutting the unions up every couple of years. Fortunately for Labour, it hasn't been convenient for some union leaders to acknowledge that fact, or perhaps the political levy would have been in question sooner.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not necessarily - build the left, drive them further they would otherwise have gone, and if they can't be shifted break from a position of greater strength.

Interestingly, this has been attempted many times before, when the left was in a much better state withing the party, and yet the party right was always able to bring enough pressure to bear to crush any nascent leftery that didn't suit their own plans.
What makes you think that a massively-attenuated left can muster enough influence this time around?

You're reciting your formulaic fantasy by rote, like a mantra that'll advance your political ambitions.

 

[ViolentPanda]

'these strikes are wrong'

Yep, the Labour party is so amenable to "left" influence that their leader can come out with a solidaristic cracker like that for his comrades.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The main thing is though the average remaining rank and file and TU activist members in the party in the whole are not even vaguely socialist as articul8 means it, even the ones who moan about the lack of democracy merely want a more democratic liberal capitalist party.

Unfortunately accurate. The picture of politically-involved TU members has only ever been partially-representative, and far more so nowadays than say 30 years ago. In fact proper TU militancy and activism gets more column inches nowadays because (party) politically-involved TU activism that reflects anything vaguely like socialism is so rare.

Well that's the nub of it - he can't because of what membership can offer him.

You might say that...

 

[articul8]

Yep, the Labour party is so amenable to "left" influence that their leader can come out with a solidaristic cracker like that for his comrades.

As much as I disagree with what he said, he was not referring to Labour-affiliated unions here. He needed to be more circumspect when it came to the broader pensions action.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's a separate matter. And it's very clear no socialist argument would shame those people anyway.

Just as "those people" have no shame about using socialism as a rhetorical springboard for advancing their own position.

Is articul8 in fact a latter-day Frank Furedi?

 

[ViolentPanda]

As much as I disagree with what he said, he was not referring to Labour-affiliated unions here. He needed to be more circumspect when it came to the broader pensions action.

So, not "he needed to take a very different point of view", but "he needed to kep his gob shut and not let on to the rank and file that he's already sold his arse to neo-liberalism"?

Catch a fucking hold of yourself!

 

[articul8]

Yes - I've no illusions in what Ed Miliband represents. But the very fact that he's limited in what he can say and do by the party's structural dependence on the unions is what makes the politics of Labour a contested space.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

People could have said the same a generation earlier about the drift of Wilson, or before that about the revisionism of Gaitskell, or before that...

Of course they could but only if:

·the democratic structures within the LP are the same as they were then,

·the relationship between the TUs and the LP is the same,

·the strength of the TUs within the UK (and the legal framework they operate within) is the same,

·the constitutional commitments of the LP are the same,

·the international situation regarding communist parties and socialist countries/blocs is the same.

But they aren't are they? You see what I'm getting at. It isn't necessary for the LP to have been a viable vehicle for social and economic transformation in the past (that is another whole debate which I choose not to go into with PC and Danny at the moment) for it not to be one now.

You aren't even clutching at straws. You are clawing at thin air, trying to gain some purchase which isn't there; and what's worse encouraging others to do so.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. my list of bullet points doesn't include your most obvious difficulty in trying to produce some analogy between the current LP and that of Wilson and before him Gaitskell; namely the hugely changed international economic and political conditions.

 

[danny la rouge]

I know I said I wasn't interested in engaging with this, but back up just a minute there.

"the very fact that he's [Miliband] limited in what he can say and do by the party's structural dependence on the unions is what makes the politics of Labour a contested space".

What now? Are you sure?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I know I said I wasn't interested in engaging with this, but back up just a minute there.

"the very fact that he's [Miliband] limited in what he can say and do by the party's structural dependence on the unions is what makes the politics of Labour a contested space".

What now? Are you sure?

That's the only thing that stops labour being the tories, isn't it? Blair/Brown were horrible right-wing cunts who did nothing to reverse Thatcher's anti-worker laws, but they didn't extend those laws greatly in the way this new Tory govt is doing, and they did introduce various Euro reforms such as holiday rights for part-timers, which the tories probably would not have done.

It's small beer, but it's there.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Yes - I've no illusions in what Ed Miliband represents. But the very fact that he's limited in what he can say and do by the party's structural dependence on the unions is what makes the politics of Labour a contested space.

So limited that he can say (and must?) 'these strikes are wrong'; contested from the right maybe, but effectively from the left...you are joking surely?

Louis MacNeice

 

[articul8]

So limited that he can say (and must?) 'these strikes are wrong'; contested from the right maybe, but effectively from the left...you are joking surely?

Well we can argue the toss about how effectively it is contested from the left but the fact remains that there is a live debate - with the affiliated union funds - a potential point of leverage.

 

[articul8]

But they aren't are they? You see what I'm getting at. It isn't necessary for the LP to have been a viable vehicle for social and economic transformation in the past (that is another whole debate which I choose not to go into with PC and Danny at the moment) for it not to be one now.

p.s. my list of bullet points doesn't include your most obvious difficulty in trying to produce some analogy between the current LP and that of Wilson and before him Gaitskell; namely the hugely changed international economic and political conditions.

And what of the left outside of Labour in that time? Strength to strength? And actually (unlike others) I'm not positing some golden age of real Labour when it could have been captured for socialism. I don't think that's true either. But it occupies a strategically significant space which means which needs to be dealt with - a going "head-to-head" didn't work for the CP and didn't work for the ILP. Let alone the Heinz 57 of ultra-left sectlets.

Now OK the Labour party of today is not the Labour party of the 40's etc.etc. Of course. And I don't rule out some fundamental shift in how Labour is seen (eg if UNITE, GMB, UNISON and CWU were to pull the plug on the funds), or if they were elected in conditions like PASOK were in Greece. But we're not there.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Well we can argue the toss about how effectively it is contested from the left but the fact remains that there is a live debate - with the affiliated union funds - a potential point of leverage.

Your whole strategy is based on the assumption that it is effectively contested from the left; any attempting to slide affiliated union influence together with a neccessarily left critique/pressure won't get you out of your hole either. So let's see some answers to the changed conditions which I outlined previously; why is the Labour Party now fit for purpose?

Louis MacNeice

 

[articul8]

has it ever been fit for purpose?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

And what of the left outside of Labour in that time? Strength to strength? And actually (unlike others) I'm not positing some golden age of real Labour when it could have been captured for socialism. I don't think that's true either. But it occupies a strategically significant space which means which needs to be dealt with - a going "head-to-head" didn't work for the CP and didn't work for the ILP. Let alone the Heinz 57 of ultra-left sectlets.

Now OK the Labour party of today is not the Labour party of the 40's etc.etc. Of course. And I don't rule out some fundamental shift in how Labour is seen (eg if UNITE, GMB, UNISON and CWU were to pull the plug on the funds), or if they were elected in conditions like PASOK were in Greece. But we're not there.

I'm not offering one of any of the extant organisations up as the answer. What I'm saying is look at the job you want to do and then consider the tools you are going to use. Currently you are the equivalent of a man offering to redecorate the front of my house using a biro on the basis that it's the best biro currently available, while ignoring the fact that it just won't work!

Louis MacNeice

 

[danny la rouge]

That's the only thing that stops labour being the tories, isn't it? Blair/Brown were horrible right-wing cunts who did nothing to reverse Thatcher's anti-worker laws, but they didn't extend those laws greatly in the way this new Tory govt is doing, and they did introduce various Euro reforms such as holiday rights for part-timers, which the tories probably would not have done.

It's small beer, but it's there.

No, I'm not having that. Blair and Brown did far, far more than "fail to reverse" Thatcher's anti worker laws. Blair fought the keep the Working Time opt out, actively attacked the working class, the disabled, single parents, the unions, the firefighters. It wasn't sins of omission that made him a champion of capitalists, it was an active anti working class programme.

And articul8, you "like" 'small beer' do you? Even though it's an illusion you're determined to see rather than reality, that's enough for you to join and work to further the aims of one of the major exponents of the neoliberal project is it? Don't answer: it's rhetorical. My stomach's churning here.