The Death of the Left

[Smokeandsteam]

Some of you will recollect The Rise of the Right by the same authors (Simon Winlow and Steve Hall). In that book they persuasively argued that rise of the populist right within the working class was intimately connected to the abandonment of working-class communities by the left and liberals and the neo-liberal assault on, and subsequent collapse of, the social, political and cultural institutions that were built by and sustained by working class communities.

The blurb for the new book suggests that it’ll be equally important:

The Left is dead. Its ailments cannot be cured. In its current form it cannot win elections, transform the economy, or advance the interests of the broad multi-ethnic working class." Winlow and Hall argue that the only way to resurrect what was once valuable in leftist politics is to declare the left dead and begin from the beginning again. They focus on key historical moments when the left could have pushed history in a better direction. They identify the root causes of its maladies, describe how new cultural obsessions displaced core unifying principles, and explore the yawning chasm that now separates the left from the working class. Drawing upon a wealth of historical evidence to structure its story of entryism, corruption, fragmentation and decline, they close the book by outlining how a new reincarnation of the left can win in the 21st century.

The Death of the Left

Winlow and Hall argue that the only way to resurrect leftist politics is to begin from the beginning again. They identify the root causes of its maladies, descr

blackwells.co.uk

 

[The39thStep]

Some of you will recollect The Rise of the Right by the same authors (Simon Winlow and Steve Hall). In that book they persuasively argued that rise of the populist right among the working class, was intimately connected to the abandonment of working-class communities by the left and liberals and the collapse of the social, political and cultural institutions that were built by and sustained our communities.

The blurb for the new book suggests that it’ll be equally important:

The Left is dead. Its ailments cannot be cured. In its current form it cannot win elections, transform the economy, or advance the interests of the broad multi-ethnic working class." Winlow and Hall argue that the only way to resurrect what was once valuable in leftist politics is to declare the left dead and begin from the beginning again. They focus on key historical moments when the left could have pushed history in a better direction. They identify the root causes of its maladies, describe how new cultural obsessions displaced core unifying principles, and explore the yawning chasm that now separates the left from the working class. Drawing upon a wealth of historical evidence to structure its story of entryism, corruption, fragmentation and decline, they close the book by outlining how a new reincarnation of the left can win in the 21st century.

The Death of the Left

Winlow and Hall argue that the only way to resurrect leftist politics is to begin from the beginning again. They identify the root causes of its maladies, descr

blackwells.co.uk

Enjoyed Rise of the Right so look forward to this.

 

[ska invita]

I'm sure its interesting but hard to talk about a book not out for a few months though

The notion that "the left" is separated from "the working class" by a chasm does raise the question what the definition of working class is they are going with.

Partly with that in mind I think another factor here is how the complexities of class have changed whilst orthodox marxist often haven't ... we've talked about this before a lot and Im not in the mood to get into it again, but to say that i havent comes across anyone writing in english who has really grappled with 21st class composition in all its complexities and contradictions and what that means for the left. (if someone can recommend something im all ears)

In terms of ripping it up and starting again, curious as i am to hear what they suggest in the book, I've recently been thinking about the marxist 'sects', SWP, AWL etc etc its kind of amazing how these groups limp on year after year. In other places in Europe there have been some new formations that genuinely filled a gap and became mass (im thinking the likes of Podemos etc) - it never happened in the UK - though we did of course have the Corbyn surge, which by UK standards was an earthquake, and tbf got a record high popular vote share in 2017 - wasn't that far off winning really, which challenges one of the assumptions made in the blurb posted in the OP. But post-Corbyn (and post-Covid) 'the organised left' looks worse than ever IMO

 

[RD2003]

The definitive death of the left is confirmed by its lack of scepticism regarding the war in Ukraine (assuming civilisation survives it.) Liberal leftists, pseudo-Trots and 'class-struggle anarchists' are left floundering, their credulity regarding the proxy war going on and, generally speaking, support for the strategy of their own ruling class, only hammering the final nails into their own coffins. An independent viewpoint, let alone strategy regarding the war, is either totally absent, or else exists nowhere outside the imagination. As if there could be, for them, any outcome of a celebrated (and inevitably pyrrhic) victory for 'the west' other than the permanent neutralisation of what remains of their own ideology and organisation. They are destined to carry on as an ever-dwindling historical curiosity. That they set such store by their determined opposition (mostly online) to a 'red-brown' formation, which includes many nominal Trots, that is totally invisible to the public eye and destined to go nowhere politically, if only because it is in itself a product of the left's terminal decline, only shows how far everything has deteriorated for radical left prospects over the past four decades or so.

A future of obsessively tail-ending the latest oddball liberal social panacea/ obsession beckons, the pattern having already been set years ago.

 

[Humberto]

The definitive death of the left is confirmed by its lack of scepticism regarding the war in Ukraine (assuming civilisation survives it.) Liberal leftists, pseudo-Trots and 'class-struggle anarchists' are left floundering, their credulity regarding the proxy war going on and, generally speaking, support for the strategy of their own ruling class, only hammering the final nails into their own coffins. An independent viewpoint, let alone strategy regarding the war, is either totally absent, or else exists nowhere outside the imagination. As if there could be, for them. any outcome of a celebrated (and inevitably pyrrhic) vixctory for 'the west' other than the permanent neutralisation of what remains of their own ideology and organisation. They are destined to carry on as an ever-dwindling historical curiosity. That they set such store by their determined opposition (mostly online) to a 'red-brown' formation that is totally invisible to the public eye and destined to go nowhere politically, if only because it is in itself a product of the left's termial decline, only shows how far everything has deteriorated for radical left prospects over the past four decades or so.

A future of obsessively tail-ending the latest oddball liberal social panacea beckons, the pattern having already been set years ago.

Incredibly dull voice

 

[hitmouse]

I'm sure its interesting but hard to talk about a book not out for a few months though

The notion that "the left" is separated from "the working class" by a chasm does raise the question what the definition of working class is they are going with.

Partly with that in mind I think another factor here is how the complexities of class have changed whilst orthodox marxist often haven't ... we've talked about this before a lot and Im not in the mood to get into it again, but to say that i havent comes across anyone writing in english who has really grappled with 21st class composition in all its complexities and contradictions and what that means for the left. (if someone can recommend something im all ears)

Have you read much Angry Workers stuff? Maybe it's still a bit old-school, but I feel like their Class Power book was at least an attempt to start from analysing contemporary reality rather than repeating old formulas.

(was gonna do a brief reply to Marvin, but what's the point really? I hope they're happy doing what they're doing, I suppose.)

 

[The39thStep]

.

 

[The39thStep]

I'm sure its interesting but hard to talk about a book not out for a few months though

The notion that "the left" is separated from "the working class" by a chasm does raise the question what the definition of working class is they are going with.

Partly with that in mind I think another factor here is how the complexities of class have changed whilst orthodox marxist often haven't ... we've talked about this before a lot and Im not in the mood to get into it again, but to say that i havent comes across anyone writing in english who has really grappled with 21st class composition in all its complexities and contradictions and what that means for the left. (if someone can recommend something im all ears)

In terms of ripping it up and starting again, curious as i am to hear what they suggest in the book, I've recently been thinking about the marxist 'sects', SWP, AWL etc etc its kind of amazing how these groups limp on year after year. In other places in Europe there have been some new formations that genuinely filled a gap and became mass (im thinking the likes of Podemos etc) - it never happened in the UK - though we did of course have the Corbyn surge, which by UK standards was an earthquake, and tbf got a record high popular vote share in 2017 - wasn't that far off winning really, which challenges one of the assumptions made in the blurb posted in the OP. But post-Corbyn (and post-Covid) 'the organised left' looks worse than ever IMO

 

[LDC]

The definitive death of the left is confirmed by its lack of scepticism regarding the war in Ukraine (assuming civilisation survives it.) Liberal leftists, pseudo-Trots and 'class-struggle anarchists' are left floundering, their credulity regarding the proxy war going on and, generally speaking, support for the strategy of their own ruling class, only hammering the final nails into their own coffins. An independent viewpoint, let alone strategy regarding the war, is either totally absent, or else exists nowhere outside the imagination. As if there could be, for them, any outcome of a celebrated (and inevitably pyrrhic) victory for 'the west' other than the permanent neutralisation of what remains of their own ideology and organisation. They are destined to carry on as an ever-dwindling historical curiosity. That they set such store by their determined opposition (mostly online) to a 'red-brown' formation, which includes many nominal Trots, that is totally invisible to the public eye and destined to go nowhere politically, if only because it is in itself a product of the left's terminal decline, only shows how far everything has deteriorated for radical left prospects over the past four decades or so.

A future of obsessively tail-ending the latest oddball liberal social panacea/ obsession beckons, the pattern having already been set years ago.

Oh yes, definitely those projects and people thinking resistance to the Russian invasion and then supporting some of the Ukrainian resistance are floundering and look lost when compared to the very small numbers of people like you saying any resistance is a mistake, is mealy mouthed about any criticism of Russia, and think Ukraine should just surrender.

Among all the people I know outside the (organised or identitfied) left you'd be regarded as a complete crank with your positions. People would run a mile from having anything to do with your politics with their level of moral certainty, arrogant tone, and detached unrealistic pronouncements. I think that attitudes like that are a far greater reason why lots of people think the left is fucked.

Just ordered the book btw, look forward to reading it.

 

[ska invita]

Have you read much Angry Workers stuff? Maybe it's still a bit old-school, but I feel like their Class Power book was at least an attempt to start from analysing contemporary reality rather than repeating old formulas.

Yes i read it...in short summary i didn't see much different from existing 'base union' organising - which has to be marked as one of the few success stories of recent years, even if on a modest scale. Industrial-workplace entryism/ US 'salting' tradition isn't a bad thing at all but seems a limited strategy to me, considering the scale of the problem

In my opinion we need both better, livelier, more sociable, grassroots projects (angry workers fits in to that in part), but also a mass party - Corbyn experience shows that the voting public are not as far away from being willing to vote for a democratic socialist programme as doomsayers might think. The problem seems to me to be historic institutions are not fit for purpose - including the Labour Party obviously. The question of whether or not to abandon the Labour Party and create something new is a massive constipated blockage in left politics IMO.

I dont think bottom up and top down politics are mutually exclusive - the opposite, i think the ideal is a virtuous circle of energy between the two, feeding each other.

Its Monday morning, i haven't finished my tea, and im wittering on on the internet..time to stop for now.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I'd hope that they'd start with recognising the Intellectual failure of so much of the left to face up to the failure of the Bolshevik Revolution, it's failure to achieve any worthwhile objective. The Communist Parties of the world became mere tools in the foreign policy schemes of the USSR and turned a blind eye to its cruelty, violence, hypocrisy and downright inhumanity. Trotskyists and others pretended things were on course until Stalin seized power, but in doing so failed to be open and honest about how bad things were right from the start. This affected a whole section of the Left outside of the Communists and Trots. A romantic attachment to the glamour of the barricades lingered for decades so that the likes of Jeremy Corbyn still find it hard to be critical of anyone who claims the label 'socialist'.

So, like I say, let's hope that Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin can all be cast aside.

 

[ska invita]

So, like I say, let's hope that Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin can all be cast aside.

My impression is this younger generation coming through now aren't particularly interested - a few cranks aside
The ability to talk openly about and use the word "socialism" in the USA without immediately being tied down by the baggage of big C Communism is a sign of that

 

[RD2003]

Oh yes, definitely those projects and people thinking resistance to the Russian invasion and then supporting some of the Ukrainian resistance are floundering and look lost when compared to the very small numbers of people like you saying any resistance is a mistake, is mealy mouthed about any criticism of Russia, and think Ukraine should just surrender.

Among all the people I know outside the left you'd be regarded as a complete crank with your positions. People would run a mile from having anything to do with your politics with their level of moral certainty, arrogant tone, and detached unrealistic pronouncements. I think that attitudes like that are a far greater reason why lots of people think the left is fucked.

Just ordered the book btw,

Don't you have a meeting of Anarchists for NATO Expansion to organise?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Enjoyed Rise of the Right so look forward to this.

I am hoping to get a review copy, but, in any case, once I get the book will post up my thoughts on this thread.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

A future of obsessively tail-ending the latest oddball liberal social panacea/ obsession beckons, the pattern having already been set years ago.

I agree with your last sentence. The book will explore how what passes for the the left has arrived at that point. You should read it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm sure its interesting but hard to talk about a book not out for a few months though

The notion that "the left" is separated from "the working class" by a chasm does raise the question what the definition of working class is they are going with.

Partly with that in mind I think another factor here is how the complexities of class have changed whilst orthodox marxist often haven't ... we've talked about this before a lot and Im not in the mood to get into it again, but to say that i havent comes across anyone writing in english who has really grappled with 21st class composition in all its complexities and contradictions and what that means for the left. (if someone can recommend something im all ears)

In terms of ripping it up and starting again, curious as i am to hear what they suggest in the book, I've recently been thinking about the marxist 'sects', SWP, AWL etc etc its kind of amazing how these groups limp on year after year. In other places in Europe there have been some new formations that genuinely filled a gap and became mass (im thinking the likes of Podemos etc) - it never happened in the UK - though we did of course have the Corbyn surge, which by UK standards was an earthquake, and tbf got a record high popular vote share in 2017 - wasn't that far off winning really, which challenges one of the assumptions made in the blurb posted in the OP. But post-Corbyn (and post-Covid) 'the organised left' looks worse than ever IMO

Depends what you think is possible, I guess. Podemos has been in power with PSOE. Are they dragging PSOE to the left when they do that? Is that the best one should hope for? Maybe not, but it's certainly a fuckload better than having the choice between Johnson and Starmer.

Meanwhile in France the socialist party has collapsed and France Insoumise has risen. We'll see how they do in the upcoming parliamentary elections - Melenchon as PM isn't an impossibility, and that would lead again to a 'centrist' potentially being dragged leftwards by having to work with with socialists.

The UK's political system doesn't so easily allow socialists to split from a failing centrist 'left' party.

 

[ska invita]

The UK's political system doesn't so easily allow socialists to split from a failing centrist 'left' party.

No of course not, and it's an olde problem in the UK.... One solution is to create a "Ukip of the left".. Ukip hugely successful in setting the agenda of the last ten years plus

Left Unity was a direct attempt at that, blown out the water by corbyns election, though it's unlikely it would've got that far either way. Perhaps trade unions switching support en masse would make the difference?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

The book can be now ordered with a discount code if you sign up to BUP..

If anyone reads it I’ll be posting up my thoughts on the thread.

Here’s Simon Winlow:

 

[LDC]

Just ordered, thanks, I'll look forward to reading this.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Martin from the Red and Black YouTube channel has done a wee review of this book today.

 

[ska invita]

Martin from the Red and Black YouTube channel has done a wee review of this book today.

 

[ska invita]

i dont think theres a conspiracy of it not being reviewed, its not published for near a couple of months yet

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I'll be interested in what people think of it but on the face of it doesn't sound like anything new does it? People have been talking about new starts for the left for decades but can't seem to get past the fact that any attempt to do something new tends to be a) made up of the exact same people as the old left it's trying to get away from and b) subject to as many different interpretations of what the left should be as there are people involved.

 

[LDC]

They posted me two copies of this by mistake, anyone want the spare one? PM me yr address and I'll stick it in the post.

You can donate postage to the server fund if you want as payment.

 

[LDC]

I'll be interested in what people think of it but on the face of it doesn't sound like anything new does it? People have been talking about new starts for the left for decades but can't seem to get past the fact that any attempt to do something new tends to be a) made up of the exact same people as the old left it's trying to get away from and b) subject to as many different interpretations of what the left should be as there are people involved.

No read it yet, but think you're maybe mixing up what they'll be saying, which isn't to start a 'new' party, but to look deeper at the cultural and political direction the wider left has gone and what the problems with that are. Not to re-establish some unity left/people's assembly project again.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

No read it yet, but think you're maybe mixing up what they'll be saying, which isn't to start a 'new' party, but to look deeper at the cultural and political direction the wider left has gone and what the problems with that are. Not to re-establish some unity left/people's assembly project again.

Well I'm not sure you can entirely separate them out - you're always going to need some sorts of organisational structures aren't you even if you don't describe them as a party - but to me I'd include that side as well. I mean I'm aware that I'm more of an interested observer if I'm honest, and that my views of what's out there have been heavily influenced by what people have posted on here, so I might be off the mark, but that side has been well represented in here over the years.

I probably need to read the book before going any further though!

 

[Brainaddict]

Some of you will recollect The Rise of the Right by the same authors (Simon Winlow and Steve Hall). In that book they persuasively argued that rise of the populist right within the working class was intimately connected to the abandonment of working-class communities by the left and liberals and the neo-liberal assault on, and subsequent collapse of, the social, political and cultural institutions that were built by and sustained by working class communities.

I find narratives like this a bit weird. Because it seems to implicitly call upon the middle class/left/liberals as the key to organising work class communities. Otherwise why would 'abandonment' matter? Why do the working class communities need those people? What happened to self-organisation of the working class?

I think the Angry Workers have a similar issue. They say why aren't all the lefty graduate types in London moving out to the logistics corridors to organise like they are. But what does it mean to blame lefty graduate types spending too much time on twitter for the lack of organising in working class communities?

Am I missing something here?

As ska invita says you can come up with a different picture if you redraw class boundaries in line with the economic changes that happened in the last 50 years, but these types of analysis rely on a notion of working class that is pretty orthodox. So shouldn't their question be, where's the self-organisation of that class?

 

[Rob Ray]

I find narratives like this a bit weird. Because it seems to implicitly call upon the middle class/left/liberals as the key to organising work class communities. Otherwise why would 'abandonment' matter? Why do the working class communities need those people? What happened to self-organisation of the working class?

As ska invita says you can come up with a different picture if you redraw class boundaries in line with the economic changes that happened in the last 50 years, but these types of analysis rely on a notion of working class that is pretty orthodox. So shouldn't their question be, where's the self-organisation of that class?

If anything a reliance on student youth and the friendly middle classes to get things done is a betrayal, at a fundamental level, of that Solidarity quote.

Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.

It's understandable that people end up with this viewpoint for a bunch of different reasons. The idea of "conscious" revolutionary political action rarely spontaneously manifests in areas where cultures of resistance have fallen out of habit, for example, so salting by people with learning - and resources - becomes a seemingly obvious response. Generationally, inputs of energy into overt political projects from working class sources (the "family culture of doing things" as Donald Rooum used to put it) have declined, meaning students and the resourced middle classes gain a more outsized sense of importance and are talking primarily to each other about What Should Be Done. That baseline feeds into and is boosted by both left media, which is overwhelmingly younger/middle class, reflecting those groups' talking points, and right media, which goes out of its way to define left thinking as inherently middle class and urban, discouraging its spread beyond defined boundaries. All the logics around how to rebuild the left thus start with marshaling the middle classes and university youth to frame the working class's response for it.

But beyond any ideological failings, I'd argue such approaches fail on a straightforward tactical level. There's a lot of people reading histories about (often quite well heeled) firebreathing socialist preachers moving around Europe setting up the revolutionary franchise and thinking "we have to be doing that". But today's working classes are not as predisposed to listen to wild-eyed posho reds promising Utopia as they once were. And unlike in the 19th century we have had the communications revolution, so we're not doing "stand up in a village square and be the best-read person there." Bottom line, no amount of worthy lefties with a thimble advertising budget can out-propaganda the combined might of the right's media and money. We need a better methodology.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I find narratives like this a bit weird. Because it seems to implicitly call upon the middle class/left/liberals as the key to organising work class communities. Otherwise why would 'abandonment' matter? Why do the working class communities need those people? What happened to self-organisation of the working class?

I think the Angry Workers have a similar issue. They say why aren't all the lefty graduate types in London moving out to the logistics corridors to organise like they are. But what does it mean to blame lefty graduate types spending too much time on twitter for the lack of organising in working class communities?

Am I missing something here?

As ska invita says you can come up with a different picture if you redraw class boundaries in line with the economic changes that happened in the last 50 years, but these types of analysis rely on a notion of working class that is pretty orthodox. So shouldn't their question be, where's the self-organisation of that class?

I received a review copy of the book but haven't got round to it due to overtime and family stuff. Once I do I'll be posting up my thoughts on this thread. I'd make two comments on your point.

The first is the historical development of British working class organization was ground in self organisation going back to feudal society and the first corresponding societies through to the miners building their own communities, healthcare, community and education hubs and effectively supporting the wider community. As such, the process that should be more usefully examined is how and why the middle class - beginning with the wide eyed missionaries organising visits into working class areas - managed to co-opt these movements and eventually assume control of them and the organisational forms they took. To give one example, the shop stewards movement and wildcat strikes of the 1960's were defeated not by the Tories or the market but by Labour and the trade union tops. 40 years of neo-liberal assault from the late 1970's onwards has stripped communities of the resources and frankly confidence necessary.

The second point I'd made is that I agree with you. Working class liberation can, as you suggest, only be achieved by the class acting as a class of itself, by itself and for itself. Middle class support and resources is fine. But, not leadership. Just like black liberation or gay liberation had to led by those on the receiving end then so must working class liberation be led by us.

 

[ska invita]

The first is the historical development of British working class organization was ground in self organisation going back to feudal society and the first corresponding societies through to the miners building their own communities, healthcare, community and education hubs and effectively supporting the wider community. As such, the process that should be more usefully examined is how and why the middle class - beginning with the wide eyed missionaries organising visits into working class areas - managed to co-opt these movements and eventually assume control of them and the organisational forms they took. To give one example, the shop stewards movement and wildcat strikes of the 1960's were defeated not by the Tories or the market but by Labour and the trade union tops. 40 years of neo-liberal assault from the late 1970's onwards has stripped communities of the resources and frankly confidence necessary.

interesting post
im reading this at the moment

No Shortcuts

Analyzes recent failures of unions; specifies recommendations on how to rebuild them, and lays out a way forward for the progressive movement.

janemcalevey.com

about US trade unionism - likely applies very closely to the UK

apart from the case studies the key useful points are (quoted from a review):

There are three "different approaches to [social] change: advocacy, mobilising, and organising. What is novel in McAlevey’s approach is her inclusion of the idea of “theory of power” .

McAlevey argues that both the advocacy and mobilising models depend upon an “elite theory of power”. In this elite view, the movement/ the working class, doesn’t have meaningful power. Instead, it must operate within the existing power paradigm to try to gain influence. In this sense, while advocacy can win change from powerholders, it “doesn’t involve ordinary people in any real way” and “severely limits serious challenges to elite power.” While mobilizing is an improvement, because it “brings large numbers of people to the fight”, these people aren’t transformed — they “aren’t informed about [a power analysis] or the resulting strategy”. The mobilization is controlled by professional staffers who “see themselves, not ordinary people, as the key agents of change.” So, like advocacy, mobilizing can win change, but it doesn’t change power structures because ordinary people don’t have significant agency.

Hence, the fundamental difference with organising is its theory of power — that “the very idea of who holds power is itself contestable”. Organising doesn’t aim to persuade corporate elites to make concessions. Rather, “the primary goal is to transfer power from the elite to the majority.” This transfer of power is achieved not only through the goals of the organiser (such as the right to form a union), but through their methods themselves — “Ordinary people help make the power analysis, design the strategy, and achieve the outcome.” In this model, ordinary people aren’t a tool to be wielded by staff. Instead, they are the campaign: “They are essential and they know it.”

I dont think ive read as clear a description and analysis of what the Left's modern problem is - 50 year concentration on "mobilising" - and what is actually needed: "organizing" in the mode of the pre-New Left.
She goes on to talk about the central importance from a TU point of view about recognising and empowering "organic leaders" - i.e. workers within the force who have natural talents and the ear of co-workers.

Rushed post am at work