The Death of the Left

[Smokeandsteam]

ska invita yes, I have read McAlevey's book. It's definitely worth reading and there are some excellent case studies and we've attempted to put into practice some of the methods in our own Branch.

In answering the point raised ' why doesn't the working class self organize' part of the answer has to be: that we used to, that from the beginning of capitalism self organization was instinctive and organic and that the legitimacy of the labour and trade union movement has periodically been centered when that self organization threatened the interests of capital see new deal era America, see the post war settlement in the UK and the advent of corporatism. A key element of the neo-conservative assault on consensus/tripartite management of the state wasn't the threat posed by it, but that what it managed - an increasingly confident organized working class - was about to be taken on and defeated: air traffic controller in the USA and the steelworkers here and then the miners.

 

[hitmouse]

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

Can I interest you in a copy of the McAleveyist Worker, comrade? A Jane McAlevey thread

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Podcast from the authors on the book:

PODCAST: The death of the Left - Transforming Society

In this episode, Simon Winlow and Steve Hall talk about their new book 'The Death of the Left' and what the Left needs to do in order to thrive again.

www.transformingsociety.co.uk

 

[LDC]

Podcast from the authors on the book:

PODCAST: The death of the Left - Transforming Society

In this episode, Simon Winlow and Steve Hall talk about their new book 'The Death of the Left' and what the Left needs to do in order to thrive again.

www.transformingsociety.co.uk

Ah thanks, I've still not got beyond the first few pages, will listen to this and just probably pretend I've read the book.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Ah thanks, I've still not got beyond the first few pages, will listen to this and just probably pretend I've read the book.

I’ve not even opened it yet. Fell down an economic books rabbit hole!

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Podcast from the authors on the book:

PODCAST: The death of the Left - Transforming Society

In this episode, Simon Winlow and Steve Hall talk about their new book 'The Death of the Left' and what the Left needs to do in order to thrive again.

www.transformingsociety.co.uk

Just listened to that. Not my politics but quite interesting. Thankyou for sharing it.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Just listened to that. Not my politics but quite interesting. Thankyou for sharing it.

Nor mine. Their labourism and pro- NMT are non-starters for me. It’s a real shame that the interviewer didn’t bother to focus on their historical analysis of the development of the British left - and the peripheralisation of the working class within it - which is the real strength of their work and the core of the book

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Nor mine. Their labourism and pro- NMT are non-starters for me. It’s a real shame that the interviewer didn’t bother to focus on their historical analysis of the development of the British left - and the peripheralisation of the working class within it - which is the real strength of their work and the core of the book

NMT? And what do you mean by the peripheralisation of the working class?

 

[ska invita]

I've listened the podcast.

Case is: The problem with The Left is its focussed on culture. Culture = opposing race, sexuality and gender discrimination.
There's zero interest in economics.
These are middle class (cultural) concerns v working class (economic) concerns.
Total nonsense.

First of all to dismiss the fight against those forms of discrimination is offensive to anyone who has fought, in some cases died, for those causes, and for the very real victories in those areas.

The idea this "cultural" (nothing do with culture btw, it's about human rights) struggle is just about getting people into top corporate jobs is ridiculous. I have never heard anyone on the left talking about diversity in the boardroom, yet this is painted as the central campaign of the cultural left!

The notion 'The Left' isn't interested in economics is ridiculous. Whats the evidence of that? I dont recognise it. The opposite.

The conversation about Corbyn was massively contradictory.... Economics was central to corbynism, economic policy was what created the wave, and I don't recognise that he was pushed away from talking about it by some kind of cultural warriors. In fact what did for Corbyn ultimately was the Brexit debate in spring 2019 (look at the polls for the last five years).

I share their frustrations but they seem to have got caught up in the fake culture wars, a step away from blaming the wokerati, though in this case for why we can't have socialism.

 

[ska invita]

Nor mine. Their labourism and pro- NMT are non-starters for me. It’s a real shame that the interviewer didn’t bother to focus on their historical analysis of the development of the British left - and the peripheralisation of the working class within it - which is the real strength of their work and the core of the book

Do you mean the peripheralisation of the WC within the Labour Party?

What's happening under Starmer with the wholesale blocking of candidates etc is this in action for all to see. But what the Labour right do when in power is nothing to do with the failings of the left.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

NMT? And what do you mean by the perpheralisation of the working class?

MMT: is modern monetary theory.

Peripheralisation of the working class: in the book the authors show how movements and campaigns that were once of, by and for the working class became captured by middle class lefts. For me, this is the most important element of the book (which I am yet to read)

 

[ska invita]

Peripheralisation of the working class: in the book the authors show how movements and campaigns that were once of, by and for the working class became captured by middle class lefts.

I wonder what movements and campaigns in particular?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I wonder what movements and campaigns in particular?

Read the book. But predominantly: the Labour Party, the unions, collective organisations providing financial, educational, health and other organic bottom up initiatives developed by the organised and industrialised working class

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Peripheralisation of the working class: in the book the authors show how movements and campaigns that were once of, by and for the working class became captured by middle class lefts. For me, this is the most important element of the book (which I am yet to read)

I see what you mean. It does seem to me though that the Labour Party was initally supposed to be established to represent the political interests of skilled workers in trade unions more sepcifically, and even more specifically the bureauocracy of those unions and their relations with the bourgeosie. The Labour Party can definitely be described as a bourgeois party now (which happened very quickly) ofcourse and one that also probably represents the interests of the middle class, or atleast a section of it. Thats my understanding of things anyway.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Anyway, I will read the book. I've just got myself a copy on my Kindle (same price as physical copy).

 

[ska invita]

Labour Party is an age old story and not really synonymous with the Left. Death of the Labour Party is a different book.
I wasn't aware that unions had been taken over by the middle class and dominated by "cultural politics" (which seems to be their main bugbear) - though if anything you could argue TUs produce (some) middle class bureaucrats!

 

[Smokeandsteam]

AmateurAgitator and Ska. I’ll reply later on your points re the peripheralisation of the working class and it’s ejection from its own movements as I think it’s the most important point raised in the book.

 

[Brainaddict]

Peripheralisation of the working class: in the book the authors show how movements and campaigns that were once of, by and for the working class became captured by middle class lefts. For me, this is the most important element of the book (which I am yet to read)

As someone mentioned I think, the labour movement was mostly dominated by the skilled working class. In particular formal organisations tended to be set up by those with a bit more education (naturally enough, since you had to navigate formal documents and finance to do it). One of the things that has happened is that most of what used to be the skilled working class is now dubbed middle class - most obviously because of the expansion of university education to encompass a large percentage of the working class, and the British cultural definition of class in which university education moves you up the class ladder. So don't you think that a crass cultural definition of class is one of the main things responsible for this idea that 'the left' is led by the middle class?

I also agree with ska invita that it's pure nonsense on a stick that the left today isn't concerned with economics. Corbyn tried to get his policy ideas from social movements and from what I remember 90% of the policy was about economics. The fact that this same left also talks about race or trans issues seems to annoy some people. I wonder why. The victories for social freedoms are also victories for and by working class people and why shouldn't they be pushed forward?*


*This argument was made well in Chibber's Confronting Capitalism, an otherwise quite orthodox marxist book

 

[AmateurAgitator]

from what I remember 90% of the policy was about economics.

There is an explanation given in the podcast (and presumably the book aswell) of how the Corbyn project started off talking about economic stuff , but how that was basically smothered and how the issue of brexit became a problem for Corbyn and the Labour left.

No doubt I've made my views about the Labour 'left' (and the 'left' in general) very clear before on here, so I don't see the point in me going on about that.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

As someone mentioned I think, the labour movement was mostly dominated by the skilled working class. In particular formal organisations tended to be set up by those with a bit more education (naturally enough, since you had to navigate formal documents and finance to do it). One of the things that has happened is that most of what used to be the skilled working class is now dubbed middle class - most obviously because of the expansion of university education to encompass a large percentage of the working class, and the British cultural definition of class in which university education moves you up the class ladder. So don't you think that a crass cultural definition of class is one of the main things responsible for this idea that 'the left' is led by the middle class?

This doesn't seem to me to be a good portrayal of things. Theres a difference between skilled working class and middle class (though maybe there is some overlap) and the Labour Party is now very much a party that represents the middle class (and the bourgeoisie) and I would argue that it never really, truly represented the working class, even if alot of working class people voted for it in the past or even if there was a considerable working class membership in the past.

 

[Brainaddict]

This doesn't seem to me to be a good portrayal of things. Theres a difference between skilled working class and middle class (though maybe there is some overlap) and the Labour Party is now very much a party that represents the middle class (and the bourgeoisie) and I would argue that it never really, truly represented the working class, even if alot of working class people voted for it in the past or even if there was a considerable working class membership in the past.

It's an argument no-one wins on urban, but around 50% of young people go to university. So either the 'middle class' represent nearly half the population (there are a few upper class people obv), or those who go to university are divided between middle class and working class. So where would you draw the line between them? If there's one thing that annoys me about 'the left' it's their infuriating propensity to move between contradictory economic and cultural definitions of working class while claiming they have absolutely the correct definition of class and everyone else is wrong.

It's annoying if this thread becomes about hashing out the real meaning of working class, but I'm afraid that a claim that 'the middle class' have taken over 'the left' is going to require some very rigorous definitions of class, not using an economic defn when it suits people and a cultural defn the next moment when that suits the argument. Perhaps someone can report on how the book resolves this issue.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Are university professors on £70k+ and with all the cultural capital that comes with that working class if they have NE accents?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Are university professors on £70k+ and with all the cultural capital that comes with that working class if they have NE accents?

Let’s nip that canard in the bud straight from the off. Neither claims to be working class. Both explain that they come form working class families. I think UCU members would be supposed to learn about all these £70k jobs knocking about

 

[AmateurAgitator]

or those who go to university are divided between middle class and working class.

Yep.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Let’s nip that canard in the bud straight from the off. Neither claims to be working class. Both explain that they come form working class families. I think UCU members would be supposed to learn about all these £70k jobs knocking about

OK fair, I was gently trolling a little bit with that one because I know it's one of Urban's favourite bickering points. I don't think it invalidates their points on the whole but I do think they open themselves up to that sort of criticism when they've got a book which claims to tell the left where to go and they come from that sort of background though.

I'm not going to be far off on the salaries - Professor isn't really a 'knocking about' sort of job.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've listened the podcast.

Case is: The problem with The Left is its focussed on culture. Culture = opposing race, sexuality and gender discrimination.
There's zero interest in economics.
These are middle class (cultural) concerns v working class (economic) concerns.
Total nonsense.

First of all to dismiss the fight against those forms of discrimination is offensive to anyone who has fought, in some cases died, for those causes, and for the very real victories in those areas.

The idea this "cultural" (nothing do with culture btw, it's about human rights) struggle is just about getting people into top corporate jobs is ridiculous. I have never heard anyone on the left talking about diversity in the boardroom, yet this is painted as the central campaign of the cultural left!

The notion 'The Left' isn't interested in economics is ridiculous. Whats the evidence of that? I dont recognise it. The opposite.

The conversation about Corbyn was massively contradictory.... Economics was central to corbynism, economic policy was what created the wave, and I don't recognise that he was pushed away from talking about it by some kind of cultural warriors. In fact what did for Corbyn ultimately was the Brexit debate in spring 2019 (look at the polls for the last five years).

I share their frustrations but they seem to have got caught up in the fake culture wars, a step away from blaming the wokerati, though in this case for why we can't have socialism.

I've not listened to the podcast, but you're totally right about Corbyn. The so-called culture wars (I agree with you that they are not cultural at all) are firm Lib Dem territory. Corbyn wasn't a threat because he was agreeing with the Lib Dems. He was a threat because of his and McDonnell's economic ideas.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

I've not listened to the podcast, but you're totally right about Corbyn. The so-called culture wars (I agree with you that they are not cultural at all) are firm Lib Dem territory. Corbyn wasn't a threat because he was agreeing with the Lib Dems. He was a threat because of his and McDonnell's economic ideas.

Funnily enough McDonnell's economic ideas are talked about in the podcast

 

[ska invita]

Funnily enough McDonnell's economic ideas are talked about in the podcast

Which is why what they're talking about is contradictory.....they're fighting shadows and straw men IMO
Corbynism proves that a popular definition of 'the left' is interested in economics, will invest time and energy to enthusiastically support economic plans, and overall showed that 'the left' isnt dead if there is a vehicle made available on which to ride.

The single biggest problem within the UK left IMO is zero to do with ID politics or cultural politics etc, but that there is no popular outfit fit for purpose for exerting power and investing energy into.

 

[hitmouse]

Labour Party is an age old story and not really synonymous with the Left. Death of the Labour Party is a different book.
I wasn't aware that unions had been taken over by the middle class and dominated by "cultural politics" (which seems to be their main bugbear) - though if anything you could argue TUs produce (some) middle class bureaucrats!

Not engaged with these authors so I dunno what their arguments are, but I have a fair amount of sympathy for Joe Burns' description of "labo(u)r liberalism", as a politics where unions talk left on "culture war" issues while retreating from organising and fighting for their members in the workplace? He's talking about US unions but I think the phenomenon's recognisable here.

 

[Serge Forward]

Are university professors on £70k+ and with all the cultural capital that comes with that working class if they have NE accents?

Hmm...

‘My students never knew’: the lecturer who lived in a tent