Wednesday, 3 April 2013

The actuality of a successful capitalist offensive

We've been waiting five years for a coherent left-wing response to the recession. We've been waiting three years for a coherent left-wing response to the cuts. Two years ago, I was asked at a talk how we could communicate the socialist solution to the crisis; I said it would be nice if we had one. It would still be a step forward today. If the extant strategies, groups or alliances were sufficient to deliver this, we would have it by now.

As it is, the only interruption to our "pervading dysphoria and utter perplexity" was brief, if giddy - followed by the briefer tumult of the riots and the panicked reaction from the Party of Order. The trade union movement fought, not an expansive struggle allowing it to hegemonise a wider movement against the cuts, but a typically narrow 'economic-corporatist' battle for a pensions deal roughly equivalent to what a Labour government would have offered. The last year was one of uninterrupted, quiet defeat for the most part. Labour continued to adapt to forces to its right. The government promised more cuts. The left-of-Labour forces remained fragmented, with each group championing its own 'united front' project. As for a left electoral project, a look at TUSC is enough to die a little inside.


Why have things been so bleak? We continually hear that the system is in 'crisis'. This should be great news for us, surely? We hate the system. This should be the moment when the Left advances and begins to prise open the integument...?

We have a number of apparently self-serving, but ultimately self-defeating, consolatory lines about this. For example: the Left is weak, yes, but the system is weak, and so is the ruling class and its governments: their hesitating, divided response to the crisis shows us this. However, the Euro-American ruling classes, whatever divisions and uncertainties have inhibited them in their short-term, tactical orientations, have displayed extraordinary unity on the long-term strategy of 'austerity'. And such has been their success in colonising the dominant parties, that parliamentary opposition to this objective is negligible, and almost entirely provisional and technocratic in articulation. And as much as the resources of the bourgeoisie have been tested, they have yet to a lose a serious fight.

Another, subsidiary, example: an underlying weakness on the part of the ruling class may be inferred from the fact that 'they' attack us in such a ferocious and indiscriminate manner. The logic here is that if the government and employers have to launch a sweeping, frontal attack on the living standards of the whole working class, this itself proves that the system is losing its ability to support the traditional bases of consent. Okay: there is an element of truth in this. But a prima facie ground for distrusting this logic is that if and when 'they' attack us with anything less than full, sweeping force, that too is interpreted as a sign of weakness. The government's early complacency led many of us to underestimate its technical virtuosity. Yet there is no sign of a simple, indiscriminate attack. In fact, the attack is not so frontal; it is a phased assault, deploying a diverse array of techniques which affect layers of the population in an uneven fashion. This is more sophisticated than simply 'salami-slicing' the working class, and defeating one section then the next, and so on. It involves mobilising residual and active elements of discourse to constitute new social categories, who are targeted in discrete ways. Consider, in addition to the greedy union member with gold-plated pensions, and the skiving benefit scrounger, the new phenomenon of the bedroom scrounger, the welfare recipient who is under-using space in her flat and should be removed to a pebble-dashed cupboard in Thamesmead. There are also, let us not forget, 'our people', 'the strivers' who are opposed to 'the skivers', and who are being offered certain material incentives even as their overall standard of living stagnates or declines.

A third example is the idea that because the cuts "can't work", the project will begin to collapse. In a sense, this is true. If the objective is GDP growth, then in the short run, austerity will just keep undercutting investment and growth. And of course it is also true that, in the long run, even if a new source of dynamism is found, these measures will just store up further pathologies. As a result, we can presume that both Marxists and left-Keynesians are 'proven right' in a different way every time the economy starts to dip again: the cuts 'aren't working'. This will undermine the authority of elected governments, just as much as unelected central bankers. It will produce incredibly bitter class struggles which it would be prudent to anticipate in our strategies. Yet, we find that the government actually benefits, to an extent, from a 'crisis' mindset - linked to a set of articulations about deficit, overspending, living beyond our means, etc etc. We find that by invoking the crisis, blaming the scroungers and systematically lowering expectations - they aren't promising us high times, but years of grim belt-tightening before the good old days return - the government gives itself a very long leash. Like Mrs Thatcher, the coalition government says 'iron times', 'backs to the wall', etc., and achieves a degree of quiescence as a result.


All of this is hardly to deny that the system is in crisis, or that this crisis will continue to produce bitter class struggles. I have defined the current situation as one dominated by an 'organic crisis', meaning a long-term, structural, multi-layered crisis that calls into question the ability of the whole system to reproduce itself. However, it is to say that this much over-used term 'crisis' has been doing a lot of covert intellectual and propaganda leg-work, which obscures what is really happening. Let us dissect it a bit. What exactly do we mean by a 'crisis'? In terms of the capitalist system, the dominant image from mainstream economics and bourgeois social science is of a state system that more or less efficiently reproduces itself until some imbalance or bad behaviour causes it to have a temporary rupture. In most cases, this is plausible, because the recession passes, and dynamism resumes. But in periods like the present, it loses even this surface resonance. That is why attempts to conserve the status quo end up having to be projects for its fundamental overhaul and renovation.

There is an obverse view which is not much more useful. This is the 'fundamentalist' catastrophism according to which capitalism is always progressively moving toward its worst crisis yet. At the base of this is a valid marxist insight, which is that the elements of a capitalist crisis are not exogenous or heteroclite, but actually integral to the reproduction of the system itself. That is, the system is reproduced through class struggle and intra-capitalist competition, which are the basic antagonisms that, through various mediations, tend to result in crises. These are the antagonisms behind the so-called 'law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall', through which marxists explain the most basic drive toward crisis: put crudely, capitalists in competition with one another strive to cut labour costs and reduce prices; they overaccumulate capital in doing so; they also reduce the total pool of potential profit, so that while individually they might hope to maximise their market share and thus profits, in the long-run they tend to create a crisis of profitability across the system. In the 'fundamentalist' version of this theory, the successive stages of capitalist development show a marked tendency to 'sharpen' crisis tendencies; the 'resolution' of each crisis, unless it involves a truly cataclysmic destruction of capital, merely stores up more pathologies. At last, the concept of 'crisis' is stretched so that it comes to cover a certain stage of capitalist development. The whole system, since a certain threshold, has been in a permanent state of crisis.

Such an approach occludes what is truly relevatory in Marx's account of crisis, which is that permanent crisis tendencies are part of the system's health and its dynamism. Of course there will be symptoms of ongoing crisis while the system is booming! Of course it will be rotting away in parts even while it is engorged, hypertrophic, in others! Subsuming long periods of reproduction and growth into the concept of crisis erases its specificity. Linked to this approach, sometimes, is an economistic reflex according to which the resulting class struggles erupt first on the terrain of industry, the direct capital-labour relation, which then results in a straightforward feedback from an economic crisis into a generalised political crisis of the system. The result of such an approach is that, when a real crisis does occur, far from preparing one adequately to act on it, it produces an apocalyptic complacency: this is, if not the final crisis of capitalism, certainly one of the last death convulsions, which will produce many symptoms along the way. We can tick them off as they arrive: industrial militancy, political instability, the revival of left reformism, the rise of fascism, etc. Eventually, the 'contradictions' will be sharpened to the extent of producing a revolutionary situation. The task of marxists in such circumstances will be to assist in this sharpening, through propaganda and interventions, while trying to provide the political leadership workers will need as they progress to that final battle.

If you don't recognise the above (only slightly caricatured) sketch, by the way, you could conclude that it isn't aimed at you. But I assert that such fatal tendencies do exist and are discernible in the way that revolutionaries have responded to the current crisis.


I have argued in a previous post that the ruling classes are usually best situated to respond proactively to a crisis, and to take advantage of it. The obvious corollary of this is that the institutions of the working class, and the Left, are usually not so well situated. Stathis Kouvelakis made the point that a real crisis of capitalism is also a crisis of the Left, both revolutionary and reformist. This is only logical. For while reformist parties get comfortable with governing in a particular way - maintaining a client base in office; cultivating their popular base by mobilising them against the government when out of office; sustaining their links with the trade union bureaucracy at all times - revolutionary parties get used to a certain method of self-reproduction, a certain routine, a certain balancing operation between different components of the party, and a certain set of perspectives that either guide their concrete actions or (as is often the case) soothe the symptoms of aimless drift and sharp, barely explained turns, with a general theoretical anaesthetic. A crisis upends all of that. The reformist party has to re-define its base, as traditional constituencies and political identities are shaken up; old methods of governance, be they welfare-capitalist or neoliberal, must be radicalised or abandoned. The revolutionary party likewise finds itself in need of new perspectives, a new base, a break with routines and entrenched dogma.

This brings us to the SWP. Must we? Yes, we must, and not for the last time. I have no desire to spend the rest of my political life writing about the party I have just left, but there is a necessary process of political clarification following such a break. I have until now defended the party's general lines and strategies, notwithstanding my Syriza heresy. But in the course of an acute crisis triggered by an unbelievable and unforgiveable rape cover-up, the contours of a chronic crisis linked to the lack of democracy, congealed dogma and strategic vapidity became clear(er). An accounting of this is called for, if the right decisions are to be taken now.

'It is no accident', as we used to say, that the SWP's protracted crisis has overlapped to an extent with the capitalist crisis since 2007. The credit crunch coincided with the manifest failure of an old method of leadership, and an old set of perspectives, and with a degree of turbulence in the party's base. The cuts are also going to exert a long-term impact on the party's means of self-reproduction. The SWP has one part of its base in an ageing public sector workforce, and another in an increasingly class-divided student body: austerity in practice has meant that the public sector workforce is going to be decimated, while a larger part of the student body is going to be made poorer and chained to debt. Given that the party didn't grow at all during the years of antiwar radicalism and constant discontent with New Labour, this is serious. An obvious response, supposing we are unable to prevent the cuts to massive neoliberal cull of the public sector, might be to ask how one builds in the unorganised working class, which is the overwhelming majority of it - indeed, it is one of the few growth sectors in capitalism right now.

However, austerity poses the more immediate dilemma: what do we need in order to reverse, halt or at least slow the cuts, and what can a revolutionary socialist party contribute to that? The current SWP leadership vaunts a 'rank and file' strategy in response to the cuts - although on inspection, one finds neither a 'rank and file', nor a strategy. The idea of a 'rank and file' strategy is based on the simple insight that, there needs to be a fight; the public sector unions have the means to lead the fight, but are always going to be betrayed by union bosses; and therefore we need to build a 'rank and file' network of militants capable of acting independently of and against the bureaucracy where necessary. In reality, what this amounts to is the creation of a party front that seeks to build influence over the left union bureaucracy in order to hopefully generate strike action, thus substituting (hopefully temporarily) for the initiative of the non-existent 'rank and file'. In theory, one could say that the appeals for action are formally directed at the union bureaucracy, but are actually addressed to rank and file workers, whom it is hoped will pressure the bureaucracy for action. In practice, it's probably more the other way about. Insofar as this produces results, one can cynically overlook the problematic character of relying on such operations. And indeed, some averagely intelligent people seem to have convinced themselves that the bureaucratic mass strikes of 2011 were effectively a fight between the SWP and the Tory government, in which the party was a tiny cog turning the massive cogs of the union bureaucracy. (I assure you, it's true.) All cynicism aside, SWP members played an important role in building support for such strike action as did occur - but as footsoldiers in a program of controlled confrontation devised by the trade union general secretaries, whose aim was to get the Tories to offer them roughly what Labour would on the pensions issue.

Aside from being a substitutionist strategy based on influence-peddling, which placed a ridiculous amount of prestige and authority on the shoulders of the man who could peddle such influence, the 'rank and file' strategy had other demerits. First, it left the leadership shrugging and mumbling vacuous generalities when it came to answering how the strategy hadn't delivered. After the sell-out of the pensions dispute, there was a long period of sobering defeat. But the CC's contributions to 2013 preconference bulletins offered no analysis of why. Of course, if the implicit answer was "the SWP isn't remotely the decisive factor in these struggles and cannot determine how the bureaucracy will behave", that would be true and sober: but such an answer would also sit uneasily next to the earlier triumphalism, and would evade the real question of why the strategy yielded nothing.

Second, aside from being substitutionist and elitist, the strategy was also an alibi of sectarianism. It was obvious early on that a unified anti-cuts movement was needed - a point I'll come back to. Many of the most effective challenges to the government were coming, not from the industrial coalface, but from the social movements, and it made sense to coordinate them sustain them beyond the immediate upsurge of rebellious frenzy. The party leadership knew this, and indeed claimed to be interested in helping build it. But, pursuing the 'rank and file' strategy, it actually preferred to maintain an ineffectual party front which could fill out a London meeting hall, but achieved little else. Partly this is reflects the pathology of splits: the party leadership obsessively avoiding the 'movementism' of the recently departed groups, and anything that smacked of it.

It was also obvious that there would be a space for some sort of radical left party, as Labour councils implemented the cuts and Ed Miliband shifted to the right. The party leadership sounded sensible notes on this. It responded appropriately to George Galloway's victory in Bradford, and lauded the Front de gauche. I recall the national secretary admitting, in a meeting set up by Socialist Resistance, that it wasn't enough to bang on about the struggle as if everything would be resolved on the picket line - we need a form of political representation, he said. It is true that the party newspaper reflected a sectarian line on Syriza, but not with any real conviction on the part of the leadership as far as I could tell. Even when I was lightly bollocked over coffee by Bishop Brennan and Father Jessup for my strident Facebook missives on the issue, they seemed far more worried about the offence to the Greek comrades than the argument itself, which I was permitted to spell out in more measured terms for the ISJ. Despite all this, the height our exertions on this terrain was TUSC - a misleading moniker insofar as it evokes anything other than a blunt instrument, and apt only so far as it recalls 'husk', as in 'chaff'.

Why did the party leadership plump for this hardly ideal situation, as if TUSC was the basis for anything? In part, I suspect this is because sections of the leadership opposed the whole idea of left realignment. But I suspect it is also because, to actually contribute to the process of realignment, the leadership of the SWP would have to deal with a massive lingering burden of mistrust. This pall resulted from our disastrously nuclear response to criticisms within Respect, some of which were obviously well-founded in retrospect, and the sectarian logic of our behaviour in the subsequent Respect break-up. It would have to be capable of demonstrating remarkable humility and good faith, which it was not. The party's official stance remained that George Galloway was overwhelmingly responsible, and we had at most made some regrettable errors in responding to reformist treachery. And it hadn't really broken with the 'punching above our weight' modus operandi that had led to the party's mistakes in Respect, the assumption that we should try to be in charge of everything. It wasn't capable of abandoning the dreary lash-up with the Socialist Party that was going nowhere, and striking out for something better, because that might involve accepting a subordinate position in a much wider formation, in coalition with forces that we would be unable to control.

This litany of complaint may seem overly harsh. In truth, when a struggle broke out in the last few years, the party acquitted itself reasonably well within its modest means. It did a good job of 'relating to' (a phrase for the stale cliches amnesty, perhaps) the student revolt. It was helpful in building support for mass strike action. It was also important that the party continued to take the right stance on the Arab Spring as it spread to countries that were the targets of US imperialism; but it also threw itself into the Gaza protests, for example. It stood up against a certain leftist moralism about the English riots. It has continued to take a hard line against Islamophobia, when some sections of the Left would be happy to capitulate to the Muslim-baiting under the rubric of a vulgar, idealist 'atheism'. And it carried out important work in UAF: in my opinion taking the right line on how to most effectively defeat the EDL in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere. And I think the paper struck a good line on Assange in a piece written by Tom Walker, who is now despised by the hacks more than I am. But generally insofar as the SWP proactively sought to shape the response to austerity, it largely failed, and instead succumbed to delusions of grandeur. Members of other parties and groupuscules can explain their own failure, of course - they have to, if they want to participate in this discussion. But I can only speak of the SWP.


We need to change course, badly. To be more specific, I think we need:

i) an anti-austerity movement capable of mobilising a hegemonic majority against the cuts. The 'crisis' will not do our work for us. It will affect people and relations in all sorts of ways, but our opponents will be working hard to construct a particular 'lived relationship' to the crisis that favours them. There is an article in a recent issue of the thrilling Parliamentary Affairs about the 'Winter of Discontent', which you might want to read in order to see how this is done. It demonstrates how the Right operated on lived experiences of hardship, violence and social breakdown in order to produce the imagined experience of a crisis produced by union power, nanny-statism and tax-and-spend 'socialism'. Remember that this in an era when workers were suffering massive de facto pay cuts and the Labour government was cutting spending and embracing monetarism to appease the IMF. Many workers were won to the Tories on the basis of this mythology. The point is that the alignment of forces can by no means be taken for granted because of the assumed historical pattern of capitalist crisis: political subjectivities have to be constructed, assiduously, along the main lines of antagonism. In the UK at the moment, there is no generalised political, cultural, social or industrial counterpoint to the Right's efforts. That's one reason why it was so easy to demonise the riots: there was only a weakly entrenched narrative that the cuts were probably going a bit too far, but a far more deeply rooted narrative that there was not enough discipline in schools, too much immigration, too much easy welfare for 'chavs', and too much freedom for 'feral youths'. That's why the most dynamically growing force at the moment is UKIP. We need a campaign that prepares the terrain around existing struggles and ahead of coming struggles and outbursts, that explains them in advance as responses to unbelievable class aggression and brutal state violence, not as the criminal actions of social deviants.

I think we need a generalised, 'nationwide' campaign encompassing various levels of initiative. We presently have a series of localised fights, such as the impressive struggle in Lewisham over the hospital closure, and the heroic fight by Sussex students and staff against privatization, but by themselves these are not sufficient. The 'unevenness' of these campaigns reflects the unevenness of the effects of austerity, as well as the way in which the coalition is trying to isolate certain groups. This is obviously not good for us. Strategically, its a priority that we overcome it. Of course, we do not need a nationwide campaign with little or no democracy, where a general strategy is set by a small steering committee, and local campaigns have to accommodate it. The point of a nationwide campaign should be to federate existing struggles in a democratic way that is led by the grassroots. Any general 'line' that emerges has to come from concrete experiences of activism not from a coffee-flogging cognoscenti. For that reason, any such campaign probably needs a broad elected national leadership composed mainly of people who have earned the right to lead in campaigns, and a relatively federal structure with a great deal of autonomy for local groups. The slightest whiff of hectoring phone calls, back-room lobbying, finger-wagging from the lectern, presenting fait accomplis worked up behind closed doors, etc., will be the ruin of any organisation aspiring to be the institutional basis for an anti-cuts movement.

ii) a realignment of the left-of-Labour left. I think in this case we need a narrower form of organisation that is capable of concentrating the experiences and perspectives of anti-cuts activism in a way that a broader movement could not. An anti-cuts movement would probably have to be open to participation from right-wing Labourites who favour prudent, slower cuts, as well as anarchists who want to picket the offices of those same Labourites; as such its line could not be too defined. We need to popularise not just a moralistic rejection of the cuts, but an alternative analysis of the crisis and a serious, detailed set of solutions. These solutions wouldn't be based on a 'neutral' measure like how effectively they contribute to GDP growth. There is no socially neutral way of resolving a crisis. Not only do such solutions have costs which must be borne differentially according to class, race, gender, etc. They typically involve transforming, attacking, inventing, reorganising, or annihilating the institutional and relational bases of particular types of class power. A left-of-Labour party would have to identify a number of in principle achievable measures that would a) plausibly gain mass support, and b) alter the balance of class forces if implemented. For example, nationalising the banks and turning them into public utilities, would be a popular measure and it would also hit at an institutional nerve centre of the dominant form of ruling class power today. It would also, in principle, give any government tremendous leverage over the economy, a resource with which to plan green investment, job creation, etc. We do not have to kid ourselves that an elected government could just wave a wand and make this happen; the point is to develop an analysis and a set of concrete objectives would help the sorts of social struggles that would make it possible.

Now even if it were once possible, it is no longer realistic to expect the Labour Left to fulfil this role. It is recovering a bit, and will continue to do so for a while, but it is far too weak relative to the dominant forces in the party to be able to take a leading role in articulating a radical left response to austerity. As for the Greens, they have made it clear: they oppose austerity in principle, but will do nothing stop it if given control of a budget. Something else is needed. So, is this a recommendation for a 'British Syriza' or, worse, a 'Seymouriza' (as some bastards have suggested) or 'Sino-Seymouriza'? Yes and no, in that order. I am not in favour of abandoning the project of independent revolutionary organisation, as I'll explain momentarily. Further, as I favour Scottish independence, the 'Syriza' I propose wouldn't exactly be British. Nor would it look very much like Syriza, as the social and political forces available for such a project in the UK are totally different and reflect different historical experiences and different immediate challenges - we don't have to address the problem of the eurozone, for example, in a population that has generally been pro-euro. But everyone notices that the SNP, the Greens, George Galloway and any plausible alternative can take big chunks of Labour's base away at a moment's notice. We all know that Labour's electoral recovery is extremely tentative. It's obvious that the break-up and break-down of its base is part of a secular process in the neoliberal period that is also affecting European social democracy. So, if we're as smart as all that, we should be doing something about it.

The creation of a radical left party has been slower and more hampered in the UK than elsewhere in Europe. I do not believe this is because of the mistakes of the SWP. If you look at the constituents of some of the successful groups, I suspect you'll find a lot worse by way of authoritarianism, sectarianism and opportunism. Rather, as I've said in a previous post, it is because of the greater difficulties in generating a significant split in social democracy due to the serious defeats inflicted on the Left in the UK, and particularly the defeat of the militant wing of the labour movement. No other Western European labour movement experienced defeats like this. The result was Labour's wholesale capitulation to neoliberalism well before any other European social democratic party. After this, there was simply no general political basis from which the remaining rump of the Labour Left could mount a challenge to the leadership: they could oppose the policy consequences to New Labour's neoliberalism, but had no plausible alternative political-economic basis for their opposition, much less to lead a split as did Oskar Lafontaine in Germany, or Jean-Luc Melenchon in France. Only the 'war on terror' produced such a split in the UK, and that was too small and narrow.

Nonetheless, it remains a compelling fact that Respect didn't have to crash and burn in the fashion that it did; and that, even after the launching and crash-landing of previous left formations, small, committed and talented groups of people with sometimes gaping flaws seem to have been able to surprise Labour in its former heartlands. All it takes is a name, or a local campaign with resonance. Now, if left at that, they would simply be vanishing, 'last gasp' blips of resistance to the further neoliberal takeover of politics. But the current conjuncture is one that will be formative of a generation or so. Whatever stable political forces can be forged now are likely to last.

iii) a realignment of the forces of the revolutionary left, which are hardly in an optimal state of organisation. There is no historical or conjunctural need for the 57 varieties of revolutionary socialism to be distributed in twice as many sects, groupuscules and minorities of one. But to unite them in an effective organisation has never been a simple matter of stitching together the existing fragments. They are too committed to their trademarked orthodoxies, their turf, their routines, their hierarchies and their internal cultures. Any serious new party or formation would have to be heterogenous, open to heterodoxy and far less bureaucratically centralised than the existing revolutionary sects. Realignment requires the old fragments to be shaken up and, in a sense, radicalised: this is the potentially productive aspect of the crisis.

But let's be honest: such realignment will also require a discursive process akin to a Truth and Reconciliation commission. If we need realignment, it's because there has been a general failure. To a large extent, and self-righteous protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, I think what is wrong with the SWP is also wrong with much of the wider left. It's not good enough for a bunch of revolutionary socialists to try to unite around the lowest common denominator of agreeing about the SWP's latter day treachery. Every participant, particularly if they come from an existing sect, would have to be capable of a minimum of honesty about why their own political tradition did at best no better in practical terms than the SWP. Those who aren't capable of that much honesty probably wouldn't get us very far anyway, whereas those who simply want to strip the carrion from the carcass may as well stay away.

Shall I start the ball rolling? What mistakes did I personally make as an SWP member? Not making my objections to our hosting of the antisemitic crank Atzmon, and the preposterous rationale for doing so, explicit - particularly when it was made clear to me that the paper wouldn't host a letter on the subject. Party members can attest that I and others took this up within the party, and that I trolled Atzmon's talk at Bookmarks, but it really wasn't enough. Next? Defending our stance on Sheridan uncritically, which meant defending Sheridan uncritically. I still think it was right to defend him against the state and News of the World, and wrong to cheer his being imprisoned. But surely by now we can admit it was wrong, whatever you think of the SSP leadership, to defend his right to bring this disastrous case in the first place? And then let him off the hook for lying his arse off, hanging Katrine Trolle out to dry, and contributing to fucking up the Scottish far left for years? Can we at least admit to an element of bad faith in taking such a stance, and then pretending to be strictly extraneous to the subsequent meltdown of the SSP? For my part, I was wrong to rationalise all this, wrong to defer facing up to it, wrong to cop out when the truth of the matter was obvious. What else? Defending the party uncritically during the Respect debacle on the basis of who I trusted, circulating unhelpful gossip, allowing myself to be a conduit for lies and misdirections coming from Rees's office, and living in denial when the latter started circulating slimy rhetoric about Muslim 'communalism'. Then only tentatively and gradually facing up to the truth once it dawned.

That will do for now: ball = rolling = now in your court. Also, to mix this metaphor in a properly Cliffite fashion, that court = surrounded by a glass house. If you have never, as a socialist activist, found yourself defending a line you later regretted, kept quiet about something you shouldn't have, rationalised away a feeling of unease, then you're either still deluded or a fucking liar. I know that sounds harsh, but this is the terrain. And the point of facing up to this stuff now, is that you don't want to repeat that situation.


Grim though this analysis may seem, there are three possible causes for optimism in the next year. First, a horrible scandal is also the occasion of a form of radicalisation on the left, particularly the revolutionary left, in which many people are literally re-evaluating their root assumptions. This percolation is itself indicative that people are wrong to simply assume this is yet another stage in the ongoing mitosis of revolutionary groupuscules. There's a feeling - don't you share it? - that as nasty and depressing and shaming as this crisis has been, something has been unblocked by it, and new possibilities have been created. Second, is the People's Assembly idea, which has achieved a lot of media coverage and has the support of sections of the Labour Left, the trade unions, celebrities, and obviously Counterfire. The People's Assembly is attracting some criticism for the fact that its big 'arrival' is marked by a celeb-driven rally in a swish Westminster venue at a cost of £25000, rather than a democratic conference where actually existing campaigns participate in decision-making. But it would be churlish not to get involved and try to change it in a democratic direction. And third, is the Left Unity initiative for a new left party, which I think has achieved 6,000 signatures thus far. (I have signed and, for what it's worth, I think you should too.) The fact is that if half of that many people joined a new party right now, you would have the basis of a reasonable sized radical left party. Clearly, there's a lot still to work out. It's still a nebulous initiative, and the basis for individual and group affiliation is not yet clear. Nonetheless, local Left Unity groups are springing up with plenty of support after just a couple of weeks or so. This suggests a degree of initiative and energy that hasn't been seen on the Left for a while.

There is your hope, if you like. It's about as far from bland, upbeat can-do puffery as it's possible to be, but it is hope.


  1. There's a fairly massive contradiction in the sentence "some averagely intelligent people seem to have convinced themselves that the bureaucratic mass strikes of 2011 were effectively a fight between the SWP and the Tory government." An ongoing feature of the SWP's interventions in which it has real weight is a determination to push for industrial action in every possible situation. It's always presented in a very moralistic, apolitical way with no regard to the particular union's social weight and the general political situation. Anecdotes are used instead of analysis.

    I agree strongly with this piece. Other comrades who've left the SWP in recent years have made no attempt to reflect seriously on the organisation's strengths and weaknesses, particularly as they are perceived from the outside. To be blunt, it has been often seen as dishonest, cynical and manipulative and these characteristics put very severe limits on what it could achieve.

    As Richard says, there are modest grounds for optimism. There is evidence of a fast moving reassessment of previous practices across a range of political currents. (Actually Charlie K's contribution at the SR event prompted us to contact him do explore some ideas but events rather got in the way.) The Left Unity development is very important. The unmet desire for a left formation not hobbled by control freaks may eventually be met.

    As for the People's Assembly, everything is up for grabs and maybe, just maybe, some teachers of bad habits might sense what way the wind is blowing.

  2. "some averagely intelligent people seem to have convinced themselves that the bureaucratic mass strikes of 2011 were effectively a fight between the SWP and the Tory government."

    Seriously - who?

  3. An excellent piece.

    Richard is quite right to confront head on trade union sectiionalism, which in many ways chrinically deflected the first upsurge of anti-cuts activity as represented in the TUC's first demo of 26 March 2011, 750,000 strong which within a year and a bit had shrunk to a third of the size.

    Richard is also spot on about being painfully honest about our own errors, or to use another word unfamiliar on the Left indulge in some humility. When I rant and rave about the defeats the outside Left have suffered I do so in the sense that tis has been a collective defeat in which many of us have played a part.

    The analysis speaks to a revival of practices that have become foreign to too much of the left, the pluralist and prefigurative for statters, and an aspiration towards a hegemonic politics. If the International Socialism initiative can connect the experiences framed by the SWP car crash to others' too then the prospects are very good indeed for some kind of politucal renewal. If this feeds into the optimism around the Left Unity iniative and the People's Assembly, even better.

    Looking forward to more and more of this stuff. Keep it coming!

    Mark P

  4. I agree with your post.

    I had a similar debate on the way to work today. Has the economic basis of left-reformism(social democracy) ended and do we need a new party? This is a debate that people in the class want an answer for.

    I think we do. I think there is a huge potential to get non-aligned socialists and people who are pissed off into a left movement that will challenge austerity.

    We have to do it. Despite my SWP past, I think that we have to broaden our politics. At the moment, at least. The Left has failed so far. It is true. We need to be adults and accept that fact. The trouble with the Left is that we hide behind positions and intellectual differences. That has got to stop.

    We want class struggle. Let us increase it, from our side. Let us do every thing that we can to create a sense of "us", we the workers. Cultural events, food banks, community unions - these are the things we should get involved in.

    Class struggle takes many forms. It aint all picket lines and barricades. Let's try to build a left of Labour movement and not worry about electoral shenanigans.


    Times are hard.

    1. Good point.

      The main challenge for the left today -- the Marxist revolutionary left, that is -- isn't 'reformism' but its chronic preference for sectarianism.

      In the context of current conditions of capitalism failure to reach out, regroup, remake and forge ahead is tantamount to the myopia of the German Communist Party during the rise of the Nazis -- or to cite a contemporary example: the Greek Communist Party.

      Here in Australia there have been interesting developments which would have been unimaginable a few months ago:
      Marxism 2013 conference the biggest to date and
      Peter Boyle: Long live left unity.

      There is a novel debate going on formatted by the potentials and challenges we face rather than being held hostage to the dead hand of the past.

      There is renewal if we strive for it. But let's not imagine that the course is easy or quick. The left must be prepared to invest the hard work into any new beginning and disowns its tribal cultures.

      What may be surprising is that despite any new heterogeneous mix that may eventuate, Marxism survives as a leading current -- indeed it prospers -- because it wins the arguments.

  5. Chris, I think you're right. Most of the left is split between "post-class" analysis of the electoralist or horizontalist type, and the simplistic/mechanistic current typified by the SWP. Class as economic production matters, but it can never be cohered or reproduced as political actor without the cultural institutions. Look at the US, where the working class is non-existent politically in many areas - despite being present as labour power exploited at the point of production. Great to see these issues given some serious thought.

  6. "But everyone notices that the SNP, the Greens, George Galloway and any plausible alternative can take big chunks of Labour's base away at a moment's notice. "

    The first two of those involved well over a decades hard work to achieve those results, and it's not like George Galloway just appeared on the scene in 2005.

  7. In the absence of a mass movement to drive the process, attempts to create political fusion between small political parties always fails.

    The People's Assembly has the potential to create a mass movement.
    - a United Front of the kind that StWC was supposed to be at its inception.
    It will be big, but as the name implies, it will be populist....

    As the StWC showed, when socialists liquidate their programme into a united front, they not only damage themselves, but the united front too.

    So delegates to the PA need to have some control over what happens there.
    A political resolution that fleshes out the existing proposal to "investigate the practicality" of a general strike against the Coalition is one way to do this.

    Another is to propose a process for strengthening local anti-cuts groups that avoids the dangers of a self-proclaimed leadership.

    Many anti-cuts organisations already exist in the localities which have very little to do with COR nationally. Holding a large national conference doesn't automatically confer it political authority over these groups.

    This can only happen if a representative national leadeship is set up.
    A serious anti-Austerity Coalition needs to recognise the autonomy of local groups and include them.
    It should also include the NSSN, Unite the Resistance and the LRC.
    (the Labour left cannot be ignored. Like it or not, Labour is still closely connected to the unions and remains the political alternative to the Coalition)

    But no one should confuse the tasks of setting up a representative united front with those of political fusion between political parties.
    This is a problem of a higher order and it's not on the agenda right now.


    1. Don't really agree with either of your points. I've been involved with the anti-cuts group in Lewisham, it doesn't exist at present. To the best of my knowledge, the only active group in the whole of South London is in Lambeth. There may be other front groups scattered about, but there is not an anti cuts movement in any meaningful sense.
      The PA - run by Counterfire from the top - will be a day of showboating by the union tops, seriously what's the point? You can include all the front groups you like, but as we know they're all run for the benefit of which ever group set them up and have no real existence apart from that.
      On the other hand I think there are scattered groups of socialists around who could form some kind of distinctively socialist movement.

  8. 'In reality, what this amounts to is the creation of a party front that seeks to build influence over the left union bureaucracy in order to hopefully generate strike action, thus substituting (hopefully temporarily) for the initiative of the non-existent 'rank and file'.'

    Your analysis of the SWP ‘rank and file’ strategy makes sense to me. But I struggle to consider an alternative strategy. I do not believe that the rank and file is dead – I see it more as dormant – waiting to be tapped into, revitalised, re-generated. The potential is there. I do not believe the workforce is atomised to the point where these networks cannot be created. Networks can be created quickly through mass industrial action even though that action is bureaucratic. We have to seize every opportunity, every window, to make the connections more permanent.

    There is a big problem with tail-ending the bureaucracy (which really frustrates me – it is the politeness I can’t stand). This has to be done alongside building left networks of activists – something which I believe the SWP is striving for alongside other small parties/sects.

    So in short, I am not certain the SWP have got it wrong on this.

    1. "This has to be done alongside building left networks of activists – something which I believe the SWP is striving for alongside other small parties/sects."

      Provide one single example of this, on behalf of the SWP or the other small parties/sects.
      I've been working alongside the SWP in the Lewisham hospital campaign. The voted against the campaign calling for industrial action in the months after the closure threat was announced. When the Unison hospital branch, in cahoots with management, denounced the campaign, they voted not to publicise our response. When Unison in the hospital witchunted trade unionists who supported the campaign, they kept quiet. They then voted to give Unison officials a platform from the campaign, that Unison refused to affiliate to and worked against. Then the day after the decision to close the hospital, the SWP called for an unofficial walk out the week after. Jokers isn't quite adequate.

    2. Bill- do you have more details on this? If so can you expand. Although I'm very critical of the SWP now, I can't recall the last time they argued against strike action. It's pretty much the only thing they stay firm on, almost a defining aspect of them. Tim N

    3. Fair points - problems I think with keeping 'left' officials sweet at the expense of the campaign.
      I was thinking in LANAC in the NUT, which brings together AWL, SP and SWP and has reached out to unaligned activists. Despite differences lanac has been able to put forward common positions and host real debates.
      What do you think should be socialists approach to unions at present, what is the way forward generally?

  9. Many kind of people getting the useful information from this blog and you have done a great job by updating the information about successful capitalist offensive.
    Web Design Company | Website Design Companies

  10. Nice Post thank you very much for sharing such a useful information and will definitely saved and revisit your site and i have bookmarked to check out new things frm your post.
    Data Science Course

  11. Thanks Your post is so cool and this is an extraordinary moving article and If it's not too much trouble share more like that.
    Digital Marketing Course in Hyderabad

  12. You have done excellent job Thanks a lot and I enjoyed your blog. Great Post.
    Data Science Certification in Hyderabad

  13. Great post happy to see this. I thought this was a pretty interesting read when it comes to this topic Information. Thanks..
    Artificial Intelligence Course

  14. I wanted to thank you for this great read and definitely enjoying every little bit of it and bookmarked to check out new stuff you post.
    Best Digital Marketing Institute in Hyderabad

  15. This is an informative and knowledgeable article. therefore, I would like to thank you for your effort in writing this article.
    Best Digital Marketing Courses in Bangalore

  16. Very good message. I stumbled across your blog and wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading your articles. Anyway, I will subscribe to your feed and hope you post again soon.
    Data Scientist Course in India

  17. Hi, I looked at most of your posts. This article is probably where I got the most useful information for my research. Thanks for posting, we can find out more about this. Do you know of any other websites on this topic?
    Data Science Course Details

  18. It's good to visit your blog again, it's been months for me. Well, this article that I have been waiting for so long. I will need this post to complete my college homework, and it has the exact same topic with your article. Thanks, have a good day.
    Data Analytics Course in Jaipur

  19. I was browsing the internet for information and found your blog. I am impressed with the information you have on this blog
    Data Science Course Fees

  20. Excellent work done by you once again here and this is just the reason why I’ve always liked your work with amazing writing skills and you display them in every article. Keep it going!
    Data Analytics Courses in Hyderabad

  21. I was browsing the internet for information and found your blog. I am impressed with the information you have on this blog.
    MLOps Course

  22. Informative Post. The information you have posted is very useful and sites you have referred was good. Thanks for sharing.
    Data Science Course with Placement


  23. We are really grateful for your blog post. You will find a lot of approaches after visiting your post. Great work thank you.
    Cloud Computing Training in Bangalore

  24. Actually I read it yesterday but I had some ideas about it and today I wanted to read it again because it is so well written.
    IoT Training

  25. Very informative Blog! There is so much information here that can help thank you for sharing.
    Data Analytics Training in Bangalore

  26. Hi, I looked at most of your posts. This article is probably where I got the most useful information for my research. Thanks for posting, we can find out more about this. Do you know of any other websites on this topic?
    IoT Course

  27. I like to view your web site which is very useful and excellent resource and truly adored reading your posting. Thank you!
    Data Science Course in Gurgaon

  28. I enjoyed reading your articles. I have bookmarked it and I am looking forward to reading new articles. Thanks for sharing.
    Business Analytics Course in Indore

  29. Excellently written article, if only all bloggers offered the same level of content as you, the internet would be a much better place. keep up the good work.
    Mlops Training

  30. I think this is a really good article. You make this information interesting and engaging. Thanks for sharing.
    Data Science Course in India

  31. This is definitely one of my favorite blogs. Every post published did impress me.
    Data Science Course in Indore

  32. I am really enjoying reading your well written articles. It looks like you spend a lot of effort and time on your blog. Keep up the good work. Waiting for your next article
    Mlops Training

  33. Thanks for such a great post and the review, I am totally impressed! Keep stuff like this coming.
    Mlops Course

  34. Very nice job... Thanks for sharing this amazing and educative blog post!
    Data Science Course in Chandigarh

  35. I feel very grateful that I read this. It is very helpful and very informative and I really learned a lot from it, Keep posting new articles.
    Data Scientist Course in Jalandhar

  36. I am really enjoying reading your well written articles. It looks like you spend a lot of effort and time on your blog. Keep up the good work. Waiting for your next article
    Data Science Course in Jabalpur

  37. This is an informative and knowledgeable article. therefore, I would like to thank you for your effort in writing this article.
    Business Analytics Course in Chandigarh

  38. So luck to come across your excellent blog, glad i found it. Keep posting new articles. Good luck.
    Data Science Course Details

  39. Very informative Blog! There is so much information here that can help thank you for sharing.
    Data Analytics Course in Bangalore

  40. It's always nice to be able to not only be informed, but also entertained! I'm sure you enjoyed writing this article.
    Data Scientist Course in Ahmedabad

  41. I finally found a great article here. Quality postings are essential to get visitors to visit the website, that's what this website offers.
    Data Science Course in Indore

  42. There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also. Great job!
    Mlops Course

  43. Hi, This article is probably where I got the most useful information for my research. Do you know of any other websites on this topic?
    Data Analytics Course in Jalandhar


  44. We are really grateful for your blog post. You will find a lot of approaches after visiting your post. Great work thank you.
    Data Analytics Course in Chandigarh

  45. I am excited about this blog. It is an informative subject. It helped me a lot in solving some problems. Your opportunity is so fantastic and the style of work so fast.

    Data Science Training in Ernakulam


  46. Excellent effort to make this blog more wonderful and informative. The information shared was very useful.
    Data Analytics Course in Chandigarh