In defence of the Left Unity initiative – Len Arthur

There is an important debate on Left Unity taking place within the left of the Labour Party. This is a response by Len Arthur to Peter Rowland’s post on the Left Unity initiative on the Left Futures website.

Peter Rowland’s article which is now a post on the Left Futures blog raises key issues for all socialists in the Labour Party: both in what he argues and what he leaves out.

First: what is missing is not taking sufficient account of the current context. The financial crisis of 2007 – 2008 is a turning point of historical significance equal to that which occurred 1929 – 1931. Globally, the significance is greater. Capitalism, as a system with deep structural contradictions, can now be discussed with a seriousness that has not been experienced possibly since the late 1940s. Radical Keynesians are being widely read and taken seriously (i.e. Ha-Joon Chang; John Cassidy; and Stewart Lansley) as well as Marxists (i.e. Richard D. Wolff; David Harvey; and Michael Roberts). Larry Elliott writing in the Guardian in recently in relation to zero hour contracts, built the article around Marx’s notion of the ‘reserve army of labour’, the critique of capitalism and neo-classical economic theory made by these writers, re-enforces slightly earlier work such as the The Shock Doctrine written by Naomi Klein.

Second: missing are the political implications of what we now describe as the ‘politics of austerity’ as shorthand for making the working class pay for the crisis. By reducing real wages – and labour costs – and what we used to call the ‘social wage’ – the public sector and welfare benefits – this Tory government is ensuring that the cost of bailing out the bankers and propping up profitability falls on us. We have only experienced the start of these attacks; at least a further four years are built into the system and, as we now understand, will be continued by whoever wins the next election. These relentless attacks on the working class have to be resisted in every way possible, whilst at the same time demonstrating that a fightback is justified through making links to the widely available critique of capitalism. Politically, any of us who are active socialists, as individuals or holders of leadership positions, such as in the trade union movement or as elected representatives, are faced with a political ‘crunch point’ by these attacks. When the wriggle room runs out, whose side are we on?

Third: missing is an understanding of just how dangerous current Labour Party policy is: One Nation Labour; ‘responsible capitalism’; completely fails to take account of the need to challenge the power of capital to address the first two missing issues. Seamus Milne also writing in the Guardian recently about the implications of zero hour contracts succinctly makes the point:

“What’s clear is that the model of capitalism that crashed and burned five years ago – and they are now trying to resurrect – is unable to deliver secure jobs and full employment, or anything like it. If neoliberalism were just a theory of economic management, it would have been discredited by its failure. What’s going on now is a reminder that it’s also a system of social power.”

There’s little sign that the next Labour manifesto or government will tackle the structural problems of capital, reverse the attacks on the working class or, most importantly, challenge the power of capital through the extension of public ownership and democratic control. They are so far from being socialist that they don’t even have the intention of retaining the nationalised banks.

Worse, the current position of the Labour leadership by not clearly stating that an alternative is possible, offers little political hope to workers who wish to resist the current Tory attacks. Confidence is not just a question of successful direct action, it needs to be underpinned by the hope that an alternative is not only possible but is legitimate and political leadership is critical to achieving this, both now and in the future. ‘In place of fear’, the driving vision of Aneurin Bevan, is a fine example. As socialists a trajectory toward public ownership and democratic control should inform all our actions perhaps in the ways suggested by my recent ‘bridging the gap’ post.

Peter makes two specific points. His second argument suggests that PR is required before making a secure break with Labour. There are a number of problems with this argument. First, there are forms of PR in the European and devolved elections in the UK. Second, the PR argument is weaker when it comes to local elections, as it is possible to break away from the national pattern. There is currently a very interesting example of a local socialist break though in Seattle in the US where two party politics dominates through first passed the post as in the UK. Third, if PR was the concern in Parliamentary elections, the current Labour Party would not exist, as the same argument was in fact used about challenging the Liberals 100 years ago. Fourth, PR changes are now like waiting for Godot – even if you agree with them. Waiting for PR before organising around the socialist case is like tying a political millstone around our necks.

Returning to Peter’s first argument the importance of the current historical context forms the basis of a critique. The call for the Left Unity discussions is a direct response to the significance of the changed context since 2007. It has to be taken into account when making comparison with the other attempts to form socialist organisations outside of the Labour Party Peter refers to. In general, these attempts do indicate that there is an initial recognition that left unity is important. The changed context, however, not only makes it possible for ideas of a socialist alternative to be taken seriously: there is also a desperate need for the political hope that comes with these alternative arguments, initially being made across the UK and hopefully linking with those of the European Left. It is now not only possible to raise the socialist case: it is necessary.

The Left Unity initiative is different as it is probably as open as it possibly could be to anyone who wishes to be involved, including other groups. It is very much work in progress. Take a look at the Left Unity website there is very little that indicates a ‘fix’ between existing groups and it is very much a member / supporter controlled process. At the moment there is not a conflict with Labour Party membership, so why not take the plunge and join the debate?

Personally, I have found it very easy to start to make a direct contribution. There are currently important debates taking place about social transformation including challenging capital and climate change. There are also discussions about relationships with other parties who stand in elections to the left of Labour. But it is not just about elections, it is about how it is possible to link all forms of resistance with the need for a socialist transformation and what part elections may play in this. There is recognition that any new organisation needs to be based upon open debate and process. Left Unity is opening up that debate now, working with the wider movement such as the People’s Assembly, and in part like Syriza in Greece. Mike Marqusee’s recent post on the Left Unity website describes his reasons for supporting the initiative making similar points.

Peter suggests the time is not right. We should take advantage of the more left wing leader and fight inside the Labour Party on a ‘more than New Labour’ basis. Given the path of the Labour Party under Ed Miliband described above, his left credentials increasingly do not stand up, let alone the socialist ones. Policies that fall short of the challenges of the current economic and political context risk being seen as ‘Tory lite’ and worse, if implemented in government, the Labour Party would rapidly become more hated than the Tories are now, leaving a wide open door for an even more right wing Tory Party and UKIP to appeal to the working class.

Where and how is the ‘fight’ within the Labour Party? The PLP leadership ride roughshod over the Party democracy and policy processes; the New Labour ‘Progress’ organisation remains as influential among elected representatives and younger members, as a left alternative. It is right to defend the trade union link but equally important to stop the leadership committing the Party to austerity politics in government: but how and who is going to effectively take up the charge? In the absence of a Party led strategy of opposition to austerity politics local councillors and other elected representatives are embracing ‘dented shield’ strategies: trying to humanly manage the unacceptable. Peter’s own arguments indicate that even socialists in the Labour Party are worried about being seen as splitters and rocking the pre-election boat, thus, together with the worry of appearing to be another ‘Militant’ type organisation, are in danger of backing away from any direct confrontation and managing down left expectations to being just ‘more than New Labour’.

The tragedy is that those who are socialists and would have some agreement with the contextual analysis made at the start of this post know they are doing this: so, if not now, then when?