We need a clear vision for the future
Steve Lytton began to be active politically during the Vietnam War protests, and then as NUS secretary at his college. Upon qualifying, he became a member of the executive of his local NUT branch, before leaving to work on a newspaper in Moscow. Upon returning to the UK he joined the import department of progressive booksellers Collets. He was an EC member of the BSFS, and was active in local politics, including being Chair of Wellingborough CND, a participant in the Midlands’ People’s March for Jobs, and for a short period a village councillor. Here is his contribution to the debate on the new party.
We live in a period of genuine crisis. The institutions that used to be considered the “pillars” of society: parliament; the banking and financial sectors; the police; the churches; the media (including the BBC); the NHS, armed forces; judicial, prison and security systems; the sports authorities and players; the monarchy (with the possible exception, owing to Blair’s efforts during the Princess Diana debacle, of the Queen herself); and so on – all of them have lost much if not all of their erstwhile credibility and support. The malaise and degree of alienation amongst the populace at large manifests itself in all manner of ways; but, on the political front, by an increasing level of voter abstention, and the worrying growth of UKIP and of nationalist, chauvinist and even racist groups.
The Blair/Brown government missed the opportunity and let in the most right-wing government for decades – one that is bent on dismantling the Welfare State and the level of State intervention in order to open up renewed areas for profit for the trillions of capital that is roving world-wide desperately seeking new sources of gain.
This approach will not solve the current problems of un- or underemployment, nor budget deficits, nor any of the other pressing social problems – housing, youth alienation and lack of direction, actual and energy poverty, etc. On the contrary, the social divisions, levels of poverty and associated problems will multiply accelerating societal breakdown as its glue loses more and more of its strength.
What is clearly required is a new approach, one that has been slowly developing on the left, but that still hasn’t formulated itself in any firm and credible manner. The traditional Labour approach has been one of trying to manage Capitalism better and more humanely than the Conservatives. It has failed, and so, a largely disaffected populous has either actively or passively rejected both approaches. People have for the most part turned in on themselves and their families, with little hope that the system will come to their aid. The initial success of Obama and “Yes, we can!” shows how a message of hope can mobilise both the young and the older. What a tragedy that the gaining of political power doesn’t mean that the war is won once and for all! Jack London’s The Iron Heel” and the lessons of Robert Tressell’s Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists need revisiting by all those looking towards the future. Readers beware.
To win actual and active support, any new approach must offer people a credible alternative – one that seizes hold of people by the guts, that they can truly believe in, that they can argue and struggle for. Many are the local (and, abroad, national ) causes that have been won by determined and committed people working together as a team with shared values and a clear vision – each knowing what they want to do and what to say to others to win their support.
What any new political grouping requires is exactly that: a coherent programme– one that makes sense to people, that is workable, and that may be argued for without attracting the pathetic but devastating criticism of Utopianism. If current institutions are incapable of fulfilling their societal roles, credible structures must be devised to fulfil these roles. The means of achieving this requires a thorough-going and wide-ranging debate, involving groups of all those – especially the young – whose help and efforts will be required to carry out the necessary transformations. Theirs is the world that they and their children will inherit. Therefore, they must surely be among the main players. What is the alternative – another spark, another riot and destruction, the strengthening of the forces of Law and Order, military intervention – all supported by the population who see their lives and property threatened?
But, how can such an engaged youth be created? The success of social networking lends credence to the view that people in general, and the young in particular, have a deep-rooted desire to belong to a thriving group with considerable shared interests. Their other activities, including shopping and tattooing, suggest a strong desire for the power to control their circumstances and the ownership of their own lives and bodies.
Any new grouping must tackle these issues and provide a credible socialised approach that gives hope and creates fire in the belly. We must think the so-far unthunk. New, radical solutions that bring people together in a viable programme that will address current problems will need to be devised and proposed with vigour and enthusiasm by fiery speakers who believe, encourage and who genuinely share these interests and values to prevent them turning into demigods.
Among the initiatives could be the creation of a two-year Civic Service for all young people upon leaving school, after several years of curriculum work linking societal and individual duties and responsibilities. Such a programme, tackling many of the terrific range of society’s issues and problems, combined with an individual development plan and devised with the full collaboration of people – young and older – could meet with enormous public support and should form part of a platform of ideas for discussion, elaboration and development that could present a formidable challenge to the bankrupt policies of the current set of political parties.
The creation of a new party is greatly to be welcomed; but it will need to devise a viable programme that captures and fires the public imagination and points the way to a resolution of the people’s fears and anxieties. It must be inclusive and bold in its thinking. Let’s hope that this can be made into a reality.
3 April 2013
Steve Lytton, France
9 comments
9 responses to “We need a clear vision for the future”
Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties.
About Left Unity
Read our manifesto
Left Unity is a member of the European Left Party. 
Read the European Left Manifesto
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
Events and protests from around the movement, and local Left Unity meetings.
Wednesday 17th September: Trump not Welcome
National Demonstration against Trump’s state visit
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
You make many good points, Steve. I think you are correct that to move from a very generalised desire to create a new radical mass socialist party/movement far to the left of where New Labour now is , Left Unity will soon have to pull together a basic set of “What We Stand For – Where We Want to Get To” principles. Without this “political product” we can never really “sell a radical alternative” to the masses of people now desperate for a route out of the ever deepening austerity strategy suicide dive. Such a “manifesto” has to be both easy to grasp, yet capable of inspiring hope (and hence a willingness to ACT) amongst particularly young people – the vital compoment of any growing radical mass movement.
The downside of moving to a more concrete statement of aims is of course that it can be a very divisive process – bringing out all the worst in established Left sects – as they battle to get “their viewpoint” adopted. Despite this danger, Left Unity will soon have to start to establishing its basic aims and objectives. Seven thousand people expressing interest in building a radical party to the left of New Labour is excellent. But
to build such a movement to seventy thousand and beyond we will have to resist the ever-present temptations of left sectarianism, and create a movement with very basic radical objectives that can truly inspire and recreate hope in our citizens’ hearts – as the 1945 Labour Party’s manifesto aims inspired a generation exhausted and depressed by war and deprivation.
”Civic Service” wd need to bring in at least minimum wage, or it’s ‘Workfare’ by another name. There’s plenty of work to be done, & green jobs need to be made.
Hello, Mike
Thanks for your comment. Before entering into debate on this topic, I’d like to quote a footnote to a passage from Chapter 5 “The Philomaths” in Jack London’s “The Iron Heel”. To refresh your memory of the book’s context, it written from the perspective of a society 700 years hence (now 600, since the work first appeared in 1908).
“The people of that age were phrase slaves. The abjectness of their servitude is incomprehensible to us. There was a magic in words greater than the conjurer”s art. So befuddled and chaotic were their minds that the utterance of a single word could negative the generalizations of a lifetime of serious research and thought. Such a word was the adjective Utopian. The mere utterance of it could damn any scheme, no matter how sanely conceived, of economic amelioration or regeneration. Vast populations grew frenzied over such phrases as “an honest dollar” and “a full dinner pail.” The coinage of such phrases was considered strokes of genius.”
Why this quote? Because I think that, in order to look at things afresh, we must try to prevent ourselves falling into the trap of labelling things and then just writing them off. We need a more sophisticated and analytical approach to things if we are to make headway. We need to seek win-win solutions to the problems facing our society. Workfare is a good example of this. Aimed objectively at the jobless and at those branded as work shy – the undeserving poor, as some on the Right consider them, Workfare indeed serves mainly as a stick to beat people with. Many of those on such a scheme probably rightly consider themselves as exploited individuals forced into no-hope jobs and with no other sensible choice. Workfare or starve! And, for those better off and who aren’t involved, or who consider that it is they, themselves, as tax payers, who are being exploited, I suppose that they consider it a fair deal. For my part, I consider it a win-lose relationship, with, as usual, the poor and weaker suffering.
However, here I would recommend you watch on Youtube to the very end the following: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_what_makes_us_feel_good_about_our_work.html?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=image__2013-04-10). The conclusion might surprise you.
What, I ask, is wrong with, or exploitative in, young people from all sections of society having their educational experience extended by a period in which they jointly help build the infrastructure of the society that they are going to live in; in their having mentors helping them devise a personnel development programme for their future; in giving them the opportunity to participate in the design of the projects they are to be involved in? I consider that such a non-divisive Civic Service that draws all young people into the process of creating their world is an absolute necessity –a kind of right of passage that proves to young people that they are respected and have rights, including, I would suggest, the right to vote at 16. It would also help them to recognise their collective power to change things.
Such a participative experience would undoubtedly also help boost individual self-esteem and the kind of can-do attitude that would enable the youth to take up the challenges they and we face, helping them create their own forms of employment, including green and others. The essential aspect, however, is that work should allow everyone to be able to live decent and, hopefully, fulfilled lives. Available work should not just rely on the “generosity” of employers or, for that matter, on the level of the State and the Treasury’s coffers. As you said: “There is plenty of work to be done.” The question is: how can the circumstances be created that this becomes possible and doesn’t just remain a rhetorical statement? A Civic Service would, I suggest, be a win-win means of helping achieve this objective.
And, of course, besides needing several preparatory years pre-introduction for fundamental curriculum changes devised alongside the teaching profession, parents, and society at large, there would need to be full discussions of the question of the level of remuneration or otherwise. Naturally, like with everything else, this would need to be discussed and sorted, according to the realities of the day.
Sorry Chris
I’ve called you Mike. It’s an age problem. Best regards
Hello, John
Thank you for your kind remarks. It is clear that, for any move to be made towards building a party aiming to create viable and sustainable society, some fundamental changes of attitudes will be needed.
The problem of sectarianism is, as you mentioned, a real one. I have painful memories of this from my NUS days in the early 70s and even more painful ones from later on in life. What I feel is that everywhere things have become so potentially dire and dangerous that realism and sense must prevail among the Left. No truly effective strategy will be able to be put in place unless this is the case and some general principles are agreed upon.
For starters, such principles must surely include:
• Encouraging the strengthening of co-operative and collaborative endeavours – ones that unify the maximum number of progressive thinkers and those whose vital interests are not served by the current system.
• Seeking to identify these common interests and the nature of the forces that oppose these interests – after all, the middle class is certainly undergoing the predicted process of proletarianisation and they could extremely easily be drawn into the arms of the ultra right, with all the associated dangers, if they are not presented with a credible, progressive approach and feel part of the solution.
• Finding ways of fully engaging young people and those whose careers may be over or coming to an end but who still wish to be useful and want to be recognised as such in practical, productive and truly meaningful processes that help them to develop or maintain their sense of self-esteem and experience the value of shared activity. Nothing seems to help boost self esteem and a can-do attitude – and with it a sense of confidence regarding the future – more than collaborative project work.
One thing that is clear is that leadership and the attendant power tends to corrupt. History is riddled with cases of leaders coming to believe in their own infallibility, and the power of patronage and the material and psychological benefits that they tend to gain by virtue of their position can provoke all sorts of jealousies and struggles for power. The results have always been disastrous for society at large.
In order to be worthy of their name and position, the leaders of the various Left groups will need to recognise the absolute necessity of treading this winding path together. Divide and rule has been extremely effective as the approach of those seeking to cling onto power. This lesson must surely been learnt by the progressive movement. Let’s hope this is the case.
As you correctly state what we held as the bedrock (like them or not) banking ,financial institutions ,police ,politics etc ,all have ended up being subject to scrutiny & when these so called cherished institutions were laid bare before the public they were shallow in morality & lacked integrity towards us their so called trusted customers/taxpayers.
The public/voters are rightly now viewing those once trusted bastions with total mistrust & with a country put into a spiral of austerity & a economy seemingly parked in a political cul de sac ,the air of resignation /frustration is there for all to see .
That being said are we simply going to leave the tories & their coalition allies to simply slash & burn & erode our economies /communities & be scared for decades to come or does the left fight back with vision & imagination to give working people the chance to have the future currently denied to them.
The economy could be & should regionalised /localised ,bringing forward the real prospect of concepts such as co-ops playing a full & integral part in localised employment ,which in turn creates collective co-operation & gives people that local input & a feeling of self esteem ,which is so sadly lacking at present .
Local Co-ops could also be encouraged to be part of any service provision policy for a local council ,to ensure a truly local dimension to all spheres of service supply .
Housing Co-ops could & should run in tandem with any housing policy locally/regionally ensuring a diverse mix centred around a policy that provides dwellings that match the need of the customer ,rather than at present where a policy is based on the balance sheet of a large house builder who just so happens to donate to one or the other establishment parties at election time .
A land bank audit would be put in place at regional/local level to ensure wherever possible councils & co-op enterprise zones work in partnership creating both a housing/employment need & localising both where possible .
Whilst having the radical vision to ensure both sectors ran there power supplies not from large corporations but localised stations ,using renewables ,which allows the profits generated to fund low cost or hopefully free gas & elec for the local elderly .
This is just a flavour of my interpretation of an alternative vision .
Peter…………
I agree with all of the above but I do have a worry. It is important that the Tories do not get back into power in the next general election. Even with all the passion and forward thinking, planning etc there is no way that LU will have had the time to become a big enough political force to take on Tories, Labour and Lib Dems.
In order to ensure that the Tories don’t get back will we not have to ensure that Labour do and continue to build up LU to gradually impact on local gov policies to gov policies.
Valentine you make some very good points. LU sole focus should be to build a bottom up community based structure/organisation. It would be very easy to be deflected and diverted by the “what if” scenario regarding the result of the next general election .
LU cannot influence any part of the 2015 election in relation to winners/losers,what we do know for certain is WHOEVER is in control we will have a version of austerity to deal with ,so that being the case my view is stay focused on building the groups around the country ,carry on formulating the radical alternative both local then national & do not get diverted by what you simply cannot effect .
Peter…………
Hi, Peter and Valentine
You both make very interesting contributions. Sitting where I do, in France, and seeing many of the same sorts of problems as in the UK, I feel that we must recognise that there is no quick and easy answer to the ills of the system we all live under. Nor, as Peter suggests is there any real likelihood of LU making much impact in the short term. Eyes need to be turned towards the longer term, and to an approach to the short term that encompasses the steps that lead onto this longer term. Of course, Valentine, this doesn’t tackle the problem of the damage that is currently being done to the social structure and the terrible negative impact it has on people’s lives; but, without wishing to sound too defeatist here, I fear that the barriers to change are far too strong for us to hope that the existing power structures will just roll over and let progressive forces take on the job of creating the kind of society that most people would wish to live in.
Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to see Ken’s film yet; but I surmise that two of the key factors that resulted in the new post-war perspectives were the pre-war economic and social traumas of the 30s and the war itself. When one lives through such experiences, and then a coherent and credible vision is vigorously promoted that strikes a chord with one’s aspirations, then radical change can occur. Despite the urgent need for change. I don’t think that we are there yet. I think it was Tony Benn who said: Britain is so ripe for socialism that it’s going rotten. And the sad fact is that he was probably right.
The point is, however, not to despair, but to continue to help create and nurture the seeds of the nascent ideas and organisational forms that are and continue to appear within the heart of the system. Co-operatives and other collaborative ventures clearly point the way forward, as do other focused activities that bring people together to help create and determine the direction of new organisational forms. Hence the idea of the Civic Service proposed above. And the funny thing is, I am pretty confident that the vast majority of the UK population would support such an idea, if correctly described, structured, funded and promoted.
What, after all, is the alternative? Short-term and extreme acts of desperation only aid authoritarian forces and the status quo. The latest outrage in Boston has only served, in the main, to whip up support for the armed and security forces of the state, and questions are now being asked why they hadn’t been more effective, paving the way for more intrusion and greater public expense, and leading where?
This is clearly not the way forward; nor are other anti-social actions that divide the people more. That way leads to the growth of the fascist Right. Here in France, Marie Le Pen posters keep appearing, and all too few have Hitler moustaches painted on them. In the UK, the ideas of UKIP seem to be on the rise. Meanwhile, economies and living standards for the many deteriorate and the outlook is grim.
LU must take a cool look at the reality of things and devise a coherent way forward that embraces the hopes and aspirations of the majority of people. Unexpected things will undoubtedly happen to upset the current status quo (Among other powerful voices, even the BBC talks periodically about the failure of the capitalist system. However, they provide no alternative). If the Left doesn’t come up with a viable alternative to capitalism and a progressive way forward, then we can be sure that the extreme Right will do so. The bleakest of prospects, I’m sure we’ll all agree.