How can we win? The way forward for the Left

How Can We Win? The Way Forward for the Left. The Marxist Review is the latest, and very welcome, addition to the literature discussing the political and economic situation from a Marxist perspective. The first article, by Chris Nineham, discusses the relationship between mass movements and Marxism. The question Chris asks is, ‘Can we win?’. Overall this is a positive contribution to the present situation, linking the present period in which there are mass movements throughout the World, challenging the present structure of society, and the lessons that can be drawn from the principles and strategies set out by leading Marxists, including Marx himself, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and Gramsci. However, I do believe that there are other considerations that need to be considered, and some aspects that have to be subtly amended. Who am I to question, in any way, a leading theorist of Marxism and the political situation? I am simply someone who for 80 years has lived and fought as a member of the working class in the daily struggles of the working class. Consider two pictures: A young, rather naive, student of Mining Engineering, discussing politics on the Coalface with two experienced miners. One of the colliers expressed surprise that the word ‘Socialist’ appeared in the name USSR describing Russia. The second picture: A young teacher being gently teased by experienced teachers as he pontificated about his Socialist views during a break in the staff room. Very simple examples of how workers expressed and shared their political opinions. I could mention the clubs, the pubs, the chapels and a multitude of other places where workers congregated and discussed their daily struggles, the state of the World, their hopes for the future, whilst socialising and enjoying the social environment. What we tend to forget is that politics is not something external and outside lived experience, but is an integral part of our lives. When we theorise about base and superstructure, we think in terms of theoretical constructs, whereas, in fact, economics drives our everyday existence. As workers, we have to work to live. We are part of the working class from the moment we are born until the day we die. One paragraph, in the section in which Chris Nineham deals with autonomy and Spontaneity, gave me concern. He writes “Shyness about representation is one major problem of autonomist and anarchist politics. There are others. The kind of assembly in which all activists are invited to participate in consensus-based decision making discriminates against working class people. By not recognising delegate structures, it downgrades representatives of mass organisations, and the extremely long meetings that result are completely impractical for most working people who have families and jobs to attend to. A general emphasis on spontaneous initiative downplays the importance of developing political strategies, and consensus decision-making tends to depoliticise by discouraging clear debate and argument. This ponderous type of organisation is particularly unsuited to moving situations in which rapid decision making and leadership are essential” Later on he writes “Another temptations for radicals is to be constantly pushing for the most militant action whatever the balance of opinion in society, to be seeking confrontation with the state before most people understand it is necessary ……These approaches reveal a lack of confidence in worker’s ability to change things through their own mass struggle.” I believe that this last sentence is of extreme importance. As Marx made very clear, the emancipation of the working class is through the actions of the working class. It is my opinion that Chris Nineham, in stating, so dogmatically in the first paragraph, the weakness that exists in those situations, fails to see how this conflicts with the view expressed in the second paragraph, that we should not ignore the ability of workers to perceive their own needs and to act accordingly. One thing lacking in the article is how the relationship between leaders and led is established. I have always been concerned about Gramsci’s belief that there will always be leaders and the led. I hold the belief, expressed in a different context, in the ‘priesthood of all believers’. What we need is for all members of the working class to recognise the needs of the class and to be prepared to act in order to provide for those needs. In order to achieve that end, we have to start with the situation in which we, as a working class, find ourselves. The latest election results, can only be seen as disastrous, from the viewpoint of socialists and the working class. It has been a clear demonstration of what is known as group dynamics, but, sadly for us, a dynamic working contrary to what is actually needed. A general dissatisfaction with the state of modern society has led to large numbers of people seeing in the simplistic solutions offered by false prophets, a way forward, when in fact what is being offered is a more extreme version of that trend in society which reinforces the basic divisions within capitalism. Group dynamics are an important means by which the actions of people are formed. However such dynamics can operate against us as readily as they can work for us. In order to build a positive dynamic we have to find ways of overcoming the overwhelming propaganda , projected through all forms of the media, directed at reinforcing the present capitalist environment. There is no doubt that, despite the mass movements of the last 40 years, the working class is in a worse position than it was, for example, during the miner’s strike, when large sections of the population were actively involved in supporting the miners. The statement that Thatcher made around that time, that “there is no such thing as society” has had considerable influence on everyday social life. We are now far more a nation of individuals than at any time in history. The type of assembly that Chis criticises is more of an assembly of people influenced by middle class individualism than of those influenced by working class solidarity. This concept of individualism has undermined class solidarity and has led to a change in emphasis in politics. There is now a far greater emphasis in political debate over social living experience, over issues of racism and sexuality, issues that affect individuals directly, so that the common economic issues that affect large sections of the population jointly and directly are ignored. To such an extent is the change that these issues are largely ignored at all levels at which they could be addressed. I am not undervaluing the issues of racism and sexuality, but these are now seen as whole society issues and not as class issues. A reading of Alexandra Kollontai’s The Social Basis of the Female Question illustrates the point I am making. The issues that are not being addressed, and that are causing concern to those affected and by those directly working in those areas, can be seen in education, health, social work, housing, transport and the climate, amongst others. There is a clear divide between those who have and those who have not. Detailed accounts of the problems that exist in all of these areas can be set out. The solutions to these problems lead us back to the economy, a question of financial resources, back to the class divide in society and the need for class struggle and revolutionary change in society. However, it is not just the Working Class that would gain. Every move toward a more socialist society, which would be a classless society, would bring improvements and benefits to the whole of society. The issues referred to above are the ones that are causing many people to seek solutions in the Far Right and Reform with their easy solution of blaming asylum seekers and their encouraging people to turn their anger into racism rather than the basic problem which is the organisation and control of society which ultimately comes down to the economic basis in capitalism. This trend towards individualism and the stress on middle class social ideals also affects the Revolutionary Groups that exist. There has been a movement away from class politics. Chris Nineham lays great stress on the ideas of basic Marxism, which I fully agree with. He stresses the importance of revolutionary leadership. In the first paragraph, that I quoted, he says that “this ponderous type of organisation is particularly unsuited to fast moving situations in which decision making and leadership are essential”. But that is not the situation in which we, on the left, are in at the moment. He gives ample evidence of movements, over the past fifty years that have grown up, become very effective, then dissipated. Revolutionary leadership and revolutionary parties cannot compensate for a lack of Working Class activity. As he notes, there has to be a desire among the mass of workers for change and a confidence that they can bring about that change. That is where bringing people together, allowing people to express their own particular struggles, seeing how their struggle relates to the struggles of other people and how all these struggles have a common basis, realising that acting against the basic cause of all of those struggles, is the only means through which victory can be achieved. Our rulers are fully aware of the dangers to them of a united working class. That is why the means by which people came together in the past are, in so many cases, no longer available to us. That is why they lay great stress upon the individual and undermine universal rights. It is why they hate the European Convention on Human Rights so much. Leaders within the working class cannot be imposed. They arise within the activities of the working class. The working class is not averse to having representatives, but they empower representatives whom they recognise as having the will, the ability and the power to achieve the things that the class desires. That is why the chosen method of organising for Working Class organisations is Democratic Centralism.The members make decisions, empower the leadership to carry them out, subsequently the members obey the directions of the leadership who are making actual the directives given to them by the members. That is why dialectics is an important aspect of Marxist thinking. It is not a question of members or leaders, it is both. It is not a question of the whole working class acting in unison, nor of the actions of individuals, it is both. As an individual we each have to work to achieve the socialist ends that we desire, but at the same time realise that our actions alone are not enough, we have to act as a cog within the wheels of the whole class. Scribar 10.5.26