On Partyism

A light reply to Edmund Griffiths essaylette on building a New Left Party (https://www.edmundgriffiths.com/newparmounlab.html) Possibly not in contradiction. I just want to go back to basics on the importance of partyism (as opposed to cadrism, spontaneism, actionism, syndicalism etc.) 

So, what is a party? At heart, it is a participant in a process: a legal term (“The party of the first part”). A party has an interest in the process (drawing up a contract, disputing in court, winning a vote). Interest here means more than intellectual engagement, it means being subject to the material outcomes of the process. 

The working class is a party to the political process: the ongoing contest over who and in whose interest decisions are taken in society. Likewise, socialists and communists are parties to this process, merely through the articulation of their desires and objects. The working class party, or the communist party is the broad category that covers any agency that promotes, pursues or articulates these interests. 

A Political Party, proper, is the corporate expression of this agency. In UK law, this corporation attracts privileges (name and logo protection) and obligations (reporting on donations and spending). This corporate body is mostly what people mean when they talk about a new left/working class party. The left party exists in any case, but how is it best to be championed (or does it need a champion at all?). The incorporated agent provides essential services to the party: it can formalise position, exclude (disclaim) some positions and actions, and provides authority: who can and cannot speak on behalf of the party. This is a blessing and a curse, since power will seek to recuperate this authority and turn it against the broader movement. The corporate body provides continuity beyond the individuals. 

The Labour Party’s clause 1.2 is an excellent and elegant expression of this: “[The Labour Party’s] purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.” (and of course, Clause 4 defines the purpose of that party). As it stands, its officials and members do an excellent job at meeting those objects. 

So, I wind to my point: Alastair Cambell used to write OST on people’s papers: Objective, Strategy, Tactics. Objective shapes strategy, strategy shapes tactics. A new incorporation of the left needs a laser like focus on the shared objective. The mess of Sultana/Corbyn situation stems in part because the implicit objective is to forge a parliamentary alliance from existing MPs with different electoral bases. The unclarity of objectives and structures itself is derived from the necessity of the object of welding together existing political teams and individuals: the court politics then follows that set up, and is coupled by the recuperation by a media that itself is built around court politics.

Occupying my time...

OK, so, clarification time. I didn't want to give the impression that I was against the #Occupy movement, or even thought it was just the usual suspects: my point is that our obligation, and even my own inclination, is to raise the issue of challenging for political power; and that unless the movement spreads into something that reaches into every street, then it will be smothered -- one way or another.

Let's put it this way, the image of Tahrir Square, and the Arab spring on which it is modelled were very dramatic. But the substance of the Arab spring happened the other week, with the election of the new government, the final grasping of the levers of political power by the new Ennahda Government in Tunisia (and the same old military in Egypt).

The old Trotskyist image of the steam and piston comes to mind: the popular protests were the steam on which the piston of the Islamist/Military parties came to power. Doubtless that image is still motivating Trotskyists here.

What I hope for, though is that we all become not steam, but small cogs, wielding a share in a precision mechanism in which we all can fine tune and control (and which we can brake by our refusal). Note how quietly the elections have gone, but how oh so determining they were in the future direction. The devil is in the detail.

Of course, in Oakland the protest has spread and taken the form of a "General Strike" -- lets hope our can do the same come N30; but I'm going to keep banging the tedious drum for the necessity for political action.

Occupy the World

OK, so - time to get grumpy. The occupy thing is cute. It's reaching out, and getting people to take notice; but it's not enough.
I was at Occupy LSX last weekend, and it struck me that the easy way to occupy the stock exchange is:

Win the elections.

Send the riot police to occupy the stock exchange.

That is -- political action will get results. Now, I'm not saying the grumpy leftist thing of: "we need a programme". Not at all. What I'm saying is simply that a political party (or parties - hell, why doesn't someone register 'Occupy the Council' as a party name?) is an effective outcome.
Look, it costs nothing to contest a council seat (OK< if you want to print leaflets it'll cost a hundred quid) -- but if the occupiers can turn themselves into nominators then that is something.
An absence of policies is a good thing, a determined movement of 'Vote the scoundrels out' will send shock waves through the political elite like no bugger's business. Once we've occupied the seats of power, then lets debate what to do -- in a way compatible with the democratic impetus of the #Occupy movement. But, but but. Political action is needful, elst it turn into simply pleading with the powerful.

Labouring in vain

According to New Statesman Labour leadership contenders had a hustings at the Fabian society, and were asked whether they were socialists.

I'll leave you to read the article directly, but will simply draw your attention to this paragraph

That hint of disdain for the usefulness of ideological speculation may be a rather more authentic Labourist tradition than any theory of Socialism has ever been (The trade unions would never have founded the party if it had really wanted to be a Socialist one).

The Fabian intellectual GDH Cole had written, somewhat approvingly, of Labour having a "socialism so undefined in its doctrinal basis as to make recruits readily among people of different types".

Labour is not, and never has been a socialist party, it does not stand for socialism, but is trade unionism carried on into politics, it is the use of political power to defend and advance the interests of working people within capitalism. Just like a trade union, it has to tack, turn and sometimes cut a bad deal for its members.

Socialism is not sticking up for the bottom dog, it is using the organised power (and, yes, wealth) of the workers to completely overturn the economic system to one which is permanently run in our interests. It is political action that can do that.

Wither the left?

I ask, once more.

I was home over the weekend, in Redcar - you may have heard of it, it's the place where the steel jobs were (btw, it's pronounced Rehcuh, you have to make an attempt at swallowing your own tongue while saying it to get it right).

We never used to have trots on the high street, but last time I was up the Millies were there, doing a stall, and this time, the SWP were out and about. It was too cold to stop and argue with them, but I bought a paper.

Joy of joys - while fumbling around for change, student trot opened up a wallet stuffed with twenties - yes, my vile and unsubstantiated prejudices against trots confirmed once more - result.

They were peddling the line "fight for every job" - now, I don't think that's sound tactics at even the most basic level, the fight should be concentrated on raising the general cost of redundancy, so occupying the steel plant and holding the owners to ransom sounds like a better option for me - those scrap plants must be worth something.

Even then, they are doing a disservice in not relaying the basic fact that we cannot beat gallivanting unemployment, and a firm determined to close down a plant to save costs. The only possible response is political action. Even at a sort of Latin American Left reformist level, you need to take the fight to politics.

Then, the question becomes, do we use state power to bribe capital to keep an uneconomic plant open, or do we use it to change the relationship between labour and capital forever? We need to get that question on the agenda, and focus like a laser upon it. The trot answer of trying to stir up discontent as an inchoate force will not get us anywhere, especially because most workers have the wit to know when they're on a hiding to nothing.

The political unity of the workers is the only thing that will win through, not tilting at windmills.

The keening of anarchists

So, I was telling you about the squat against the MP couple. It seems the courts moved, and repossession was granted. On the last night, my informant tells me, someone who was keen for the squatters to go hired some local kids to come to the house and cause mayhem. Keen eyed readers can find a version of this story on Indymedia.

Now, whether they were provacateurs, sent to discredit the squatters, or really just lary local lads, doesn't matter. It shows the risks of direct action (and the prospect that the other side will break the rules to get back at you, too). While direct action can be satisfying, I don't think it offers an alternative to clear political organisation (worse, in this case, the anarchists come out sounding like the taxpayers alliance). Yes, their keyings on t'interweb may have helped rabble rouse a touch, but their hardly likely to dent the average consciousness, much less those leftists who support Keynes' policies.

That's why I'm not keen on this type of politics.

Squatters

It seems the Keens have developed squatters - I know this because the barman in my regular haunt is a black bloc anarchist involved in the squat.

The Keens are a pair of Labour MPs who have a house they list as their main that has been empty for seven months or more - they say it is being renovated (slowly, it seems).

The interesting thing this bloke told me was that the anarchists involved are trying to get local independents to stand against the couple at the general election - back to non-partyism.

I explained I think that parties are useful and important for accountability, but we agreed to disagree.

It's positive that it is turning into a political movement, but the craze for independents (usually Tories in Disguise) illustrates it's a negative movement. But, we shall see.

Seize the bank and seize the tower

...As some bright feller once writ.

The steady media drum beat announcing impending violence and mayhem is part of a strategy of detterance, deterring people from protesting (cos they don't want to be in the violence) and allowing a sucker punch if none occurs ("the police took effective action that stopped the violent minority, your honour").

Over the weekend, Donal Macyntire, on radio 5, had an interview with a journalist, who had infiltrated the Gleneagles movement. Such unbiased questions of the "was there a secret hierarchy" sort, and the journalists on facetious and contemptuous comments guaranteed that it would be ten minutes of supporting the caricature of anarchists. Did the bloke in black really have a bodyguard, or just a heavy mate? Hmmmm.

Of course, that today's protests will in all likelihood be swatted away easily by such cheap media tactics demonstrates just how futile and worthless they are: anarchy is a game at which the police will beat you.

It might be fun to protest, I was there at the great May day riot a few years ago, it was great fun, honest. What is needful, though, is the slower, grass roots, boring job of organising politically: education, meetings, networks, votes. That would scare the bejaasus out of the powers that be. Really, we should try it.

With a bit of luck soon I'll have news on a Euro election bid by the Socialist Party, maybe the Euro elections would be the place to start?

Et tu quoque

Sharp eyed readers may have noticed an addition to the blog roll, an anarchist of my acquaintance (and prolific writer on the subject) here.

Going to his blog reminded me of why I am not an fuckinganarchist, and why I may not be the best person to chair a forum involving the Socialist Party and Ian Bone from class war (I'll put up a proper notice later). Suffice to say that I'm firmly of the opinion that fuckinganarchist is a compound noun that is now indivisible.

Especially so after reading the AFAQ for the first time in a while. Especially the stuff trying to claim that Anarchists aren't anti-democratic. After a string of tu quoque justifications, and talk of collective free association and federated delegates, we get this gem:

As a general rule-of-thumb, anarchists have little problem with the minority accepting the decisions of the majority (!!!) after a process of free debate and discussion. As we argue in section A.2.11, such collective decision making is compatible with anarchist principles -- indeed, is based on them. By governing ourselves directly, we exclude others governing us. However, we do not make a fetish of this, recognising that, in certain circumstances, the minority must and should ignore majority decisions. For example, if the majority of an organisation decide on a policy which the minority thinks is disastrous then why should they follow the majority? Equally, if the majority make a decision which harms the liberty and equality of a non-oppressive and non-exploitative minority, then that minority has the right to reject the "authority" of the majority

Now, there are only two choices in collective life, the dictatorship of the minority, or the dictatorship of the majority - this is an inescapable fact. Anarchists do not make a fetish (what others might dare to call a principle) of democracy. hence why they talk of small collectives federated so that everyone can join in the heated debates, rather than wider scale polities in which decisions may be delegated to some specific body covering a wider area, and all embracing solidarity. What if, to reverse their own example, one small collective began to implement racist policies, surely it would be for the majority to impose upon it and, by force if necessary, prevent such behaviour? (I'll note, racism might not be oppressive, if, say, the form was simply that of excluding certain types of people from community X, and thus wouldn't fall within the qualificatiosn given above).

Finally, I'll just point out the standard Socialist Party view, that anarchists, by denegrating democracy as an organisational principle and fetishising insurrection and revolt give grist to the mill of other totalitarian creeds, like fascism, and make the slaughter of workers in civil war more likely than less.

That is why I'm not an anarchist. That is why I oppose anarchism.

Update: While I'm here I note that AFAQ on Bakunin's criticism of Marx doesn't mention Marx wrote a reply to Bakunin's Statism & Anarchy - which directly rebuts some of the contents of that section of the AFAQ...

From the comments...

It may be a half remembered anecdote - and thus embellished beyond recognition - but i seem to remember reading that the Glasgow ILPers who were part of the 1922 Parliamentary intake - Maxton, Wheatley, Kirkwood, Stephen etc - did more than chide themselves because they were convinced in later years that it was their votes that swung the leadership contest MacDonald's way against Clynes in '22.

If what they felt was true, then they contributed far more to Labour in Government then MacDonald ever thought imaginable.

Quoth the Ingrate in t'comments.

Yes, interestingly, reading about MacDonald for a talk I gave somewhere (Ramsay MacDonald: Bastard - was the title, for obvious reasons) I discovered that he came to power as the left-wing candidate. In 1914 he resigned the Labour leadership in order to oppose World War I. He was villified throughout, to the extent that John Bull magazine publicly revealled his bastardy.

In 1917, at a meeting in Leeds, MacDonald moved a resolution calling for the establishment of Workers' & Soldiers councils in the UK - MacDonald was calling for Soviets! Indeed, in his biography, Lloyd George called MacDonald "the British Kerensky."* Without a doubt, had Red Clydeside and the revolts of 1919 gone anywhere, MacDonald, would have come to head up a revolutionary government as a part of the left.

So, that's a moustacheod Scottish MP, who opposed a war coming to the forefront of the British left, only to cause mayhem by his tendency to renegadism. Where have I heard that one before?

Update Tsk! I forgot my own footnote.

*Intriguingly Alexander Kerensky, according to Wikipedia, is himself buried in Putney Vale cemetary, apparently, no Russian orthodox cemetaries in the US (where he died) would have him, blaming him for the Russian revolution.