I can’t shake off the feeling that I am not meant to be here.
I was in a different job before and it drip-fed me very different ideas about the world. Admittedly, that job was not typically proletarian. As a henchman for imperialism, my duties included enabling the neo-neo-neoliberal agenda, ensuring and enhancing the imperium’s capacity to strafe shepherds and doing the behind-the-scenes stuff to keep the storm-troopers focused on suppressing galactic rebellion.
It was a happy time until the itch came. The itch that said things were not right in the world. I call it The Matrix Itch and it woke me up but I still feel like an impostor. Now, I am a Marxist, self-proclaimed. Well, Marxist-ish. In my view, Marxist writings and concepts explain the world better than any comparable body of thought. For example Tories (bless them) lack a theory of history, as do fascists and liberals. Does that make me a Marxist? Who knows?
So I find myself on the Political Wasteland or, as I call it, the Meaningful Left. Where tribes, driven mad by past defeats and led by the withered, assail each other and reave across each other territories. I stumbled into this parallel world, quite by accident one day. I happened to have proclaimed as utterly wrong what, in the military bubble, was held, variously, as absolutely right or not really worth pondering or simply a feature of the job or as sacrosanct and beyond repudiation. Imperialism. The Meaningful Left I have collided with is that part of the political left which has a radical program for equality and unity and peace and other good things. This Left is revolutionary. On paper, at least, it will not kowtow to capitalism, it will not seek common ground where there is none, and it is a Hard Left.
At times, admittedly, this area of politics still throws up some terrible ideas.
In some quarters there are still the authoritarian fads of Maoism and Stalin worship.
Some ideas are so abstract as to be useless, like those which are generated by some of the ultra-left Anarchist sects. Ideas which, by all accounts, hope the kicking-in of a shop window will spark the revolution… man. Lumped in with this trend is the idea that by forming shining, little communities and kind of… ignoring… capitalism, it will fall down around our ears. It hasn’t.
There are the left-leaning Liberals, who again and again insist upon their role as the dead-weights of history by moralising every practical matter, every discussion of action, literally, to death.
Some people, Marxists in particular, simply refuse to tag along with the labour force as its character has shifted. To use an industrial cliché, there is trouble at the mill. The trouble is that the mill-workers have nearly all moved into the service industry while the pamphleteers are still canvassing the mill and, finding no proletarians ‘proletarianing’, have been duelling with each other for some time.
Oh, yes. There are substantial problems in this new place I have reached.
In my estimation this Meaningful Left begins at the western fringes of the Labour Party and stretches from there to the uttermost limits of abstraction. It includes some Liberals – though I do not always welcome them – and also provides a home for some Identity Politics People. Some ofthese rigid, slavering folk are right-wingers who, by some mishap, have brought their petty creed – a politics of division – leftwards to torment the battlers. Their refrain is something along the lines of ‘how can you be talking about global capitalism, when clearly the most important issue in the world is that I AM A WOMAN’.
Alongside a commitment to freedom – real freedom, not the shallow, liberal (9-different-flavours-of-coca-cola) kind – and to peace and equality, the defining feature of Leftists – Marxist people, Anarchist people and to a lesser extent Social Democratic people – is that they dislike each other venomously. They are committed to tribalism; at times it looks like they have become so concerned with out-manoeuvring each other that they have no time left to change the world. This diminishes them because, really, as most outsiders can see, the left groups are mostly in agreement with each other on the key points and, while their arguments on how to change the world are not unappealing, when these foaming gangs are viewed through the sectarian, cordite haze… they don’t tick any boxes. If I had not had a consciousness-raising experience of my own, I’d be happy at the pub, watching football and drinking every weekend too.
This is a story of the modern far left in Britain. If I have gained any insight it is through a spell of immersion and fieldwork. If my cries are lamenting, it is because I would like to see these politics have a profound effect.
I make no claims to neutrality and the fact that I am writing at all should tell you I have picked a side in the great battle of our age. This blog post is Gonzo and I am a leftist myself.
I’d write a book about it. Make a film about it. Maybe I will. Maybe I will and then no one will speak to me again. Maybe I’ll be branded a sectarian, maybe I will care that I’m branded. The brand could smart for a while.
Maybe it won’t.
Very interesting. I try to separate left-wing principles from movements and parties such that any given political stance (shared or individal) can be seen as partaking in different degrees of both right-wing and left-wing. Thus, for example, you could say that a real conservative or reactionary actually has a left-wing aspect in their ideology because they support paternalistic welfare (which is both left- and right-wing) – that’s why some Vietnamese mandarins adapted so well to Vietnamese socialism, because they were the real conservatives. This depends on how you define “conservative”, of course, but hopefully you can see what I’m getting at.
Anyway, I got very frustrated with the existing attempts to define left-wing. It always pissed me off that people would point at Stalinist repression and say that that is an example of how bad the left can be when such authoritarianism contravenes the defining left-wing principle of anti-authoritarianism. I also got very fucked off with the smug establishment idiots who tried to characterise Nazism and Fascism as being half-left and half-right simply because they appropriated left-wing rhetoric for a very right-wing project.
The funny thing was that when I started actually putting together what left-wing actually stands for (starting from its first coinage in the French Revolution) it became apparent that left-wing means what most people tend to think of as “good” and right-wing stands for what most people think of as “bad”. In case you are interested here is what I wrote to help clarify the matter amongst a self-proclaimed “left-wing” group which included an extremely right-wing tendency.
What is (and is not) Left-Wing
My personal stance is that my activism evolves from a desire to oppose injustice. To be sure, we must make tactical decisions (and it is important not to alienate people) but it is wrong to simply presuppose that taking an uncompromising principled stance will in fact alienate people. The successes of left-wing movements in the past have relied absolutely on from a core belief that opposes all injustice (however interpreted). You might call that the negative component of their ideologies – what they oppose – and the positive components – what they propose – have varied. The point is, however, that you have to know what you are fighting against before you can formulate what you are fighting for.
The point of this exercise is to clarify what constitutes a left-wing stance in such a way that we can all immediately understand whether, in the relevant circumstances, any given political stance is really a left-wing one. Words are only words, but in the case of the phrase ‘left-wing’ the historical roots and development, along with the fact that it is clearly opposed to another concept (right-wing) mean that it can be almost a black-and-white matter. The term left-wing comes from those who during the French Revolution believed in a society based on the revolutionary ideals that had animated the masses. Over time there has been a consensus among left-wing movements on many issues (I exclude here state regimes which adopt left-wing rhetoric, but which, more often than not, are actually right-wing in their nature). My purpose here is to produce a comprehensive and inclusive list. There is some room for debate at the margins, of course, but remember this is about fundamental priniciples of justice, NOT about dreaming up scenarios where it is impossible to reconcile two different left-wing imperatives. [I am referring here to such tendencies as those who would have it that we must prioritise the environment over the economic rights of the poor. I would advocate a principled stance that environmental initatives must not have a negative impact on the poor. It is the right (or do I mean left?) thing to do, but there are also strong practical grounds (backed by evidence) which I won't go into here, but am happy to discuss in person.]
The list below gives an idea of a maximal left-wing philosophy, like a platonic ideal. I am not advocating that we as individuals should abandon any beliefs or stances we hold that are actually right-wing. I myself am rather right-wing on the question of individualism, but that doesn’t mean that I am not a profoundly left-wing person. This is a purist sort of vision, not something to try to live up to or even hold as an abstract aspirational ideal. We should view it more as a technical term in order for the purposes of clarification. What I do suggest is that if we are to act as an identified ‘left-wing’ group we should not, as a group, adopt a right-wing stance on any issue.
LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY
That is the original basis of left-wing sentiment. ‘Fraternity’ doesn’t quite work in this day and age and so I suggest that a good core set of left-wing principles to proceed from would be: LIBERTY, EQUALITY, COMMUNITY and SOLIDARITY.
ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN
Obviously a belief in liberty implies an opposition to authoritarianism. Promoting democracy and decentralisation are both, properly speaking, left-wing stances. There are ideas of ‘positive’ liberty, associated with Communist regimes and so forth, and ‘negative’ liberty, associated with liberalism. As an anarchist I would say that both ideas are a joke, neither looks anything like liberty if taken by itself. Leaving aside positive liberty, it has been pointed out that liberal ‘negative’ liberty has for many throughout history consisted of the freedom to starve to death in a gutter. It is actually worse than that, liberal ideas of ‘free markets’ or ‘laissez faire’ are themselves authoritarian. Liberalism arose at a time during an ongoing British transformation of oligarchic power. Feudal rights (which came with responsibilities) were transformed into property rights – most notoriously with the ‘enclosures’ of common lands, a process described as ‘a revolution of the rich against the poor.’ Britain’s feudal powers actually consolidated their control through the end (or alleged end) of feudalism and about 50% of the peerage were actually Whigs (liberals). By limiting the sovereign rights of the crown and making private property sacrosanct and by creating an ideology of market fundametalism, the same powerful elites (with no meaningful change) created a new hierarchical authoritarian structure where their material wealth maintained a strict dominance over rural and urban proletarian masses who, now deprived any independent economic resources were arguably less free than the bonded serfs of the feudal system.
This explains why many on the left, including even anarchists, advocate an increase in government power. Governments, however imperfectly, can be made subject to democratic pressures, while powerful private interests, who can ‘own’ just about anything now including naturally occuring genes, are tyrannies by definition. Which brings us to….
REDISTRIBUTION
The left-wing has always seen a fundamental injustice in the vast material disparities existing in society. Reponses have varied from the advocacy of the abolition of all private property to various more modest calls for the moderation of the free-market. One might consider that Proudhon, the anarchist famous for saying that ‘all property is theft’ also said ‘property is freedom.’ In the first instance he is referencing not only the inequities of distribution and the concentration of ownership, but the dubious origins of the titles to property. We are fed a constant stream of bullshit telling us that wealth is acquired through work, thrift and judicious reinvestment, but significant wealth almost always is in the hands of those who come to it through inheritance. Social mobility in contemporary societies compares unfavourably with premodern societies – for all their castes and feudalism – and the degree of inequality and sheer obscene wealth (corporate or indiviual) that exists today has no past equivalent whatsoever. At the same time all significant fortunes have the acquisitive use of violence (against smallholders, indigenous peoples and/or workers) as a necessary part of their origin, whilst their continued existence is heavily reliant on the ‘legitimate’ use of coercive power by the state.
Proudhon’s second statement, ‘property is freedom’, mirrors the current understanding but lacks the language which we now have available. The social sciences have quite shown that the real issue is access to economic resources (meaning anything from food to education to healthcare). Private property per se may not be the problem so much as the privileges which are extended to owners and what we decide can be owned. There is nothing natural about the idea of owning things, particularly natural resources, as can be seen from the fact that more and more things are being made into ownable private property. This is the neoliberal enclosure movement, another revolution of the rich against the poor where, as in the British enclosure, the rich are often simply gifted ownership of previously commonly held or state-owned resources. At the other end of the spectrum the necessary corollary is that those who don’t own things are progressively stripped of access to resources. One example of this is famine. We are led to believe that famine arises because there is not enough food. This is simply untrue in every respect. Food shortages play a role, but not because of simple ‘supply and demand’ or even, to any significant level, hoarding, but because they prompt predatory speculation which inflates food prices at a time when many have simultaneously lost income through, say, crop failure. More nuanced economicspeak would have it that famines arise because of ‘distribution’ problems, an anodyne usage which leads us to think that its because there aren’t enough trucks or roads. What it really means is that people starve to death because they have no money. A nice piece of paper like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all very well, but our actual system of governance in the real world says that you do not have the right to live unless you can buy food. Those condemned to die are diproportionately children and one of the most obscene aspects of famine is that their parents are forced to choose which of their own children they will kill by denying food and to then watch them slowly die. I just think that we should bear that sort of thing in mind when we get into hypothetical arguments about the rights of the corner dairy owner (whom, in any case, we should probably be trying to awaken to the fact that they are also oppressed by the same system).
COLLECTIVISM
The left-wing is strongly associated with collectivism as both a means of allowing the masses to exert power and as a way of building a society without, or with less, inequality. This coincides with the fraternity/community/solidarity thing. As mentioned, I’m a bit of an individualist who sees collectivism more as a necessity than as something desirable in itself, so I will leave it to others to discuss.
CONSCIOUSNESSES
Marxists gave us ‘class consciousness’ and it has been incorporated by other left-wing movements. In basic terms it is a recognition of a societal structure of inequality and injustice. In individual cases it has become problematic, and there may be a need to redefine classes with some of the middle classes having become, essentially, privileged proletarians while many lesser capitalists are subject to the expropriation of their own labour value which actually goes to bigger oligopolistic or monopolistic interests. At the same time an executive class robs capital from investors. Nevertheless, there is a role for class consciousness if it is not dogmatic. At the same time, the left-wing has also discovered numerous other ‘consciousnesses’ which point to the structural elements of an unjust society. Thus the left-wing is: CLASS, RACE, GENDER and ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS. ‘Race’ can be taken to include ethnicity, ‘gender’ to include sexuality. Thus post-structuralism, which asserts that all of this ‘identity’ politics is irrelevant in today’s pluralist world (after all, there’s a black man in the Whitehouse) is actually a right-wing stance.
ENLIGHTENMENT
The left-wing is broadly associated with many enlightenment values: rationality; empiricism; atheism/agnosticism/secular humanism and opposition to religion or organised religion; and logical positivism. I don’t deny that there have been excesses and misuses (although as often as not by those who are otherwise in a firmly right-wing stance), but it is safe to say that, however vaguely and amorphously, something like postmodernism is inclined to be right-wing. Many left-wingers have advocated the abandonment of ‘progress’ and a return to a more ‘primitive’ state (most notably ‘Tolstoyan’ anarchists) but most are more inclined to embrace technology. This is another conflict which I think may be successfully resolved, but perhaps another time.
CHANGE
Quite simply, the right-wing believes in preserving the status quo (conservatism) or returning to a prior system (reaction, as in ‘reactionary’). The left-wing (Tolstoy notwithstanding) is supportive of progressive change, usually radical if not revolutionary.
OPTIMISM
The left-wing believes that people are basically good and believes that problems are solved by ending systemic and structural constraints and ending the domination of narrow elites. The left-wing stance is one that seeks to empower people, hence support of various mass-based power formations from syndicalism to grassroots activism. The right-wing, from Hobbes to Friedman, basically believes that people are nasty, greedy and horrible. I would put that down to a case of projection. Also rather right-wing (when you get down to it) is Leninist vanguardism and the sort of elitist liberalism embraced by many in the establishment who think that people are too stupid to run their own lives. This is another issue that could be discussed at length because, let’s be realistic, what with the current ideological climate, there is considerable room for taking a (maybe) left-wing stance that is somewhat elitist, but if there is an explicit intent to end people’s ideological blinders and empower them I think that this still falls within the bounds of the ‘left-wing.’ I think it is also important to recognise that a left-wing stance supports the free flow of information, which may be the most important fight for us all.
UNIVERSALISM
The left-wing has a strong association with universalism and internationalism. The only point I would make about that is that although parochial nationalism is obviously right-wing, when opposing imperialism or predatory globalisation, we should recognise that nationalism may be a non-parochial defensive response, not seeking to privilege one’s own little tribe but rather to fight the oppression of powerful foreign or transnational forces.
I promised to be comprehensive, but I think there are still more things to be detailed, however time is past short. I think that we as a group need to formulate a strong, uncompromising understanding of, or maybe even statement of, our core beliefs. Taking such a stance need not constrain tactical options, nor will it alienate people. Instead, even if people argue on practical grounds, they will at least have to respect the fact that we are taking a solid principled stance. Many of the core beliefs of the left are hard to argue against on grounds of principle and the right likes to stick to specious assertions of pragmatism. They even try to assert that deepening the world’s injustices will somehow benefit those who suffer most from those very injustices. The left already starts on the moral high ground, and I am somewhat nonplussed that so many seem so eager to abandon it and descend to the mud pit domain of the right to fight battles where the terms are dictated by their opponents.
Jesus. You have a lot to say on the topic. I’m glad my rant got you going! I will respond at length when I get a chance. Thanks for commenting.
I have no idea what the Left really is nowadays. In Australia, the Socialist Parties are apologists for Islamism. I don’t see how a true Marxist / Socialist can really consider themselves on the same side as people who wave placards saying “Behead all those who insult the prophet”.
I’m not sure what you mean. Similar charges have been levelled at left groups and the anti-war movement in the UK. There is a tendency to conflate working with the Muslim community in the West – who are subject to a smearing redefinition and an ideological assault – with support for Islamism. That tenedency is to take on board the eloquent, but deeply precarious, Hitchens-type narrative; which I don’t. Though I am a committed atheist. Personally, I will always argue against religion, but the war on terror has almost nothing to do with religion, in my view.
I don’t think the reasons for creating a “war on terror” in the minds of the neoconservatives were necessarily religious reasons. They may have cynically played a slightly religious hand in order to amass support from the religious right. Elements of the Left saw it as a war specifically on Muslims — a mantra that’s repeated in Socialist newspapers and in student groups. Therefore there’s a need to stand by the victims of the war — who are primarily seen in a religious light. That rationale forgets the percentage of the population in Iraq and Afghanistan who are not Muslim and are also victims of the “war on terror”.
I’m digressing a little bit. I guess what I’m saying is, the Left that sees the war in religious terms then finds themselves defending religious, instead of humanistic ideals. Or at the very least, blurring the matter with overly-emotive language. As a “Leftist” I found myself bristling when Islamists carried signs through Australian streets saying “Behead all those who mock the prophet” and then on the front page of the Socialist Alliance newspaper the headline was “Racist cops attack peaceful protest”… And that’s pretty much as deep as it goes. There are ideas that aren’t peaceful and or vaguely “Leftist” and some of those ideas happen to be heralded under the name of Islamic ideology, by SOME Muslims. When similiar hate-filled ideas are spread by Christians, white racists or neoconservatives, they are rightly condemned by the Left. But these ideas are left unchallenged when it comes to Islam.
I think that’s what I meant. Though it’s such tender ground to walk on I decided to stop publicly talking about it, and then I just saw you’d responded to my comment — which was a kind of unclarified comment and I should’ve put more thought into it initially…
I see where you are coming from, I’ve never seen the left in the UK carrying signs like that. It would be political idiocy to do so. Likewise, I’ve never heard a leftist here frame the War on Terror as primarily religious, as you say, it just ain’t. Except possibly some of the Zionist-type socialists, but at the start of the anti-war movement here groups like that, and groups which said ‘we cant work with Muslims because they are this and that’ were kicked to the curb.
I have huge problems with religion, that said I’ve genuinely never actually met a Muslim who was that politically crap in any of the movements. I don’t think they would last at all long.
Interestingly though, one of the most impressive sections of the activist community here is composed of very fiery, very effective young Muslim women, blokes need to catch up badly.
Presumably there are some, but they probably avoid the movements or keep that stuff stashed for fear of being (rightly) pilloried.
I guess some of that depends on the milieu, and though I lived there on the run, I never got a sense of the Left in Oz so I don’t know how its composed. I was under the impression it was quite good.
You’re right about tribalism. Everyone concerned about their own pigeon and can’t see the common enemy. I find it very frustrating. Even in a small environmental group or a ‘peace and justice’ group people don’t want to help each other, the more powerful are seeking support for their very particular cause. Not enough solidarity.