| 
|
Present
imperfect – future tense? In Search of a New Vision
by Chris Chilvers and Richard Searle - 30 June 2008
Such are the days that shall be! But
What are the deeds of today
In the days of the years we dwell in
That wear our lives away?
Why, then, and for what are we waiting?
There are but three words to speak
We will it, and what is the foeman
But the dream strong wakened and weak?
R. Tressell, The Ragged
Trousered Philanthropists (1914), P. 504.
Download
as pdf
‘The
dream strong wakened and weak’ indeed. Marxists are always
aware in varying degrees of our history but usually rather less
aware of the demands of the present and the future. What is it to
be a revolutionary in the 21st century in Western Europe? Why do
we consider revolution as possible? What are we doing this for?
‘In
the days of the years we dwell in’
What is the meaning of these days? Globalization has reshaped much
of the world in uneven, haphazard but real ways. It has been thoroughly
destabilizing across the world and in every aspect of our lives.
Think about the art of communication alone and how it has changed
in the past ten or even five years. One feature in Britain has been
a thorough restructuring of the working class as it was previously
understood. The ‘big battalions’ of labour with the
huge workplaces have gone for the most part, replaced by offices,
supermarkets and highly specialized sectors of engineering (to take
one example). Huge employers remain in a few areas such as the NHS
with 1.4 million employees but the traditions of an identity conscious
working class with traditions of mass struggle has fallen away.
The offices and supermarkets have not developed this tradition and
so the sense of working class consciousness is yet to reappear.
When it does, it is likely to do so in new ways and forms. Wage
labour still exists as the defining relationship of capitalism but
it is heavily mitigated by most workers understanding of their lives.
There are areas of the world where the growth of the working class
has been based around manufacturing industry and the traditional
model. In Argentina, Brazil and Chile for example, to be a working
class activist thirty years ago would have meant prison or the football
stadium (and not to watch a game) but now mass workers parties have
emerged. More than this, the political expression of socialist ideas
has been dominated by the continuance of Cuba’s regime, Hugo
Chavez and Subcomandante Marcos and the awesome Zapatista rebellion
in Mexico.
The Seattle explosion, the push for global justice and the anger
at global poverty have given birth to occasional movements against
the global institutions of the world economy. The growing awareness
of climate change and its disastrous implications has politicized
environmental movements and fed into the anger at effete global
institutions of capitalism. These movements have involved organizational
and political forms of expression that challenge the left’s
traditional methods and the left has struggled to adapt. What does
this mean for how we act as revolutionary socialists, the forms
of organization we are involved with and the language we use?
Globalization has also involved war and the assertion of imperial
power. This has been profoundly contradictory but has represented
the attempt by the US government to break free of the lack of confidence
borne of the Vietnam defeat. Nowhere has this been unchallenged
and nowhere has it secured a victory or even proceeded as designed.
However, the US and British governments have remained committed
to these adventures and all the ‘shock and awe’ propaganda
this brings. There have been powerful and stunningly strong indigenous
movements of resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq but these have not
been leftist in character in any sense. There has been a permanent
requirement for an anti-war movement in Britain but this has taken
different forms and complexions. The mass audience for the anti-imperialist
message and the autonomous and complex politics of the indigenous
movements of resistance raise significant questions for revolutionaries.
How do we argue as anti-imperialists and support non leftist resistance
movements?
The fall of Stalinism has been a major contributory factor to the
demise of leftist resistance movements. It has also contributed
to the decay of working class identity in the last thirty years.
Many activists viewed the collapse of the Soviet Union as the historic
end of Marxism and the socialist project. The sense of defeat that
demoralized many has robbed the labour movement of huge amounts
of experience, tradition and knowledge. This did not just affect
the communist parties but the reformist left as well, which was
heavily influenced by varying shades of sympathy and ‘Cold
War’ loyalty to the ‘socialist camp’. Much as
we despised Stalinism, its Western corollary did act as the intellectual
glue of the labour movement.
Likewise the post Second World War tradition of Marxist organization,
especially among ‘Trotskyist’ groups has proved equally
time limited. This has been characterized by a complete lack of
success in reaching a mass audience. Such was the absorption and
distortion of Marxist politics and strategy that much of the left
has developed organizations that bear a closer relation to Stalinism
than Marxism. Given the singular lack of success of the last sixty
years, should we try to follow the prescription again? If not, what
ways should we work in? How should we work together? Why should
we work together and as revolutionaries now? Is this the end of
an entire historical episode? Is it the beginning of another?
‘Better
phone up Robin Hood. Ask him for some wealth distribution’
This is not an argument for throwing out the whole tradition that
we have tried to build. Rather it is an argument for re-assessing
the tradition in a thoroughgoing way that examines its relevance.
If there is to be ‘re-groupment’, is it to be much like
the formulas of the last thirty years? None of these have been particularly
successful.
The pressing requirement to construct broad parties of the left
is not accidental. It is the logic of the impact of the collapse
of Stalinism in taking away whole layers of experience and vision
from the movement. It is the logic of the changing world of globalization,
imperial power, non leftist resistance movements and a restructured
working class struggling to find its identity. Respect has the potential
to be such a broad party. At present, the Green Party also has this
potential, though a split is likely in the event of the ascendancy
of the Green Left. The coalescing of a Green Left is an important
dimension of the anti-war movement and the political turmoil of
the Labour government.
The construction of these parties, their politics, culture, democracy,
community oriented strategy and organizational strength poses enormous
challenges to revolutionaries. Building campaigning parties that
stand for more than elections is a challenge. This is an aspect
of the resistance we are building. There are other types and aspects
of resistance that will pose challenges of this magnitude. What
is our relationship to these projects? How does this affect our
activity as Respect members or as Green Party members? Should we
be politically exclusive?
‘There
are but three words to speak. We will it.’
What is the nature of common struggle? When we link arms in solidarity,
why do we do it? We all wish to build the struggle in any way possible
and this often involves solidarity with those that fight back. How
do we do this in a meaningful way that builds long term support
for our ideas? These are important questions that raise uncomfortable
conclusions about some of the cardinal principles on which we have
organized historically. We have very small numbers compared to our
tasks and it is clear that democratic centralism does not fit as
an organizational method for any grouping of revolutionaries that
emerges. At present, it is not fit for purpose. Indeed, with the
kind of tasks before us, it is a serious question to wonder if it
will ever be the correct form of organization again.
What is the essence of being a revolutionary? Is it to carry around
our principles as baggage for all to see and wonder at? What have
we learned? What have we shared? How and why do we organize with
fellow revolutionaries? Reflection is a precious and valuable asset
that many of us are poorly skilled to use. We need to learn to educate
ourselves as well as agitate, to reflect upon our experiences in
trying to build a broad party, to do this collectively. This demands
an alternative form of organization derived more from the global
justice movement than from the post war Marxist – the loose
collective model that does not establish itself as separate from
the wider party. A national grouping of such collectives will necessarily
have a federated structure with a high degree of autonomy that permits
the maximum political development of local leaders within the broad
party. Shouldn’t we avoid false dichotomies in the new party?
Are we trying to build a transitional party ‘formation’
or a stable political culture and force that can grow into something
much larger?
We firmly believe that Respect represents the birth of the latter
force that can form a core political location and culture for the
larger re-alignments of the left (not necessarily the traditional
left) that takes shape in the next decade. In order to develop an
effective, non-sectarian current of revolutionaries, the collectives
will need to conduct themselves with complete transparency, openness
and in a manner that is consistently fraternal. Discussion, reflection
and collective experience sharing in building Respect and in the
meaning of being a revolutionary now are good aims.
Our activism in building Respect and the networks and alliances
that will promote the aims of Respect should speak for itself.
Please feel free to discuss these and other proposals.
Chris Chilvers, Richard Searle
|
