Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Nostalgia for the Left

14:14 / 09.12.03

(Mods feel free to move if the conversation seems to be headshoppy enough)

I was talking about to an old college lecturer of mine today (request for a reference which he was happy to grant, I’m pleased to say) and he mentioned the fact that his students are now of a different generation to me and him (he’s 38, I’m 31). He said “the Miners strike is ancient history to them,” which shocked me. No reason it should do really, after all it’s nearly 20 years ago. I’m not running a straw poll on who remembers it or not – most of you are a few years younger than me, so chances are not that many of you will have good recall – but it’s interesting because this was such a pivotal event in the history of the Labour movement in this country. I feel that one could almost date the victory of market forces over the idea of the shared social good to this moment. The feeling I get is that today people almost don’t expect anything from politics, they just want to get their heads down and get on with it - any vision of changing the world through political action has been lost. What do people think of this statement? Am I just indulging in negative nostalgia?

As I was writing this I thought of the anti-globalisation movement. While by and large, I think this is a great thing, it very heavily defines itself against something and it doesn’t really address people’s everyday lives in the same way as the concerns of the old Left used to do – there’s no sense of a social plan or vision here - I don’t know really what I’m trying to get at here, so help me out. I’m just trying to gauge reactions, I guess, trying to assess how people feel about the prospect of changing the world, or how their peers and contemporaries feel. Has that sense that the world might change completely disappeared? What has taken it’s place? Sometimes it seems like a market driven vision of "public services" is all we've got to choose from...

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:53 / 09.12.03

Am I just indulging in negative nostalgia?

Maybe.

But I think the problem is not that the popular left is dead, I think the problem is that the term "left-wing" has been much abused and stolen and distorted of late. A lot of bullshit has been written and spoken about how the "old" distinctions of left and right aren't accurate anymore, because a bunch of corrupt old former lefties support the War On Terror and because New Labour exist...

But it's really a lot more simple than that, because Blair and co. are right-wing fucks, the supporters of American imperialism are right-wing fucks, even if they don't know it or admit to it. To be left wing is to say, basically, that power should not be concentrated in the hands of a small group of people who are very intent on abusing that power in order to increase it, and that the general population of the world should not suffer at the hands of the powerful. Thus, the so-called "anti-globalisation" movement (a terrible misnomer whether applied by the people doing it or commentators) IS left-wing, and don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise. I would also strongly disagree with your criticisms that there is no sense of "social plan or vision" in current progressive activist movements, too, but that might be best discussed elsewhere (there are previous threads which might suit, mostly in the Switchboard, where I suspect this thread belongs too).

15:54 / 09.12.03

I am of an age that remembers the miners' strike quite well, and I have to say I side with Mr Illmatic.

Of course, there are some old-school lefties still around, but things have changed, I assure you. No one very much demands renationalisation of industry anymore, apart from possibly the railways. They never will. You see, it's all gone. Possibly as a result, most students now are not so much interested in Karl Marx materialism as Jimmy Choo materialism.

What is the "anti-globalist" manifesto? Isolationism. That's it. Maybe that is left-wing, if one assumes that less-rich countries, once stripped of their Starbucks and left to their own devices, will ascend into glorious socialism ... but there isn't really a plan, is there, apart from blaming everything on the Yanks. And ignoring China's and Russia's little mistakes. But then they're not so left-wing now as they were either, so even that makes little sense.

Perhaps it is the relativism that allowed the left to take on board different political and social perspectives that was its own undoing. If one takes the standpoint that all things are different but equal, from where does one's conviction for socialism, or anything in particular, come? Or perhaps it was the right-wing plan all along, emphasising people's individualism and the state's accountability, without bothering to introduce a sense of responsibility to the rest of the community in its place.

Favourite moment from the good old days? Born Tories saying, "That Arthur Scargill was a fucking troublemaker. But he was right about them shutting down all the mines, wasn't he?"

17:13 / 09.12.03

Am I just indulging in negative nostalgia?

Yes, I think so, and I think it may be because you're equating "vision of changing the world through political action" with "a social plan or vision". You won't find a coherent social plan or vision in the "anti-globalisation movement" because that's not what it's for. You will find a lot of people who are there for a lot of different reasons that may not agree with each other at all, but they all have a vision.

Modern politics aren't necessarily about finding a one-stop ideology that provides a solution for everything, particular in more protest-based areas. It's a distinct advantage for the "anti-globalisation" or "anti-war" movements not to have a coherent ideology, because the lack of one makes it very hard to propagandise against them (except with the argument that 1. all movements must have an ideology therefore 2. this movement has an ideology but 3. it is silly as it's not coherent - frequently used but nonsense) and harder to physically squash them. The very idea seems extremely difficult for governments and their reactionary supporters to understand; look at the amazing efforts that have been made to characterise anti-war protestors as Stalinist/Maoist dupes and Mayday protestors as anarchists, despite the obvious counter-examples.

Decentralised, goal-centred action is the way it goes nowadays. Perhaps the idea of changing the world through mainstream political action, getting elected, writing letters to parliament etc has decreased, and a good thing too.

Tryphena Absent

18:16 / 09.12.03

I remember the miner's strikes and I was very young at the time... I was brought up on the left of the left though.

I think what you're recognising is not the death of the left wing but the re-structuring. The problem of course is that the left, twenty years ago failed terribly, much as the Babylon project did. Cohesive as it was it did not triumph because the right wing was both the more forceful and better organised group. The anti-globalisation movement is quite different, it works in a disparate way, groups come together at the last minute and there's not a force with political power there, only people power and that's something different and far harder to define.

Politics in this country are screwed at the moment because the left lacks cohesion so severely. People are all over the place with their 'we can reclaim the party' vs. 'I'm ripping up my labour card'. I think that needs to be addressed sharpish if we want political power and people need to make their own views work together. We need unity.

19:23 / 09.12.03

Okay, could mods move this to the Switchboard, please.

I've got a lot of thoughts on this so 'scuse me for not addressing all points raised. I think I was being partly driven by nostalgia here, after all, it was reflection on the past that made me start the thread. As normal, writing things down here helps me get them clearer for myself. I was not trying to critque the "anti-globalisation" (bleuuurgh) movement as such, those thouughts just occured to me because this is where those the focus of activism is now. I do feel though that for change to happen, and this "movement" (bleufgh again) to acheive some of it's goals, it has to connect with the concerns and lives of ordinary people in the West. This is why there has been such virulent resitance to GM crops for example, in a way that there won't be over say, third world poverty and debt.

I think what I was trying to do was to articulate the change I've perceived in popular (domstic) politics over the last 15 years or so, and see if other people shared that perception. I hate the way everything seems to bow to the logic of the market now, rather than any sense of a shared social good. Even with an oestensible "collective" project like the NHS, it's still talked about in consumerist buisness jargon, with "users" receiving competeing, market driven services (often with direct market involvement/profiteering lurking in the background in the form of PFI and the like). What I want to do with this thread is ask people if they share my perception - and if so, what can be about it?

I disagree with Fridge's closing point above - surely the surrender of any faith or involvement with mainstream politcal ideas is disenfranchising yourself, and giving up a shared responsibiliy? I personally don't have much (ie. pretty much zero) faith in the mainstream political parties but the electoral system is the way that most people interact with politics in this country, to the minimal extent that they do. Do we really want to give up on that completely and operate solely from the outside?

23:34 / 09.12.03

Who's surrendering anything? I never had faith in it in the first place (well, perhaps for a few hours when I was younger).

Nobody's saying that you should give up the electoral system entirely but it is just one of a number of means that one can use to influence policy, and to be honest a fairly minor and ineffectual one IMO, because to get to a position of influence you have to compromise yourself in so many ways that you will find yourself unable to accomplish much. That's the *point* of it. It only goes so far.

If you've seen an increasing level of self-interest and so on in mainstream politics that's because it is dominated by philosophies such as neo-liberalism that restrict the scope of action and debate to a very narrow agenda. Now, you could argue that this could be turned around from the inside but I am of the opinion that it was never very different from that in the first place - the details of the philosophies of the day may have changed but they were always self-interested. I think the fact that people are increasingly coming to the conclusion that electoral politics won't solve things on their own is a positive thing, frankly.

All the interests that are successful in changing things the way they want to - business interests, politicians themselves - use alternate methods instead of or as well as getting people to vote. Old-boy networks, bribery, propaganda, FUD or indeed terrorism and other aspects of military force. Getting votes is just one aspect of how they get and maintain power. Why should a serious political activist do otherwise? (Not suggesting that the same tactics are to be used, of course....) Concentrating on votes is just restricting yourself. It's what they want you to think will work.

07:19 / 10.12.03

One thing I'm *not* nostalgic for is the dualism that served for leftist thinking through the '80s, really the inverse of official Cold War thinking. The US supported the Peruvian dictators, so we must uncritically support the Shining Path, even though they've got death squads too, that sort of thing. The '90s brought a welcome change with the Zapatistas who realized that both international capitalists and leftist ideologues saw people as tools at best and disposable inconveniences at worst. In short, it didn't really matter who's kicking you around, and life is too short to define yourself only in terms of what you're against.

The global activist movement is diffuse, and its spectacular aspects (marches, Black Bloc types and agents provocateurs) mask the quiet local and global initiatives, like the international farmers' movement called Paysans (sp?) and led somewhat by Jose' (bulldozer through the McDonald's) Bove', or the photojournalism project that gave Philippine farmers a camcorder to document land grabs and killings.

The old left is pretty much dead. The right learned to use its tactics (fake grass-roots aka "Astro-Turf" organizations)) or its very language ("political correctness"). The left, old or new, is still hampered by its tendency to try tolerance and dialogue with an opponent who wants neither. At some point you have to fight.

Tryphena Absent

08:55 / 10.12.03

the electoral system is the way that most people interact with politics in this country, to the minimal extent that they do. Do we really want to give up on that completely and operate solely from the outside?

Getting votes is just one aspect of how they get and maintain power. Why should a serious political activist do otherwise?

To just make a point about the power structures within government- do you really think that the rebellion against top up fees would be taking place if people hadn't protested against Iraq? And the vote for Foundation Hospitals was so close. I think the left wing has got some results from the political action taken even if those results have been on a tangent. Most people in this country are making a mistake, it's clear that your vote counts for little if you disagree with the type of centre politics that the major parties condone. I don't think we should give up on a party that we can vote for but I also think that it will emerge from the kind of left organisations that we have now.

At some point you have to fight

I think that the problem the left wing has is its reluctance to term things in a way that the right understands. They've stolen our ground but we seem not to be able to take their's without becoming turncoats. That's ridiculous- we need to address things directly to the right wing in a way that they get and hold on to our values at the same time.

13:19 / 10.12.03

Or at least go after the undecideds. Some people you'll never convince. You only have to outvote, outspend or outshout them. Co-opting the language and concepts helps a bit. I used to have trouble convincing people back in the US how evil urinalysis on the job was. Having to prove their innocence didn't bother them. I made more headway reminding them that being under threat of the piss test meant you were really on the job 168 hours, and you're being paid only 40.

13:19 / 10.12.03

One thing I'm *not* nostalgic for is the dualism that served for leftist thinking through the '80s, really the inverse of official Cold War thinking. The US supported the Peruvian dictators, so we must uncritically support the Shining Path, even though they've got death squads too, that sort of thing.

Sadly, that's still with us ... Israel/Palestine? The Taliban? And there's some tortuous thinking too as regards "moral equivalency."

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:33 / 10.12.03

Please, Ignatius, point me to some current prominent left-wingers who "uncritically support"[ed] the Taliban or... actually, I don't understand what you mean by "Israel/Palestine" here, but I'm not aware of any leftist commentators who "uncritically support" suicide bombings. They just tend to uncritically support the right of the Palestinian people to exist without fear of oppression in their own homes, which I'm aware is sadly considered crazy militant extremism in some circles, but strikes me as a pretty basic, moderate position.

13:44 / 10.12.03

Flyboy, don't be so disingenious, you're perfectly capable of understanding what Ignatius means, it just happens that you don't agree with it. Busy day today but try and put some more comments in a bit. If people want to have arguements about Israel vs Palestine /"moral equivalancy" and so on, please start another thread.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:10 / 10.12.03

I'm not being disingenuous at all. I'm giving Ignatius the benefit of the doubt, by assuming that what he means by his very elliptical statement is that amongst the left-wing, there exists a significant amount of uncritical support for those acts of terrorist violence which are committed by Palestinians. Since I've never encountered this myself, I'm curious to know to whom he is referring.

14:17 / 10.12.03

I'm not really qualified to speak for the 80s, I was a bit young for most of the decade and not really political at all, but I see "dualism" being used as a propaganda stick used by pro-government commentators. e.g. "You're against attacking Iraq so you must be pro-Saddam". I'm sure I don't need to go into all the reasons why that's bollocks but it does work, and ties into the overall historical revisionism (not only did we not support Saddam but those lefties never said a word about the evil man).

But there's a reality underlying that. I often have a comedy moment when arguing online with a Bush supporter who suddenly comes out with "well, Clinton did much worse". Excuse me? Who gives a shit? You want talk about Clinton being a bastard? Well, I can do that too, but one president at a time, eh?

Their reaction, though, is based on an assumption of reflex factionalism that is not entirely untrue. There are many people out there who do basically argue against anything Bush does because he's on the other team, and defend anyone on their own team. Throwing beer cans at the other team's mascot. With the transformation of the Labour party having become so obvious that even the most die-hard supporter can't ignore it, I think that is less of a problem in the UK, but the idea that the two-party US system can provide all the answers still seems to be popular here. Maybe I'm being pessimistic.

Myself, I'm not altogether on anyone's side, because no-one is altogether on my side.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:29 / 10.12.03

Let me second what fridge said and try to be more general than I have been so we don't veer off-topic: it is as common for people who oppose the dominant ideology to be misrepresented, as it is for people to fall into the trap of excusing all kinds of acts because it was done by people on "their" side. There is also a woolly liberal position that basically says "everyone is as bad as each other" when it comes to issues such as the Middle East - very handy as it sounds reassuringly 'fair' and 'moderate' and insightful whilst simultaneously absolving oneself of either complicity in what is going on or even the need to trouble oneself with difficult things like facts. I'm not accusing anyone here of adopting that position, but sadly it exists. Those who differ from this position are often painted as dogmatic ideologues, and I'm more than a little tired of this tendency.

14:55 / 10.12.03

Flyboy, you are being disingenuous.

For a start, we are talking about the popular left-wing here, not just what some mealy-mouthed "prominent commentator" manged to get published in the Guardian.

If you have never heard anyone say, in real life, "they fucking deserve it," then I'm afraid we are talking at cross-purposes. And what, do you think, is so critical about the line (you can probably google this whole phrase) "I don't condone suicide bombings, but I support the Palestinians' right to armed struggle"? What is "armed struggle" if it doesn't include the use of explosives? Is it like arm-wrestling?

17:34 / 10.12.03

I agree with Flyboy that the anti-globalisation movement (which is really misnamed and does not stand for isolationism) is left wing. And while its lack of ideology is a strength, I think it is also a weakness. Protesting against something requires that you have an alternative, at least in specific instances. Preferably one should have some attempt at a coherent alternative. But I'm not sure that this is the left falling down where once they stood strong. I mean, one could argue that the uniformity of national politics is in part to do with globalisation and shifts of power. So the left has to deal with a whole new situation and is still finding its feet.

Not sure how much I buy that - I think one would need to factor in the apathy inducing effects of the economy too - but you could make a case for it.

Not really sure where else this thread is headed, but a couple of disjointed points.

But it's really a lot more simple than that, because Blair and co. are right-wing fucks, the supporters of American imperialism are right-wing fucks, even if they don't know it or admit to it. - Flyboy

I disagree with that, but it would probably be best not to rot this thread.

If you have never heard anyone say, in real life, "they fucking deserve it," then I'm afraid we are talking at cross-purposes. - IJ

If you mean this in reference to 9/11, then I've heard things which came close. Privately I did sometimes get the impression that explanations of how abuses of US power have consequences masked some personal grim satisfaction. I think that factionalism can distort one's priorities. That said, I think deploring the implied "moral equivalence" of one of us with one of them is really just a propoganda tool, used to silence criticism.

And what, do you think, is so critical about the line... "I don't condone suicide bombings, but I support the Palestinians' right to armed struggle"? What is "armed struggle" if it doesn't include the use of explosives? Is it like arm-wrestling? IJ

Interesting. I never had you down as a pacifist, IJ.

16:50 / 11.12.03

Hmmm...In the US at any rate, the left seems to be hopelessly mired in ivory tower academia & intellectualism. The left doesn't seem to be able to connect with what many people FEEL inside, but can't or won't articulate. Which is why anarchism (at least as a concept) has much more appeal on a mass level; many are voicing anarchist ideas without even realizing it.