A fascinating, if lopsided post is topping the Tomb at the moment.
I say lopsided because it is focused on intra-left discussion and interaction; probably because the original article was focused on the idea of a Coalition of the Radical Left (if anyone cares to respond to this you’ll be responding to a response to a response). A small observation: the word ‘radical’ has been bled of almost all meaning. Applying radical politics should mean going to the root of a problem. One of the earliest uses of this metaphor was in the English Revolution, the Root and Branch Petition, which called for the abolition of the church hierarchy.
And it’s just here we can get ourselves into all sorts of difficulty. Just what is the problem and exactly how do we get to the root of it? For example: in some quarters you’ll hear no end of arguments about whether the current crisis is due to capitalism or corporatism. Leaving aside the whether we can do something about either of these two phenomena right now, the two problems posed, capitalism and corporatism, suggest two very different solutions. This means two forms of activity, two movements, in the end two parties, not one.
But, I guess, at this point, radical can be fairly well understood as opposed to austerity politics, not a bad means for regrouping. The immediate job is to clarify and popularise anti-austerity politics. The difficulty (for the British left) identified by the original author is the very loaded, winner-takes-all political system. Another, more important, difficulty is the monolithic nature of British trade unionism. There’s only one meaningful federation of unions and it’s tied to the Labour party. Though it could be powerful it is often the Lion that Squeaked.
The point is, without some surprising social upheaval, a British May 68 (and with hindsight the original May 68 wasn’t so surprising), a new left is going to be stuck for many years, unable to make an impact or even regularly manifest itself.
Some points then:
1) If we’re talking about a Coalition Against Everything then the net shouldn’t be cast too widely and the aims should not be too high. The thing has to hold together through difficult times.
2) If we’re talking about at Coalition Against Something, a particular aspect of austerity, then it makes perfect sense to widen the coalition within the bounds of effective action.
3) Two axioms – limited initial success plus the need for effective action equals concentrating on areas where progress can be made. For example: building a rank and file group amongst workers with sectional strength that can press its claims against the bosses and the union leadership. Narrow campaigns, as opposed to broad, demonstrative ones – we are not a Feb 15th Re-enactment Society.
4) Everything Lenin says about the conduct of debate, but in particular the righteous urge to demand everyone bury their differences – NOW. Sometimes it’s not the People’s Front of Judea vs the Judean People’s Front. Sometimes, every now and then, arguments happen over important principles. Any formal structure must allow for this.