John Lister’s review of  Mark Perryman’s Compass ‘Think Pieces’ pamphlet ‘We’re all in this together’ is taken from the upcoming issue of Socialist Resistance. There was quite a bit of discussion around the original posting on this so if you feel moved to comment do try to avoid going over old ground.

ivesfavorites To judge from this barely coherent 5-page pamphlet, Mark Perryman appears to live in what folk singer Burl Ives once described as the “Big Rock Candy Mountain”, in which there are cigarette trees, lemonade springs, a soda water fountain, the hens lay soft boiled eggs, and ‘a bum can stay for a year and a day and won’t need any money’.

In today’s brutal political conjuncture, with the melt-down of Labour’s traditional support, rock-bottom levels of trade union struggle, a nascent racist right and a congenitally divided political left, Perryman’s fantasy world undeniably has certain attractions.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could just teach the world to sing, and form a big broad political alliance linking up all the people we seem to agree with, without any conflict or clashes, and ensure that they could work together in perfect harmony?

In fact wouldn’t it be even better if instead of having to go through the uncomfortable process of political debate, the fragmentation of existing parties, and the formation of a new one to represent the working class, we could just clump together all the existing parties, and groups within parties, that we agree with – and ignore the fact that those parties each have their membership structure, discipline, and bond of loyalty which holds on to their members even when they disagree on very big questions.

Who could disagree that this would be lovely? And who would prefer Perryman’s stereotypical vision of the “leftist” alternative, an equally spurious, but entirely negative world, in which he sees:

“Slogans confused with principles, the scattergun politics of self-righteous denunciation of others, devoid of any sense of self-awareness and their own weaknesses, no compromise as the beginning, middle and end of any political conversation. Together these spell the fast track to the jaws of defeat and irrelevancy…”

Of course there are ultra-lefts in British politics, and those whose view of a workers’ party we find sectarian and unconvincing. There are those on the left whose recent and historic track record is of dividing rather than uniting, of splits motivated by sectarian interests, of building front organisations rather than alliances, of deciding campaign priorities and activities purely in pursuit of maximising their own membership.

But that does not by any means characterise everyone to the left of Mark Perryman, many of whom also reject his caricature notion of leftist politics: nor does Perryman appear to allow any possibility of the sectarianism on the right wing of the movement, that same sectarianism for example which has been behind the adamant refusal of the Green Party leadership up to now to strike any electoral alliance or collaboration with Respect or any party to its left, even in wards and constituencies where it has no hope and no actual campaign.

Perryman, who was for a brief period co-opted on to the Respect National Council after the departure of the SWP, is writing for Compass, a loose, leftish grouping which emerged after the ignominious collapse of the Campaign Group of MPs, and which is dominated by political figures clinging to the wreckage of the post-Blair Labour Party, including Labour MPs, and former SDPers such as the Guardian’s Polly Toynbee.

Compass is not a rallying point for those breaking from Labour so much as a collection of those still seeking to regroup, “reclaim the Labour Party”, lobby Brown for less unattractive policies, and draw in support from those who are already gone to the left of Labour. Its recent conference even included Brown’s Deputy, Harriet Harman and other Ministers from Brown’s government.

Perryman lauds this grouping, but studiously ignores the significant political moves in the unions, notably the RMT’s central role in the recent No 2EU electoral initiative, and the proposals from the civil service union PCS for a possible electoral challenge to Labour.

Perryman singles out people who he claims are moving towards his views – Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas, Respect Party leader Salma Yaqoob, John Hilary from War On Want, and a Red Pepper “left academic”, and concludes:

“Different responses, same idea. The ideals and values that seek to preserve the best of a social democracy effectively dumped by Blairist-Brownite Labour”

Yet the ideas are clearly not the same at all.

Caroline Lucas is not subscribing to “the best of social democracy” (whatever that may mean) but leading the Green Party; Respect’s Salma Yaqoob spoke strongly in the Compass conference denouncing New Labour and calling for unity behind left candidates at the next election, while none of the leading Labour Party figures in Compass has shown any inclination to break from electoral support for Labour.

Perryman’s even more fanciful ideas reach even further, imagining a new “left” including Vince Cable and some of his fellow Liberal Democrats – all of them doggedly loyal to the third party of British capitalism.

Of course it is tempting to speculate on what might be done if all those with any kind of socialist ideas could magically get together. It’s like making a list of how you would spend a lottery win – and about as useful.

Perryman argues that: “The urgent need is to construct a politics that provides space for ideals that we all share, to produce practical and effective outcomes”. What are these shared ideals?

He goes on:

“And if such a space is to be taken at all seriously this must connect to an agency of change which seeks out the best-placed representatives of these ideas to attract the best possible support.”

This is Harry Potter politics. How will such an “agency of change” appear magically in the midst of such a divided “movement”? Who among Perryman’s chosen allies supports this idea?

Missing entirely from Perryman’s pipedream is any political basis on which the various diverse forces might be drawn together in any kind of cooperation. Yet this is the key issue: as long as the call for unity rests only on abstractions and aspirations it will fail to break the existing party structures and leave British politics largely unchanged.

The People’s Charter, despite its obvious limitations, at least has the vi
rtue of being supported by most currents on the political left and by trade unions including the RMT, while containing enough solid content to incur the wrath of spineless union bureaucrats who reject any real challenge to Brown and New Labour.

The Charter could form a useful basis on which Labour’s handful of left MPs could work with the best of the union leaders and activists, and on which campaigners within the large affiliated unions could take up a political fight to break the stranglehold of the link to Labour which has helped weaken the unions and destroy the Labour party.

Perryman’s cherished “core values of social democracy” may once have been in the “mainstream” in the Labour Party of Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson, but they have now been cruelly exposed as inadequate, and sunk beyond recovery by the New Labour project and now the economic and political crisis.

What is needed now, to give a basis to restore the spirit of socialism, social solidarity, internationalism and class struggle, is a left based on an alternative programme, and strong enough to draw the best elements from the Labour party, the unions, the political left and the Greens into common activity.

We need a left that will not take refuge in wishful thinking, but unite in the fight to stop the war and withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, support the Palestinian struggle, oppose racism, fascism and Islamophobia, and defend trade union rights, public services, and the rights of migrants and refugees.

And we need a combative, confident, active, democratic left that can translate this into an electoral challenge to take these issues to the widest possible public. We should find ways to work side by side in unity with those from any party who support this fight.

At the end of Perryman’s 5-page offering straddling two very different camps, it is hard to tell which side he is really on: but from his vantage point on Fantasy Island, it doesn’t really matter anyway.

21 responses to “Left Unity: a view from Fantasy Island”

  1. There are those on the left whose recent and historic track record is of dividing rather than uniting, of splits motivated by sectarian interests, of building front organisations rather than alliances, of deciding campaign priorities and activities purely in pursuit of maximising their own membership.
    I assume that John Lister is probably referring to the SWP here, but as with his alternative expressed in the 4th to 2nd last paragraph seems to be expressed in a slightly obscure code.

    Like

  2. What concerns me is the article by Robert Griffiths of the CPB in mondays Morning Star (see MS website) which talks about the unity Left alliance with Respect and other groups of the Left and supppport for Left of New labour candidates and support for ” principled Left Labour MP’s and social democrats…slipppy slope indeed ! or what ? There seems to be some kind of dodgy convergence or deceit going on between Robert Griffiths annd Mark Perry man.

    “The Communist Party of Britain is clear that a Tory victory will ensure that the ruling-class offensive will be released with full force.

    In many constituencies, the labour movement and the left will therefore have to campaign for Labour candidates, keenly so for social-democratic and socialist rather than new Labour ones.

    But the left and non-Labour-affiliated unions should also seek to unite around socialist and progressive candidates in other seats, where there is no danger of a Tory victory and where Labour is being misrepresented by a warmongering, police-state privatiser”

    Robert Griffiths goes onto to say that

    “Out of unity in action will emerge the solution to the crisis of political representation in the working class in Britain, most likely through either reclaiming the Labour Party or re-establishing a mass party of the labour movement”

    Do those of us on the Left who soundly reject New Labour and the Labour party and who are wanting to be part of Left unity intitiative hopefully leading to the formation of a New Left party.

    Do we want to work to save theskins of many dubious Labour social democrats as hinted at by Robert Griffiths

    Do we want to reclaim the Labour party along with Mark Perryman and possibly Robert Griffiths(although appearently keeping his options open) it would seem?

    Will the remaining Labour Left MP’s ever ever break from the Labour party sinking shipcome what may?

    It’s not just the New Labour government sinking so is what’s left of the Labour party.

    Can anyone please provide some some suitable clarity ,wisedom and humour on what is going on in all of this ?

    Like

  3. No need to assume, who else would he be talking about but the SWP. Has anybody else found it ironic that the grouping who champion the state capitalist nonsense also follow religiously the leader of the Stalinist Italian CP and one of the most prominent leaders of the Stalinised comintern Gramsci who thought of the Soviet Union as really existing socialism. Funny old world innit.

    On another matter, the article makes some good general points but why does SR always feel the need to emphasise their belief that the working class is supine and cowed. Fascism isn’t growing for nothing. It reflects a real and growing fear in the ruling elite of working class power and a growing understanding amongst them that their system is bolloxed and rule by open violence will soon be the only option that is left to them if given the chance.

    Like

  4. With all due respect to Mark Perryman, he should have someone read over his work before he turns it in. Problems with grammar and punctuation render his pamphlet almost unreadable. And I say that as someone who spends a lot of time reading far left journalism.

    My heart goes out to the SR reviewer, because it’s hard to find much to comment on in the pamphlet itself. Not much politics there, really: he seems more interested in finding organisational solutions to whatever ails the left.

    The whole thing seems to revolve around this idea of ‘progressive politics’ as the basis for coalition. But what does ‘progressive’ even mean? That’s a genuine question. What is the progressive political program?

    Like

  5. 21stcenturymanifesto Avatar
    21stcenturymanifesto

    Donkey doesn’t seem to have grasped the simple fact that the election determines who forms the government. That is why we have to take into account the millons of people who will vote Labour and the the related fact that some Labour MPs will be elected in circumstances that may well sharpen their receptivity to their constituents views and shape their actions.

    A strategy that fails to recognise that an electoral expression of working class opposition to bourgeois rule will take the form of both votes for Labour (in all its manifestations) and to alternative candidates is no strategy at all.

    The strength of Rob Griffiths’ position is that it starts from the reality that the issue of Labour’s future is not yet decided, that no clear position has arisen in the labour movement and the trade unions about how the crisis of working class political representation will be resolved.

    Much of the discussion on the left is about how the left as a whole can exercise a more powerful pressure on these processes. Donkey’s approach would leave us out of the game.

    Like

  6. Gramsci – the SWP view can be found here:
    http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=239

    Donkey – both Perryman and from what you say Griffiths have got it ass-backwards,beginning and ending their thinking with electoral politics with nothing in between. There may be an argument for voting Labour to keep the Tories out, but trying to pretend that there is only a narrow cabal of New Labour MPs who it would be better to have replaced by “progressives” and “social democrats” is yankee-doodle.

    James – I’m not sure what progressive means either. Perhaps we’ll never know.

    Like

  7. Ha! I remember that album!

    Here are my comments about unity vs. diversity in political opinion in the US. I know we are often viewed as having no diversity,but I hope that image, which was never realistic, has faded with the simple observation the last election and recent events.

    Like

  8. splinteredsunrise Avatar
    splinteredsunrise

    In the big rock candy mountains
    You never change your socks
    And little streams of alcohol
    Come flowing down the rocks.

    Who on the left will be bold enough to put that in their programme?

    Like

  9. “one of the most prominent leaders of the Stalinised comintern Gramsci”

    This is rubbish. Gramsci was in jail during the stalin period. One reason why his work was (very belatedly and selectively) made available to the international communist movement in the post-war period, was that a) his jailing co-incided with the rise of stalinism and thus he never took a clear position on the question, useful for those who wanted to move away from explicitly stalinist positions but not challenge their basis and b) that his critique of bordiga’s ultraleftism combined with his ambiguous position on stalinism meant that selective quotations could be used to misrepresent his position as compatible with the national reformism with which both wings of the communist movement increasingly became associated.

    To treat these distortions as an accurate account of Gramsci’s politics is to backhandedly back Togliatti, the loyal henchman of stalin who initiatially wanted to burn all of Gramsci’s writings but then re-invented him as the patron saint of euro-communism in the post war period.

    Like

  10. Gramsci’s entire ouvre was an attack on the theory of permanent revolution. It was a rationalisation of the Stalinist two-stage theory. The Battle for Position was about subordinating the working class to the semi-colonial bourgeoisie. Yes he fell out of favour when Stalinism went ultra-left and started describing everybody as a social fascist but prior to that he was a fervent supporter of the Comintern’s right turn as Stalin sort `peaceful co-existence’. He came back into favour when Stalinism zigged right again following its third period disasters.

    Like

  11. Funnily enough David Ellis is right on Gramsci. Makes a change eh?

    Like

  12. David, I really don’t think you’re right on Gramsci. The idea that Gramsci work was an attack on permanent revolution is, really, quite mistaken. Gramsci’s work was very wide ranging. His article “The Revolution against Das Kapital” is a critique of stagist ideas and, in his letter and the Prison Notebooks, there certainly are sections that take aim at the Trotsky but, without access to Trotsky’s works – only to Stalinist polemics caricaturing Trotsky – Gramsci is arguing against a straw doll. For example he wrote to the Comintern to ‘defend’ the united front tactic against Trotsky (but Trotsky, of course, developed and defended the united front tactic). Gramsci’s notebooks are highly elliptical, but the war of position is not about subordinating workers to the capitalists – it’s about the slow tempo needed to build up a working class hegemony against capitalism, which grows over into a revolutionary war of manoeuvre.

    Like

  13. When he was alive Gramsci was identified as a dissident by some of the CP members who were in prison with him. His rehabilitation came later.

    “Gramsci strongly disagreed with the Italian Communist Party’s Stalin dictated characterisation of social democratic parties as “social-fascist”. His views were known to other PCI members in prison with him and Fiori claims that some of them proposed ostracising the ailing Gramsci but that their proposal was not accepted, partly because his brother deliberately misled PCI leader Palmiro Togliatti.”

    http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/youre-not-allowed-to-talk-to-him-political-ostracism/

    Like

  14. `When he was alive Gramsci was identified as a dissident by some of the CP members who were in prison with him. His rehabilitation came later.’

    Many right liquidationists such as Bukharin, Kamenev, etc were executed by the Stalinists in their third period but before that they were lauded for their attacks on Trotskyism and their arguements subordinating the British working class to the TUC General Council during the General Strike and the Chinise Proletariat to the kuomintang. Gramsci rose to prominence in the Comintern and the Italian CP during this early period of peaceful co-existence and socialism in one country.

    Like

  15. Gramsci rose to prominence in the Comintern and the Italian CP during this early period of peaceful co-existence and socialism in one country.
    Gramsci was a leader of the PCI from its foundation in 1921.
    There was pressure on every Communist to parrot the official line once Stalin consolidated his power over the Soviet Union and the Comintern. It would not be remarkable if Gramsci had gone the same way, it is remarkable that he didn’t.

    Like

  16. While I tend to agree with John Lister’s review of Mark Perryman’s musings, I think the fact that this discussion turned into an argument over Gramski would rather reinforce Perryman’s view that its us on the far-left that live in some fantasy world.

    Seriously people, I agree we shouldn’t ditch history but Gramski verses Stalin is not where its at! Gramski didn’t just bang on about the past, he tried to deal with the actualities of his country at his time. At least Perryman (in a ham fisted, mis-aimed and mistaken way for sure) actually tries to deal with our present.

    Like

  17. Many right liquidationists such as Bukharin, Kamenev, etc were executed by the Stalinists in their third period but before that they were lauded for their attacks on Trotskyism and their arguements subordinating the British working class to the TUC General Council during the General Strike and the Chinise Proletariat to the kuomintang.

    My god this is funny. Wasn’t it Trotsky’s ally in the United Opposition, Zinoviev, who argued for all power to the general council during the general strike?

    You are even further from the mark over China where it was the Trotskyist Kark radek who drew up the policy of CCp members joining the Koumintang, and the Trotskists Joffe and Sneevliet who actually implemented it on the ground.

    For sure, Bukharin was associated with defending the China policy, but it was the Trotskyists, Radek, Joffe and Sneevliet who drew it up and implemented it.

    Like

  18. Joseph Kisolo – I had been thinking the same, though when David Ellis started slandering Gramsci and the SWP it seemed worth a little digression.
    But Perryman doesn’t seem to deal with the present, instead being frozen in a 1980s Eurocommunist timewarp, and when John Lister talks about the left he is nothing if not vague.

    Like

  19. Well, when you have stopp laughing Andy perhaps you might like to read Trotsky on China and his views about the subordination of the CCP to the Kuomintang instead of just parroting what you’ve been told.

    Joseph: I think you’ll find Mark P has a soft spot for Gramsci too and theoretical and political clarity is important.

    Skidmarx: Gramsci may have been a leader from 1921 but the point is he survived and prospered during the Stalinisation process of the Comintern albeit he was later a victim of its third period.

    Like

  20. Gramscian nonsense has spread like wildfire throughout the left amongs out and out reformist bureaucrats to every variety of centrism you can name. Mark P, Andy N and the SWP to name but a few hold him and his pseudo intellectual approach in very high regard. The reason? He blurs the line between reform and revolution. Gramsci’s is a conscious centrist/Stalinist assault on Marxist theory as a guide to independent working class action.

    Left unity based on Gramsci’s theoretical `insights’ would lead directly to the ditching of programme, the popular front and reliance on the colonial bourgeosie and Western Labour and TU bureaucracies. Gramsci has become the comfort blanket that centrists everywhere like to get their gums around and suck.

    Like

  21. David Ellis:

    Could you quote something from Gramsci to back that up? I’m geuinely curious.

    To be honest, I’ve always thought his work was useful for Marxist historians (e.g. I think the Notes on Italian History offer some good ways of looking at bourgeois revolutions in the c. 19th) but not so much for political practice today. I suppose it’s all so abstract that it can mean just about anything.

    Like

Leave a reply to splinteredsunrise Cancel reply

Trending