The Left is Not Losing its Way

Why the propositions arguments fail to convince

The motion of this Cambridge union debate — ‘The Left is losing its way’ — is a defining contention of contemporary politics. As political affiliations polarise, and convulsions shock body-politics throughout the globe, scrutinising the trajectory of these new movements is a necessary intellectual endeavour. It is becoming ever clearer that centre-left politics, what one may call the Third-Way of Schroder, Blair and Clinton, is falling out of fashion. The promise of boy-wonder Macron, that he signals the renaissance of a mature and level-headed centre-left politics, is breaking quite spectacularly. Before our eyes, as the gilet-jaunes protests rages on, Macrons centrist new dawn reveals itself to be instead a last stand. Whatever one thinks of this new political reality, it is increasingly hard to contend it is not so. As the support of centre-left parties across Europe collapses, undergoing so-called ‘pasokification’ — named after the Greek party Pasok, whose vote share fell from 43.3% in 2009, to 4.7% in 2015 — and the dam of Remain and Hilary breaks underneath the pressure of a populist surge, it is certain we are in the midst of a recalibration of politics. Rushing to contest the space left by a sunken neoliberalism, the ‘far-left’, ‘hard-left’ or ‘socialist left’ is resurgent. In this context, it is right that we ask, united in our commitment to progressivism, whether such a redshift is the correct ideological direction for the Left to take? Or whether we should keep such radical inclinations buried, attempting, with all our might, to restart the heart of a limp yet familiar Third-Way? So allow us to begin, seeking to deconstruct the arguments of those who see the Left in terminal decline.

SPEAKER ONE:

It is my contention that the Left, under a socialist hegemony in much of the world, is not losing its way. On the contrary, it is only just beginning to find it; rising out of the turbulence of capitalisms collapse in 2008, focused and ambitious, mapping a path of transformation that will take us out of the intersecting crises of neoliberalism, and build a new world in its wake. Gabriel Osbourne, the first speaker for the proposition, profoundly disagrees. For Gabriel, the British Labour party is riven with toxic tribal conflict. An epiphenomena, he contends, of its seizure by its socialist wing under leader Jeremy Corbyn. His argument, in short, is that a “moral decline” is evident amongst the Left, whereby a push for “ideological purity” has displaced any hope for coexistence. He takes examples of derision and censure within constituency parties and online to illustrate this phenomena, decrying, rather eloquently, the “abuse that flows like liquid anthrax through the Labour parties veins.”

One may immediately see the problem here — that of an ill-informed and quite unfair generalisation. Gabriel employs a highly problematic logic, and we may be forgiven for concluding it comes with more than a hint of bad faith. For I would ask him, if we are to take a minority of the Left and use it to represent all, why not take the most articulate, polite and comradely section as more representative? It is no secret that the proportion of those that actually attend these admittedly mundane CLP meetings are likely those political animals that roar the loudest, if you will. We shouldn’t excuse this behaviour. It is of course entirely wrong to harass MP’s and scream abuse in such situations. But nor should we either generalise outwards, tarring the entirely of momentum’s membership — and the Labour left — with exactly the same brush as the tiny proportion that perpetrate such abuse. Most of us, including all those who I know personally, would be disgusted by the actions and words of such people. It is neither logical nor morally legitimate to discard engagement with the ideological positions of the Left on the basis of an unrepresentative minority. Not only because it would be wrong to make such a broad denunciation, but too on the basis of our shared aim of improving the world. Why straw man the motivations of the entire movement, when one could seek comradely debate with more tempered voices? “Does this sound like an inclusive movement?”, Gabriel asks us leadingly. Well, not when you put it like that. But if one saw the many conversations that are conducted courteously between Corbynites and Blairites outside of the narrow horror stories of abuse he has cherry picked, and the hard-working, idealistic and passionate foot soldiers of momentum, persuading friends, family and strangers alike, our answer would be very different.

There are two more adjacent assumptions here. First, that vitriol is somehow unique to the Left. And second, the tacit belief that online abuse is too, seeking to reduce us to an angry mob. On the first: politics is a passionate business. One could argue, as Chantal Mouffe does in her conception of the political, that it is inherently antagonistic, premised upon a friend enemy distinction. The potency of political divisions; the significance of the moral dimension, especially of a Leftist analysis, can make it very emotive. And whilst I certainly don’t condone this blatant lack of civility, or suggest that this is at all a license to be an asshole, we must understand that, in the case of those MP’s who reportedly plotted to block a Corbyn premiership, they are not friends of this movement. To undermine the wishes of the vast majority of Labour members, and to entertain actions that would see the reigns of power remain in Tory hands, hardly resembles a commitment to a broad church. Whilst the Left faction may have voted many times against the whip historically, they have never considered leaving the Labour family, nor actively worked against its success. Come every election, they traipsed up and down streets, canvassing and persuading, as they knew the Left, even the centre-left, was always better than the right. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and it is the Blairites who find their ideology on the margins, the same extension of support fails to materialise. Moreover, If ideological purity is an indicator of the left going off the rails, then Gabriel may wish to look back to how socialists within the PLP fared under Blair’s premiership. Peter Mandelson wished for the Labour left to to become a “sealed tomb”, and “were kept off Commons select committees by the party hierarchy.” In politics, it seems, the idea that you’re either with us or against us is more common than the speaker suggests.

On the second point: I would like those who reproduce the contention that the left are more abusive online to take a scroll through the replies to Owen Jones twitter feed, and note the vile hatred spewed by far-right, conservatives, and Hard-Remainers alike. Or perhaps to question who it was behind the overwhelming abuse received by Diane Abbott at the last election, a radical black female MP? If you cut politics across almost any divide — young/old, rural/metropolitan, educated/uneducated, rich/poor, left/right, remain/leave — one is certain you will find plenty of name-calling, condescension, mockery, and swearing. Hell, I’ve even seen worse abuse between warring fans of console gamers, the endless battle between PlayStation and Xbox, than I have in political circles. It seems this horribleness is more a symptom of the depersonalisation of the internet, interaction mediated by the alienation of a screen and a constructed persona, coinciding with the antagonism of politics, than it is of any ideology. And until we have quantitative analysis of which political affiliation or division are the meanest tweeters (if such data is even possible to amass), to strongly insinuate such general shittiness is unique to the Lefts online presence is both absurd and baseless.

Gabriel then proceeds to claim that mandatory reselections are in fact pernicious “deselections”, which of course they are only if local members choose to do so, which in most cases they probably won’t, given how the majority of MPs are valued by their local parties. He then continues to entirely disregard the democratisation of the party machinery as an undermining of our parliamentary system, a hyperbole so obvious that one would hope we might not have to explain how greater accountability of representatives to the grassroots is hardly a threat to our constitution. It seems he may not have considered how our parliamentary system, currently suffering from a crises of anti-political sentiment and disengagement, may be improved; its legitimacy and reflexivity bolstered by greater bottom-up participation. To be clear, ‘mandatory reselection’ (which, incidentally, is a terrible frame) is merely the idea that we should conduct primary races for selection as a party candidate, a mechanism which works to much success in the United States and Ireland. This is no guarantee that the candidates will be of any particular political persuasion, and so to compare this, rather boring, rule change to a “purge” of their opponents is flagrant nonsense. Indeed, Gabriel seems rather committed to such hyperbole, concluding his rant with a fit of embarrassing paranoia, claiming that the Left will “deselect the voters” should electoral success not be forthcoming. By regurgitating old narratives of reds under the bed, trying to expose the Left’s latent Stalinism, Gabriel undermines the credibility of his entire intellectual position. Perhaps if he conducted his argument on a solid ground of policy differences and their feasibility, rather than obfuscation and stereotypes, the proposition may have come closer to proving its point. Here though, it’s vacuity is all too apparent.

SPEAKER TWO:

I must give credit to the second speaker, Flora Bowen, for making such a fantastic argument against her own propositions. The ability to consecutively and unknowingly make points for the other side is, to be sure, quite a feat, and one I thank her for. Less flippantly, we should respect her for bringing to the forefront the material issues that the Left largely orients itself around, and her capacity to point toward the grand challenges of contemporary capitalism. She lists the integral promises of the radical left — “democratising access to wealth, sharing resources, achieving fair and stable welfare states” — before concluding forcefully that “this has failed.” In their place, Flora contends, stands rampant tax avoidance, corporations siphoning vast wealth from concentrated data, “a reverse robin hood of greed”, “extreme economic inequality”, and “environmental catastrophe caused primarily by powerful private companies.” The evidence of such scourges, Flora argues, is evidence of the Left’s impotence. She is, of course, correct, if the Left she is speaking of is that of the centre; the neoliberals that have tinkered with the edges of an intrinsically rapacious hyper-capitalism for decades, allowing those very same monstrosities of inequality, instability and ecological degredation to grow. Unfortunately for Flora, she appears unaware that the Left which is the target of her antipathy, is not the left that has been in power as these trends have been exacerbated. And thus, all she has said would not be incongruent if it came from the mouth of a Corbynite. Indeed, it only really makes sense if we view it as an argument against the proposition, not for, as those technocrats responsible for enabling these trends are very, very far from the Left in question.

That social challenges have evolved in recent times is no doubt a salient observation, yet she suggests the Left is anachronistic, unable to comprehend these forces and tackle them effectively. Ironically, one of the opposition speakers — Dr. Aaron Bastani — has a book coming out next summer which deals, rather comprehensively, with the possibilities for socialist transformation arising from technological change and our existential ecological predicament. Various left-affiliated theorists and think-tanks are contemplating long and hard how to neutralise the terrifying power of platform capitalisms data barons, and the socio-economic implications of automation, in such a way that does not appear to be repeated in other ideological domains. Just in this field, the names of Nick Scrinek, Alex Williams, Wendy Liu, Paul Mason, and Will Stronge all come to mind. And to claim the resurgent Left refuses to tackle the climate crisis, just as Ocasio-Cortez rallies support around the Green New Deal in Washington, and Ann Pettifor pens an essay in Economics for the Many (edited by Shadow-Chancellor John McDonnell) on the same idea, is to admit that one is just not paying attention. This is all not even counting the radical and groundbreaking work being done on mechanisms for socialising wealth, from the trailblazing Preston model under Councillor Matthew Brown, to the ownership models being fleshed out by Catt Hobbs, Joe Guinan and Thomas Hanna. Contrary to the image of a listless Left cowering in the face of modern complexity, we can see the contours of a fierce and intelligent movement flourishing.

Yet, theoretical flourishing is one thing, we could argue — winning is another entirely. And as Flora assures us: “rallies and facebook sharing doesn’t translate into votes”. Despite the whirlwind success of Ocasio-Cortez in the US, who beat Democratic incumbent Joe Crowley for New York’s 14th congressional district on the wave of grassroots energy and a virally emotive campaign video, and much evidence pointing toward the electoral boost internet campaigning entails, we are expected to take this as a statement of fact. Now, it is true that they are not yet in power. And it is therefore true that the general principles of the Left have not yet been achieved. But from Labour’s victorious defeat, to Bernie’s close call, to Melenchon unparalleled popularity and Ocasio-Cortez’s unexpected rise to prominence, they’re certainly well on their way. And once they get there, Flora can be rest assured they will do all in their power to dismantle the destructive system of monopoly capitalism that was the subject of much of her ire.

SPEAKER THREE:

The final speaker for the proposition, Eddie Marsan, delivers a powerful yet reductive tirade against “anti-intellectual” populism; one that is fearful of complexity, potently simple and dangerously belligerent. He (falsely, but unsurprisingly) lumps left-wing populism in with its rightward variation, “its answers and solutions [being] often as parochial and regressive as those on the right.” His only evidence for this is the anti-semitism that has reared its head in recent months, a topic which Gabriel too argued was emblematic of the Left’s fall from grace. And it is right that this receives condemnation. As a party committed to equality in all its forms, to stamping out racism and discrimination in whatever guise it constructs for itself, the presence of anti-semitism is a disgrace. But again, we should not use the revolting ignorance and bigotry of a tiny few, caught up in the mass membership of Corbyn’s labour, to represent the Left as an ideological movement. Many of the investigations into abuse online, putatively coming from Labour members, revealed such people were not in fact aligned to the party. And despite claims to the contrary, as well as Corbyn’s flat-footed and rather inept handling of the scandal, disciplinary procedures and political education is being drafted and deployed by the party to expel such hatefulness as rapidly as possible.

Continuing on, he proceeds to declare, with great zeal, his hatred of austerity — brandishing it rightly a “tory ideology” — and his commitment to social projects, from the NHS to council housing, before articulating his wholehearted belief in the “Northern European model of social democracy”; a model that, according to Marsan, Corbyn has “rejected,” apparently evidenced by his historic Euroscepticism. Now, Corbyn’s antipathy toward the EU is certainly a legitimate and important conversation to have, but Marsan conflates such a lack of commitment with a rejection of the social-democratic economies of many EU member states. It need not saying that to enjoy the fruits of the nationalised utilities, union representation and social wealth funds common in European nations does not require membership of the European Union, which makes Marsan’s pivot very odd indeed.

Putting this to the side, I think Marsan may find more to agree with on the Left than he would have thought. Following from his admiration toward the social-democracy of continental Europe, Marsan should be fully behind the Leftism of the Labour party. Key pillars of the 2017 manifesto — nationalised utilities, a network of public investment banks, the strengthening of unions, stimulus investment — work to great success in the very economies he was idolising. If Corbyn is truly rejecting such an economic framework, as the speaker contends, taking inspiration from its best practice would be an awfully strange thing to do.

But his argument has yet to reach its zenith of bizzarity. Returning to his opening gambit, he asserts that “Far-left populism is the same as far-right populism,” brandishing it “undemocratic” and “authoritarian,”concerned only with its ideological success, “not the people it is there to serve.” Of course, there is no legitimate equivalency to be drawn between these two sides of the political spectrum. On one, you have people calling for forced deportation and the preservation of ethnic purity. Meanwhile, on the other, they organise with cleaners to improve working conditions. Ash Sarkar, a senior editor for Left site Novara media had this to say in response to such accusations of equivalence: “If white people could stop telling me that reading Marx makes me just like the racist neighbours who used to urinate on our door, put lit cigarettes through our letterbox and throw bottles at me when I was coming back from *primary school*, that would be fucking great.”

On the apparent disregard for the people they purport to serve, It is unclear what this last point means. Not only due to the inherent ambiguity in guessing at peoples motivations, but because all politics is premised upon the embedding of an ideology in order to serve the popular base. Ideological success, in the minds of all political animals, is necessarily serving people’s interests. Such is the nature of ideology — it is the thought architecture that, when transposed onto social reality, one thinks will deliver the best results. Whether it does in reality, or how one defines what is the best, is another question, but one that is the basic division of all politics: between those who say your ideas will work, and those who say they won’t.

But the most void assertion Marsan makes has to be his characterisation of the Left as authoritarian; a characterisation which makes zero-sense when one actually studies the proposals of their theorists and politicians. Introducing greater workplace democracy through inclusive ownership funds is one of McDonnell’s flagship economic policies, and methods to democratise the bureaucracy of the Morrisonian model of nationalisation are central to circumvent the admittedly lumbering and alienating tendencies of previous structures. As we mentioned before, mandatory reselection and the wider ‘democracy review’ of the party is yet another example of the profound antipathy the New Left has toward the centralisation and exclusivity of power. If this is authoritarianism, then things really have changed.

Here, we can see Marsan’s argument is couched in the same hyperbole and paranoia that defined Gabriels objections; recycling the spectre of the hard-left as a potentially violent sect, poised to conduct pogroms and construct gulags at the first sign of dissent. Counter to the image of the Left as a homogenous mass, much disagreement is apparent within socialist circles. Notable intellectuals have challenged the leadership on their position on immigration and policing, and I myself have vocal reservations over some aspects of policy. I wish I didn’t have to expend effort reassuring people that the Left are not rabid Stalinists, committed to murdering and jailing those who disagree, but the aridity of the proposition side — and the larger current of thought they represented here — forces me to do so.

Much to my disappointment, there were no astute challenges here to any of the fundamentals of the socialist programme being nurtured; no legitimate reasons for why a return to tepid Third-Way liberalism would be a beneficial response to the frightening volatility we see before us. There were only lazy generalisations and baseless accusations; unfounded certainties that, if the Left is not there yet, then they will never be. Only when nuanced and informed debate is conducted can the inquiry be effectively scrutinized. In the meantime, if this is all the centre has, then perhaps it is them who have lost their way, unable to reorient themselves in an unfamiliar political reality.