At critical distance or distantly critical?
The Your Party formation is certainly something, but what it truly is, though, is being lost in the noise. How do we approach it?
More than 800,000 sign ups for a new Left party is no small thing. It is significant and represents something real happening in British society. It is also difficult to get excited, but not get swept up in it too. I am a famously impulsive person and it is an everyday personal struggle to keep that in check. In these times—more than ever—there is a need to maintain some objectivity and caution.
We are very much still in the throes of that heady period, where everyone’s hopes and wishes are projected onto the project. For all, it appears as a blank canvas—and it has been positioned that way—so it is bubbling over with potential and helps stem the tide of terror, which grips many of us.
That being said, there is a lot of projection—too much—and optimism can be blinding. In the Morning Star article linked below, Rise, an organisation I’ve been a member of for just over a year, has said that “while good, sincere, and talented people will get involved with Your Party and will insist that it must not be top-down, personality driven, and election focused—it seems this will be the trajectory."
As a socialist organisation, central to Rise’s understanding of socialism is the self-activity of the working class, and the principle that the emancipation of the working class is to be won by the working class itself. Thus, our approach is to focus on building independent working-class power, independent working-class institutions and structures, and through this linking together the struggles of working-class communities.
This is different from Your Party. It is not being regarded as a socialist party and it is being gifted “from above”. Although both Corbyn and Sultana have signaled that the party’s business should be “community organising”, this is not the same as building independent working class power “from below”. Even if the more “organising” orientated tendencies become the prevailing ideas and identity of Your Party, this activity is not likely to be the priority.
The project is spearheaded by career politicians who will want to get re-elected. It is not clear yet, how many of the sign-ups to Your Party will be activist members with an affinity to “organising” and might see the necessity of building institution, or how many are simply indicating that they support the principle of the new party and the personalities at its helm. In any case, the vast majority will approach the formation with elections at the forefront of their minds.
Rise theorises that elections will be “operative” on the priorities and activity of the organisation from day one. You can imagine, much as in Labour during the Corbyn years, good communists or socialists finding themselves knocking doors or holding stalls in the town centre, rather than building independent institutions or delivering political education so we can grow and develop to survive electoral defeat. And if they don’t focus on elections and decide to persevere with this important work instead, finding themselves in hot water with their comrades for not prioritising the “practical” short-term gains of winning council seats etc., which can be energy and time consuming.
For Rise, these independent institutions, along with political education and organising, are an essential foundation to root any future electoral initiative, as it will provide the basis for a pool of activists and leaders. It will retain an organic link between the class and its various struggles, institutions and any elected representatives, placing the class firmly at the forefront—and in command—of any struggle. As this base level of education, institution or organisation doesn’t exist, a necessary extension of this for Rise is that electoralism is not, at present, a priority.
Which is not actually what most people invested in the Your Party project want. They want a “kinder” politics. They think that Parliament can be won through the ballot box and charismatic personalities with pure virtues can deliver it. Much can be taken on trust and faith, ensuring a sensible and compassionate politics—not quite socialism, but something like “old” Labour. The sort of Labour Party that has always been just so frustratingly out-of-reach, but can be vaguely recalled from a soup of mythic nostalgia. So, when X reprehensible Labour crony does X reprehensible thing, one can reconcile their faith by saying, “this isn’t Labour”. This is not in-keeping with the true teachings or practice of the church. It isn’t what Labour or Your Party means to me.
Put simply: a Labour Party that has never existed. Following the end of World War II, Labour did construct a huge monolithic social state, which is what most folks on the Left yearn for. One that was delivered by pillaging the empire’s Global South subjects, acting as a mediator for the ruling class, who made an astute retreat into the background to slow the breakdown of empire and save Britain from soviet-style revolution1. This sort of new deal is impossible now—capitalism is in severe crisis.
In it’s inception, the Labour Party took capitalism as being implicit and was always an uncomfortable and contradictory alliance of socialists, liberals and trade unions. It has never been a straightforwardly socialist or working class project, and was always unashamedly imperialist, though many then were still “against war”. From the plethora of Your Party proto-branches springing up around the country, the political composition of the membership base—and the politics they project—it feels awfully familiar. While Labour appears to be dead, Labourism still looms large.
That is not to say that the battle for democracy being waged from below by militants and independent socialists isn’t worthwhile. There is a part of me that strongly feels that not getting stuck in is a dereliction of duty to the broader socialist movement and there is opportunity there. After all, we have ample evidence from the Corbyn years, of Left Labour bureaucrats misjudging the moment, then being out-flanked or outpaced. But reactively chasing the “fight with the right” and “going where the movement is” represents a problematic politics of ritual. We are stuck in a series of loops hailing from the days of the New Left. Always descending on the town square for the protest. Always chasing the next electoral breakthrough.
Rise has always been an honest “from below” attempt to break with this pattern, and our political strategy—of long-term work, building institution—is based on a reasoned analysis. This is something that can’t just be jettisoned because there is a sudden sense of hope in a hopeless world. In our view, hope has to be earned. So it is both surprising how many Left political organisations—small or smaller—have suspended belief to so swiftly and uncritically rally to Your Party. Others have called for Rise to give up it’s theory altogether and dissolve itself into the formation.
Yet, already there is talk of a “coup from above”. Max Shanly, a fairly reliable and connected political commentator, has reported that amongst a hand-picked and un-elected “working group” of approx. 25 individuals, former Labour staffers are attempting to subordinate membership and democracy to the parliamentary politicians and bureaucrats. Labour Party 2.0.
It also seems that the vote on the name of the organisation will come before the conference and be conducted by eballot. In a lively, mass, modern, democratic organisation, I am not opposed to some measure of electronic voting, but surely the name of the institution should flow from it’s political objectives and philosophy; not the other way around? Surely, the principle task should be debating and designing democratic structures? Then, at the end of any founding conference, the vote on the name would be the cherry on the cake?
This topsy-turvy process signals that the formation is set to continue on it’s journey of being primarily an electoral vehicle with mass participation in some decision-making, which is deigned to be safe for the rabble by communications professionals and enlightened political operators at some mysterious committee.
Which is not what I hope happens. I hope that the forces arguing for democracy, The Class and a mass, socialist party, prevail. And if they do, then at that time, Rise can assess it’s own journey and position, and make a reasoned decision to adjust it’s approach towards Your Party. For now, remaining at critical distance and engaging with the project in good faith, but recognising differences, is right. Everything screams that this is a re-run of Corbynism or Momentum and that the Left hasn’t learnt its lessons, but I am ready to be proven wrong.
Sitting on the outside is an uncomfortable place to be, but this feeling alone is not justification for wading in. It is down to Rise to prove our theory and incumbent on Your Party advocates to do the same. In the event that our analysis proves correct, then I hope that any disaffected working class militants involved in Your Party will look to Rise as an outlet for their political activity. The project is yours and there to be made.
“History is written by the victors”, Winston Churchill once famously said. It should be common knowledge, but working class soldiers returned from defeating the Axis powers in 1945 angry and empowered. They looked on the Soviet Union fondly for it’s sacrifices and said they weren’t going to put up with the injustices of the early 20th century, so would turn on their domestic oppressors.
The Labour Party, through post-war reconstruction, satiated them through a new social contract, which the ruling class sensibly acquiesced to so that the empire and class system could be maintained. Relatively high levels of taxation on wealth was a small price to pay to keep people in their place. In her personal diaries, when touring Europe following the end of WWII, America's then First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt, picked up on the mood of the country’s working class. She was convinced that before long there would be a socialist revolution in Britain.
In the years following, the Labour Party became a sensible manager of empire incl. directing the Mau Mau massacres and other atrocities. Domestically, they curtailed trade union freedoms and continually pivoted back to the right.