Discussion
Bridging the gap (2) – Len Arthur
The last
discussion piece suggested that possible answers to the ‘what can we do about
capitalism’ question would appear within a week. Well, as Harold Wilson once
said ‘a week is a long time in politics’ and in this case it has stretched to
four!
In that time,
Peter Rowlands has made a useful contribution which adds politically to the
issues. Another reader has suggested that what may have been depicted in the
first piece was a description of ‘hegemonic fatalism’, where through lack of
confidence or consciousness a transformative challenge to capitalism is not considered
possible: critical analysis is all that can be achieved. Unsurprisingly, this
second piece will draw upon previous WLG blogs and suggest that the
transformative gap between where we are and would like - or need - to be, can
be bridged and, moreover, that there may be more unity of left ideas than at
first seems to be the case.
As has been
intimated through this blog, there are a range of contemporary left discussions
on how we can confront the challenges of capitalism and climate change.
Unfortunately, the discussions seem to dance around each other, often dealing
with parodies or at best, incomplete descriptions of each other’s alternative
forms of transformation. Consequently, an unhelpful dichotomy has arisen which
can, and must, be overcome in order to lay the basis for a renewal of
confidence in our transformative possibilities. In order to consider a possible
basis for this renewal, it will be helpful to describe some of the main ideas
involved.
It is
difficult to come up with acceptable labels, but there are a group of arguments
that could be described as deriving from social movements or social forums and
are associated with the terms ‘autonomy’ and ‘horizontalism’. Essentially they are about prefigurative change or creating ‘the future in
the present’, through the contemporary establishment of alternative spaces,
some of which seek to challenge and transform the effects of contextual
problems such as climate change and capitalism. Works by Hardt and Negri; John Holloway; and Michael Albert reflect those with a left background writing in this area;
and some of their key arguments overlap with those coming from the green
movement such as Molly Scott Cato and Richard Douthwaite; together with those reflected in organisations such
as Compass and the Transitional Towns movement.
A recent
book by Marina A. Sitrin called Everyday
Revolutions: horizontalism and
autonomy in Argentina, which is reviewed in the latest edition of Red Pepper , relates to
some of the writers already mentioned, is one of the most clear and recent
statements of the thinking behind horizontalism and autonomy and, most importantly,
draws upon the extensive experience in Argentina. The following six criteria
based upon the Argentinian experience identify the effects of these ‘everyday revolutions’
and consider their implications for issues of consciousness and confidence in
the possibility of transformation:
·
the
centrality of horizontal decision making – ‘they do not use hierarchy or will
not work with political parties’ and ‘show the centrality of direct
participatory decision making’;
·
new
conceptualisations of power – not as a noun but a verb, ‘that is active,
interactive, and can be dynamic when used together, as ‘power with’ rather than
‘power over’’;
·
the
importance of affection and emotion – ‘without acknowledging a shift in their
own subjectivity, their own understanding, and without their movements being
based upon trust and affection they would not be as militant’, regaining
dignity features strongly in the analysis;
·
the
creation of new value production – ‘what is being produced is being done
outside the frame of capitalist market production’;
·
the
non-contentious political framework nature of the new movements – ‘within the
creation of alternative ways of producing value, one can begin to see the seeds
of an alternative economy that is central to the total transformation of
society’; and,
·
rethinking
the meaning of revolution – ‘the meaning of revolution for those in the
autonomous movements is not that of taking over from the state, the ways in
which revolutions are perceived also should be different, subtler, and perhaps
quieter’.
Socialists
who come from the Second or Communist International tradition of party building
will often not engage with or acknowledge these movements or their ideas, and
if they do, refer to the arguments of ‘islands of socialism within a sea of capitalism’,
unable to withstand the dominant power that surrounds them and doomed to
failure or incorporation. It is a shame there is not more of an engagement as,
at a personal level, I recognise many of the features described above occurring
in my trade union experience and, moreover, have carried this across into some research where the concept of ‘deviant
mainstreaming’ is proposed. It can also be argued that a study of first four conferences of the Communist International will
also reveal a much more subtle approach to resistance in these forms –
particularly cooperatives – as will alternative readings of Lenin’s What is to be done? such as that recently produced by Lars Lih.
Some parts
of the left in the UK have started to relate to these arguments. For example: the
most recent edition of ISJ, the
quarterly journal of the Socialist Workers Party, has two significant articles;
one engaging with the ideas of John Holloway and the other, part of a debate about Syriza in
Greece and the role of ‘transitional demands’. Articles in Red Pepper tend to
develop the ideas of autonomy and horizontalism but also explore how these
movements may relate to socialist party organisation and trade unions. Recently
also, there has been some consideration about how these movements may evolve
toward existing forms of resistance, such as that by Jodi Dean in the Guardian. My intention is to have a third section to this ‘bridging
the gap’ discussion piece, exploring the extent to which it is possible to
build on synergies across the left: perhaps even building left unity. To set
that scene this piece will conclude by briefly evaluating the ISJ articles and recent Red Pepper contributions.
The article
on John Holloway, by Paul Blackledge, recognises that Holloway usefully places
an emphasis on the link between socialism and human self-activity and criticises
the idea that the capitalist state can be used to bring about socialist change.
Blackledge agrees with Holloway and, indirectly with the autonomist and
horizontalist case, about the necessity of having a criterion of what a change
to an alternative – socialist – society means. Blackledge goes on, however, to identify
serious flaws in Holloway’s arguments by exploring his central idea of the
“scream”, making the case that there is a real limitation to just producing
‘use values’ and attempting to separate these from their marketable ‘exchange
values’, as a way of overcoming alienation: an idea that is reflected in the fourth
bullet-point in the summary of the writings of Marina A. Sitrin given above.
Blackledge argues that, under capitalism, the need for capitalists to realise
surplus value as money – ‘exchange value’ - through sales of products as
commodities in the market, feeds back and determines what is produced as ‘use
values’, thus blocking the scope for alternative spaces to exist. Holloway, in turn
argues, that the outcome of trade union struggles just perpetuates the
exploitative and alienated relationships.
Both writers
thus recognise the difficulties of overcoming the power inherent in the social
relationships of capitalist production: Holloway argues that breaking this has
to go beyond trade union struggles toward alternative forms of ownership and
control now, whilst Blackledge makes the case that trade union struggles lead
to a political tension with reformism (which seeks gains for working people
within the framework of existing ownership and power relationships) and thus can provide the basis of the
political argument that capitalism and its state needs to be challenged, if the
problems experienced by the working class as a result of continuing
exploitation are to be overcome. A challenge to the system, Blackledge argues, needs
to be made by socialists who can make that case, and they must therefore be
prepared to take leadership positions in trade unions so that it can happen:
thus, within the terms of this blog piece, the socialist leadership provides
the consciousness, and the confidence that come from taking direct action, such
as strikes. Blackledge argues that, as Holloway does not recognise this role of
socialist leadership, he ends up, by default, supporting compromises with
reformism to preserve the alternative spaces. This argument is then extended to
include UK activists such as Hilary Wainwright, to which we now turn.
Late last
year we offered a blog discussion piece that evaluated Hilary Wainwright’s
arguments about how transformative power might be able to bridge the gap
between where we are and need to be. As Darren has also pointed on our Facebook
page a version of the paper is now available on the Red Pepper web site. There is no question that the Red Pepper magazine has made the major
contribution in the UK to exploring not only how the ideas of autonomy and
horizontalism can be translated into practical resistance and prefigurative
transformation, but also to how these might relate to a wide range of forms of
resistance, including those led by trade unions, while also relating to the existing
parties of the left. In a recent edition, there was an excellent article by a Syriza activist on how they are
working to combine both the traditions of being a social movement and a
socialist political party, demonstrating that it may be possible to overcome
the dichotomy between the different forms of resistance. Also, interestingly,
back to the current issue of ISJ,
there is a discussion piece by Richard Seymour, where he takes
up the role of Syriza and suggests that what they are arguing for and trying to
achieve is worthy of support and examination in more detail, and that this may
mean giving more thought to the politics involved in social and political transformation.
He suggests that there may be more possibilities available than have previously
been argued in the ISJ, among which
might be further consideration of ‘transitional demands’ and what is ‘left
reformism’.
It is these possibilities
and the contribution they could make to left unity, which will be discussed in
the third and final piece on bridging the gap.
No comments:
Post a Comment