What’s it all about Alfie? Or what is success for leftists and progressives in this day and age? May 9, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.trackback
Socialist Unity has carried an interview from the Morning Star last week with Eric Hobsbawm. For those of us interested in one of the more serious thinkers on the further left across decades it makes for provocative reading. Hobsbawm is far from without flaws, membership of the CPGB across those same decades would indicate at least some question marks, but, at the same time he is a genuinely humane and thoughtful individual who has dedicated his life to political activity that many of us, whatever our positions will recognise as of some utility.
I won’t go into this in any great detail but just draw attention to a couple of aspects I thought worthy of brief consideration. This follows on from a comment that Graham from the Irish Liberty Forum posted the other day. He asked…
What would political success look like to you? In other words, what are you trying to achieve? At what point is your work complete? I mean this for you personally and/or for the movement with which you are associated.
Well, before getting to that – which should be dealt with in greater detail anyhow later, let’s consider what Hobsbawm has to say about it…
He argues that:
21st-century socialism will be based on the survival of the planet and reconstruction of a society disintegrating under capitalist development.
Well, we all go down that road sooner or later. Gorz, Bahro, and now Hobsbawm, at least to an extent. But he adds:
…the idea of socialism as a 100 per cent publicly planned collective economy has not survived the end of ‘really existing socialism’ and will not return.
Twenty-first-century socialism will be an economy combining the public and private, non-market and market elements, but one whose object is not maximising economic growth and profit but the survival of the planet and the reconstruction of a human society battered and increasingly disintegrating under the impact of the past half-century of capitalist development. How this is to be achieved is the big question for this century’s socialists.
I broadly speaking don’t disagree, but it’s not exactly meaty stuff is it? Social democracy by another name and all that.
And this brings me back to a thought Nick Cohen raised in one of his more interesting moments in “What’s Left?” where he wondered “if anyone can tell you what a society significantly more left-wing than ours would look like and how its economy and government would work. (Let alone whether a majority of their fellow citizens would want to live there.)”. His implicit answer – that the status quo was just about okey dokey – was on a superficial analysis similar in some respects to that posited by Hobsbawm, a strong social welfare/public infrastructure, etc, etc. Yet, within his analysis was contained a remarkable defeatism for a man who had spent years excoriating New Labour and its works. Because unlike Hobsbawm he was unable to frame a left approach within a broader socio-political and cultural vision, one that sought to reshape not so much the ‘how’, as the ‘why’. Survival and reconstruction. It’s possibly the biggest project socialists – or anyone – could engage in. Now, there are those who will argue that all this is reformism of the most insipid kind, and perhaps they’re correct. But, the path from here to there, wherever there is, will have to be built on the Irish (and other) people as they are now, not as we would wish them to be. And that has obvious implications, unless we shift towards an unconsidered, and essentially futile, utopianism.
Hobsbawm is far from uncritical about the contemporary situation.
“I don’t see much prospect of a revival of the classical socialist and communist movements of the 20th century.
In the West, their basic constituency, the industrial working class, which they saw as the main agent of social change, could no longer play this role even if labour movements wanted to.
“Their basic form of political action and mobilisation, the mass-membership party of the social-democratic type and the vanguard party of the Leninist type, have not survived the old century.
And the newer forms of activity?
“What survives of such movements in the West must work as part of new, wider political and social movements and find new forms of action, notably transnational ones.
“Some such movements are coming into being, generally as a succession of ad hoc campaigns, but, as yet, they show no signs of being capable of changing society.
To be honest I’m dubious about transnational political structures. But that’s for another day.
And yet I can’t help feeling that simply reworking the objectives as Hobsbawm proposes from maximisation of growth and profit to the well being of a planetary society would be an enormous shift in and of itself. That it also chimes with left Green thinking is both unsurprising and important. Here on the CLR the issue of just where the Green Party (and the broader global Green movement) is positioned has exercised people. Naturally so. The capacity for left and ‘right’ Green political approaches is both opportunity and danger. But some serious work by the left might keep the Green Party within the broader left umbrella. Ironically, so might coalition with Fianna Fáil since that party too has populist instincts that can sometimes, but often not, be indistinguishable from our supposed left parties responses.
Consider again Hobsbawm’s point about societies ‘disintegrating under the impact of the past half-century of capitalist development’. Actually, I’d argue it predates that, but the point is that our societies have undergone massive shifts in their socio-political and cultural positionings. Some of these are easily assimilated, others not so much. But a political dynamic, that of capitalism, or whatever, is in many ways destructive and dissonant. This sense that we must ‘reconstruct’ is important.
And that to address Graham’s question, even obliquely, underscores the point that this is a process. There is no end point, at least none I can think of, outside the confines of a techno-utopian future. Just slow and steady progress to extend and maximise the autonomy of individuals and groups within the context of the society, both within the nation-state and beyond it. Do we wind up at a point where the state evaporates as individual and communal autonomy come to the fore? It’s possible, but not yet. Definitely not yet.
Indeed for these processes to arrive at a point of completion is perhaps to argue for human perfectibility, which seems unlikely.
Note that Hobsbawm, like many on the – and I use the term advisedly – ‘traditional’ left has moved from the position that the state is in and of itself the solution. There are huge dangers here as evidenced by the facile approaches New Labour project where the concept of state as enabler rapidly seems to have shifted to one of state as patsy to the wiles of the private sector, and private interests (and once upon a time a certain N. Cohen had much the most convincing analysis of such matters that I read). But, there’s scope there for new spaces and approaches to be opened up. If that sounds like an experiment, well, why not? The dangers of the current situation with an effective planetary crisis, allied with the opportunities of reworking our societies into more humane and sustainable structures (and for all the techno-utopians out there, being smart about using technology) surely justify this…
Still, all that said, what do other people think? Should it be simply short, medium and long term goals, and if so what are they?
I remember the first time I moved to the city from where I grew up in the country, I was struck by the annoying digs here and there throughout the city, and the building sites. As soon as one road would be upgraded and cleared, somewhere else the bollards would appear and the diggers would move in. There were always several spots where significant works were ongoing. When, I wondered, would all this be finished? It took some time before it sank in – it will never be finished. A city is perpetually a work in progress. And so is society, every society. So I agree with your statement “indeed for these processes to arrive at a point of completion is perhaps to argue for human perfectibility, which seems unlikely.“. But not just ’seems unlikely’ of course. I presume you meant ‘which is impossible’.
There is no final destination. All attempts at contstructing some ideal end point, where progress is complete, are doomed to failure if not catastrophe.
The best that can be done is to set reasonable short and medium term goals. And the medium term goals do not contain some kind of universal objectives that are true for all time. They are functions of our current history, what got us here, what brought us to ‘now’. And they are shaped too by much larger processes that sweep across human society, processes that we never saw coming until after the fact. Climate change was no more a component in progressive thought 100 years ago than it was for neanderthal man. And of course, the delightful if sometimes frightful, beauty of the future is that it always remains ready to surprise us. Who knows what the next great wave of challenges will bring? All we know is they will come, and our compasses will have to be recalibrated yet again.
Perhaps there are universal values we should strive for (though even there, I’m reluctant to commit to the notion of universality), and there certainly is a great war of interests that predates modernity and is not going away any time soon. In that great war we need to chose. But the weaponry we employ and the strategies we create fluctuate over time. The whole thing, is always and will always be, a work in progress.
Yeah exactly. Isn’t it a chimera to suggest an end point. Sure, I can see far in the distance a point where perhaps society and technology combine, but… I think your road works point is very valid. A hundred years from now many of the same buildings and roads will be standing. It’s not going to be Jetsons. And given that people will be much the same… and their problems and the forces you mention.
The point as regards universal values is crucial too, as well as your cautionary note.
Without wishing to simplify dreadfully, bread still seems a reasonable short term goal, and therefore a good starting point, for any global socialist project. The problem with Nick Cohen’s vision of a ’society such as ours’ is that it excludes a few billion people from ‘our society’.
The trouble with globalisation is that it is a phenomenon which is hideously complex and resists any simple analysis. Certainly big capital was a major driving force in the current wave of globalisation, but many other processes were gnawing away at the viability of a world with isolated nation states with shallow connections. I think we are beginning to understand now what is happening but it only beginning. The complexity of it has posed a particular difficulty for the left. It makes it harder to define what is happening and whether it is wholly regressive or might have significant progressive effects. And the elusiveness of its nature and long term consequences mean it is hard to integrate it into the left-progressive perspective. That is one explanation why those two billion get ignored. (Not excusing Cohen here at all and I’m only familiar with one of his books – Cruel Britannia)
“Hobsbawm is far from without flaws, membership of the CPGB across those same decades would indicate at least some question marks,”
An ambiguous statement if ever I saw one. Too soft or too hardcore?
On the topic itself, there is an implicit assumption that because climate changed must be managed it will be progressive. Bollocks. We’re already seeing how it can be regressive. It’s called biofuels. Subsidise US agribusiness, destroy foreign competition, and appear progressive all at the same time. Bargain. And if it costs starvation for the 2 billion or so who live on less than $2 per day, who cares? Fidel wrote some excellent stuff on this about a year ago.
It is just as likely that the management of resources will involve the use of puppet regimes and the brutal application of military might by the west (and remember that the US spends more on arms than the next 9 countries put together) and within western societies to ensure that those who possess now continue to do so. Global piracy, or new forms of imperialism. After all fascist economies were supposed to be managed ones, and I’m surprised that Hobsbawm, who was going on about the dangers of renewed barbarism and fascism 10 years ago, isn’t addressing this.
In terms of goals socialists should aspire to, I’d have thought environmentalism is now one that cannot be ignored, but it simply must be addressed in class terms, not as the Greens do, as a supra-class issue. In the short terms, defending what elements of the welfare state we still have, reaching out to the new sections of the working class and trying to organise them and raise consciousness within them, whether they are 18 year olds in Mc Donald’s or immigrants on roadworks; in the medium term, restoring the welfare state.
I think what is depressing from looking at that socialist unity site is the fact there is a single comment. 100s will appear on minor factional squabbles, but a serious comment from one of the most serious left thinkers in British intellectual and political life attracts no interest.
Garibaldy, I agree with your point about the assumption that tackling climate change will be progressive. I suppose the problem was highlighted earlier by the more progressive movements. Perhaps that’s why. But you are right, conservatives too have acknowledged the problem, and there is no gaurantee that any of the solutions will be progressive. Certainly one big issue is how switching to a carbon based tax system can be done without introducing regressive tax measures that will hurt the poor far more.
But yea, good point, and certainly, it’s an assumption that needs to be set aside now.
I think what is depressing from looking at that socialist unity site is the fact there is a single comment. 100s will appear on minor factional squabbles, but a serious comment from one of the most serious left thinkers in British intellectual and political life attracts no interest.
Par for the course…
But some serious work by the left might keep the Green Party within the broader left umbrella.
WbS, since you mentioned Gorz as well as the Greens, I thought you might raise the issue of basic income.
Since people seem to be at loggerheads about what “socialism” means, or what the objectives ought to be, let me put forward my simple-minded idea:
Socialism means every citizen gets a fair share of the national wealth. (And whether you define “national wealth” as “the national assets, along with the means of production, distribution and exchange” or something a bit different, there most certainly is national wealth.)
So, how to share it? I can’t think of any method that makes more sense than basic income. That is, every citizen receives, unconditionally, every month/week, from cradle to grave, a national dividend pay-out. It would be equivalent to a living wage.
CORI have shown how it can be done as regards costings and tax revenue, vis-a-vis the current social welfare system. The Greens have shown how it dovetails with environmentally responsible political policies.
Basic income has always been the core of the Greens’ economics policy, in Ireland at any rate. The fact that they don’t talk about it these days reflects badly on them. We’re not surprised of course, because there seem to be quite a few Green principles and policies that they don’t want to be reminded about.
You might also guess that basic income is just about the last thing that Brian Cowen wants to hear about. Then again, there were some contacts between CORI and Fianna Fáil not too long ago…
Garibaldy, as it happens I’m a fan of Hobsbawm – but I wouldn’t wish away more problematic aspects of his past which he has himself faced up to. And I think your point is well made about the lack of comments. It’s sort of amazing how introverted discussions can become in the moment.
Hugh, I agree completely, but, again, and to shadow what I just said re discussions, political activity still tends to be local rather than global. And relative circumstances mean that poverty, or disempowerment or whatever set of issues cuts people down and out means whereever one is it can be difficult to engage fully with other struggles.
soubresauts, that’s an interesting point about basic income. IIRC much of the left has been fairly sniffy about the idea.
Utopianism should be avoided. There is no final destination. To such a question in Zamyiatin’s novel, ‘We’, a character responded ‘What is the final number?’ As they say in New York, ‘it will be a great city-if they ever get it finished.
The issues raised by Hobsbawn,-how capitalist development is destructive of society-are old ones. As old as capitalism. Attempts at answers were given by Polanyi 60 years ago, in The Great Transformation. The utopian triumph of economic liberalism is detrimental to human life and society. Conservatives too are experssing concern. There is a rather silly piece in today’s NYT Brooks praising Cameron.
Any teleological belief that solutions to our current dilemmas will necessarily be of the ‘left’ must be discarded. Something much worse than what we now have is possible.
To understand how state power is used to impose capitalist ideology is essential. No easy task, but a necessary one.
I’d tend to agree CL. Although I hope the left would shape those solutions or the attitudes behind them.
Tomaltach,
That carbon based tax system idea is putting things in a way I hadn’t conceptualised the issue before; and very interesting it is too.
Soubresauts,
Not to be sniffy about basic income, but where does that leave things like access to education, healthcare? I assume they are included, but it strikes me as too incomplete a definition as formulated there. Much too open to abuse from the right should a conservative government ever get into power in a polity formally commited to it.
WBS,
The point I was making was that it is unclear whether you consider the problematic aspect his staying in the CP after others in the Historians’ Group buggered off in 1956, or whether it is his involvement with the Marxism Today group and later liquidationists. It’s open to either interpretation. I am also a fan of Hobsbawm, though I disagree with much of what he says. At least he thinks creatively, and tries to apply the principle of Marxist analysis to modern society as it is, not as we might wish it to be. As for the lack of response to what he says on Socialist Unity: quite simply, it shows the lack of recognition of the need to deal with things as they are. And also, I think, the inability of large sections of the British left to grasp one simple, but central fact – socialism requires political power – the socialist struggle is ultimately about the state. There is a lot of lip service to this, but very little analysis of what this means for the framing of socialist activity and policy.
Which is why I’m interested in CL’s last sentence. I think a lot of people were misled by what I think anyway was a misrepresentation of Gramsci’s position into downplaying the significance of the state apparatus. Rather than retreat into identity politics, or green politics, or any other sort of partial politics, we must refocus our efforts on what counts. Access to political power.
I think that the post 1956 issue is important, but I can understand how group psychology operates in parties (hey, how could I not?) and how loyalties would keep people on board in the hope of change. I actually applaud his involvement with the MT people. Sure, they went wrong, but… at least they began to think seriously about the issues.
Can I echo entirely what you say there re state power. One thing that infuriates me is how non-specific the left is in it’s further left variants. For example. What of the education system? What of health beyond platitudes. How would entrenched interests (from all quarters) be dealt with? How would a programme be prosecuted in such a way as to gain and retain public support, etc, etc, etc. So I’m entirely with you as regards political power. Now then the trick is to fashion a vehicle capable of gaining such…
One guy I talked to from the British CP said Hobsbawm being raised in central Europe gave him a better insight into what the realities of Hungary and the like were. I’ve always found that an interesting suggestion. Plus, at the end of the day, it was an attempted counter-revolution in a place that had been fascist only a decade before.
As for fashioning a vehicle, surely you’ve read What is to be Done?
“Plus, at the end of the day, it was an attempted counter-revolution in a place that had been fascist only a decade before”
Same in Prague in 68 – except it was two decades.
Nah, don’t buy that guys. I’m sure there were fascist elements, but it seems to me that the broad mass of those protesting in both weren’t looking for the reinstatement of fascist regimes, and the political histories of the various post-Soviet satellites doesn’t lend any credence to that either considering how mainstream their political structures are (say compared to the pernicious longevity of ‘post’ fascist politics in France or Italy).
You do know that the Baltic states gave pensions to Nazi war veterans? And one need only look at the discrimination practiced against gypsies and the rise of racial hatred to see that the nastier elements of eastern European nationalism are not that far from the surface.
I’m not sure about 1968, but 1956, definitely a large counter-revolutionary element, including many fascists.
I do indeed know that. But I don’t think that per se indicates fascism, nascent or otherwise. The Baltic states had their own history, and as we know the lines as regards nationalism can be very blurred and incorporate many unpleasant not to say downright vile people. Re racism in Eastern Europe, it wasn’t entirely unknown in the Soviet era. And again, 1956, may well have included many who were fascists, but that doesn’t per se mean that 1956 was incorrect. TBH I simply don’t regard the states beyond the USSR in Europe as being valid examples of ‘revolutions’ in the first place (bar perhaps at a stretch Yugoslavia). The contexts were too different, the imposition of external Soviet power too obvious. I’m not dismissing the intentions, but the actualities left much to be desired, and that’s proven not least by the shift away from Soviet style socialism once the opportunity arose.
Lots were impositions. But certainly not Yugoslavia, nor Czechoslovakia. I’m not saying all eastern Europeans are fascists anymore than all Italians are, but I think it’s naive to suggest that 1956 was not aimed at achieving a counter-revolution, and that fascists, backed by foreign powers, were heavily involved.
Sure, but that doesn’t invalidate 1956, and I think it is reasonable also to note that this came on foot of a decade much of which had been experienced under raw Stalinism, and indeed initiated by precisely that imposition (I’m not disputing that the pre-existing regime prior to the arrivals of the Soviets was worse). In that context I wouldn’t blame non-fascist counter-revolutionaries in the slightest…
Hey, look my avatar is back!
I don’t think that the Soviet action was that unreasonable given the nuclear sabre rattling, the people involved and foreign support. Arguments on both sides.
Read Peter Freyer, a journalist for the CPGB’s Daily Worker in Budapest during 1956 on the revolution. He was handily placed to see the ‘fascists’ at work and guess what? He described seeing Hungarian workers fighting hated secret policemen for which his reports were censored in London. Later published as ‘Hungarian Tragedy.’ were there facists and conservatives involved? I’m sure there were but how did there come to be a popular rebellion in the first place? And when did Hungary have a socialist revolution?
” think it’s naive to suggest that 1956 was not aimed at achieving a counter-revolution, and that fascists, backed by foreign powers, were heavily involved”
Imre Nagy
Nagy was born in Kaposvár, to a peasant family and was apprenticed to a locksmith. He enlisted in the Austro-Hungarian Army during World War I and served on the Eastern Front. He was taken prisoner in 1915. He became a member of the Russian Communist Party, and joined the Red Army.
Nagy returned to Hungary in 1921. In 1930 he travelled to the Soviet Union and joined the communist party. He was engaged in agricultural research, and also worked in the Hungarian section of the Comintern. He was expelled from the party in 1936 and later worked for the Soviet Statistical Service. Rumours that he was an agent of the Soviet secret service surfaced later, begun by Hungarian party-leader Károly Grósz in 1989 in an attempt to discredit Nagy.[1] There is evidence, however, that Nagy did serve as an informant for the NKVD during his time in Moscow and provided names to the secret police as a way to prove his loyalty (not an uncommon tactic for foreign communists in the Soviet Union at the time).[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Nagy
Yea, obviously a fascist backed by foreign powers (the USSR?)
LIke I said, major elements, not all.
It’s clear that arms were being shipped in, as well as raidos and other equipment, and that throughout eastern Europe ex-fascists were used for this type of thing.
But the problem is Garibaldy that even putting the Gladio networks aside fascists comprised then, and continue to, a relatively marginal political strand. The idea that they could mobilise thousands and thousands in Hungary in 1956 strains credulity. Even if they were involved, and I’d really disagree that it was ‘major elements’, so what, it still doesn’t invalidate a broader reaction to a forced or imposed political settlement. That they might also find a liberal democratic society more conducive to them than a communist one doesn’t invalidate the former either, or indicate fellow feeling. We all generally find liberal democracies easier to organise in than authoritarian societies.
I haven’t denied that people were right to be pissed off. I do however question the extent to which the aim would have been a liberal democratic society – given the recent history, and the likely violence that would have accompanied any successful counter-revolution, I seriously doubt that would have been the outcome. Why can we say that fascism was incapable of mobilising many people? Surely the recent history of the country demonstrated the opposite? Which then surely should we factored in when we think about why what happened did happen.
While acknowledging that Hungarian history certainly provides little comfort I’m still dubious that in ‘56 things would have turned out as badly as you suggest. I guess its possible, but it seems unlikely. As regards mobilisations. Well, Hungary appears to have shifted towards a sort of fascism as much due to the intimidation by Germany as any other reason (not to ignore the reactionary nature of the Horthy era). That doesn’t strike me as being as home grown as say the German or Italian variants (and the opportunism of the Hungarian regime pre-the imposition by the Germans of a true puppet regime, certainly points to this being something other than a deep-rooted ideological positioning as was true of the Germans and to a lesser extent the Italians). How that fed into the Soviet perception is of course a different matter and might well have been a justifying dynamic for them to intervene.
Oh dear! The great and the good foiled at every twist and turn by right wing conspiracies!
Wasn’t it the Haughey/Blaney wing of Fianna Fáil that organised the Hungarian counterrevolution?!
Hold up a second NollaigO, look very closely at your avatar and tell me what you see
Typical of bloody WordPress. They are behind everything…everywhere
But now I think of it, look at Garibaldy’s too!
They’re everywhere… neo-fascist avatars… out to discredit posters to the CLR….
It seems a shame to return to another strand of the original post when the conversation has taken such an interesting turn, but as someone who gave up on Cohen’s “What’s Left?” in disgust (http://theraffishdandy.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/cohen-smashes-his-way-through-the-political-rubble-of-his-past/), can someone let me know if it improved at all?
Whilst I’m with you, I found it refreshing that the self-satisfied assumption that the response to climate change will be essentially progressive when, in my opinion, the threat that this poses to the ‘profitability’ of vast multinationals means that they will obviously seek to assert maximum control over the resolution(s). The move on board of Bush signifies as much. Oddly, I’ve rarely seen this angle of the issue debated publicly.
The ignoring of that side of the argument is indeed baffling. I guess it reflects the success of the media in persuading even (supposed) leftists to discuss things on the terms of the elite.
Fair points theraffishdandy and Garibaldy. But if we work from an assumption that climate change is a reality, then it is like absolutely anything and everything else. The means to deal with it may take a left or right turn but the problem itself has to be solved. And I’m not sure how that can be purely on the terms of an elite (not least of which is that as with everyone else the elite itself is split on this). I’m not really concerned by the fact Bush signed up. His hesitancy, foot-dragging, palpable disregard for the issue speaks volumes. The right sees this as a very dangerous wedge for socialised/communal action on a global scale. And you know what? They’re right. But the danger is that they will wade in with their own quick fix solutions…much as you guys say.
Meant to say theraffishdandy, I still think Cohen can write well, just not so keen on what he writes. So no, it didn’t improve and I came away with the sense that this was a very narrow focus on a very particular end of the ideological spectrum blown out of proportion for his own ends. Not convincing.
Post 31:
And my avatar is a paler green than Garibaldy’s !!
Shorely Shome Mistake ??!!
Never! That’s an outrage NollaigO…
Mine isn’t red enough!
How can I get a picture of a T-55 in Hungary as my avatar?