‘What happens if and when we get there? As the left is just now beginning to realise, this achievement would be the start and not the end of the story. Relatively speaking, getting elected may prove the easy part...’ #VoteLabour2019tribunemag.co.uk/2019/05/what-a…
But the biggest danger facing the left today is no longer a shortage of ideas or a lack of positive vision. The biggest danger is lack of preparedness—that we are not yet ready for the hard work of turning that vision into reality.
If the left has been unused to being propositional, it has been even less used to holding and wielding power. If we are serious about fundamentally transforming our economy, we must rapidly build our understanding of the scale of the challenge ahead.
We must develop a clear strategy for carrying through this agenda for change. And we must build the social forces that can give it real power, buttressing it against the inevitable backlash from vested interests.
To do this, we will need four things. First, we need a clear understanding of the nature of the transformation we are trying to achieve, a power analysis of the political forces for and against it, and the levers we have available to tip that balance.
Just as Thatcher’s Conservatives drew up tough-minded battle plans for privatisation—identifying the industries where they were strong and those where they were weak, anticipating where they could press home their advantage and where they would need to make compromises...
...so we must do the same for the democratisation of ownership and creation of a new economy.
As part of this we must identify flagship measures—our own equivalents of Thatcher’s “Right To Buy” policy of mass council house sales—that both carry a new story about ownership and give millions of people a stake in that new story.
Second we must be ready for reaction from those who stand to lose from our political programme. A radical redistribution of ownership to the many and away from the few is unlikely to pass without challenge from the current owners whose prosperity rests on their control of assets.
And history tells us that global financial markets can and often do sink radical left governments. Capital flight, investment strikes, foreign exchange crises, trade retaliation—all are possible, whether as market reactions or deliberately administered punishment beatings.
Thirdly, we must be ready to transform the institutions of government themselves so they are fit to deliver the project. The civil service is specifically designed to ensure continuity between governments.
At times of radical discontinuity, when the new government is committed precisely to overturning the assumptions and orthodoxies that have shaped previous governments, this can become a major problem.
An incoming Labour government will need to exorcise the “ghost in the machine” in Whitehall, or it will be operating with a set of tools that is simply not designed to serve a new agenda.
This will require some bureaucratic changes, but it is not simply a matter of replacing a neoliberal technocracy with a progressive technocracy.
The real prize is radical decentralisation and democratisation, breaking up the power relations of the old ways whilst also building the foundations for a new politics.
Finally, we must build a strong ecosystem of social movements and “organic intellectuals”—Gramsci’s term for the thinkers who emerge from social movements and excluded classes and groups, and are capable of articulating their politics, culture, and concerns.
Radical governments cannot succeed without a strong mass base of support—not just for their government but, crucially, for their ideas.
This support must be independent, capable not only of defending the government when its agenda comes under attack, but also of keeping it on course when the pressures of governing push it away from radical change.
The institutional base of the UK left is not yet strong enough to sustain the kind of project we have outlined. It is therefore critical that we invest now.
We must build collective popular power and agency through social movements and politically informed community organising.
At the same time, we must build the practical economic alternatives from the ground up that will help form the backbone of the new economy, from public banks to worker co-operatives and community land trusts.
We must also build new narratives, including by raising our game in media and communications, and new ideas, through new think tanks and popular education programmes.
And, through all these things, we must begin to build the next cohorts of progressive political, intellectual, and community leaders.
People Get Ready is not about providing detailed blueprints, either for a future Labour government or for the social movements that will underpin it. It is about sketching the shape of the task ahead.
More than anything, it is an invitation and a challenge to everyone supportive of the Corbyn project to play their part—and to recognise that our job extends much, much further than simply getting a radical Labour government elected and installed at Westminster and in Whitehall.
A thread with a few eve-of-poll thoughts about the politics of this British general election and where it is likely to leave those of us committed to transformative political-economic change both ideologically and as a practical necessity. 🧵👇🏼
So ends the most delusional general election campaign in modern British history.
The vote seems largely a foregone conclusion, with a collapsing Conservative Party barely capable of going through the motions, able to summon only enough energy to place a few insider bets on their own impending demise.
The idea that the problem with Starmer is insufficient ‘boldness,’ rather than that he has the wrong policies in the wrong interests, is a failure of analysis and understanding that will become apparent very quickly. His commitments aren’t right but insufficient, they are wrong!
Starmer’s positions are:
-Privatisation
-Financialisation
-Derisking
-Authoritarian policing
-Atlanticist foreign policy
-Austerity
-Trickle-down economics
-Growth
-Constitutional status quo/unionism
-British nationalism
-Purge the left
There is nothing in this programme that most of the Conservative Party of the past 14 years couldn’t agree with. The remarkable thing is selling it (again!) to most of the Labour Party.
We’re in a time of decay and slow-motion system collapse that looks something like crisis-punctuated stagnation. In the in-between times the ‘normal’ rules of neoliberalism apply—or are reapplied—like a force of gravity, a dead weight on the present that prevents new departures.
But periodic crisis interruptions force new interventions—bailouts, QE, furlough payments, etc.—that are outside the bounds of the ‘normal’ operations of the system, sudden lurches or interventions that then have to be closed down and the genie reinterred in the systemic bottle.
Needless to say, this is an unstable and unsustainable state. So while stagnation reigns, and political exits are blocked off as best can be managed by and within the system, a dynamic process of decay and dissolution is also at work.
We are living through a decomposition of the ideological apparatus into its most basic commitments. For liberalism, these turn out not to be justice or democracy or the rule of law but the protection of power and the preservation of capitalism. As for social democracy, it’s dead.
The social democratic method of using mass democracy to wring concessions from capital and the state doesn’t work when social democratic politics has been taken over by fractions who are unprepared to do any wringing of anything from those with power except for their own careers.
Triangulation did for social democracy, a trick that could only work once. The message has traveled all the way down to the base now; the deal is off.
Some possible “iron rules” for an incoming government that took climate action, the cost of living crisis, and inequality seriously rather than just bending the knee to the established order:
The financial economy of money, debt, and interest will be fully subordinated to real needs, be it the imperative to reduce emissions and observe hard biophysical limits or the real economy of production and consumption.
After more than four decades of neoliberalism and exploding economic inequality, the gap between the richest and the poorest will be narrowed rather than extended—as a matter of democracy, equity, and sustainability.
Quite apart from the inadequacy of current policy proposals we also need a conversation in Britain about policy itself, and the limits of policy in driving change. Too much debate hinges on this or that policy, as if there’s a 1:1 correlation between policy intent and outcomes.
Policy is important—and in some cases can be transformative. But only insofar as it alters the underlying structural conditions of our political economy. Policy within the existing structures can tweak or adjust, but it rarely transforms.
The economic problems we face are not just the result of this or that policy by this or that government—although things can certainly be worsened by government policy, as we saw with Truss/Kwarteng.