As we saw in the previous post in this series on Antonio Gramsci's Selections from the Prison Notebooks, he was committed to building a mass revolutionary party in the Leninist mode. But simultaneously he invoked a different and broader understanding of the political party. This isn't limited to members of tightly disciplined revolutionary organisations but takes in the entirety of the organisational capacity of a class. Conceived this way all the separate political parties, associations, combines, institutions, etc. of capital and the ruling class is their political party. The trade unions, co-operatives, labour and social democratic parties, Marxist parties and sects, community groups etc. are our - the working class's - political party. This is germane to our discussion of economism (which I understand, following Lenin, as the everyday bourgeois politics of the working class) because, as far as I'm aware the critique of economism has always gone hand in hand with promoting the Leninist party as its solution.
Before getting stuck into Gramsci's notes on economism, it's worth briefly addressing Gramsci's approach to class consciousness. His view was the working class were on a road of progressively realising its power and becoming conscious of itself and was exemplified from the historical experience of the class from the machine-breaking of the Luddites to mass communist parties dedicated to capitalism's overthrow. This position (not dissimilar to Lukacs) has been variously critiqued as teleological and a left gloss of Hegel's philosophy of history. But this criticism misses the mark because their philosophical positions on consciousness are a meditation on proletarian experience up until that time: it was not derived from a rigid schema based on the progressive evolution of consciousness. If following Althusser philosophy is regarded as the class struggle in theory, it can also be the condensation of working class memory, albeit in abstract forms.
This is important because even though working class consciousness is the outcome of historical processes, it is something that has to be developed and fought for. That socialist consciousness and socialism is guaranteed by the blind laws of historical development is the opposite of Gramsci's views, which makes attempts to ascribe this view to him all the more perverse.
Gramsci's notes on economism looks at its place within capitalist relations of production, whose interests it serves, and how it is perceived/experienced by the ruling class and the working class. For the powers that be, free trade ideology is their primary species of economism. These ideas demarcate a split between political society (the state and its various appendages) and civil society (everything else that isn't the state, including the economy). But proponents of this view take this *analytical* separation of society into two distinctive spheres as a real separation. It is a nonsense to suppose the state and economy are really separate and opposed as the operation of each underpins and reproduces the other. But as distorted as it is it makes sense from a business point of view - the state is something external to the individual enterprise, as something that taxes profits and, even worse, passes laws and regulations that undermine management's right to manage. Free trade ideology is a philosophical generalisation of this perspective. Its solutions - laissez-faire in commercial relations between businesses and minimal interference by the state in the internal practices of enterprise (and of course, lower taxes) express the view that if left alone everything will be fine.
Despite being explicitly "hands off", as far as Gramsci was concerned this is as much a regulatory strategy for governing capitalism as Keynesianism and corporatism (whether of the Italian fascist or liberal democratic kind). Laissez-faire may be economistic and premised on the state's lack of agency, but to implement it requires changing key government personnel and developing a semi-coherent line of policy.
The main species of economism in the working class, or at least the sections organised by the labour movement, is syndicalism. It performs a similar, but inverted, analytical/"real" split between the state and civil society. For the economistic trade unionist the objective of workplace politics are better wages and conditions, fewer hours, more benefits and more autonomy. The struggle for these are waged against a clearly defined opponent: the employer. There appears to be few links between positions taken in the workplace and politics in wider society, which is why it's not unknown for the Queen's portrait to adorn the living rooms of many a militant.
Workplace relations belong to the totality of capitalist relations of production, but trade unions and trade unionists inhabiting the highly localised and specific relations between employers and employees are functionally uninterested in wider issues: it is beyond their brief. Hence the question of power and power relations is ignored and is entrusted to the political wing of the labour movement - the labour or social democratic party (this is why it takes a great deal for trade unions to begin questioning their formal relationship to these parties). More rarely, syndicalism can develop in a radical direction - especially if a union has won several successive victories and its members are confident. Their victories "independent" of political assistance can inculcate the view that the union/unions themselves can alone take power. Neither view, conservative syndicalism or radical syndicalism, contest the political, moral and cultural legitimacy of capitalism. This is a legitimacy - a hegemony - that operates without respecting the neat analytical separations of free trade dogma and syndicalism.
For Gramsci the relationship of the classes to their specific forms of economism has different effects. A ruling class subscribing to economistic views is a class renewing and buttressing its power. A working class that doesn't break with economism is one that finds its exploitation continually reinforced.
Economism, rather than being an ideology in and of itself is rather a set of several ideologies. "Radical" electoral abstentionism is one (i.e. the refusal to deal with politics, except in the most abstract and outlandish ways to allow for maximum radical posturing). Another branch of economism has taken up residence in academia and continues down to this very day. The inability to make a distinction between fleeting and semi-permanent phenomena was recycled in recent years in voguish approaches to globalisation, post-Fordism and postmodernism. The abstraction/celebration of economic self-interest, which identifies the historically and socially specific economic behaviour of a class with the 'human condition' lives on in (some) rational choice theory. And the outcome of historical processes - technological change - is inverted and becomes the primary driver of social development lives on in a negative sense: it is often (ignorantly) conflated with the Marxist conception of history.
Another example of economism, often found on the far left, are 'intransigence theories', or the avoidance of compromise almost on principle. The denunciation of leaders for selling out workers, a black and white view of the world, the sustenance of shibboleths, the agitation for demands out of step with popular working class consciousness, an implied linear progression of this consciousness in the unlikely event the class takes up a transitional demand or two, all of these presuppose an iron law of history where more favourable circumstances are bound to occur. Hence the order of the day is not building working class consciousness but preserving these perfectly formed ideas for the day when they will have mass support. To compromise now is to dilute them.
As I've already noted, for Gramsci the modern prince (the revolutionary party) was the primary instrument for combating economism. The body of the party unified the collective memory and experience of the working class with theory, which in turn guided the party's strategy on the ground which, at least in theory, forms a tight unity of theory and practice with each drawing on, building, and enriching the other. But in Britain where the far left has historically been weak and the Bolshevik tradition as a whole has never had a sustained mass following (nor is it likely to win one in the future), how can economism be combated in the labour movement?
There is no road map for this, but a general line of march can be built on Gramsci's insights on the root causes of economism. One of the major weaknesses of the British labour movement - but reflecting formal separations in British capitalism - is its division into a political, trade union, and cooperative wing. Labour's political "common sense" is to build electoral coalitions to win power: it is simultaneously the political arm of the labour movement and a catch-all party like the rest. The received wisdom of British trade unionism is economistic to the core. And the cooperative movement, in as far as it has a coherent outlook, is less about workers' ownership and control and more about being the consumers' champion. Therefore each are mired in their own forms of sectional economism. These are the obstacles socialists have to shift, and it's not easy.
Traditionally socialists outside Labour (whether Leninist or not) have and continue to pump out general propaganda for socialism. But this is much like trying to dispel religion by reasoned argument: it is a one-sided war without end as long as social relations replicate and sustain economistic ideas. Socialist arguments have to be combined with a strategy for transforming the labour movement into a body where economism finds less purchase. And the best way of doing this is building, strengthening and founding new relations between Labour, the trade unions, and co-ops. Practically, it means encouraging trade unionists to join Labour and, where affiliated, getting their branches to send mandated representatives to meetings. It means encouraging party members - who by rule should be members of a relevant union anyway - to get active in their trade union branches. It means unions and the party becoming enthusiastic supporters of co-ops and co-ops in turn using the avenues open to them to promote their alternative form of ownership.
This has to be struggled for, it will not drop from the sky. It requires socialists be active across all three areas of the broad labour movement building connections, making it more cohesive, and tying in the fates of each with the direction of all. This strategy, married to arguments for socialism, can produce conditions where the economism produced and reproduced by capitalist workplace relations is always and everywhere challenged by the experience of the labour movement. And when we have that, we have a solid nucleus powerful enough to contest capital's hegemony.
A list of posts in this series on the Selections from the Prison Notebooks can be found here.
This letter has been circulated on several discussion lists from the Campaign for a New Workers' Party. I will let it speak for itself and add some comments after:
Dear Comrades
Thank you for your continued support for the Campaign for a New Workers Party (CNWP), which has enabled us to sustain and develop the arguments that working people need a new independent political voice arguing the case for socialism against the three main parties who now occupy the common ground of support for big business.
To take our campaign to the next stage the officers have decided to organise an extended Steering Committee at the end of this month to widen participation in the discussion on a number of key initiatives. The Steering Committee will be open to all supporters of the CNWP, but those fully able to participate and vote will be CNWP members who have either paid the current membership subscription or have a standing order financially supporting the campaign. There will be the opportunity to join the CNWP on the day.
The meeting will take place on Sunday, September 26, 2010 from 12 noon to 4 pm at the University of London Students Union building (ULU), in Malet Street, London WC1E 7HY. If you're travelling from outside of London, ULU is a 10 min walk from Euston station. If you're travelling from within London ULU describes which tubes or buses you can use at the following webpage: http://bit.ly/dvv9Yy
The officers have decided that a capped pooled fare will operate, with everyone attending contributing £10 and the campaign making up the difference for those who have to travel the furthest. Please make sure that you take the opportunity to book cheaper train or coach fares well in advance in order to reduce costs.
The main business of the day will undoubtedly be the campaign's response to the huge levels of cuts in public services which the ConDem government are due to announce on October 20th. With a target of £113 billion a year reduction in public spending, (£9 billion more a year than what is currently spent on the NHS!), the government are attempting the biggest cut in the standard of living of ordinary people and their families for over 80 years. The trade union movement in general, and public sector unions in particular, will undoubtedly engage in battles to preserve services and protect jobs. But a crucial question will come next May when elections are due to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and to local authorities throughout the country - where is the political alternative going to come from, how are people going to be able to vote for anti-cuts candidates?
There will also be a number of other discussions including widening membership of the Steering Committee by co-option, setting the details for a full campaign conference in the first six months of next year, relaunching the CNWP declaration in the light of changed political circumstances, and discussing reports on membership, finance, website and social media use etc. There will be some time for discussion on resolutions and one area for discussion of which we already have notice is from those comrades wishing to set out the process by which the prototype of a new left party could be established. If you want to submit a resolution for discussion please send it to me by 10 am Wednesday, September 22nd at the latest.
The meeting on September 26th will be an important stage in the development of the CNWP and I would urge you to make every effort to attend. A leaflet advertising this meeting and promoting the CNWP can be downloaded here.
Yours, in solidarity
Cllr Dave Nellist National Chair, CNWP
---
No one reading will be surprised that I think the prospects of the CNWP range from bleak to non-existent.
One thing that attracted me to the Socialist Party in late 2005 was its decision to launch a formal campaign around this issue. Its line had long been that Labour was a straight party of capital, and a new party of the working class was required to fill the space Blair and Brown had consciously vacated. I viewed the Labour party differently, but I subscribed to the same conclusion. Almost five years on I now don't think the political space was ever there for a new mass party, but there was certainly an opening for a small but serious left formation - an opening that was let slip by the fractious and irredeemably sectarian nature of the far left.
But even then with New Labour constantly tacking to the right, treating the trade unions as embarrassing relatives, and dumping on all things social democratic, the CNWP had precious little purchase in the labour movement and society at large. In the trade unions political representation did become more of a live issue, but this was more due to the efforts of SP activists working as SP activists and the appalling record of New Labour than the CNWP's profile.
On the streets it was even worse: the CNWP met with almost total indifference. On dozens of campaign stalls punters would happily sign petitions against whatever we were peddling and they might have even nodded when we (patiently) explained that working class people needed their own party, but very few would then go on to sign the CNWP declaration. If there isn't a more damning indictment of the CNWP's failure than the few thousand names of SP and other far left activists who signed the declaration over a five year period, I don't know what is.
The SP could possibly have done more, and Workers' Power and the cpgb framed a number of unanswered polemics around that theme. But the pace of work in our branch and limited personnel meant something else would have to be parked on the back burner had the leadership decreed 'CNWP work' a priority. And if the SP followed the example of its erstwhile comrades in Scottish Militant Labour and liquidated itself into the CNWP, it is very doubtful anything other than a re-branded SP plus a few independents and sundry ultra-lefts would have resulted.
This is a roundabout way of saying that if the CNWP was a dismal flop when Labour was consciously estranging itself from the labour movement, what prospects does the campaign have now the party is in opposition and is busily renewing those links? Tens of thousands of trade unionists are not looking at forming a new party but instead working to ensure there is no repeat of the Blair-Brown years. Some 30,000 have joined Labour since May because it is seen as the natural opposition to the Tory coalition. The SP's branches are rammed with anti-cuts campaigning and party building and won't have the time and energy (or enthusiasm) to simultaneously push the CNWP. And if anyone's expecting anti-cuts opposition directed toward Labour councils will reopen the question of working class political representation, I fear those comrades are going to be very disappointed.
The objectives Dave's letter sets itself sound fine and dandy, but why weren't they done when political circumstances were more benign? It all smacks of having missed the boat.
This email comes from the Co-operative Party. Readers who are either members of the Labour party or of no party are eligible to join, and I would recommend that you do so here.
LABOUR'S LEADERSHIP CANDIDATES BACK MUTUALS AND CO-OPS
As members of the Labour Party and trade unions prepare to vote for a new Labour Leader, all five candidates have answered our questions on their vision for a co-operative future for the Labour Party.
Andy Burnham highlighted the leading role he played in forming Supporters Direct to give fans a voice in football and gives his vision of a strong NHS and 'aspirational socialism'.
David Miliband talks of his membership of the Party and his local credit union, and the potential for co-op structures for Northern Rocks, pubs, schools and energy.
Ed Balls - the first ever co-operative MP to stand for the Leadership - outlines his record in Government on co-operative schools and financial services and wants to expand co-operative housing and re-mutualise Northern Rock.
Ed Miliband reminds readers of his role in making the last manifesto the most co-operative ever and promises to argue for a greater role for the mutual model in banking and to give users and workers a greater voice in public services.
I know many readers are eagerly anticipating the results of the 100 worst UK political blogs. Unfortunately I must ask for your continued forbearance: they won't be appearing until this evening. In the mean time here's another guest post from Brother G on Ed Miliband. For the record, Ed will be receiving my second preference.
I had hoped to make it through the Labour leadership contest without making one of these posts. After all, the prospect of four months of witnessing the candidates talk vaguely about change in a variety of venues has proved tedious enough without the rest of us throwing an oar in.
But with ballots about to start arriving in letterboxes, and with the frankly terrifying prospect of a David Miliband win continuing to haunt the contest like a resilient case of the clap, I think its important that I try to add something, anything, to the debate in the hope of preventing that from happening.
So here it is: I believe that Ed Miliband is the best choice to lead the Labour Party in the coming period.
It might seem strange that a self-confessed socialist writing for a popular former-Trotskyist-turned-shameless-class-traitor blog such as this (revolutionary purists despair) would be declaring their support for one of the Miliband brothers over the alleged Left candidate Dianne Abbott. But the truth is that from her inauspicious start preventing John McDonnell making it onto the ballot, to her lacklustre campaigning, through to her insistence on pigeon-holing herself as little more than the token candidate, I have been nothing but disappointed with Abbott’s role in this contest. If the left is to prove itself a legitimate presence within the Labour Party in the near future, it would do well to turn the page on this ‘turn the page’ candidate before she manages to develop into a figurehead.
In Ed Miliband, we have an opportunity to renew the Labour Party in a way which puts our values at the heart of our movement. While his elder brother (by accident or by design) exemplifies all the most odious elements of the New Labour era: the wealthy sponsors, the pandering to right-wing rhetoric about the deficit, the stale and disproven obsession with chasing an imaginary Middle England, his younger brother has instead cast himself as the Miliband with his finger on the social democratic pulse.
Ed M has been insightful in his acknowledgement that it was traditional working class support, not the aspiring middle class, that left Labour in their droves. And while his program lacks the radicalism that those of us on the left would like, it nevertheless marks a clear path through the broad church which can appeal to the majority of party members, and to the public.
Policies such as lowering the 50% tax threshold to £100,000 and introducing a living wage are steps in the right direction. His stance on civil liberties is a refreshing break from the worst elements of Labour’s authoritarian past. And the introduction of a graduate tax, votes at 16 and support for AV look set to strengthen the Labour vote amongst students and young people. But more important than all of these is the shift in the nature and tone of inter-party debate that an Ed Miliband victory could herald. As he himself put it, New Labour often saw its job as being to defend the public against its own members. If the Labour Movement is going to grow and develop in the coming years, such hostility must end.
I believe that an Ed Miliband victory could herald the start of a process of renewal within the Labour Party which can develop an effective social democratic program, heal the divisions of the past 15 years and put the final nail in the New Labour coffin. And if the war criminals and prima donnas desperately scrabbling to intervene on David Miliband’s behalf tell us anything, its that they are worried about exactly the same thing.
That is why, with mix of cautious optimism and cold pragmatism, I will be voting Ed Miliband as my first preference.
(For those of you who are curious, my second preference will be going to Ed Balls, in the hope that his first act as Shadow Chancellor will be to dash Osborne’s skull open on the dispatch box while reciting Keynes’ General Theory of Employment.)
After thinking long and hard about it, Diane Abbott will be receiving my first preference for Labour leader (despite Paul making a compelling case for Ed Balls). But this is not a ringing endorsement: I'll be voting for Abbott because of her policy platform. I think the powers that be in the Labour party need reminding that not only are socialist politics alive, but that they command wide support in and outside the party. Here's her final electoral email:
Dear Phil,
I hope you had a good bank holiday.
It's coming to the end of the Leadership campaign and our party will announce its new leader on September 25.
Ballots will start going out tomorrow (September 1) and you will finally be able to cast your vote to decide who will lead your party.
I want to ask you for your support one last time.
Thank you
It’s been a great campaign and I want to thank all of the party members I have met over the weeks and months, who have shown me incredible support and have reminded me of what a great party we are.
My campaign is going extremely well.
I do not have the financial capacity of my comrades, but what I do have is the will to succeed.
Polls suggest Labour would do well with me as Party Leader
It showed that I have the support of party members and trade unionists, who will make up two thirds of this vote.
Since that poll more party members have had the opportunity to assess all the candidates and judge who is best able to correct the mistakes that have been made and rebuild our support.
I have a real chance of becoming your leader. Your vote will make all the difference.
No vote for me is a wasted vote.
Where I’ve been
Over the summer, I have spent time visiting members up and down the country.
I’ve been to Scotland, Nottingham, Luton, Birmingham, to name just a few, and have seen phenomenal support for my bid.
I’m heading to Liverpool, Exeter, Bristol, Norwich and Manchester over the final weeks and hope to meet as many of you as I can. Please email my team if you want to meet up diane4leader@hotmail.co.uk
If you haven’t as yet made your mind up, there’s still time.
New leaflet
This week I sent out thousands of copies of my brand new leaflet to CLPs around the country, setting out my vision for leadership of the party.
Over the next few days there will be televised debates on Channel 4 and Sky, culminating in a special Question Time on September 16.
I hope to be able to show you in these debates why I stand apart from the other candidates.
What I stand for
One way is in my response to the Coalition’s budget.
The Lib-Cons have made an unprecedented attack on the welfare State.
Even independent researchers such as the Institute of Fiscal studies agree that their budget will hit some of the poorest in our society the hardest
This is unacceptable and we need a strong leader, like me, who will ensure Cameron and Clegg's attacks are opposed by Labour.
What will I do as your Leader?
I want to stand up for the most vulnerable and protect those in need.
I want make changes that new and old members want to see.
I want to:
* PROTECT THE PUBLIC SECTOR * SCRAP TRIDENT * BRING TROOPS BACK FROM AFGHANISTAN * STAND UP FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES * RESTORE FAITH AND TRUE DEMOCRACY IN THIS PARTY
If you want to see these changes, I hope that you will be able to put me as your first preference
If you want to know more about the final stages of the campaign, you can visit my website www.diane4leader.co.uk
Or email me on diane4leader@hotmail.co.uk
Follow me on Twitter http://twitter.com/dianeforleader
Join my facebook group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=105235839522326
Please forward this email to everyone you know
Yours in comradeship
Diane Abbott MP
UPDATE Those canny folk at The Third Estate have scooped an exclusive interview with Diane Abbott. Read it here.
If you're interested in politics and you want to give Twitter a try, an essential must follow is @HouseofTwits. It's raison d'etre is retweeting useful updates from the 3,000 or so political folk the account follows. It sometimes means tolerating ignorant and right wing nonsense (not altogether uncomfortable bedfellows, going by many twitterings I receive) but it is still one of the best Twitter-related political resources going.
As part of a series, I've been "twinterviewed" by HoT proprietor, Peel. You can view the short piece on site here, or alternatively carry on reading. The twinterview took place over direct messaging, hence the format:
@HouseOfTwits: Ready for your Twinterview?
@averyps: Sounds good to me! Will you be doing it via DM?
@HouseOfTwits: Yep, I'll ask the first question soon, once I've thought of something clever, pithy, amusing but not too pleased with itself...
@averyps: Cool. Fire when ready.
@HouseOfTwits: You joined the Labour Party from the Socialist Party before the election. Are any leadership candidates to the left of Brown?
@averyps: Diane is certainly to Brown's left. I would say Ed M is more social democratic too. Ed B is good on the economy, but awful on immigration.
@HouseOfTwits: ...
@averyps: It angers me that some leadership contenders think reconnecting with working class voters means bashing immigrants and benefits claimants.
@HouseOfTwits: If you could pick the leader, from all Labour MPs, who would it be?
@averyps: In an ideal world, John McDonnell. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.
@HouseOfTwits: I note you didn't refer to the attributes of D Miliband. Does he have Blair's talents?
@averyps: I'm not sure what Blair's talents were. I think David Miliband will be a competent Labour leader from the standpoint of politics as usual.
@HouseOfTwits: Will the left be able to get behind him if he's leader?
@averyps: I don't think the left will get behind him as in awarding him a ringing endorsement. But they will accept the ballot's outcome if he wins.
@HouseOfTwits: Re. Blair - getting Clause 4 removed must have required a talent of some sort?
@averyps: You have to look at the context. The 1992 election shattered the expectations of a lot of people...
@HouseOfTwits: ...
@averyps: Many on the left were willing to swallow it if it meant getting the Tories out.
@HouseOfTwits: Was it worth it?
@averyps: It got the Tories out, though it's debatable whether abolishing Clause 4 aided that. But what Blair brought in wasn't that different. It was neoliberalism with a smile.
@HouseOfTwits: How would a modern Socialist structure the tax system without disincentivising enterprise and wealth creation? In 140 characters ;)
@averyps: ...
@HouseOfTwits: I should probably rephrase 'wealth creation' - 'job creation' maybe less provocative for you ;)
@averyps: Ha! I am for progressive taxation, closure of loopholes, etc. I am also for placing large economic enterprises into the hands of the workers and consumers who use them.
@HouseOfTwits: Re-Nationalise everything that moves?
@averyps: No. Through cooperatives or other forms of workers' ownership. Britain's co-ops - with a turn over of £34bn - have little problem "incentivising".
@HouseOfTwits: What about the innovating risk takers?
@averyps: Who are these people? Seems to me most enterprises are very risk averse. And besides, it's often the workers who take on the real risks for them.
@averyps Would you rather risk your capital investing in a suspension bridge or risk your neck building it? Risk is a question of class.
@averyps Returning to the main point, socialism is at base economic democracy. Economic activity should not be about earning money for unaccountable shareholders.
@HouseOfTwits: But the shareholders have capitalised the growth of the enterprise, without which...
@averyps And that capital has been earned from the work of current and previous generations of workers. True, in a capitalist society there is a symbiotic relation between labour and capital.
@averyps The difference between the two is you can conceive an advanced industrial society without production for profit. But you cannot conceive any kind of capitalist society without the labour of workers.
@HouseOfTwits: Socialism has produced many successful, cogent thinkers, but very few successful nation States - fair?
@averyps: I don't think the states that claim to be socialist can in any meaningful sense be described as such. They're certainly not democratic.
@HouseOfTwits: The undemocratic success stories?
@averyps: I don't think you can have socialism without democracy. That said, it would be churlish to deny some of the successes of self-described socialist states.
@averyps China has seen the largest and fastest reduction of absolute poverty in world history. Cuba has one of the best healthcare systems in the world, easily eclipsing that of the USA.
@HouseOfTwits: The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted!
@averyps: Definitely not, unless the revolution breaks out in the US and the internet's architecture is placed under workers' control!
@averyps But I think socialists can learn many things from the experience of the so-called socialist countries without apologising for their regimes.
@HouseOfTwits: How would Marx and Engels adjust their thinking in the light of the 20th Century? i.e. the failure of the pragmatic application of Socialism?
@averyps: Looking at how they polemicised against rival trends in the socialist movement of their day, they would have been scathing of the regimes
@averyps: If they were around today they'd be doing what any decent Marxist is already doing, such as analysing how capitalism has developed over the last century and trying to develop socialist strategies appropriate to the current situation.
@HouseOfTwits: Ok, I'd like to do a Part II one day, but that's all we have space for now... Thanks for your time, A Very Public Sociologist!
Following the rip-roaring success of the AVPS Top 100 Dance Songs of the 00s at the tail end of last year, what better way to celebrate Britain's scorching weather than unleashing the definitive top 100 dance songs of the 1990s on this bank holiday? It really puts you in that summery mood. Like last time, 'dance' here is used as a short hand for all forms of electronic music, from handbag to euphoric trance, from old skool rave to trip hop. So forget sad sectarian Dave and his rock imperialism and wrap your ears around the best 1990s dance music has to offer.
Edit: Oh look, here are the top 100s for the 1970s and 1980s.
Some readers may have already seen this at Socialist Unity. Ed Balls will not get my first or second preference vote for a number of reasons, but I do think he's done the best job of all the candidates of savaging the Tories and their economic illiteracy. For this reason alone he will be very useful on Labour's front bench when the contest is over. That might be useful for Labour members to keep in mind when the elections to the shadow cabinet take place.
Dear Phil,
Ed Balls speaking The new Tory-Lib Dem government is fond of saying that there is ‘no alternative’ to their austerity programme of cuts to public services, attacks on our welfare state and unfair VAT rise. They say it is unavoidable.
But I believe they are wrong. And what Labour needs right now is strong and confident leadership to say loud and clear: there is an alternative.
Today’s growth figures show Labour’s policies to support the economy were working. But all the evidence shows that George Osborne’s emergency budget is having the opposite effect – undermining jobs and growth and risking a double-risk recession.
That’s what I set out in my speech this morning. You can read it on my website here: http://action.edballs4labour.org/alternativespeech
This will be the most important issue of the next few years. If we are to win the next election we have to win the argument with Cameron, Osborne and Clegg on the economy. And we have to challenge their view that cutting the deficit at all costs is the most urgent priority in Britain. It isn’t – the most urgent priority must be securing the recovery and boosting jobs and growth.
So we need a leader who has the experience, judgement and credibility to win the economic argument. But the whole party from the leader down to every activist, union member and councillor needs to be part of this task too.
I hope my speech will give you the key arguments to start winning this debate in your community too: http://action.edballs4labour.org/alternativespeech
But there is not just an alternative on the economy. I believe there is an alternative in this leadership election too. Some would have you believe this leadership election was over before it ever really began. And the media have been claiming for weeks that it’s a two-horse race.
Ed Balls and a pensioner knitting Not a single vote has been cast and over the next few days and weeks I will be holding events around the country to meet party and union members. I hope you will get the chance to come along – find out where I will be on my website here: http://action.edballs4labour.org/events
Many party and trade union members have said after my meetings that they are changing their minds and voting for me as their first preference. Over the last few weeks a number of MPs who nominated other candidates have decided to give their first preference vote to me instead.
And I’m pleased to have won the support of people from across our movement, including former London Mayor Ken Livingstone and the Communication Workers Union.
If you’d like to support my campaign too then please let me know by filling in the form here: http://action.edballs4labour.org/support
I’m fighting to win – to show there is a credible and radical alternative to the ConDems on the economy and a credible and radical alternative in this leadership election.
Best wishes,
Ed Balls
P.S. You can read Ken Livingstone’s letter on why he is giving me his first preference vote at http://action.edballs4labour.org/kenletter and you can see a video of my Q&A at Demos last night here: http://action.edballs4labour.org/demos
Interestingly the final blanket email to Labour members for David Miliband comes not from him but Jon Cruddas, whose ever-so-surprising endorsement of Miliband the elder yesterday received a bit of traction in the media. Again, this is for information purposes.
Dear Phil
I want a better Labour Party. I want a party that listens to every member, and is on the front foot, working in every area of the country for all our people.
Having watched the leadership election closely, I am convinced that David Miliband is the candidate best placed to take on that task. David Miliband is someone who can lead a credible opposition to the Coalition Government and build a united Labour Party that will offer the hope of a better Britain.
Our party has such talent and energy – we can no longer be defined by division. Every part of our party must be brought together to fight for our common values. And together we will win back power and work to build a Good Society.
This is why I’m supporting David Miliband’s campaign for Leader of the Labour Party. And I’d like you to join David’s and my campaign to rebuild a united Labour Party now:
http://action.davidmiliband.net/rebuild
Labour is a broad church. All sections of our party will need to play a role in creating a movement that will stand up to the Coalition and help build towards the next Labour Government.
There are areas of policy where David and I differ, but we both understand the need for new leadership and a new start. A new leader isn’t the silver bullet to solve our problems. David won’t fix Labour on his own, we all have a role to play. But throughout the Leadership Contest David has shown the best understanding of the traditions of our Party and how best to combat the Coalition Government.
We share a vision of the Good Society. And his Keir Hardie lecture showed the vision to generate a common purpose throughout the Party. I look forward to working with David to renew the Labour Movement so that every member and supporter can play an active role.
Over the past weeks and months all of the candidates have shown a real commitment to Labour. They are all good people. By coming together, we are ready to transform the battleground of British politics – and once again emerge as the best hope of the British people.
Please show your support for a united Labour Party by signing up now. And then share this message with your friends – if Labour is to win again we need to reconnect with the supporters we have lost.
http://action.davidmiliband.net/rebuild
I have listened to the debate - I'm going to vote for David Miliband because I believe he will restore our credibility and rebuild Labour as an ethical and political force. I hope you will support him, too.
Best wishes,
Jon
Jon Cruddas MP
Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham
P.S. This election is huge for our party. Whoever you want as leader, please do use your vote. You can use this page here to remind friends and work colleagues about their vote, too.
As the Labour leadership campaign enters the end game, each of the final leadership pitches of the five candidates are being sent out by email to members. As not everyone who reads this are Labour members but may nevertheless still be interested in what they have to say, I will be reproducing their statements here as I receive them.
Dear Phil,
Throughout this vital leadership election, I've said that Labour must change to win; that we should be discussing how to implement a living wage, how to reward good businesses, and how better to protect workers in the future, rather than merely defending the past.
Now, with just a few days left before our ballot papers arrive next week, I am asking for your first preference vote so that together we can make that change and win again for Labour.
Between 1997 and 2010, we lost five million votes. Our progressive majority fractured over time because we became technocrats of the state, and we lost touch with people's lives. We lost 1.7 million middle class voters, two thirds to the Lib Dems. I am the candidate who can win those voters back for Labour -- by placing liberty, equality and aspiration at the heart of our party's mission.
But what many in this leadership election choose to ignore is that Labour has lost too much support amongst people on lower incomes, and those struggling to get by. During our time in office, over 3 million working-class people abandoned New Labour as they felt New Labour abandoned them. The result was that our traditional "core vote" became the new "swing vote". Many people chose to vote Tory; too many others simply stayed home.
So we must have the courage to change, and to reshape the centre-ground again. We must reach out to those who have turned away from Labour since 1997. We must use this once in a generation realignment in British politics to draw new support from all those people across Britain who believe in fairness, hard work and opportunity. We must build an economy that works for people, create a more equal society with the space for everyone to flourish and forge a more accountable and more democratic state that works for everybody.
To do that, we need to escape the New Labour comfort zone. We must not go into the next election still as the party that defends the Iraq war or that says tuition fees and ID cards are here to stay. We cannot continue with the mantra that public is bad and private is good. We cannot fight the Tories arguing that low-wage, low-skill jobs are good enough or that we don't need to radically overhaul our banking sector.
To win back the five million voters we lost and to build a new progressive coalition for our century, Labour must change.
I'm campaigning to make that change: for a foreign policy based on our values; for a fairer system of funding for Higher Education; for a living wage; for rights at work; for a high pay commission; and for more active support for British industry. I'm offering change on how we campaign, so that every party member and every trade union member has a voice in our movement. And I'm offering change on style, pledging to put an end to the factionalism of the New Labour years and to unite our party for good.
Those are the values I've fought for in this leadership election. We've always said that while we may be out-spent in this election, we would not be out organised. And so it has been -- as our new video shows, over 4,000 people have signed up to volunteer to be part of the change and over 700 have given small donations to help drive our campaign. The result is that we are now neck and neck in the final days of this contest.
You can be part of the change we need to win again. Please click on the link below, watch our latest video and pledge to give me your first preference vote:
