Does the New Left actually want to govern?

[Diable Rouge]

I will confess to cautious optimism when Podemos arose from the 15-M protests - it appeared to offer a genuine grass-roots reinvention of the Spanish left, and demonstrated an early pragmatism in securing the mayoralties of Barcelona and Madrid. However, they've since retreated into the political cul-de-sac of ideological purity, rather than working in a broad-based Cortes coalition. Similarly, Varoufakis swanned off on his motorbike when the going got tough for the Syriza government, who have consequently struggled to implement economic reforms.

Perhaps Mélenchon will ultimately build alliances with the rest of the French left, but with 40% of his supporters planning to abstain today week, the omens for the Assembly elections don't augur well. The seeds of a social democratic revival may well be sown by the new left's abdication of responsibility.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

I think Varoufakis was basically kicked out by the Troika, wasn't he?

[laverte]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

Diable Rouge wrote:
Perhaps Mélenchon will ultimately build alliances with the rest of the French left, but with 40% of his supporters planning to abstain today week...

That's a headline grabbing figure, but it's somewhat misleading:

– Where you say 'planning to abstain', you mean 'not planning to vote'. This can be for many reasons, notably failure to plan a postal vote or procuration in time. Next weekend is a three-day holiday weekend in France; many people will be visiting grand-mčre or turning blue on a windswept campsite somewhere. This might account for as much as one-third or even one-half of the 'abstentions': for example, the Paris-Match poll suggests some 15% percent of Le Pen's voters in the first round will not be voting next weekend.

– The proportion of abstentionnistes among Mélenchon's supporters is only about five percentage points higher than among Fillon's. This you would probably expect, given that the programmes of Macron and Le Pen are both closer to Fillon's than to the Front de Gauche.

– A lot of Mélenchon's demagoguery is anti-capitalist and anti-finance; the far left in France has never been focused on fighting fascists to the extent that, I think, it has been in the UK. It is hard for Mélenchon and his electorate then to turn around and give their support to an ex-banker. On a more sinister level, the word 'Rothschild' is circulating a lot as a way to discredit Macron; this reference is a dogwhistle for anti-semites dating back to the Dreyfus era. It is worryingly prevalent on social media.

I'm sure the Front de Gauche has its eyes on winning a largeish mayoralty or a handful of departments, rather than worrying too much about the elections for the national assembly. That was the FN's strategy while it was building a profile. It gave them publicity without sucking them into parliamentary horse-trading or isolating them in a tiny little corner of the national assembly.

[anton pulisov]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

Varoufakis resigned when Tsipris caved in to every one of Schäuble's demands.

So you have to ask yourself who the quitter is in that situation.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

What would local level Melenchon look like, Laverte?

[laverte]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

They already have quite a few mayors in the 'red belt' around Paris, in the old communist heartlands in the north, and in some middle-sized post-industrial places like Dieppe and Arles. But the merger between the PCF and the Front de Gauche has not really been finalized, and Mélenchon's place in the organiszation (such as it is) is far from clear. In other words: I don't know. Montpellier could be a city to watch; it has a popular mayor at the moment, backed by the socialist party, but he likes to present himself as a bit of a maverick, and if the PS endures a Scottish Labour style decomposition, he could be vulnerable to a challenge from the left. JLM scored very well in Montpellier.

[Lucy Waterman]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

Here's my theories, for what little value they have.

A lot of the support for the New Left is rooted in a feeling that the existing order is corrupt. Unfortunately, this tends to mean that a hatred of all forms of perceived corruption - including minor compromises - is fetishised by the New Left's supporters.

Given that forming a democratic government requires some level of compromise, the New Left then have two options - compromise and govern, but piss off some of their supporters, or valorise eternal opposition as evidence of superior moral virtue.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

laverte wrote: They already have quite a few mayors in the 'red belt' around Paris, in the old communist heartlands in the north, and in some middle-sized post-industrial places like Dieppe and Arles. But the merger between the PCF and the Front de Gauche has not really been finalized, and Mélenchon's place in the organiszation (such as it is) is far from clear. In other words: I don't know. Montpellier could be a city to watch; it has a popular mayor at the moment, backed by the socialist party, but he likes to present himself as a bit of a maverick, and if the PS endures a Scottish Labour style decomposition, he could be vulnerable to a challenge from the left. JLM scored very well in Montpellier.

Thanks.

I don't know anything about local government in France. But the 80s municipal left in the UK inevitably comes to mind. Not particularly auspicious.

[Patrick Thistle]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

Is there even a New Left? I'm not sure there is in the UK anyway. The support for Corbyn seems to be mainly old left who now feel they have a Labour leader who is one of them, instead of the shiny spinners of the New Labour era.

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

Lucy Waterman wrote: Here's my theories, for what little value they have.

A lot of the support for the New Left is rooted in a feeling that the existing order is corrupt. Unfortunately, this tends to mean that a hatred of all forms of perceived corruption - including minor compromises - is fetishised by the New Left's supporters.

Given that forming a democratic government requires some level of compromise, the New Left then have two options - compromise and govern, but piss off some of their supporters, or valorise eternal opposition as evidence of superior moral virtue.

I think the way the New Left see it, it's possible to have significant impact on politics without necessarily winning power in (bourgeois) democratic elections.

Third Way politics was about left parties becoming Continuity Thatcherites, more or less, for the End Of History. Mild (and easy to revert) re-distributive policies that provide a smokescreen for rampant privatisation. In essence, they ceded much of the traditionally contested political ground to the right - and in return they were permitted to make fleeting and incremental improvements.

It's not that the New Left fetishise a lack of compromise (at least assuming by New Left you mean Corbyn/Melanchon etc) it's that compromise itself is fetishised by Third Wayers - to the point where having any sort of principles that don't exactly tally with consensus held by the political classes marks you as a "loony lefty". See Wes Streeting spearheading the baffling pro-McDonald's takes purely because Corbyn had criticised it, for example, or the innumerable attempts to tell us what "ordinary people think".

In theory, New Leftism argues that instead of desperately seeking power and then implementing whatever you've been permitted to by the limitations of your platform, the left should seek to build campaigns around the issues that affect people's lives - housing, employment, healthcare, education - and through that either build a mass movement that can take power - or force concessions from the government. How successful it is in actually realising this goal is pretty debatable though.

The difference (imo) is that Third Way argues that political possibilities are constrained entirely by the makeup of the legislature and so the sole purpose of opposition is to win the next election, whereas New Leftism recognises that a broad-based popular movement is required to bring about meaningful change.

[Vulgarian Visigoth]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

Diable Rouge wrote: I will confess to cautious optimism when Podemos arose from the 15-M protests - it appeared to offer a genuine grass-roots reinvention of the Spanish left, and demonstrated an early pragmatism in securing the mayoralties of Barcelona and Madrid. However, they've since retreated into the political cul-de-sac of ideological purity, rather than working in a broad-based Cortes coalition. Similarly, Varoufakis swanned off on his motorbike when the going got tough for the Syriza government, who have consequently struggled to implement economic reforms.

Perhaps Mélenchon will ultimately build alliances with the rest of the French left, but with 40% of his supporters planning to abstain today week, the omens for the Assembly elections don't augur well. The seeds of a social democratic revival may well be sown by the new left's abdication of responsibility.

If there's something Podemos can't be accused of it's ideological purity. If there wasn't a government coalition with the Socialists it was because, after an electoral campaign of fearmongering against Podemos, they basically married LibDem-like Ciudadanos in a closed government pact intended to woo the People's Party into a three-way 'moderate' (ha!) coalition.

[Patrick Thistle]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

Bizarre Löw Triangle wrote:

In theory, New Leftism argues that instead of desperately seeking power and then implementing whatever you've been permitted to by the limitations of your platform, the left should seek to build campaigns around the issues that affect people's lives - housing, employment, healthcare, education - and through that either build a mass movement that can take power - or force concessions from the government. How successful it is in actually realising this goal is pretty debatable though.

I could see that working. The problem is whenever some motivational thing is found, e.g. 'Save our NHS', the pictures on the news show people waving those mass-produced SWP signs that have been handed out to marchers.

I found myself nodding along to Reg's post as well. I guess the question is given the main enemy is right wing populism, should the Left be trying to generate left wing populism?

A final thought. It's supposed to be a worker's movement comprised of the working class. But most of the real Leftier-than-thou 'Old Left' types I've met aren't working class. There was always the assumption they would be on the "worker's committee'' after the revolution.

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

Patrick Thistle wrote:

I could see that working. The problem is whenever some motivational thing is found, e.g. 'Save our NHS', the pictures on the news show people waving those mass-produced SWP signs that have been handed out to marchers.

I found myself nodding along to Reg's post as well. I guess the question is given the main enemy is right wing populism, should the Left be trying to generate left wing populism?

A final thought. It's supposed to be a worker's movement comprised of the working class. But most of the real Leftier-than-thou 'Old Left' types I've met aren't working class. There was always the assumption they would be on the "worker's committee'' after the revolution.

I should say that's the theory that the parliamentary left subscribe to (parliamentary left is probably a better term than "New Left" as if you're including Corbyn/Sanders etc there's nothing new about them) - and I was highlighting it as a counterpoint to "they fetishise ideological purity" (they don't), not to suggest it's the best way to advance their (or the wider left's) goals.

I have a lot of problems with that as a tactic. The closeness of the parliamentary left with the SWP is notable and significant - and reflects the fact that the parliamentary left is dependent on the institutions of the extra-parliamentary left (unions etc).

That means that not only does any leftist political project involve bringing the parliamentary and wider party into line, but also negotiating coalitions with factions within trade unions (the SWP being one of those). It's clear that to engage in any of this stuff involves layers of nested bureaucracy - which seem almost designed to limit the pace of any leftward trajectory.

[Lang Spoon]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

Dealing with the SWP in their many front guises is wearying as fuck. When those fuckers start infiltrating a local cause it's barely 5 minutes before they've packed their placemen into decision making positions, they have no interest in resolving issues so much as stoking shit up, and often drive away the genuine grassroots activists. They are poison, and Labour's seeming dependence on them re protests etc is worrying and almost definitely counter productive (I hated those cunts holding the horrible typeface signs long before I knew nowt about Micro Trot groups).

I dunno if it's the Brendan O Neil far right flirty trots I hate more, or the Boyd Barrett SWP front group windbaggery. Fuck em all.

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

Lang Spoon wrote: Dealing with the SWP in their many front guises is wearying as fuck. When those fuckers start infiltrating a local cause it's barely 5 minutes before they've packed their placemen into decision making positions, they have no interest in resolving issues so much as stoking shit up, and often drive away the genuine grassroots activists. They are poison, and Labour's seeming dependence on them re protests etc is worrying and almost definitely counter productive (I hated those cunts holding the horrible typeface signs long before I knew nowt about Micro Trot groups).

I dunno if it's the Brendan O Neil far right flirty trots I hate more, or the Boyd Barrett SWP front group windbaggery. Fuck em all.

I prefer to think of them as "pro-rape activists". Either that or an arm of Mi5 (and probably both).

Also, fun fact: their typeface is called "grotesque".

[E10 Rifle]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

I think there's been a shift away from working with the SWP since the rape crisis, to be fair. And rightly. In Labour left feminist circles their name is absolute poison.

What there isn't enough of, though, is a grassroots left within the trade union memberships (not leaderships or bureaucracies) that is disentangled from the Trot bandwagon-hoppers. Who, at an industrial level, apart from anything else, are frequently staggeringly tactically inept.

So join a fucking union everyone and do something about it

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

Does the New Left actually want to govern?

E10 Rifle wrote: I think there's been a shift away from working with the SWP since the rape crisis, to be fair. And rightly. In Labour left feminist circles their name is absolute poison.

What there isn't enough of, though, is a grassroots left within the trade union memberships (not leaderships or bureaucracies) that is disentangled from the Trot bandwagon-hoppers. Who, at an industrial level, apart from anything else, are frequently staggeringly tactically inept.

So join a fucking union everyone and do something about it

I don't doubt that it's true that there are many in Labour who refuse to work with the SWP but there's many more people who seem willing to do so. Prominent figures within labour locally (including my MP, and senior figures in the CLP) regularly collaborate with the SWP via their fronts. I wrote to my MP about it and didn't get any response. It's massively frustrating. Many of those who do collaborate would call themselves feminists.