Chris Leslie tweeted yesterday that “Marxism should have no place in a modern Labour Party.” You’d expect me to disagree, and I do. But I want to point out that a Marxist point of view might be an asset for non-Marxists within the party. I say so for three reasons.
First, Marxism draws our attention to the fact that politics is shaped by an economic base – by the nature of capitalism. The things that centrists deplore such as Brexit and the rise of Corbynism are not (just) fits of stupidity. They are a response to a real economic fact – that a decade long stagnation in productivity (which is almost unprecedented since the start of the industrial revolution) has caused stagnation in real wages. This stagnation contributed to the insularity and anti-immigrant sentiment that gave us Brexit. And it has caused discontent with the established order and hence the rise in populism; when people feel as if they’re losing, they take a gamble on risky alternatives.
If centrists want to fight the rise of populism on the left and the right they must therefore offer an analysis of capitalist stagnation and solutions thereto.
Herein lies another use of Marxism. It reminds us that the state in capitalism must fulfil two functions: legitimation (keeping voters happy with capitalism); and accumulation (providing the conditions for growth). The most successful governments of the post-war period found albeit different ways of doing both: the Attlee, Thatcher and Blair governments. Corbyn is offering something along these lines. What counter-offer can the Labour right make?
Remember - Corbyn became Labour leader not so much because of his political genius but simply because his centrist opponents were offering nothing – neither diagnosis nor remedy for capitalism’s problems. If people like Leslie want to seriously challenge Momentum and Corbyn, they must answer the question posed by a Marxist point of view: is it possible to reconcile capitalism with popular needs and if so how?
There is, though, a third reason why centrists should adopt a Marxian point of view. It’s that Marxists understand class. For us, class is not a lifestyle choice – whether you have avocado toast or a full English. It’s about ownership. Capitalists own capital and workers do not, and this gives capitalists (some) power over both workers and the state.
This helps explain why Corbyn is so popular among the so-called “middle classes”. It’s because they are not “middle class” at all. Their academic qualifications and decent incomes have not allowed them to escape drudge work or acquire property: if you want to understand why young people are Corbynistas, just look in an estate agent’s window. They are, objectively speaking and in Marxian terms, working class. And they are voting accordingly. If centrists are to effectively resist this, they need a class analysis and not just moralistic bleating.
Here, we must make two distinctions. One is between the Marxian diagnosis and the Marxian remedy. It is, I think, possible to use one but reject the other.
The second distinction is between temporarily adopting a perspective for particular purposes and being something. You can adopt a Marxist point of view without becoming a Marxist – just as I often become an orthodox macroeconomist, behavioural or financial economist depending upon the issue I face.
One of the most common forms of stupidity is the inability to have more than one point of view. If centrists are to become a serious political force again, they must stop equating who they are with what they believe, and take a Marxian perspective.
Russian proverb:
"Everything Marx told us about communism was wrong...
Everything Marx told us about capitalism was right"
Posted by: marku52 | October 10, 2017 at 04:29 PM
Chris Leslie, being a good example of a type, really doesn't deserve the label centrist – its far too suggestive of reasonableness. As you say it isn't good enough to rest all argument on past records, they have crumbled; it's not going to work. He/they sound intellectually reasoned: but actually its all dependent on an ill-educated audience (aka oppression) and or the easy insult of Populist, aka racist extremists. This is not a winning strategy; more a public display of hopelessness. How do you find the patience to take them seriously?
Posted by: e | October 10, 2017 at 05:13 PM
Leslie apparently doesn't understand what the term Marxist means, he's just using it as an alternative term for "leftie". Which doesn't bode well for any other analysis he might offer us.
Posted by: gastro george | October 10, 2017 at 05:34 PM
I like your point about the loss aversion and risky choices.
I suggest that this also explains the popularity of centrism, which is still more or less dominant.
A vote for centrism is a vote to maintain a very unequal capitalism.
Within this capitalism, there is still a small chance to become a capitalist oneself.
So the dispossessed vote to give themselves this opportunity at the expense of their peers.
A vote for any radical socialism would remove the opportunity for this payoff.
If you already think you are a potential millionaire then socialism is a vote for a certain loss vs centrisms improbable gain.
Posted by: coprolite | October 10, 2017 at 07:20 PM
There should be no place in the Labour party for MPs who would ban those who have different opinions.
Posted by: TickyW | October 10, 2017 at 10:18 PM
I agree being rigid and inflexible is a poor basis for winning political arguments and being effective. A good politician can look at problems from different perspectives and work out an effective strategy. It is not just the old centrists in labour but May and her tory party who are stuck for any good ideas and rigidly set on crashing out of the EU and possibly depressing the economy for decades by an inability to actually make rational choices and any firm offer about the post brexit relationship of the UK with the EU.
Posted by: Keith | October 10, 2017 at 10:54 PM
"If centrists are to become a serious political force again, they must stop equating who they are with what they believe, . . ."
ah, but what if their political opinions are acquired for affirming self-esteem, a consumer good like designer jeans. fashionable, but like fashion, affirming the status quo with change that leaves fundamental relations unchallenged?
Posted by: bruce wilder | October 12, 2017 at 01:20 AM
«no place in the Labour party for MPs who would ban those who have different opinions.»
The constitution of the Labour Party bans anybody from membership who don't support the aims of the party. For the simple reason that they belong in some other party.
Should there be no place in the Labour Party for its constitution?
Posted by: Blissex | October 12, 2017 at 12:26 PM
«a real economic fact – that a decade long stagnation in productivity»
That is a highly controversial "fact" as "productivity" is very hard to measure, especially in a service economy, and in the twisted post-JB Clark notion of "labour productivity" there is mixed also the fertility of land.
As mentioned many times, even before the 2008 recession, the "labour productivity" of the mining and energy sectors had declined a lot, because of the fall in oilfield fertility.
«has caused stagnation in real wages»
That "caused" is not entirely agreeable as "real wages" are not merely dependent on "productivity", but on distributional issues too, both with other types of income and within the wage category.
A fall in productivity growth has not had a uniform impact at all: high end wages and business and property profits have continued to zoom up, while average and below-average wages have fallen in real terms. How can that be explained in terms of "productivity"? Not so easily.
Posted by: Blissex | October 12, 2017 at 12:36 PM
«"productivity" is very hard to measure, especially in a service economy»
As to this, in a lot of service sectors the statistical bodies assume that GDP = GDI; obviously under such an assumption per-pound productivity is going to be absolutely flat, and per-hour productivity then depends solely on hours worked.
Posted by: Blissex | October 12, 2017 at 12:39 PM
I have huge reservations about the illustrative graph that purports to show 10-year productivity growth 1770-2016, but the obviously notable feature of it is that it has two periods ending 1870 and 1970, of accelerating productivity growth, followed in both cases by sharp slowdowns, and the second peak being significantly higher than the first.
It is for me very tempting, given the time periods involved, to relate them to the diffusion of the coal and oil windfalls through the political economy of the country. Perhaps if someone found a cheaper and more energy dense fuel than oil and its adoption started diffusing we would see a third ramp up.
Posted by: Blissex | October 12, 2017 at 12:46 PM
«no place in the Labour party for MPs who would ban those who have different opinions.»
Send huge apologies to the couple hundreds of trots who were banned for having different opinions? :-)
Posted by: Blissex | October 12, 2017 at 12:48 PM