Why the left needs "bottom"

Conservative men of a certain age used to speak approvingly of some men (it was always men) as having “bottom”. By this they meant a combination of a moral code and loyalties that gave them a solid reliability.

I was reminded of this by these words of John McDonnell:

We’ve got to convert ordinary members and supporters into real cadres who understand and analyse society and who are continually building the ideas.

This is absolutely bang right.

Underlying his words is a fear – that the massive current popularity of Corbynism might just be a fad.

There’s ample precedent here. The revolutionary ideals of the 68ers faded as they acquired careers and (cheap) property. The Greens won 15% of the vote in 1989, but that soon vanished. And of course there are countless people who, in Christopher Hitchens’ words, made the stagger from left to right – and who rarely became less employable as a result. Personally, I wouldn’t stake my wealth upon Aaron Bastani or Laurie Penny being vocal leftists in 30 years’ time.

The vogue for Corbynism could go the same way. Although McDonnell is giving the programme real and often inspiring economic content, there’s danger that Corbynistas themselves are motivated by what James Bloodworth calls “a vague and muddled ideal”, a backlash against “neoliberalism.” If your leftism consists only of an emotional spasm, a belief that Tories are “evil”, it will not long survive contact with real human beings.

Nick Cohen has long complained that leftists have lost touch with their better values and adopted a “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” mentality that has seem them “excuse antisemitsm, misogyny, tyranny, and obscurantism, as long as the antisemitic, misogynistic, tyrannical obscurantists are anti-Western.” I know many of you reject this account. But in a sense it speaks to what McDonnell fears – that a leftism which is just childish rebellion cannot last long or grow large.

It’s in this context that the left needs “bottom” – ballast that stops it drifting with the tides of fashion and instead becomes a genuine solid force for change.

Classical Marxists understated the problem here. They thought workers would be so desperately poor and exploited that they’d have nothing to lose but their chains and so would become radicalized. They were wrong. Yes, one factor behind Corbynism is that erstwhile “middle-class” jobs have become proletarianized; professionals have both lost some autonomy at work and become unable to afford a house.  Resentment alone, however, is not a strong enough base for lasting leftism. It might not survive career progression and more affordable housing.

It’s in this context that McDonnell is right to say the left needs an understanding of society. Of course, it would take far too long to spell out exactly what this would consist of. For me, a key principle here is that of complexity. Inequality – of power as well as wealth - does not exist and persist because the rich are evil. It also happens, as Marx recognised. because of impersonal forces which operate with only a little input from people’s intentions. Capitalists’ influence over the state, for example, happens because politicians want to create jobs and so need to maintain business confidence; support for inequality exists not just because our media is biased but because ideology is endogenous; exploitation occurs not (just) because capitalists are greedy but because competition forces wages and working conditions down.

Equally, the capitalist crisis is the result not just of “greedy bankers” – everyone would like a few quid more – but of impersonal factors causing a lack of capital spending and hence stagnation in productivity and real wages.

A lasting, well-rooted leftism requires an understanding of forces such as these – of why capitalism does not work as we would wish it to. Moralizing is nowhere near enough. The problem is that there are pitifully few institutions that enhance understanding and several powerful ones that actively militate against it.

Comments

[TickyW]

Add the study of a kid-friendly version of John Rawles's works to the National Curriculum?

[Luis Enrique]

Good argument. Though I admit I found the phrasing "converted to cadres" a bit alarming, too redolent of political reeducation camps.

I know everyone is going to laugh at me for this, but I hold out some hope that by turning towards questions of distribution etc. mainstream economics might give us some of these durable roots.

[Matthew Moore]

I've always thought Labour does itself a huge disservice with attack lines like 'the Tories hate the poor!' and 'the Tories just want to help rich bankers'

I think most people consider ths unlikely and it undermines Labour credibility. It's a constant problem that, while the Right understands the morality of the Left, the Left cannot understand the morality of the Right, and confuse a different value system for an evil or amoral position.

[Scratch]

"I think most people consider ths unlikely"

Oh, I don't know - there seem to be vanishingly few examples of Tories (or Liberals, or liberals) unilaterally distributing goodies to the hoi polloi if unmenaced by working class self organisation and centuries of 'em working us to death from childhood for a subsistence wage in its absence.

Maybe they've improved - but I wouldn't fancy giving them the unbridled opportunity to prove it.

[Scratch]

"Classical Marxists understated the problem here. They thought workers would be so desperately poor and exploited that they’d have nothing to lose but their chains and so would become radicalized. They were wrong."

Premature would be fairer - maintaining us in the manner to which we'd briefly become accustomed appears to have become untenable for capital in the advanced economies by the seventies.

Capital's responses: Globalise, weaponise the corporation, move power beyond democratic control and coalesce with a newly minted, existentially unthreatening lumpenproletariat as a (practically fascist) bulwark against a freshly pissed off revolutionary class appear to have fundamentally run their course.

[Stuart]

The point is not to understand the world, but how to live well in a world we can't understand. That requires bottom, yes – but it's doubtful left-wing ideology is much help for those who would like one.

[Jim]

"a fear – that the massive current popularity of Corbynism might just be a fad"

Of course its a fad, all the people raving about it are the ones who are too young to have ever experienced (either directly or real time arms length) the ravages of socialism. If they get some real socialism (ie how it works in practise rather than as a series of slogans that you chant on marches) they'll be appalled, because the current younger generations are the most self absorbed, selfish and solipsistic generation for years. The idea of 'the common good' is all very well when you think its going to give you things you haven't currently got, when they find they're on the other end of the equation there will be a rapid change of ideology.

[B.L. Zebub]

God knows, I have little to say in favour of Jordan Peterson. I think his ignorance equating Marxism and PoMo is nothing short of scandalous.

I can't say anything, good or bad, about his psychology, for I know next to nothing about psychology -- pop or not -- and have no interest whatsoever in it, although I tend to mistrust self-improvement gurus who make lotsa mullah overnight selling books, charging for YouTube counseling and getting money from alt-right outfits.

But even an individual like Peterson cannot be wrong on everything and you have to give him credit for what he gets right. And he does get something very right: his contempt for middle class "socialist" or even "Marxist" intellectuals, which he shares with the likes of George Orwell, is on the money.

Those intellectuals are of no use for the left. In fact, it's not just that they don't help, is that they hurt the left.

At least in the US they have a few valuable people, like Corey Robin, Richard Wolff and the Jacobin crowd. I'm not familiar with the British case, but I doubt you guys have anything like them and I'm sure in Oz we have nada.

If the socialist left is to have any future, we better find ways to promote our own public intellectuals. They are the ones to instruct life-long militants.

[Bob]

@Jim

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." - Socrates

[Kester]

There is something Chris personally can do.

Basically, do something to get George Soros Secretary of State (US Foreign Secretary.) He supports ending the war on terror.Suggest to the halls of power Chris and get the idea in his head of being foreign secretary/"Secretary of State."

[Kester]

Also ban all bank lending except capital development lending cut taxes 7% or basic income. Restrictions on bank lending depress the economy and open up the fiscal space for people to work as protein folders.

[Ralph Musgrave]

Labour would win every general election for the next 20 years if it distanced itself from the loony left: e.g. Antifa, the barmier aspects of political correctness, etc. But Corbyn doesn't do that. So every Tory voter assumes, not unreasonably, that Corbyn is an Antifa nutter in disguise, and continues to vote Tory.

[cjcjc]

Which of McDonnell's ideas would be say are "inspiring"??

[cjcjc]

Sorry, would you say...