>Chris Burford
This actually not an uncommon view on parts of the Marxist left. I would describe it as a central assumption of the Democratic Socialists of America for example. I will make both a practical and a theoretical argument against it. But I should warn you, the practical part of my answer is based on failures in American politics -- and thus may not apply, or may need substantial modification when considered in a British context. I would add that I am speaking as a non-marxists leftist, though in practice my politics are to the left of a number of marxists on this list, and that I do apply a class analysis in politics.
If you try to incorporate say, the interests of the top 20% which lie below that of the capitalists 1% or .5% or so, the problem is that you are not stinting only the poorest of the poor -- but the whole bottom 80%. In the U.S. (the most unequal society in the industrialized world) the top 20% in terms of income (including both the rich and the top earners such the higher paid of the doctors, lawyers engineers, middle managers etc. earn 45% of the income. A tax policy, for example, which benefits even the bottom this top of this 20% (in the U.S. around $75,000 dollars) will probably hurt the bottom 80%. Similarly the current attempt to privatize U.S. social security (pensions) would greatly hurt the bottom 80% but would probably benefit households with incomes in 75,000+ income range. Correct me if I'm wrong (not just an expression -- I don't pretend to be an expert on British pension privatization), but I suspect your own British partial pension privatization has greatly benefited the rich and a minority of non-capitalist at the expense of a majority of workers.
Now as to benefits to the poorest of the poor, there is something Marxists already know which I think they need to keep in the front of their mind a great deal more than they already. As long as capitalism still exists, the position of the working class vs. others classes is better of worse depending on it's bargaining power. Now I know this bargaining power largely depends on other things than conditions for the poorest (such as unionization, militancy, organization consciousness). None the less, it is no accident that rights for the unemployed. and low wage workers are usually a high priority among intelligent Few workers have savings to see them through a long period of unemployment. Most know that if things go wrong enough that they could end up as one of the poorest of the poor. Thus the worse the worst off live , the more bargaining power capital has vs. labor (other things being equal). In the U.S. it is pretty common to see homeless people sitting beside the roadside with a "will work for food sign". It is also a pretty common joke on the part of managers to tell employees "You'll look real good wearing a 'will work for food sign.'"
In point of fact, I think the one of the reasons for the weakness of the American left is that it has managed to alienate most of the bottom 80% of the population in it's attempt not to alienate the top 20%. Why for years were progressive taxation, National Health care, day care and similar issues allowed to drop to back burner of the lefts agenda? Even now, why do so many of those who do want to move economic issues to front burner so willing to drop women, and nationalities to the back burner.
I think the answer here is in my primary disagreement with Marxism. To save time and suspense it is basically a new class analysis -- but one which in taking the "new class" into consideration as an oppressor does not drop the greater role of the capitalist class. That is we have capitalist class which is the main oppressor. But we also have a class "between labor and capital" which does not consist entirely or even largely of small capitalists but which none the less manages to get far more income than it would under socialism, which which manages to get a larger share of the more pleasant and empowering jobs than it would under capitalism -- in effect workers who are paid by capitalists a share of other workers surplus value in return for their role in managing those other workers or in return for doing technical work crucial in the control of other workers.
It is almost impossible for someone catering to this new class to concentrate on economic and social issues at the same time. You can concentrate on social (feminists, disabled and anti-racist, queer etc. ) issue without threatening new class interests as long as you ignore questions of economic equality -- since you can finance these social changes by regressive taxation of working people. Or you can support mildly progressive economic change so long as you ignore women, queers, disabled , nationalities/races etc., and downplay questions of democracy -- because your social programs will then be managed by the same old able-bodied straight white males. More profoundly, even Marxist revolutions can end up being simply a means by which embryonic new class grows, strengthens itself and ends up taking over a nation at the expense of both workers and capitalists.
I will add that ignoring this new class analysis is what leaves the American left so vulnerable to right-wing populism. Most people experience oppression far more directly at the hands of managers, doctors, and lawyers than they do at capitalists. Most workers have been experienced direct oppression by all of the above, and in addition have had to endure a thousand petty unintentional or intentional insults from this new class. While capitalist may ultimately have harmed workers to a much greater extents, the few direct experiences most workers have with capitalists may be pleasant and polite fleeting encounters. I go by my own experience here which may not be a representative sample, but I find that most workers are far more hostile to the new class than they are to capitalists. I don't think that any class consciousness about capitalist can ever be built without an acknowledgment and inclusion in struggle of the very real oppressive role that this new class plays.
One reason this may happen is the most grass-roots activists (and for that matter theorists) come from the new class, the middle class between labor and capital. Do I suggest that middle class people should not engage in working class activism? No, this would be as silly as suggesting that men not active in support of feminism, or that the skin-priveleged not take part in fighting racism, or that the able-bodied not actively support rights of the disable, or that Engels (a capitalist) should have made no theoretical contribution to workers' struggle. But what I am suggesting is that we all should be very conscious of this third class, and of the conflict between it's interests and those of workers. I would also suggest that those left groups who have affirmative action to ensure that women, the disable, queers, people without skin privilege etc. should do the same for workers. All the socialists groups, and many non-socialists groups, have women's caucuses, queer caucuses, anti-racist caucuses. Having these groups is I think essential to long term success in organizing, and I would add that they should have disabled caucuses as well. But let me ask, (especially in the case of the socialist groups) would it be too much to ask that they also have a workers caucus?
>It would be a considerable gain to break the ability of capital to manage politics through the two party bourgeois electoral system.
>But I do not think marxists, or would be marxists, should confine their
perspectives to such a party or such a left-centre coalition of
parties.
>I realise these views are controversial and would appreciate reasoned
criticisms.
In terms of this second point -- that Marxists (and I presume other leftists) should take take part in center and center right parties my answer is a pragmatic one. There was a "popular front" period in which this had real achievements. Most such participation outside of this "popular front" period resulted in more losses than gains for workers. In short I would simply ask for evidence that this is a good tactic in our current period. As far as I can say leftist of all stripes who participate in non-left political parties simply end up having to support current right wing policies in return for, well in return for nothing as far as I can see. Basically concessions to left policy are made not on the basis of left members within center-right parties but of grass-roots pressure outside of these parties. Should leftists (marxists or non-marxists) ever get control of a mainstream party without this type of grassroots support the mainstream party will suddenly be marginalized in exactly the same way that a party which was "left" to begin with would. For example, the mildly Liberal George McGovern managed to win our presidential nomination back in the sixties. In spite of a number of flaws,he supported some policies which would have greatly benefited working people including over the policies of Nixon who defeated him. These included an early end to the Vietnam War, a more progressive income tax, a guaranteed minimum income to replace welfare. He was by nominees noncapitalist but I think represented a genuine lesser evil, possibly even a lesser good. And what happened? As a long time loyal democratic he relied on loyalty from the U.S. democratic party organization -- which turned against him and supported Nixon. He ended up defeated pretty much as soundly as if had run on a third party. I suspect this is not the worst, but the best that can come from trying to use a center or right party as a basis for organization. In fact I think that using parties as a basis for organizations is a mistake period. I suspect that multi-issue grass roots organization are the key to building a mass movement. Once you have a real mass movement with it's own institutions then building new political parties or taking part in existing ones may be worth devoting a lot of energy to.
Happy Merry and Merry Happy to all
Gar
>Chris Burford
>London.
--
Gar W. Lipow
815 Dundee RD NW
Olympia, WA 98502
http://www.freetrain.org/