Dreams of a united left

In Britain the political left is in a dire way. Save for rape-loving cod-socialist George Galloway smarming his way into the Commons through Bradford North, there is scarce representation across the country. So why, deep into yet another crisis of capitalism, is it this way? Why are the Labour party, dragged centre-right by Blair and Brown, refusing to budge from their new perch? Why, when radical left parties are on the rise in Europe, is Britain remaining fixated on neo-liberalism?

As Marx predicted, the internal contradictions of capitalism would inevitably lead to it self-combusting, not just once, but over and over again. As it has done, as it is currently doing. Greece,Spain, Portugal and Italy are all moving closer to complete collapse, and are in a much worse way to Northern European countries, but Britain is under the threat of a triple-dip recession, zero growth, jobs stagnation etc. – all the signs of economic failure. As a result of this the mistrust of the usual politics and politicians is growing, manifesting itself in a growth spurt for new protest party Ukip.

So where are the British left in all this? Absent, largely. Galloway’s Respect Party is the main force for the British left at the moment, gaining votes in traditionally Labour-dominated inner-cities. A smattering of various socialist and communist cliques can often be found propping up the running order of votes, defeating only the ‘Elvis Pensioner Party’ and the ‘9/11 Was An Inside Job’ candidate. It is strange, because in a time of such economic turmoil, the left should be finding its feet, offering, again, itself as a true alternative to the destruction of capitalism. 

More so, left wing parties offer a sane alternative to the even greater danger of fascist and far-right parties who aim to stoke a climate of fear around asylum seekers and outsiders, both as an outlet for the working class who are baring the brunt of austerity, and capitalism in general; and also, more simplistically, as a protest vote. 

One of the frequent criticisms of radical political movements is their inability to remain as a coherent group. There are schisms and rivalries inside the mainstream political parties, certainly, but it is rare that the tensions emerge as a definite split, and with such dogmatic factionalism, as fringe groups do (the same goes for the far-right as the far-left, as we have seen with the splintering of the BNP and the EDL). In Scotland the SSP was designed with the aim of bringing disparate left-wing groups together. It worked, briefly, until Tommy Sheridan split off to form Solidarity, bringing about the same weaknesses that had existed previously. The SSP’s vote sank from a high of six seats in a few years, and it remains mainly as a protest organising group with one councillor nationwide. Overcoming this factionalism and in-fighting is essential if the left are to regain their standing as a serious political group. It would prevent similar groups from taking votes from each other, and present a clearer alternative to mainstream politics for voters. Various political parties in Europe who have achieved much greater success than expected, such as Jean-Luc Melechon’s Left Front or SYRIZA inGreece, have operated as a rough coalition of parties and independents from across the left spectrum – eurocommunists to greens.
Pooling support and resources in this way is essential, but difficult. The aforementioned SSP/Solidarity split is a wound that is yet to heal. Groups like the SWP have gained a reputation as unlikeable cults, distrusted and mocked as much by the rest of the left as they are by the centre, if not more so.

Plus, looming on the horizon is a bigger problem for the radical left – the Labour party. The Labour party are no longer a left-wing party, no longer a party with the good of the working class at their heart. They are uncomfortable with trade unionism, uncomfortable with the risk of breaking with the Thatcherism, neo-liberal consensus which was established in the 1980s. But, because of the proud history of the party, and it’s undeniable left-wing roots, it continues to draw in well-meaning (but naïve) socialists and left-wingers, who believe that the party can change. The Labour party, as is, is a blockade to getter political representation for real left wing parties, draining voters and high profile supporters who would be better served by a united left front.

I am not naive. I do not believe this is an easy task, one which can be accomplished before the next election. It will take a lot of hard work, from all sides - some gritting of the teeth, some hiding (if not burying) of hatchets. It is also important to remember that politcal action is not, and cannot, be limited to the parliament. It needs to take place on the streets, in the forms of protests, strikes and occupations. It is socialism from the group up, discussing with people their desires and fears - not remaining aloof in a distant parliament, recording 60% attendence and fleecing the expenses system. If this happens, any left-wing politicans would be just as bad as the Labour party, or the Conservatives, or the Lib Dems. It is about making a radical change in the way politics is not only shared, but conducted. Parties are an open forum, and representation in power of the will of the people - could a left bloc be that?

Another school shooting, and America's doomed romance with guns continues

With twenty-eight dead in Connecticut, the logical response would be gun control. America’s latest school shooting is perhaps the most shocking yet, and it is undeniable, no matter the mental state of the gunman, that the easy availability of guns was the main factor. After the Dunblane school shooting in 1996 Scottish and British gun control laws were tightened severely. The same thing happened again when Derrick Bird shot more than twenty people in his home town, targeting some of his ‘enemies’, but mainly killing random people as they walked down the street. The UK, as with most countries, are able to balance mourning for these tragedies with a level-headed and positive approach to gun control. In America, things are different.

It is inevitable, but very little, if anything at all, will happen in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting. Adam Lanza’s identity had been revealed for only a few minutes when the pre-emptive strikes against the gun control campaigners began. Lanza has a mental illness, they said, negating any responsibility that easily-accessible firearms had played in the events. At the same time, old arguments emerge which claim that bringing politics, in the form of a gun control debate, into the aftermath of a massacre is a heartless act in itself.

As someone who lives in a country where the only people who have guns are farmers and particularly determined gangsters the idea of being able to walk into a supermarket and buy a firearm is surreal. There is no call in Britain for lesser gun control, because people seem to know the risks. But Britain, like the rest of Europe, has a different relationship with weapons to America. This relationship was explored, without much in the way of a satisfactory conclusion, by Michael Moore in Bowling For Columbine (in the end this relationship confused and angered him so he ended up chasing an aging Charleton Heston around the latter's home with a picture of a dead schoolgirl).

Ultimately Americans associated guns with 'freedom', and freedom with America - as long as this remains the case, the issue of gun control will never be removed from it's deadly rut. Guns are part of the national character to a significant extent, but, especially in the familiar aftermath of shootings like the one in Newtown, there are growing calls to restrict the sale of firearms. As I said above, nothing will happen.

The political situation in America is at deadlock on almost every issue. Obama may have scrapped past Romney in the presidential election, but he still has to deal with Republicans pouncing on his every move, motivated by the slender mandate the country afforded him. Republicans don't want gun control, and they would be able, with the help of the very rich pro-gun lobbies (like the NRA, whose natural reaction to a news flash about a school shooting is to draft a defensive press release), to make the argument very difficult for the Democrats. Obama and his party know this. I don't know Obama's personal views on gun control, but it's also likely that many people in his own party are against it. It is a hugely damaging and risky argument to have, and therefore, with their partisan nature, the Republicans have been able to shut down any attempt at establishing a discourse on the matter. The same thing has happened, to differing extents, to gay marriage, to climate change, and to solutions to the failings of American capitalism.

Gun control is also not the type of thing that would show improvements overnight, and the public are often hard to convince on measures which require a lot of work now, with no guaranteed outcome. In the event of guns being made illegal to own in America, there would be shootings and suicides as the police attempted to remove firearms from people. A few months in, when the first massacre is committed with an illegal gun, the pro-gun lobby will cart out their usual argument that it would have been prevented if one of the victims owned a gun.

Perhaps Obama, with no need to worry about personal re-election, could be brave, and attempt to move America towards a solution. He would have a number of big city mayors, like Michael Bloomberg, on his side (mayors who have to deal with gun crime in large American cities know first hand that the real tragedy of America's relationship with firearms is not the occasion school shooting but the constant stream of bodies which flow from gang disputes, all aided by a lack of gun control). Obama is already one of the most divisive presidents in American history, and immediate move towards gun control would likly entrench that. But dither, and refuse to move, and he will face a few more tearful press conferences before he walks out of the White House for the last time.