==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
I have refrained from commenting much on the several interesting threads that
emerged on this list in particular in the period from when all the votes had
been declared until the declaration of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat
coalition, which is being spun by its leaders as 'Lib-Con', but known to some
opponents as 'Con-Dem Nation' and various other things (one Labour MP
suggested, quite acutely, that the most damaging thing is simply to keep
calling it a 'Tory' government). Anyhow, my reticence on here is because of
having been prepared in this election (in a way I was not prepared to do in the
elections of 2001 and 2005, or even 1997) to actively urge support for Labour,
and furthermore to be prepared to continue this, and campaign, after this
election. This is not entirely inconsistent with the SWP position (as a lapsed
SWP member - my various reasons for not renewing membership are for another
occasion or post) which essentially endorsed 'lesser evilism' on this occasion,
though urging support for TUSC candidates where they existed. I remain a little
sceptical about the latter (but it wasn't an issue at least in my own
constituency, where my local MP is and was Jeremy Corbyn) - at least in cases
where it would have been likely split the vote and enable either a Tory or Lib
Dem to win the seat. In this election every seat really did count; supporting
Respect candidates in 2005 was another matter.
I'm sure this will be a red rag to many members; it is not a decision I took
lightly, and probably requires some justification. I'd like to attempt to do so
as well as offering some wider observations on the election:
First of all, I do believe that 'lesser evilism' should not be dismissed
out-of-hand. As Richard Seymour and others have pointed out on this list, when
faced with actual parliamentary elections which will have wide-reaching
consequences, to simply abdicate entirely from the process neither serves any
productive purpose (other than preserving some sense of personal purity which I
find facile) nor precludes the possibility of other meaningful socialist
organisation and action at other times.
I have no illusions whatsoever that the Labour Party is a socialist party, nor
ever really has been. However, there are a few non-revolutionary socialists who
remain affiliated to the party (including Corbyn). Under Blair, Labour went
further in the direction of unfettered neo-liberalism than at any earlier time
in its post-1945 history, and remains to the right even of numerous continental
European Christian Democratic parties at least in terms of redistributive
taxation. However, nuances still matter, certainly in terms of their policy
implications and effect upon working people, and this election above all in the
last two decades in the UK could (and now almost certainly will) usher in the
most devastating consequences for the welfare state, the health service,
education and much else (the latest blog post by Seymour -
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-coalition-means.html - is very good
on this). And I would even extend these nuances to cover the difference between
Labour under Blair and Labour under Brown: in no sense can the latter be
dissociated from the former, but the latter has undertaken certain actions
including the nationalisation of Northern Rock or even the intervention on
behalf of the banks. These, whilst undoubtedly serving the interests of
capital, do betoken something of an ideological shift in terms of
non-interventionist market ideology (there is of course the argument that these
shifts constitute a regressive manoeuvre, consolidating a system for which the
'free market' is nothing more than an ideological facade for a deeply regulated
and jealously guarded state machinery for capitalism - right at the moment I'm
still working through this for myself). More to the point, one can identify
progressive policies - in terms of spending on education, health, etc., where
there has indeed been a palpable difference compared to pre-1997 - that did
occur throughout the New Labour period, as well as the fact that the party
retained an umbilical relationship with organized Labour. These actions were,
as I interpret it, possible only because of circle around Brown which
co-existed together with the mixture of nationalism and toadying to US
imperialism to be associated with Blair (from which of course Brown and his
cohort can never be wholly dissociated). I certainly don't want to make too
much of this, less still make this an issue of personalities within 'high
politics'; just giving one reading of what may be minor, but nonetheless not
insignificant, details.
The 'organic' relationship between Labour and the organized
