14.05.2008

Sentimentalism covers for poverty of ideas

If comrades were still unconvinced that the left has failed to learn the lessons of the past and provide radically new alternatives, then last weekend's '1968 and all that' conference unintentionally drove the message home. Dave Isaacson, Nick Jones and Phil Kent report

The session entitled ‘Essex University - then and now’ had two speakers: 1968 Essex University veteran David Wilson (standing in for Mike Gonzalez) and president-elect of Essex student union, Dominic Kavakeb. Comrade Wilson joked that he had invited David (now Lord) Triesman to speak as well, but had not received a reply. Triesman was a Trotskyist student radical at Essex in 1968. He is now a minister at the department for innovation, universities, and skills. It was a pity about Triesman, because comrade Wilson himself had so little to say and left it to comrade Kavakeb instead.

Comrade Kavakeb, a Socialist Workers Party member, said he had been disappointed to find no obvious legacy of the days of ‘Red Essex’ when he started his studies. However, the comrades there have been the driving force behind an electoral slate called ‘Viva Essex’ which recently won nine out of 11 positions on the student union executive. Dominic obviously felt there were big things to come, telling us to keep an eye on Essex next year.

However, his response to two questions about the differences between 1968 and the present showed that these electoral achievements left a lot to be desired. Somebody asked about the necessity of building coalitions, given the increased diversity of the student population today. Another member of the audience commented that Dominic had only mentioned what his slate was against, whereas the movements in 1968 were far more articulate in expressing what they were for. What was Viva Essex for?

Dominic addressed both of these questions together. In a very illuminating answer, he said that because Viva Essex was a broad coalition of various campaigns and groups it was difficult to specify what they were for! If they were to do so, Dominic explained, they would disagree and the coalition would fall apart. He explicitly counterposed this to standing in the elections as revolutionary socialists or Marxists, which he said would have got them nowhere. Clearly success is measured in votes by the SWPers of today.

An autonomist in the audience argued that student unions were reactionary and a waste of time. Dominic correctly observed that the left could, with a fight, win them to work in our interests. But he seemed to think they had already done this at Essex. In reality it is unlikely that he will advance beyond acting as a left bureaucrat over the next year.

Second wave

A professor at Manchester university, Sheila Rowbotham, spoke on ‘The personal and the political in 1968’. ‘First wave’ feminist thinkers like Mary Wollstonecraft and Mary Shelley had clearly proved influential on the work of later feminist writers. She cited the work of Doris Lessing and how personal experience became important for political discourse.

Comrade Rowbotham claimed that revolutionary heroines such as Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg come across as having “no personal feelings”. And if they did, as she conceded, this was not “part of what was meant to be said about them”. That they shunned being confined to women’s issues was fortunately not expanded upon.

Treating personal experience as a vehicle for “willed freedom” implied a focus upon the role of individual will as the agent for social change. Comrade Rowbotham noted a problem, however. The will to be free is mitigated by class.

With the escalating Vietnam war and the great swelter of ideas prevalent in 1968, comrade Rowbotham joined the International Socialists (precursor of the SWP). She was a member for 18 months. Her involvement coincided with a workerist period in the organisation. Members were sent into factories and other workplaces. As a consequence those seeking to engage in the emergent women’s and gay liberation movements had a fractious relationship with the IS executive committee.

Contributions from the floor highlighted the failings of the 1968-inspired second-wave feminism to deliver the promise of equality. Others noted the ability of capitalism to accommodate identity politics - it has been able to adopt the rhetoric of women’s emancipation to sell everything from cigarettes to soap.

France

In the session on France, Alain Krivine of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire related out how the Parti Communiste Français fatally held back the movement. It refused to pose the question of power. Interestingly, comrade Krivine went on to talk about the LCR’s current call for a revolutionary party that can “unite all anti-capitalist forces”.

The comrade pointed out that capitalist society cannot be superseded through reform and that that we should reject all forms of class-collaboration. He also said that the new French party should reject government participation - quite right. Yet, he qualified this (and in so doing contradicted his earlier statements) by insisting that rejection of government participation is “not a principle”.

Andrew Coates raised the question of democracy. He argued that the left needs to be committed to open debate if it is to overcome the left sects and actually become a viable party. Ben Lewis of the CPGB developed this idea, saying that the call for a revolutionary party in France could provide inspiration for the left in Britain.

After all, the common practice of the left today is to compromise on principle in the name of ‘broadness’. It has thrown principle after principle overboard and, not surprisingly, has steadily decreased in size. Comrade Lewis argued that Marxists should unite as Marxists and aim for a party that will mobilise millions. The reaction this provoked proved very interesting indeed.

John Molyneux, the SWP’s tame oppositionist, said that the lessons he drew from being in Paris in 1968 were that the working class must take power. And for that to happen there needs a revolutionary party. He said he was enthused by the LCR call for a revolutionary party, but he took issue with comrade Lewis. It is easy to talk about such a party. But difficult to do it in practice: “What do you do about the people who are not revolutionaries?” Well, you certainly do not make concessions of political principle to them. You patiently win people to revolutionary Marxism. It seems, though, that it is the ‘Marxist’ left that really needs to be won over to Marxism.

Chris Harman of the SWP’s central committee was even worse. No wonder, given that his premise was “defending the British left”. He took issue with comrade Lewis because some people - “especially the younger ones” - “fail to understand” where the British left comes from. Apparently it is the great strike of 1984-85. Comrade Harman then went on to say that we will not achieve a revolutionary party by all the different left groups getting together for a “sectarian” bun-fight. But at least he welcomed calls for a “civilised discussion” on the way forward. But, as Tony Greenstein heckled, “You might want to start an open civilised discussion in your own ranks!”

Grosvenor Square

Dave Douglass told us about the Grosvenor Square siege of the US embassy. It was a dramatic monologue, but essentially sentimental. While everybody else was chanting, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh”, the IS were chanting, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, how many Trotskyists have you killed today?” - to the disgust of the rest of the left, but they were right.

Opposing the US invasion of Vietnam did not mean they wanted a Stalinist victory instead. But the courage to fight for what they really believed in has, of course, now completely evaporated. Comrade Douglass is an anarchist, but he wanted to demonstrate how in periods of revolutionary upturn left groups, despite their differences, come together in a common cause.

Revolutionary times like those of 1968 are global events. The question of the spirit of the age was therefore an ever-present theme. There were riots, uprisings and big strikes right around the world at the time, including behind the iron curtain in Czechoslovakia. Generally it was appreciated that the concentrated spontaneity on display had many causes. Historical and other factors also differed from country to country, as Toby Abse’s informative speech on Italy demonstrated.

But clearly comrade Kavakeb demonstrated that he failed to understand the Zeitgeist of either 1968 or today. In the ‘Red Essex’ session he had argued that student resentment was growing and the Iraq war was an exact parallel with Vietnam. 1968 and 2008 were therefore equivalents.

But 2008 has grown out of a break with 1968. Today’s free movement of finance, neoliberalism and parasitism are the result of what the capitalist class saw in 1968. Crucially the power of the working class that had grown strong in no small measure because of industrial protectionism, full employment and the welfare state. In the 1970s the ruling class ended that failing system of control. What 2008 shows it that the system of financialisation that replaced the welfare state is itself in crisis.

One of the weaknesses of this conference on 1968 is that it did not tackle the tasks the left needs to undertake now if we are to fully learn the lessons of 40 years ago.