A great analysis of the problem at the heart of the SWPs (and many similar group’s) analysis.
Though i can’t share the conclusions. Of course politics is moving hugely to the right, threatening the old quasi-Social Democratic (actually, nationalist welfare) statism.
A completely new politics is needed, which starts with the need to defend the basis of democracy with all those that would defend it, rather than imagining that the left alone can stem the onslaught.
Thanks Andy. The scale of the rightward shift is real, and I understand the instinct toward the broadest possible coalition.
But I'd push back on the framing. The question isn't whether "the left alone can stem the onslaught": it's whether the forces you'd ally with to "defend democracy" will actually do so. The liberal centre has spent the last decade demonstrating it won't. Faced with choosing between modest social democratic reform and accommodation with the right, it accommodates. Starmer's trajectory isn't an aberration; it's the pattern.
The united front isn't about left sectarian purity. It's about building fighting unity on a class basis, from below, with forces that will actually mobilise. That's different from a popular front with liberal democrats who'll sign statements, attend conferences, and then fold the moment serious resistance is required.
"Completely new politics" is a phrase that often means abandoning the strategic lessons we've already learned. The problem with the SWP isn't that its politics are too old. It's that they've forgotten the bits that mattered while preserving the bits that didn't, and borrowing Stalinist idiocy from the CPB.
What would your "defence of democracy" look like concretely? Genuinely curious whether you're thinking electoral coalitions, street mobilisation, or something else.
A great analysis of the problem at the heart of the SWPs (and many similar group’s) analysis.
Though i can’t share the conclusions. Of course politics is moving hugely to the right, threatening the old quasi-Social Democratic (actually, nationalist welfare) statism.
A completely new politics is needed, which starts with the need to defend the basis of democracy with all those that would defend it, rather than imagining that the left alone can stem the onslaught.
Thanks Andy. The scale of the rightward shift is real, and I understand the instinct toward the broadest possible coalition.
But I'd push back on the framing. The question isn't whether "the left alone can stem the onslaught": it's whether the forces you'd ally with to "defend democracy" will actually do so. The liberal centre has spent the last decade demonstrating it won't. Faced with choosing between modest social democratic reform and accommodation with the right, it accommodates. Starmer's trajectory isn't an aberration; it's the pattern.
The united front isn't about left sectarian purity. It's about building fighting unity on a class basis, from below, with forces that will actually mobilise. That's different from a popular front with liberal democrats who'll sign statements, attend conferences, and then fold the moment serious resistance is required.
"Completely new politics" is a phrase that often means abandoning the strategic lessons we've already learned. The problem with the SWP isn't that its politics are too old. It's that they've forgotten the bits that mattered while preserving the bits that didn't, and borrowing Stalinist idiocy from the CPB.
What would your "defence of democracy" look like concretely? Genuinely curious whether you're thinking electoral coalitions, street mobilisation, or something else.