Neoliberalism has culturally and economically divided us. For Labour to win the next general election, its grassroots must begin rebuilding solidarity.
Neoliberalism has been used a lot lately, without definition, so I will define what I mean by this. It is the belief in negative freedom, and the efficiency of markets, informing a political era since the 1980s that argues for a small state, and the introduction of market mechanisms wherever possible in the name of ‘efficiency’.
Tangibly, what has this done, and how does it impact the Labour Party?
I will try to make this as brief as possible, by giving two examples. The first is ‘Right to Buy’. Thatcher’s scheme was significant in many ways, not least in how it continues to undermine the power of councils. Most importantly, the ideas that it embodies and promotes, I believe, enshrine those that dominate today: radical individualism, the family unit as centre of society, measures of ‘success’ found in material wealth, and, from all of this, the burden of economic positions placed on the individual.
Yes, this mentality purveyed Western societies long before the 1980s, and many would say they are not totally against these ideas. But before neoliberalism, we also had so much more. We had communities, from Newcastle to London, built around primary and secondary industries, where families resided for generations; and unions, which, together, fought against the neoliberal governments that sought to obliterate them. Neoliberalism was not just a new wave of thinking, but an active battle against a common feature of humanity that defines the Labour Party, and its core socialist principles, from which societies thrive: solidarity.
While the world is very different today with the rise of right-wing populism, it is growing in the fields that neoliberalism has been ploughing for decades. The neoliberal (neoclassical) economists were allied to the socially liberal to produce the ‘centrism’ that defined the Blair years, which was likewise supported by the media. This was the hegemony, the consensus, what was ‘pragmatic’ (or ‘the truth’). The 2008 financial crash was the turning point, bringing with it the realisation that this was not ‘the end of history’; it was the perfect time for a real left alternative to rise again. But this didn’t happen: neoliberalism has defended itself by allying with the far right.
Donald Trump in the US, the AfD in Germany, PiS in Poland, Nigel Farage, all blame immigrants, or Islam, or the Jewish Community, in the same way that antisemitism grew in depression USA, and in pre-WW2 Europe: they make a common enemy, a scapegoat, for the injustices and failures of the economic system (as identified by the Frankfurt School). Thus, when Boris Johnson runs a campaign on a simple three-letter phrase, it cuts through: it promises change (unlike what centrists brought), and it identifies a single problem that must be overcome, building on the prejudices that have been sown by the right-wing press; and, fundamentally, it seems like the only realistic choice to alleviate the economic and social ills under the political and cultural hegemony of neoliberalism.
So what should Labour do?
Labour has finally come home to the left, but in its enthusiasm has published a radical manifesto absolutely stuffed with policies. Seemingly it’s forgotten that it’s operating in a climate of mistrust towards political commitments, and that, ultimately, it’s the media that communicate these policies to the people. This can be forgiven, given the reception of the 2017 manifesto. Yet, the right’s tactics have changed: in 2017 arguably Brexit was being done anyway, while for Johnson it has been much easier to make it a single-issue campaign; meanwhile, the right-wing media had been given years to smear Corbyn and the Labour Party with the narrative that they could not be trusted on this fundamental issue (fuelled by the agonising indecision over Labour’s Brexit policy).
To succeed in a proper transformative vision, Labour needs to cut through the media bullshit. This does not come from door-knocking every once in a while because, like it or not, people trust the Mail, their friends and family, and buy into the dominant media narrative. They may be working class, but they do not operate or identify themselves in opposition to the structures that oppress them, as we would expect them to be: neoliberalism has isolated them, eroded common humanity, and defined the enemy as one of their own. If we are to succeed, we need to be trusted, we need to be seen, and we need to rebuild that solidarity. We need radical positions (and if anything more radical than what Labour has now), not just in documents, but in local people whom they trust, whom they see are also fighting.
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure how to do this, but I have an idea: campaigns, events, activism. A grassroots movement is one that grows. We need to be actively engaging and helping people, retaking our common land that has been lost, rebuilding the communities that have been eroded, building networks of the oppressed. Whatever it may be: food, energy, housing, education, community space; all of the insecurities brought on by neoliberalism. ‘Solidarity, not charity’ (I take this from Edinburgh Helping Hands, mentioned in John Harris’s great Guardian article). Labour needs to get out of this central-government-will-fix-it mindset: communities need power. So let’s start building now, and ensure actual transformative change in the future.
Oh, and perhaps Extinction Rebellion should be taking notes too.
Links to read more
I’ve imbedded a couple of links for further info. This of course has many influences, but recently I’ve been particularly interested in the ideas of the Frankfurt School, as well as Gramsci and his ideas of cultural hegemony.
Of particular note also is ‘The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon’ by Karl Marx. A response to how his theory of a proletarian revolution didn’t work in 1848 France, a very big influence, he notes, is the isolation of the petite bourgeoisie (townsfolk, farmers, independent merchants) who identify with the bourgeoisie, although having the same interests as the proletariat. Perhaps a similar comparison can be found today?