The case for Labour’s involvement

By Darrell Goodliffe

I wasn’t at the same demonstration as Mark Ferguson on Saturday. Instead of being in London I was in Manchester. I understand some of the problems he describes; that the energies of the movement seemed scattered, disparate and sometimes unfocused. However, the central flaw in Mark’s argument is that none of this leads us necessarily to the conclusion that Labour should ‘keep its distance’ from the anti-cuts movement. If anything it actually leads logically to the opposite conclusion.

Some of Mark’s criticisms are simply unfair. Of course, most people can tell the difference between the Egyptian government which is an actual dictatorship and our government – which is not elected as Mark claims (I don’t think we should forget nobody actually voted for this government) but at least came to pass as a result of an election. However, does that really stop one movement showing solidarity with another? Regardless, in actual fact, some of the catalysts of struggle in Egypt are at their root economic, such as eye-watering unemployment and prices that have simply spiralled out of control. Much more in common exists than is widely acknowledged. So, I don’t think going to the Egyptian Embassy showed how confused the movement is at all. In fact, it actually shows the opposite; it shows a degree of sophistication that we should credit, rather than condemn, the movement for.

Now, let’s look at another complaint; that the ‘usual suspects’ were in the lead. I will ignore the pejorative language (although I think its use is wrong) and focus on the central problem with this critique. I feel this is a passive approach to a movement which simply should not be approached in a passively aggressive way but needs to be actively engaged with. In Manchester, it was the timidity of the official organisers which caused fragmentation. A rally was held but the event started early; the rally came and went and the not unreasonable feeling among at least half of those present – that they did not want to go home and wanted to march in the afternoon – was simply ignored. People who wanted to continue marching were left with little choice but to follow the ‘usual suspects’. So, the event split with probably the majority marching and a sizeable minority going home. I don’t think the ‘usual suspects’ are all ‘destructive influences’ but the fact is if we simply walk away when it comes to dealing with this, what right do we have to complain?

I don’t want to risk an accusation that I am ‘confusing different things’ but in Egypt the protestors have self-organised to deal with disruptive looting and organised to protect things like the Egyptian Museum. This shows how an awakening movement does not need the state to regulate it and is a brilliant testimony to the ability of movements to spontaneously and democratically organise themselves in a way which is self-policing. In other words, if you trust people rather than dismiss them or abandon them you may well end up being pleasantly surprised.

We should not be dismissive and disdainful of the movement for its ‘lack of direction’ and focus, even if we feel these are legitimate problems that need to be addressed. It is a sure fire way to nullify Labour’s influence within this movement. It has been alienated, lied too and treated with contempt. How will giving it more of the same change anything for the better? Of course, the answer is that it won’t. In fact, it will increase the hegemony of those Mark would no doubt want us to oppose within the movement. Labour could learn a lot from this movement and the movement could benefit from Labour’s involvement.

It would be wrong in so many ways to let disdain for anything that is not polished and perfect separate the two.