So there was an election in the UK recently.
I'm not going to rehash the old arguments about electoralism is it viable or a betrayal? Discuss. Both sides have covered their ground far better than I would nearly a hundred years ago. For transparency sake I don't think its a viable means to building a fundamentally new and better society.
I want to talk about an accompanying argument that gets thrown up every now and then, voting as harm reduction. You get this a lot at a big usually national election, and sometimes there's merit to it, a change in government can have some beneficial outcomes for some vulnerable sections of society.
But the issue here is that it isn't a given and requires a lot ifs and maybes. Sticking with this meme above, I have met people whose response to serious social problems like homelessness is simply to urge everyone to read their favourite author. I've yet to meet one of them who was pushing Proudhon but I suppose its only a matter of time.
And yes, some governments have shown that they're willing and capable of tackling issues like homelessness. Over the years several regional and national governments have received praise for housing policies that have ended street sleeping, including Finland https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/22/finland-solved-homelessness-eu-crisis-housing-first
And Salt Lake City, at least until they cut the funding for the program that earned them a lot of praise previously.
So yes who forms a government can relieve some suffering or make it worse.The increase has been particularly noticeable in Utah, which had reduced chronic homelessness by 91 percent over the decade up to 2015, according to the state’s annual homelessness report.Experts attributed the drop to a “Housing First” policy, adopted by the state in 2005, which focused on getting people into housing, regardless of mental illness or substance abuse problems that could be treated after accommodation was secured.“The only thing I’ve ever seen that really worked in terms of reducing the number of people on the street was the Housing First policy,” said Glenn Bailey, who directs Crossroads Urban Center, a Salt Lake City food pantry.“The mistake we made was stopping.”https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-homelessness-housing-idUSKCN1P41EQ
But the problem here is that its not really honest. Elections aren't just a question of turning out on polling day and making your mark on the right box. There's a lot more variables.
For example I first saw this meme a few days before I left the country for several weeks and I didn't get back into the UK until the day of the election. So whoever made this is in essence having ago at aloof jerks who won't do anything by advocating not doing anything for about three weeks.
This is the problem, elections tend to be at fixed points in time, so voting labour wouldn't help this person for quite a while assuming it does lead to a better outcome in the end. We would also need Labour to win the election, and for them to bring in a policy that would have results similar to Finland and Salt Lake City.
Well the manifesto didn't have a pledge on a Housing first initiative, but it did promise to end homelessness over a five year period with a Prime Ministerial taskforce, but the main commitments concerned hostel improvements, scrapping laws that allow police to target and harass rough sleepers and more funding.
https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/tackle-poverty-and-inequality/
No one should sleep without a roof over their head in one of the richest countries in the world. But under the Tories, the number of people sleeping rough has more than doubled.
Over 125,000 children are now living in temporary accommodation, without a home to call their own – or the space they need to thrive. Labour will tackle the root causes of rising homelessness with more affordable homes and stronger rights for renters.
Labour will end rough sleeping within five years, with a national plan driven by a prime minister-led taskforce. We will expand and upgrade hostels, turning them into places where people can turn their lives around. We will make available 8,000 additional homes for people with a history of rough sleeping. We will tackle the wider causes of homelessness, raising the Local Housing Allowance in line with the 30th percentile of local rents, and earmarking an additional £1 billion a year for councils’ homelessness services.
We will bring in a new national levy on second homes used as holiday homes to help deal with the homelessness crisis, so that those who have done well from the housing market pay a bit more to help those with no home.
We will save lives this winter by ensuring extra shelters and support are in place in all areas. And we’ll repeal the Vagrancy Act and amend antisocial behaviour legislation to stop the law being used against people because they are homeless.
So its not nothing, but even in a best case scenario we're looking at five years to prevent homelessness, and not the winter of 2019/20.
This is why I really don't like this type of argument, its inherently dishonest. Either the people making these arguments don't understand how governance works in practice, or they do and know it isn't a vote winner so they come up with simplified forms of emotional blackmail.
Part Two: Factions and Institutions
Above I said in a best case scenario a Labour government in 2019 would end rough sleeping in five years. Best case because it assumes the reformist government is in control and will face no serious opposition. On paper in most representative systems this shouldn't be an issue because they are majoritarian, the largest factions forms the government so it usually has enough votes to make the laws and amendments.
But this is not always the case, political parties tend to be very broad churches and their are times when a schism is brewing.
President Truman is famous, but he's mainly well known for his foreign policy adventures, such as the Truman Doctrine. In contrast he's domestic record is abysmal, despite his own party often having a majority in Congress his reforms either died outright or were watered down in compromise. Because while many Senators and Representatives were Democrats, a large chunk of them came from the parties conservative wing with strongholds in the segregationist south.
Now Labour didn't win so we'll never know how the parliamentary labour party would've reacted during the government term, but based on how many of them reacted before hand provoking another leadership election, publicly denouncing the leadership and its policies etc. Intra party fighting and resistance seems like a potential outcome. Indeed most electoral governments that aren't dominated by a powerful internal faction often risk severe internal dissent if the leadership doesn't balance things well enough.
Part Three: Broken Promises
Now to be clear I'm not saying in this particular case the Labour party was lying, we'll never know but I don't see why they wouldn't intend to follow through on their stated policy. But this something that everyone should keep in mind in regards to elections. Just because a candidate or party says they'll do something in power doesn't mean they will deliver on it. Sometimes its not their fault, the intention was their they just couldn't overcome the opposition.
But other times they're actively breaking their promises. Usually in popular culture this a symptom of avarice and moral failings, but sometimes events don't give them any alternatives. Nothing is an isolated island after all.
Their are many examples to choose from, my personal favourite is the 1916 US Presidential elections. The Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson was seeking re-election and a large part of his bid was that he would keep the USA out of the First World War. Because of this many American radicals including socialists like John Reed supported him. He won and then the German Navy began unrestricted naval warfare in the Atlantic and tried to entice Mexico to invade the USA, and after that became public there was no way he could maintain the power and prestige of the USA without responding forcefully.
This is the issue with much electoral propaganda, it assumes an idealised relationship that is exclusively between the governors and the electorate who is governed. But that just isn't true, groups of politicians, state institutions, sectors of capital and international concerns all make themselves felt. So to simply boil down the supposed solution to finding a lesser evil and doing the bare minimum to support them becoming a ruling power is hopelessly naïve at best.
Part Four: What is to be done?
Okay so inviting the homeless into book clubs doesn't work and voting for one group of politicians is really more of a gamble that someone else will eventually get around to solving the problem for us, but the odds aren't great.
So what does actually work? well their are things that can be done to address the present effects of state violence and the logic of capitalist economics. I'm going to go ahead and steal this list of potential options written by Ed
This isn't an exhaustive list and not everything on here will be viable for everyone, but they are examples of things that can be done immediately by people without having to wait and trust in groups and institutions to eventually get into power and then eventually look into the issue once they've managed to find a compromise that'll appease the rest of the powerful groups.Workplace organising
It’s still the case that our power as a class is strongest at the point where we produce profit: at work. If there’s a union at your work, join it and get in touch with your rep saying you’d like to help organise. If there’s no rep, get in touch with the branch and offer to take on the role (and check out these tips for being a good union rep).
If there’s no union, consider starting one: you could go with one of the larger TUC unions or smaller member-controlled unions like the UVW, IWGB or IWW. All these unions should be able to train you in the nuts and bolts of workplace organising. TUC rep training often focuses too heavily on recruiting members rather than organising, so we would highly recommend you attend the IWW’s Organiser Training. Unions often aren’t perfect, but the best way to learn how to make the best of them is to get started and get in touch with other militants. However workplace organisation begins with making connections with your co-workers, and beginning to be able to talk about pay and working conditions amongst each other, and this is worthwhile and necessary whether there is a formal workplace organisation in place or not.
Migrant solidarity
There are lots of groups around the country doing migrant solidarity work that will be invaluable in the coming years. The Anti-Raids Network do great work resisting immigration raids (read more here). So start an Anti-Raids group to build resistance to the hostile environment.
Other groups like NELMA in East London, the Unity Centre in Glasgow or Kent Anti-Racism Network all do good work. You can also get in touch to see if there are similar groups nearer to you.
Tenant organising
The Radical Housing Network would be the first port of call to see if there are any groups or campaigns in your area or to help you set one up if there isn’t. Rent Strike have been organising successful rent strikes amongst students since 2015 and have a handy ‘How-to’ section on their website. Brighton Solidarity Federation have been doing great organising for years around housing, organising rent strikes and confronting landlords and estate agents over withheld deposits and repairs. SolFed do not have functioning locals across the UK by any means, but you may be able to join other local renters unions like the London Renters Union.
Defending public services and benefits
The past ten years has seen swinging cuts to public services and benefits: Universal Credit, work capability, PIP and ESA assessments, the benefits cap and bedroom tax, cuts to domestic violence centres, libraries, and social care. Groups like Disabled People Against Cuts[/ur] and [url=http://www.sistersuncut.org/]Sisters Uncut have been fighting these restrictions of provision. There have also been recent successes from local campaigns to prevent service closures such as Essex libraries.
Things will get worse before they get better with a Tory majority, despite promises to 'end austerity' and this means talking about direct community provision too. Foodbanks are often presented as apolitical, but there are examples, like Food Hall Project in Sheffield, of providing social space – as well as food – to talk to each other about shared issues which can (and should) be spread elsewhere.
Climate change
While we have reservations about Extinction Rebellion, chances are there’ll be a group near you and it may be worth getting in touch to meet people who want to take direct action (but please, DO NOT give your info to police or get arrested for the sake of it!), especially in light of important campaigning against Heathrow expansion. The Green Anti-Capitalist Front are a more radical alternative. There are also community groups like HACAN East (against London City Airport) which could do with support/replication while Frack Off have a list of anti-fracking groups (which will no doubt be back on the agenda soon).
Self-defense
When Tommy Robinson endorsed Boris Johnson he showed what all of us knew already: that the British far-right see the Tory leader as ‘their guy’. They will be feeling pretty confident now and that won’t just come about in more far-right marches, but in more violence and aggression in general. At least three Labour canvassers were assaulted over the course of this General Election campaign and anti-Muslim violence rose 375% after Johnson’s 2018 “letterboxes” comment about burqa-wearing women. We will have to oppose this; whether that means setting up local anti-fascist groups like those around the Anti-Fascist Network, starting ‘red gyms’ or something more informal.http://libcom.org/blog/every-challenge-can-be-overcome-6-ideas-getting-started-13122019
For homelessness in particular, the meme mentions Proudhon. Proudhon was a major advocate of workers co-operatives, and a major criticism of Proudhon's economic ideas is that they would not be viable in terms of building a new society that escapes capitalism. But it has had some success in providing relief and a means of support for homeless people and other marginalised populations. For example the Cartoneros of Argentina.
Of course the world isn't Argentina, but I'm trying to hammer home is that the do nothing purity/vote for the mainstream party that talks better on certain issues is really a false dichotomy. In both cases they can easily amount to nothing being done. Whereas we have many examples of things that can be done that do have at least a partial success record in providing support to each other.
Coda
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment