The brakes of ideology

In almost any situation the odds are massively against any radical political movement preserving its radicalism. History is more littered with stories of revolutionaries turned bureaucrats than is a Saturday night high street with beer cans and vomit. The reason for this downbeat truth is remarkably simple: those who join radical movements are products of the very society against which they are fighting, and the dominant ideas in that society are anything but radical. It couldn't be otherwise if society is to persist. No ruler ever ruled without ruling the minds of his subjects. We rage against our reduced pay packets, our closed hospitals, the deportation of our neighbour, and in doing so we catch a glimpse of how the world could be different. Nevertheless, the news we consume (and what gets to count as news in the first place), the jobs we do, the way we understand politics, the way our political organisations are structured, the very language we speak - all of these constrain our idea of what is possible and push us back towards the old world.

So it is with Momentum. The interesting question about this organisation is not so much why Jon Lansman and his cronies launched their power-grab; the answer is one part preservation of left labourism and one part ego, although in the case of a man who has built his career and reputation around left labourism these are not neatly separable. More deserving of attention is why a significant number of people within the organisation have gone along with him. Thinking back a year to some of the events I attended during Momentum's infancy, it seems difficult to imagine the participants meekly doing the bidding of a white male political hack tucked up in a London office. Demonstrations bursting at the seams, discussions full of energy, political campaigns whose participants were diverse in a way that the left had previously failed to be: these did not look like the beginnings of an organisation of passive doorstep-fodder. The students, BAME campaigners, single issue activists, and many others who joined Momentum groups were acutely aware of the corrosive effects of hierarchy. Why didn't they fight against it in greater numbers when it began to manifest itself in their own organisation?

It is tempting to reply that the absence of political education or a culture of ideas in Momentum was to blame. But this is not a real answer, it just pushes the question back one stage - why did people put up with that? At the start so many of them would sign up to slogans about transforming the world, rejecting capitalism, and much else besides. Now a good number of them won't even demand democracy in their own organisation. In saying this I'm not blaming them, I'm posing a puzzle.

The question how the instinct to resist can be transformed into a force for change is the question of left-wing politics, the rest is detail. It is the question of political organisation, and has pretty much been ignored within the British Labour left. Famously averse to the continental affectation that is theory, many members of the labour movement in this country would respond to the suggestion that they give some thought to the relationship between ideas and organisation as though they were Nigel Farage being offered a croque monsieur. In Britain socialists prefer to get on with things and campaign, rather then spend endless hours with books and debates. In the present context this is akin to complaining that the advice to stop and look at a map is a distraction from driving at precisely the moment your car plunges over a cliff.

The problem of organisation would be especially pressing because of the situation of many of Momentum's members even if the tragic rupture of the most inspiring and popular left-wing movements for a generation didn't deserve analysis. Quite apart from the general pressure towards the status quo I was talking about above, millennials aligned to the political left are pulled in two directions. Faced on the one hand with material attacks and uncertainty on a scale unseen since the end of the Second World War, they nonetheless have grown up under Blairism with a model of politics as a consumer choice between particular brands. To join a political party or a campaigning group is, on this model, to be a brand evangelist. The thought of remaining a member of a party whilst seriously dissenting from its public face doesn't enter into the picture - hence Corbyn's backtracking on freedom of movement  is likely to lead to a small exodus. Nor does the prospect of serious debate within a group like Momentum make sense, still less the suggestion that Momentum act as a source of pressure on Corbyn. The retreat of trade unionism and of any meaningful profile for left-wing ideas makes things worse. There appears to be no alternative to the unstable oscillation between effusive radicalism and conformist politics that can be seen all too clearly within Momentum.

Precisely because it's difficult to see how things could have gone differently, it is important that 'we' - by which I mean the left opposition to the imposed constitution - continue to work with people who don't share our opposition. In the short-term, it is only through showing in practice that a reflective commitment to democratic organisation is not only compatible with practical politics, but feeds into it, that we are going to win anyone over. I don't mean - please don't misunderstand me - that we should accept the coup de facto: my position is that the coup is illegitimate, as are the institutions it has established, and that we should continue to look to the NC and CAC for leadership. But our comrades in local groups are not Jon Lansman. We cannot allow the unity, the energy, and the potential of the past couple of years to be entirely wasted.

That is for the short-term. In the long-term serious thought is required about political organisation, ideology, and education. This means that the Labour left has to do something it doesn't like: think.