Piscina Podium - On Being Left

On Being Left

An invitation to ongoing discussion as an addendum to the formal symposium paper presented at the 2004 UTS ‘Researching Work and Learning’ conference

Since writing the paper published in these conference proceedings, which argues against the conservative campaign to disappear the historical working class identity, there has been some quite marked developments in this arena, in particular with the recent passing of the Howard government’s Industrial Relations Legislation. Whilst the groundswell of public reaction has been relatively muted to date, the main reaction coming in a renewed energy from the labour unions, there is an underlying unease in the public mood; for many, it is accompanied by an as yet chthonic recognition that they may still be working class after all. With its control of the Senate, the ideological arrogance this government’s leaders and the compliant nature of Labour have brought Right wing ideology into the spotlight.

This necessarily calls into the question also the place and character of its natural opposition, the Left. Since for some time now, along with working class identity, Right wing public commentators have been attempting to disappear the ideological Left along with the working class identity, I thought that it was timely to explore just what it means to be Left. This short essay is a skeleton of a larger work that I am embarked upon, based upon ideas developed during the research conducted for my thesis on the history radical education. I offer it as an addendum to my published contribution for this seminar and invite criticism and contributions to this project.

Old foes and the enemy within

The dialectic between the ideological Left and Right is an ancient battleground of power and defiance, assertiveness and resistance. However, these characteristics do not necessarily belong in discrete political or class camps, since we can refer to the progressive assertiveness of the historical radical Whigs and other Liberals versus the slavish monarchism and obdurate resistance to progressive change of a sector of Labour politics and traditional working class conservatism. Indeed, there are also numerous historical examples of creative merging of ruling and lower class interests, in the diversion of potential opposition, for instance, that ubiquitous Roman euphemism of ‘bread and circuses,’ unparalleled in its cynical awareness. Nineteenth century conservative government warnings of imminent social breakdown whipped Church and King mobs into ferocious attacks on the writers, publishers and distributors of radical literature, such as Tom Paine’s The Rights of Man. In our own times, John Howard beguiles that same population with his empathy for ‘the battlers’ rhetoric, then appeals to their worst instincts, influencing their voting behaviour whenever it seems they might stray. Howard’s Tampa speech was a wonder of moral turpitude, drawing upon that ancient cultural meme, the fear of invasion those of British, Celtic, Anglo Saxon and Viking stock inherit from ancestors who were both the invaded and the invaders. Then in 2004, at the extended peak of a property boom, there was the jab to the precarious hip pocket nerve with unwarranted implications that interest rates might rise if Labor were to gain fiscal control. This is masterful, Machiavellian power stuff, with which the Left’s tradition of moral action and an obligation to critical consciousness can never hope to compete.

In recent times, a concerted attack by the Right has been launched upon the Left wing intelligentsia, a barrage of snide remarks in public commentary, sniffy asides about ‘latte sipping, bleeding hearts’ whom are politically correct to the point of ideological stupidity. However, the most insidious attempt argues that all its battles have been finally lost or won, that in this pragmatically egalitarian society there is longer any need of such antiquated sensibilities and idealism and the Left simply has no reason to exist. Of course, this has similarity with another of their arguments - that the working class no longer exists - lately come under pressure, largely due to their own actions. This is a popular strategy of the Right, reinforced by a transparent, but nonetheless extraordinarily effective, blatant denial of the bleeding obvious. Therefore, it behooves the Left well to constantly remind the public that much of the social goods we have enjoyed over the past four decades were not delivered by benevolent conservatives, employers and politicians but wrested, one by one, largely through the efforts of the Left.

It seems that, by and large, the Right’s strategy works, because people have a tendency to be persuaded by assumed authority and utter conviction delivered by someone with the veneer of an expert, even if it conflicts with experience. This is reminiscent of those remarkable 1970s Milgram psychology experiments demonstrating that people would continue to deliver increasingly dangerous electric shocks to someone they thought the subject of an experiment on the command of a man in a lab coat holding a clipboard; the symbols of scientific authority in an era when the power of scientific expertise was accepted uncritically. Cloaked in the iconography of conservatism with its rhetoric of stability and order, the Right traditionally lays claim to the authority of professional expertise with the calm assurance of the ‘born to rule.’ They can lie unashamedly, conduct the business of the nation in inhumane and abominable ways, and people still believe and trust them because they look and talk ‘right’. I am reminded of a cartoon strip in a 1970s Mad magazine: A group of mothers cluster around a smart looking young dude in a suit, their raffish teenagers playing in the background school, they say, “You look so successful. I wish my Johnny were more like you. Tell us, what have you been doing since you left school?” To which the dude replies, “ I sell drugs to your kids.”

We know, from both historical and more recent examples, that progressive, Left-leaning liberals lurk within the Liberal Party ranks and Right wing ideologues dominate the Labor Party leadership. Neither is there a direct correlation between the Right and conservatism, as we have witnessed the rise of a radical Right that is equally as rabid as any old Stalinist in attitude. It is a matter of the dominance of an ideological paradigm. For two decades now we have seen the rise of Right wing ideology, in both of the main political camps and their influence on the wider social values. Over time, when the products of the rule of the Right are subject to examination there are invariably indications of a shift of public goods into private hands concomitant with an increase of social dysfunction, a swelling of the ranks of the disenfranchised matched by an increase in the prison population. For an example of Right wing Labor, we can evidence the long regime of the NSW labor government, the massive increase in demand on charities concomitant with the building of four new prisons.

We have witnessed the marginalisation of Left wing politicians in both Liberal and Labor parties, most of whom moulder on the backbenches. We see the workplace fraught with the pressures of fragmentation through casualisation, the stress of perennial contracts and ever increasing demands for greater productivity by less and less people. We, as professional adult educators, participate in this process through our compliance in that ubiquitous misnomer of ‘workplace training’ and the development of professional accreditation courses in every known human activity. The original adage of ‘lifelong learning,’ which once inspired us with the concept of ‘freedom to learn’ has morphed into ‘you must learn this.’ Our research in community education frequently feeds the rendering of previously grassroots community activity into professionalised services, their normal human-to-human conduct transformed into consumer products. I am currently witnessing my local swim club’s elders, many of whom have successfully taught children to swim for five or six decades for free, now invaded by the professionalised body of Swim Australia, which demands that they all obtain accreditation and charge for what was previously a free community service. One wonderful elder who swims laps every day, maintains the clubhouse and teaches kids with calm humour and authority despite his mild Parkinsons has been told he can no longer teach at all. I tried to foment resistance amongst them to no avail; they have been frightened into compliance by threats of litigation but, as one old community stalwart said, “The heart’s gone out of it for me.” So, where can a Left-leaning person move, anywhere within current bureaucratic or political systems, or the institutions it administers?

What is Left then?

At a time like this, I feel it is terribly important for people of progressive, left-leaning persuasion to not become disheartened, to not give into that ever-present danger of mind-numbing despair. I fight, sometimes in a moment-to-moment battle, to retain my universal, unconditional love of humanity by reminding myself of the daily courage and generosity by countless thousands of local heroes everywhere. I recall the works of those writers who have used their talents to articulate the inchoate needs of their societies, to inspire dreams of a better world and incite action towards it. I keep the mantra going that things have been much, much worse and what those heroes won in the past we may have to fight for again, but we can never lose it all. And we will win, again, because what we want is good and true. So, what do I think being Left is all about? I am an unashamed romantic and a utopian and here begin the discussion that I hope other voices may contribute:

Being Left is:

· It is an article of faith for me that, given the right kind of nurturing by their community, all human beings can have the capacity to fulfill whatever their physical and intellectual potential may offer. Karl Marx elucidated this concept with his maxim of the ‘hunter in the morning and poet at night.’ I see this as a society that inculcates the integration of each member’s natural need to undertake provision for the necessities of daily life with the creative impulse. The writer I think evoked this best is William Morris, with his artisan’s utopia in News from Nowhere.

· It is the understanding that nothing beyond the daily necessities of community, food and shelter, are givens in human life, that we make our world according to the scope of our imaginations, and we can create for ourselves, just as easily, a good and kind world as one that is callous and cruel. As Zygmunt Bauman articulated: ‘Utopia relativises the present, without which we could not envision an alternative future.’

· It is recognizing that the ‘dog-eat-dog, winners-and-losers’ paradigm of social order that some would impose only encourages the worst aspects of human nature and benefits those who have greater capacities for greed and unscrupulousness.

· It is recognizing that we all have different capacities, we are all products of the human gene pool, have gained our individual talents and capacities in that lottery and therefore the fortunate owe some service those less so. It acknowledges that each of us has something of value to offer their community and allots, again as Marx enunciated, ‘from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs.’

· It is believing that a truly human society is able to nurture all its members, to recognize that we are flawed creature, one and all, to be just and fair and, most importantly, to forgive mistakes and transgressions when they are redeemed by acts of reparation to those who have suffered by our hands

· It is being unambiguously opposed to State aggression or exploitation of any form, against individuals or in war. It is believing that there are always non-aggressive ways in which we can sort out our differences, even if they take time, and that war is never an answer to anything.

· It is an obligation to critical consciousness. This is an important characteristic, but it is also something that can be an Achilles Heel, for they too frequently turn the critical spotlight to their own differences and diffuse their energies in factional disputes. The trick is to find what we have in common and join forces in those.

· It is believing that we are miraculous creatures, all of whom deserve the right to fully enjoy that state of being human on this marvelous planet, and that life and work are not separate but integral to that enjoyment. Our technology has the potential to free us all from the more base vicissitudes demanded by what we need to survive with a modicum of comfort, to give us all that enjoyment of life, not in an obscene degree for some and a pittance for others.

· And finally, for now, but perhaps most importantly, it is the recognition that we must treat that planet which is our home with the greatest respect and reverence, and must not plunder it wastefully, but nurture its bounty and repair what damage we have done, so that it may continue to be ours, and our children’s bounteous home.