A “state economy”?

Good luck with that one.

Is that the Green vision?

Foucault’s and Elias’s writings around power are relevant here

Not really. Both Foucault and Elias’s writing about power are characterized by evasiveness, a marked reluctance to acknowledge the subject of power. (Not something, anybody would accuse Emily Thornberry of.) Besides, we wouldn’t want the debate about the future of the Left to be conducted in Private Eye’s Pseuds Corner, would we?

[deleted]

A premiership side like the Labour shouldn’t be taking lectures on pluralism and inclusiveness from an Isthmian League outfit like the Green Party.

@Jay – thats exactly the arrogant attitude that caused you to lose the election.

A premiership side like the Labour shouldn’t be taking lectures on pluralism and inclusiveness from an Isthmian League outfit like the Green Party.

Hmmm…does that make New Labour the ‘Franchise FC’ of British politics? Anyhoo…if AV (or any other form of PR) is in place by the next election, Labour will probably have to embrace pluralism because it potentially opens the door to parties such as the Greens, as well as requiring them to find some form of accommodation with the LibDems (though Clegg would most likely have to resign first). meanwhile, there is a network of groups which one assumes could form a range of alliances to put pressure on the coalition, rather than New Labour’s obsession with ‘winner takes all’.

Consider Emily Thornberry’s position – a left wing MP under threat from Lib Dems, who went into government with the Tories.

The idea that pluralism means being nice to groups of political parties is a fundamental and deliberate misreading of the concept, and for the left in particular would mean a horrendous misapplication.

The second problem is that at a certain level, ‘plural’ and ‘left’ do clearly come into contradiction. Consider those who you would not include in the plural left. Why?

The left has limits, and to say that by prostrating themselves afore the alter of cuts the Lib Dems are beyond those limits is not an unreasonable point in the slightest, whether you happen to fully agree with it or not.

Perhaps the ‘plural left’ needs to find space for people like Ms Thornberry.

@ Tom Miller

Straw men ago-go there. Pluralism just refers to compromise between political parties in order to achieve shared goals – in other words, distributing power between multiple structures designed to achieve it. It remains the case that the Lib Dems have policies and values in common with Labour – just as it is the case that we have policies in common with the Conservatives. If you’re working from the frankly immature view that if part of someone elses’ political outlook disagrees with yours then you can never possibly work with them, you’re actively impeding yourself from achieving things that you want to see in the name of blinkered purity. So, in this case, is Ms Thornberry.

“Maybe you might want to consider a society in which the exertion of power over others is prohibited without a damn good reason instead of some Foucaultian fantasy in which everybody exerts an equal amount of power over each in a precariously balanced manner so as to cancel each other out.”

Actually, that is more what classical liberalism traditionally aimed at. Strong judges, strong executive government, EVEN stronger legislature. All in an attempt to stop judges acting like God, presidents turning into kings, and legislators into pigs.

Foucault was increasingly coming round to Hayek’s views on polycentric orders towards the end of his life.

I can see Jane’s point creeping through the psuedity. You don’t need to legislate to dramatically change society. You just have to live the difference. Thats why Foucault was quite the fan of people developing new identities out of their oppression. I am not sure how it is meant to help the left in any ‘political’ manner though.

I don’t think Emily Thornberry’s no nonsense attitude on this is surprising.

How could Thornberry work with the Lib Dems as part of a ‘progressive left’ when they were doing their best to unseat her and as a council were staunchly opposed to all sorts of good left-wing Labour policies.

As a constituent of hers I’m glad that she didn’t!

[deleted]

It’s all very well to talk about pluralism and to accuse _Labour_ of being tribalist – but let’s not forget that Labour, the Lib-Dems and Greens stand candidates against one another so there is almost inevitably going to be ‘tribal’ disputation between them. In addition, the LDs have _chosen_ to go into coalition with the Tories. If there is anyone who has made the centre-”left” more tribal, it is Clegg for deciding to align himself with the Tories. I don’t think the pro-PR, pro-”progressive alliance” people really understand this. They also don’t recognise that while the Green agenda of limiting growth and development is attractive to elements of the educated middle-classes, it fails to reach out to Labour’s core working-class vote – who want jobs and higher living standards.

Considering that Labour was saying we must not attack BP yesterday, it would seem they have learned nothing.

No point in having Conservative lite.

Foucault aside, I think this article is absolutely right to stress the value of pluralism and the difficulty that many in Labour still have coming to terms with a pluralist left politics.

There are a number of points here.

First, there is a strong case for PR on fairness grounds (that is, having a fair translation of votes to seats). And obviously if you have PR that means pluralism.

Of course, there is a traditional Labour response to the ‘fairness argument’ for PR (step forward Peter Kellner) which is that that fairness isn’t the only consideration and that we have to judge electoral systems also (or wholly?) by their consequences.

Fine, let’s do that. The evidence suggests that on one set of measures of concern to the left, including Labour, PR systems tend in the long-run to outperform majoritarian systems, controlling for other factors: namely, in terms of social spending (higher with PR) and inequality (lower under PR). This is because while the main left party rarely governs alone under PR systems, it has some access to office much more regularly than it tends to under majoritarian systems.

So PR looks better both on fairness grounds and in terms of (at least some) consequences. And, if you plump for PR then, as said, you have to accept pluralism.

Thirdly, there is the important point that I have heard the Fabians’ Sunder Katwala make, that pluralism helps parties, with their distinctive traditions, learn from each other and temper each others’ weaknesses. The example Sunder gives (if memory serves – Sunder can correct me if I am misremembering) is that Labour can learn from the Lib Dems on civil liberties and the Lib Dems can learn from Labour on social policy. And I would add that both of these parties have a lot to learn about environmental protection and social justice from the Greens.

A final point. Whether or not we get AV out of the Coalition what we probably will get is a redrawing of the constituency boundaries that removes the bias to Labour in the present FPTP system. This is going to make it much harder for Labour to win outright majorities in the future. So the whole attitude of ‘One more heave’ and ‘Forward to the next majority Labour government’ has an air of unreality about it. Its a kind of romanticism, a consoling myth. Pluralism is the future, whether Labour likes it or not. The sooner Labour accepts this, the sooner it might get to share in – without monopolising – government again.

Don’t you think that posing a choice between “pluralism” and “tribalism” is just poisoning the waters of the debate and insulting those who disagree?

Just saying…

This is now the new electoral reality – no point putting your head in the sand and thinking that Labour or the Tories are going to get 1997 style landslides.

Even if AV doesn’t happen, the chances are more than 50% that elections will lead to minority and coalition govts.

Just so I understand it, the rules on this site are now that any criticism of the OPs at all will be deleted?

And this is your ‘pluralism’, is it?

Just a few points.

In regards to Foucault and Elias, some of you have raised the relevance and value of me citing them. It was used as a way to try and illustrate the counter-productive attitude of some on the left, whilst I am not arguing that pluralism should be seen through a theoretical lens – it is interesting to bare in mind. What i was trying to mainly get across is that power isn’t black and white, and so seeing government as the being the only means to an end is undermining the progressive left’s causes.

In terms of the LibDems, i can understand why the left may be adverse to working with them in their current form or in any future form because of their betrayal to the progressives. I think I made that point in this blog and the more extended review that I did with Darrell, which is linked at the bottom of this article.

In terms of tribalism, I recognised at the end of the article that there will always be an element of this regardless of how pluralist politics is. Thus I reject that I have posed the tribalist and pluralist attitudes as directly opposed.

‘In regards to Foucault and Elias, some of you have raised the relevance and value of me citing them.’

And those criticisms were deleted. Are pseuds untouchable now?

And this is your ‘pluralism’, is it?

Think you missed the updated rules. Please don’t be under the misapprehension you were adding anything intelligent to the debate. This isn’t about pluralism, it is about civility and discussion rules. Though I suspect simple things like that fly over your head.

On Foucault, this is rather interesting passage by him:

Foucault therefore turns in his later work to the concept of “government” in order to explain how power functions:

Basically power is less a confrontation between two adversaries or the linking of one to the other than a question of government. This word must be allowed the very broad meaning which it had in the sixteenth century. “Government” did not refer only to political structures or to the management of states; rather it designated the way in which the conduct of individuals or of groups might be directed: the government of children, of souls, of communities, of families, of the sick. It did not only cover the legitimately constituted forms of political or economic subjection, but also modes of action, more or less considered and calculated, which were destined to act upon the possibilities of action of other people. To govern, in this sense, is to structure the possible field of action of others. The relationship proper to power would not therefore be sought on the side of violence or of struggle, nor on that of voluntary linking (all of which can, at best, only be the instruments of power), but rather in the area of the singular mode of action, neither warlike nor juridical, which is government. (221)

But I am aware that many people have different readings of Foucault, so this could go on forever – just wanted to provide some sort of backing for why I argued what I did.

‘Think you missed the updated rules. Please don’t be under the misapprehension you were adding anything intelligent to the debate. This isn’t about pluralism, it is about civility and discussion rules. Though I suspect simple things like that fly over your head.’

My comments on Foucault were entirely valid: a society in which everyone exerts power over everyone else, even if it were not a fantasy which ignores the asymetry between the oppressor and the oppressed, would be as totalitarian as it is possible to imagine.

We need ‘governments’ – no matter how defined – to recognise they have no dominion over vast areas of the individuals’ life, not imprison that individual in a network of power relations in which everyone else is their jailer.

And it’s that fundamental misunderstanding of power and liberty that lead Foucault to embrace the Iranian ‘revolution’.

My comments on Foucault were entirely valid

The point isn’t about the content but the tone. Go look up the word “civility” in the dictionary. And feel free to bitch about my comments policy on other blogs as you normally do.

Do you want to address any of the points I’ve made regarding the intellectual underpinnings of the OP?

If you argue that party x has ‘no choice’ but to do what you want it to do, then your argument ought to be pretty watertight. It is not. You do not explain *why* Labour has ‘no choice’ but to accept ‘pluralism’ (as you define it), but merely churn out a mixture of worthless left-liberal cliches (the word ‘progressive’ should probably be banned) and postmodernist twaddle.

Also…

…seemingly defined Labour’s mission to be the continuous grab for power.

I don’t really see the problem here. As Neil Kinnock understood and endlessly argued, politics is about power. A Labour Party that isn’t involved in a ‘continuous grab for power’ at all levels of government is a Labour Party that has betrayed its supporters in a far more serious way than the worst elements of ‘New’ Labour managed to.

And, in all this talk of the need for ‘pluralism’ (as they define it), none of its cheerleaders seem to have taken on board the fact that the LDs chose to ally with the Tories. PR could lead to Conservative/Liberal coalitions (as in Germany) as much as a “plural left” coalition.

“This isn’t about pluralism, it is about civility and discussion rules. Though I suspect simple things like that fly over your head.”

ROFL.

Oh for goodness sake, if one can’t be vaguely uncivil to a pseudy sociology student, to whom can one be uncivil?!

Excuse me, but I am not a fake sociology student.

I have already quoted a Foucault passage of why I wrote what I did on his views of power.

Now justify why I am a fake?

I have got all firsts so far in my second year at uni – is that fake?

How many firsts can one earn in a year at Leeds?!

Perhaps you haven’t read Private Eye’s “pseuds’ corner”.

It is used in the sense of (hilariously) pretentious, rather than fake.

I think this sentence qualifies:
“Instead, power should be seen as part of an increasingly interdependent set of relations, with everyone having some ability to initiate power against another, albeit at different levels.”

What does that / would that actually mean / entail??

So far, I have so far got 8 grades back from 12. By firsts I am referring to individual markings of the modules – usually modules are divided into two parts – coursework and exams. So I have had 6 modules – 2 forms of assessments.

Ah right, well next time when you don’t understand something I say, just ask.

Basically, what that means is that as society develops we are seeing people becoming more interconnected with each other – aka interdependent – so its like a game where the actions of someone can effect the actions of many others. Therefore, instead of seeing power as an ultimate end – we should see it as all around. Take the government, as Foucault was explaining above, we shouldn’t see it in conventional terms of adversary power. Thus, the relevance for my article was that Emily was seeing the government as an end in itself without understanding the way that the opposition can mobilise its own power to influence the actions of government – whilst working with other left progressive movements due to the increasing interdependence in society.

People are more inter-connected?

Who knew?!!

Did we need Foucault to spot this?

Believe it or not, but there are still many who seem to forget that.

To be fair to Foucault, I am not at all giving what he said on power much justice. I just included him as he has some interesting things around power but I have not read near enough on it – and it is subject to a lot of debate – I know more about the other person I mentioned, Elias.

I think making a big issue about two names I included rather misses the actual point and argument of the blog, however.

Jane, just a bit of advice – don’t publish how well or badly you are doing in your course, particularly in that much detail, and don’t admit to being a student on the internet – you’ll just give ammunition to the anti-intellectualism brigade. The less personal stuff you give away, the more likely it is discussion will focus on what you actually wrote.

(Unless of course you are studying economics, then you’ll be regarded as a guru and get to call people who disagree with you “economically illiterate”)

Thanks for that, I never normally do – and I hate doing it. Its just I thought he called me a fake, and I really love sociology so I took it personally and just wanted to say that I actually do know to some extent what I am doing.

I take what you say on board however. Just hope you can understand why it might have got to me.