Here’s a comment from GGV which is pretty accurate critique of Kate Hudson’s politics. The qurestion is however whether we argue against her within a pluralist organisation or remain isolated anarchists and wonder why her uncontested arguments hold sway? Say there wsas a huge anti-austerity march organised and KH wanted a rerun of the big iraq war march – do we argue against with a hope of winning a majority to our view or moan from sidelines and form a radical workers bloc?
‘Can we start by being honest about the nature of the self styled ‘revolutionary left?’ Nearly all of these organisations (SWP, SP, CPGB) are essentially lobbying groups within the Labour party. I suspect the Hudson statement is really a reiteration of the same policy – lobbying within the same institutions, calling on trade union leaders, building relationships with the ‘labour left,’ forging links with Euro Stalinists, focusing on identity politics, lunch with Mark Serowokta, etc
In other words it’s the old ‘left’ principle of ‘conducting the struggle within the existing institutions.’ Fair enough, but it’s middle class politics with a vengeance, and a dead end for any live movement
Agree totally-all the more so since 60% of people in the UK now identify as being working class-
‘Wales and the north-east appear
to have a strong working class culture, with 66% of Welsh people (57% in England, and 61% in Scotland) , and 79% of those in the north-east (63%
in the southeast) calling themselves working class’
http://www.britishfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/State-of-the-Nation-2013.pdf
Let’s be realistic here. The Tory & City brand has become a metaphor for toffs and liars. Anyone would rather be seen as working class than as this plundering cartel of Eaton idiots. In the same poll wasn’t Immigration seen as the most important political issue? So the Internationale will never be heard on X factor then. We’re working class but we’re Little England too.
I don’t see any problem in working within a ‘pluralist organisation,’ but we need to be careful. The Hudson ‘manifesto’ alludes to the model of Syriza and Izquierda Unida. Syriza is a party committed to fiscal consolidation and deficit reduction, in other words to a modified program of austerity, this includes a committment to respectable, centrist, middle class politics and the salvation of investment banks at public expense. Of course, there’s a lot rhetoric about equality, feminism, but it’s ‘left’ window dressing.
I rarely agree with the SEP, but their description of the ambitious ‘social layer’ represented by ‘leadership’ of the SWP and other ‘left’ organizations is accurate:
“Over a period of decades, they have developed substantial wealth and material interests, as leading professionals, academics, and parliamentarians, or trade union bureaucrats negotiating social cuts with business leaders and heads of state. Now, they see in SYRIZA’s experience a case study of how the destabilization of the political establishment in Europe offers them an opportunity to further integrate themselves into the fleshpots of the capitalist state”
http://wsws.org/en/articles/2012/12/07/left-d07.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c44a296-b3b3-11e1-a3db-00144feabdc0.html
Yeah! And what with her being Goldie Hawn’s daughter and all.
Is she still secretary of CND and in Respect? Quite a social climber.
http://www.respectparty.org/2012/07/its-kate-hudson-for-manchester-central.html