Mourning the terminal condition of the political left (Does the left have a future?, 6 September) has become something of a parlour game for those who once self-identified as proponents of transformative change. While it may be true that socialism’s less reflective adherents remain tied to an analysis rooted in 20th-century conditions, the majority acknowledge the pressing need to reappraise our approach as work, class identity and the mode of capital accumulation mutate around us.
In Scotland, the SNP has superficially triangulated leftwards while legislating from the right, and maintains support by filtering the grievances that John Harris rightly identifies through the prism of national identity politics. Meanwhile Jeremy Corbyn, himself a product of 20th-century socialism, quietly pursues a policy framework that, beyond the babble of his antiquated opponents, attempts to formulate policies of regulation, planning, redistribution and workplace rights suitable for modern conditions which more than ever demand such intervention. A four-day week and universal income are only two of the propositions Labour is likely to commit to by 2020. Add a real living wage, PR and far-reaching constitutional change, and it may be that writing off a Corbyn-led Labour party will in retrospect appear to be one of the more complacent assumptions touted by the liberal press.
Mike Cowley
Campaign for Socialism/Momentum Scotland
• John Harris, in trying to envisage a future for the left, imbues the past with some dubious characterisations. The “working man” was always, understandably, grateful for state benefits when he couldn’t work and, just like any Ukipper now, proud to be patriotic to the core. It is no surprise that Ukip has hoovered up so many Labour votes, as many on the left were and are conservative at heart, and even harboured admiration for Margaret Thatcher, despite her being a woman. More difficult for them was the rise of feminism under New Labour, thus threatening jobs and the status in society that their maleness had conferred upon them. Many of the self-declared “grafters” who voted to leave the EU would never have done the jobs they claimed migrants deprived them of, but it chimed with the nostalgia for imagined glories of old to be reactivated once freed from Europe’s yoke.
It is in this that Scotland is instructive. The SNP is a party led by nationalists, the product of “clever branding” yes, but built on a tide of anti-English rhetoric and empty promises. Sound familiar? Think Johnson, Gove, Farage and the infamous bus of lies. Then think Corbyn and his 10 pledges. The future? Men may have to start thinking more like women.
Carolyn Kirton
Aberdeen
• John Harris’s take on the left is of the glass-half-empty kind. It is certainly true that the traditional parties of social democracy across Europe have declined in support. They promise to temper the red-in-tooth-and-claw activities of market capitalism by reforms. The problem is that the market system is currently doing rather badly, and the scope for reform is limited even if political office is achieved. France, with a Socialist party government, underlines the point.
That means that something a little more robust than simply tweaking capitalism is required, and that surely is what Syriza in Greece and Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour party here are about.
It is fair enough to note that this hasn’t been successful yet, but that doesn’t mean the attempt isn’t worthwhile.
In the meantime, while Harris says union membership is at “an all-time low” (more accurately it is a good deal lower than in the 1970s), the trench warfare against exploitative bosses goes on. As the progress made by Unite the Union on zero-hours contracts at Sports Direct shows, it is still possible to make the world a better place by collective action.
Keith Flett
London
• I enjoyed John Harris’s eloquently insightful analysis of why the left has no effective answers to globalisation, the nationalist right or job insecurity. But I searched in vain for any systemic answers to the problems he posed. A good place to start would be Europe, where the single market, with its ruthless enforcement of “open borders”, has resulted in the rapid rise of EU citizens migrating and the social disruption caused by deregulation, privatisation and post-2008 continent-wide austerity cuts. Small wonder this has led to the rise of politically swift-footed, populist rightwing parties, with their anti-EU and in some cases protectionist policies.
It is time for disparate leftwing protests against, for example, TTIP, tax dodgers such as Apple, the dumping of Chinese steel exports, and burgeoning foreign ownership of property, to realise that these are all problems that can only be tackled fundamentally by reversing the free flow of goods, capital and services, and putting this on a par with the political number one issue – the free flow of people. Given the debacle of the present “No Plan B” Brexit discussions, it is time to initiate a debate in Europe about how to get us out of this mess. For starters a debate should begin about turning the Treaty of Rome into a “Treaty of Home”, to allow appropriate restrictions to the free movement of goods, people, services and capital, to allow regional, national and local economies to prosper.
Colin Hines
East Twickenham, Middlesex
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
