Why brave is better than hard



There is a story told about a friend that in the aftermath of the Martin Smith rape scandal he was invited onto a left group’s disputes committee. The young chair gathered the comrades together with an anxious greeting to the effect that they should disclose if they had ever been involved in a complaint. Most had not; one committee member had sat on a student union panel. “Well, I have to admit, I’ve been subject to complaints”, my friend began. “There was the two years I served for ABH. I’ve done time for GBH, and, of course, attempted murder…”

The friend is one of the kindest and best people I have ever met on the left. He is physically brave (there was the time that he broke a fascist’s nose, midway through that BNP member’s evidence in the Magistrate’s Court). And he is politically brave: at the start of the Rees-German leadership of the SWP, he campaigned for democracy in the party, and was slowly forced out of the group, fighting the leadership at every step, with his friends isolated and expelled one by one until he was the only one left.

Over the years, the revolutionary left has attracted many other people like my friend. Michel Pablo, best known these days for having urged the liquidation of the Trotskyists into the official Communist Parties, had previously organised gun factories for the FLN. There were the many Trotskyists who died in World War Two – Abram Leon, being one – fighting as best they could both the immediate menace of fascism and the social patriotic spirit into which too much of the rest of the left drifted.

I was reminded of my friend by two stories in recent weeks involving revolutionaries in countries several thousand miles apart. The first group published on its front page an article showing their country’s Prime Minister, and beside him the photograph of a razor and the words “one cut we’d like to see”.

The second group published a newspaper article about a boy aged 17, who had been attending the same school as their country’s Prime Minister. On a holiday, he had been killed by a polar bear. The newspaper celebrated the death, “Now we have another reason to save the polar bears”.

Both stories were atrocious propaganda. Something of how you should try to make socialists was captured long ago in a phrase of Leon Trotsky’s when he spoke of a “transitional demand”. The phrase may sound like the most atrocious jargon but the idea behind it is simple. One way the left can win adherents is by proposing ideas which sound modest enough but point to the possibility of a different society, and invite their audience to think about why this has not happened already. So a transitional demand might be something like the idea – being popularised just now in Spain by the left wing group Podemos – than no MP should be paid more than three times the minimum wage.

The demand sounds easily achievable and yet we all know that it would close off representative politics to precisely the people who are presently most likely to get elected (in Spain, or in Britain or anywhere in the world): i.e. middle-class people who enjoy the social power of representing others but who refuse to live on anything like the average wage. They would never agree to it. In other words, to win, we have to overthrow them.

Any general strike worthy of the name is, in principle, a piece of transitional propaganda pointing in favour of society run by millions rather millionaires.

Saying, “wow, a rich child was mauled by a bear!” is to revel in a tragedy for the boy’s parents, for the other children on the holiday (not all of whom were rich, not all of whom were in private education) and no doubt for several dozen other people who cared about the boy. It is to revel in a private misery rather than point to collective emancipation.

No doubt the writer imagined himself “hard” in the same style as the authors of a certain kind of mid-1980s anarchism. But people who are genuinely brave do not boast about their bravery. The friend I mentioned at the start would rather see his own teeth pulled out than own up to his many acts of courage. Bravery (unlike hardness) is a characteristic of people who struggle.

No-one is braver than the woman who leaves a partner who has been violent in order to bring up a child in poverty. Hardness is a virtue in managers not in those who are managed, it is a positive attribute in the worst of men. Hardness is the boaster’s vision of how he looks when he tells stories about his own bravery.

The French revolution gave even the children of the royal family a second chance – sending them to be educated as cobblers. It was their social strength, their victory, which made them magnanimous. The hardness with which the revolutionaries celebrated this recent accident is a sign only of their deep impotence.

So much for the second party – how about the other group of revolutionaries I have mentioned (the ones with the ill-judged razor front-page)? They withdrew the magazine, recognising in retrospect that the image they had chosen had been crass. They made a mistake and accepted it.

We would do well to learn from them. But, then again, revolutionaries in Britain have been pretty abject recently at saying sorry.

3 responses »

  1. I think perhaps you (and Owen Jones) are a bit moraliistic here. The polar bear “joke” was a sick joke which I can well imagine comrades (including myself) making in the pub in the company of like-minded people. Bad taste, perhaps, but nothing enormously wrong with it. We would, however, be very careful not to make such remarks at a union branch meeting or a Stop The War meeting, where people we are working with might well (and justifiably) find it offensive.
    So the problem seems to be that SW is not very sure what its audience is. (From what I hear, that audience is now pretty small.) Is SW aiming at the Viz/Class War readership, in which case the joke would have fitted – or is it aimed at trade-union activists, perhaps raidicalised by recent actions, in which case it was totally inappropriate? At one time we used to discuss the readership, potential and actual, of SW in great detail. Now i get the feeling nobody much cares.
    If the polar bear “joke” had appeared in SW in the 1970s or 1980s there would have been a storm of debate on the letters page. Some readers would have been appalled, some would defend it. But in those days we had the sense that people were reading the paper, carefully, and were responding to it. Nowadays the letters page is totally bland, utterly without controversy or debate of any sort.

  2. There probably was a chance to have a lively letters page about 5 years ago – ie just about the same time that blogs got going and it became obvious that half the SWP was reading one of them in particular. But it would have involved taking a gamble on the internet and social media, and that opportunity (as we both know) was missed

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s