This would be unremarkable, except that almost his entire lecture was spent urging those activists present to reformulate their strategies in light of the Black Panthers’ experience. If you watch the meeting in full, it almost seems that two different languages are being spoken, with Hilliard’s message – restated over and over – unacknowledged by almost every speaker from the audience. Hilliard stresses the relevance today of the Panthers’ ten-point programme (08:09 = time into video), argues that the most important aspect of the group’s activity was its “survival programmes” (10:24), suggests one of the most pressing issues for left-wing activists in London is knife crime and gang violence (13:27), and proposes practical solutions to black people being harassed via police stop-and-search powers (48:34). Here are a few selections from his speech:

As we grew we saw the need to really begin to address the very basic desires and needs of people in the community because if we were not doing that we were going to be isolated. (05:53)

You should look at our Black Panther Party as a model for how you meet today’s challenges. (10:24)

I think that if there is any lesson that you can draw from the history of our Black Panther Party that is that it is possible for you to usher in change as we did. You just have to be willing to get involved in issues in your community. (15:33)

Apart from the ovations, the largest rounds of applause are when Hilliard condemns the Iraq war. What is surprising is that the central elements of his message are picked up by virtually none of the speakers from the audience, despite him listing the key elements of the Panthers’ “survival programme” (05:53) which he says are the most important lessons to be learned from the party’s work. The achievements of the group included:

• Running the free breakfasts for children programme
• A bus programme for senior citizens “because they were being mugged and were afraid to come of their house”
• Giving free prescriptions and medical care to the elderly
• Testing 500,000 African-Americans for sickle cell anaemia over the course of five years
• Clothing and shoe programmes
• Buses to prison programme

These aspects of the Panthers’ activity were at the heart of their political orientation. They recognised this was both a moral necessity – to directly intervene to improve the quality of life of members of their community – and a strategic imperative. It was this belief in addressing the immediate interests of working class black Americans, in fact their “mastery of mass organizing techniques”¹ that built them a support base in cities across America. As an author in The Journal of Negro History notes:

One thing that was fundamental in the attraction of members to the Black Panther Party and their numerous supporters was its policy of ‘serving the people.’ This was a policy of going to the masses, living among them, sharing their burdens, and organising them to implement their own solutions to the day to day problems that were of great concern to them. The BPP organised and implemented community programmes ranging from, as previously mentioned; free breakfast for children programs, and free health clinics to free clothing drives. They also led rent strikes resulting in tenant ownership of their buildings, and led campaigns for the community control of schools, and the police, and to stoppage of drugs, crime, and police murder and brutality.¹

So what can the Left today learn from the Panthers? Well, Hilliard makes the point clear in his talk, suggesting activists begin engaging in community work and addressing the core concerns of working-class people. The practical examples he cites are knife crime and gang violence, along with more community control of police. This makes sense given that crime consistently ranks as one of the major concerns of ordinary people, as it clearly did in the context in which the Panthers were operating. It also makes sense, if we’re serious about building movements that in the long-term can bring about fundamental social change, to address a community’s core economic and social concerns, and establish institutions independent of the state that build a political culture and improve people’s lives.

However, Hilliard doesn’t mention the central point, at least for the audience he is addressing. That is, the Left is consistently failing to heed any of the lessons to which he draws our attention. As Left Luggage has previously highlighted, crime is not taken seriously as an issue to be addressed in the here and now, but is deferred until capitalism’s overthrow. Likewise, very little energy is expended on community organising around the immediate needs of the working class. Instead, the Left tends to focus its activity on international issues and movements, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, anti-capitalist mobilisations, the war on terror, and US imperialism more generally.

Paradoxically, the very enthusiasm demonstrated for the Black Panthers at Hilliard’s talk is a manifestation of the Left’s unbalanced political focus. That’s not to say Hilliard and the Panthers don’t deserve a couple of standing ovations. Of course they do, for the reasons already outlined. However, the fact that Hilliard demonstrably failed to impress his message upon the audience is a symptom of a peculiar approach to foreign political movements, especially those that achieve a degree of success. That is, we romanticise their struggle while ignoring its lessons.

This can be seen in numerous cases. For instance, many left-wing activists are involved in Palestine solidarity work and identify closely with the Palestinian cause; the example of the 1987-1993 Intifada – of a people rising up to attempt to shake off their oppressors – remains an inspiration to many.

However, the Intifada did not emerge from nowhere. As well as being a product of political, social and economic change throughout the 1970s and 1980s, it was crucially the product of organising that took place among the population over the previous two decades. Central to this development were a range of popular organisations that aimed “to provide basic services to a population living under military occupation as an alternative to the occupation.”² These organisations, in other words,

“served economic and social as well as political functions. They filled a void in the provision of services not available to resident Palestinians under the occupation […] they also provided a training ground for collective action and the development of leadership and organisational skills among Palestinians, and incorporated a political agenda aimed at raising national consciousness.”³

Once the Intifada got underway, “popular committees” were established to “coordinate the provision of education, health care, agricultural production, security and defence, and other services”³ to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. They also performed “underground social work” to offer support to families with members arrested, injured or killed by the Israelis.⁴

The methods of these organisations, during and especially after the end of the first Intifada, were taken up enthusiastically by Hamas, which similarly set up schools, charities, clinics, and teaching circles to mobilise popular support behind the Islamist movement. It is not an exaggeration to say this is the modus operandi of the majority of political Islamist groups in the Middle East and while clearly we don’t want to borrow from their ideology, we can still learn from the strategy of these mass political organisations.

Another case is the Zapatista movement, which first came to prominence in 1994 when it established an autonomous zone in Chiapas, Mexico, and attracted much interest from the Left internationally, particularly from libertarian socialists and anarchists due to its use of participatory democratic forms of organisation. Solidarity groups were established by left-wing activists around the world to support the movement.

The Zapatistas consisted of a guerrilla movement without a civilian arm but symbiotically linked to the peasant communities of the region through ten years of clandestine organisation.

“The movement was built by political education and direct action which resolved the immediate problems of the communities […] the small victories built the larger movement – infusing the members of the community with the idea that they were capable of winning in struggle and changing society.”⁵

A significant problem for the peasant communities of Chiapas was access to cultivable land, so the Zapatistas set about reclaiming land from large owners through occupation. They also had a range of other social programmes in their “communities in resistance,” including providing health clinics, schools, supplying electricity, and establishing a communal culture. They also tackled directly the problems of alcohol and drug addiction such that “there is a total absence of consumption or sale of drugs, which are also not permitted in the autonomous communities.”⁶

These varied movements – from the south of Chicago, through the Gaza Strip, and the Chiapas mountains – are linked together in their basic strategic approach. In each case, they were effective because they aimed to meet the immediate needs of their populations while building networks of solidarity and establishing a political culture. Of course, the situation in contemporary Britain seems quite different, but as David Hilliard says, working class people here are facing similar structural problems as those addressed by the Black Panthers.

How many activists who have read about the Zapatistas, attended meetings on Chiapas, or engaged in solidarity actions, have thoughtfully considered the implications of their strategy? Likewise, how many of us have seriously set about building the kind of “survival programmes” Hilliard talks about? Or the “popular organisations” that were able to meet the everyday needs of Palestinians while also building a culture of resistance?

It is not enough simply to engage in activism around foreign struggles without considering how those movements were built and attempting to apply the lessons here; to do that is simply a form of romanticism, a radicalism by proxy. We should support international progressive movements where we can, but our primary and pressing goal must be to establish “communities in resistance” at home.

1. Harris, Jessica Christina. ‘Revolutionary Black Nationalism: The Black Panther Party’. In The Journal of Negro History, 85, 3 (Summer, 2000), pp. 170-171.
2. Hilterman, Joost R. ‘Mass Mobilization and the Uprising: the Labor Movement’. In Michael C. Hudson, ed. The Palestinians: New Directions. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. 1990. p. 47.
3. Alin, Erika G. ‘Dynamics of the Palestinian Uprising’. In Comparative Politics, 26, 4 (July 1994), p. 485.
4. Muslih, Mohammad. ‘Palestinian Civil Society’. In Middle East Journal, 47, 2 (Spring 1993), p. 267.
5. Petras, James, and Steve Vieux. ‘Myths and Realities of the Chiapas Uprising’. In Economic and Political Weekly, 31, 47 (November 23, 1996), p. 3055.
6. ‘Zapatistas Eradicate Alcoholism and Drug Addiction’ by Hermann Bellinghausen, in La Jornada (Mexican daily newspaper), March 6, 2009.

It is undoubtedly true that there has been an upsurge in student activism around international issues. Many of the school students who walked out of classes in opposition to the 2003 Iraq War are now at university, and their radicalism has not diminished. Any conclusions about a general left-wards shift on the part of the young should be resisted, however. There are no signs that the Gaza campaign will develop into a broader progressive movement. Indeed, research from 2008 shows that students are more likely to express support for the Conservatives than for Labour. Perhaps this isn’t surprising, since due to Britain’s inegalitarian education system, university students are disproportionately middle class.

Therein lies the rub. All the talk on the Left about the radicalism of the young is really about the limited radicalism of young, middle class students. What of the working class young people who do not end up going to university, or who are among the 22% of students who fail to complete their university courses? Almost all the articles on working class young people from the Socialist Worker newspaper focus on media demonisation of youth, and the failure of government to meet young people’s needs on education and crime. The following passage, from an article about youth crime, is typical:

Poor education, poverty, inequality, poor life prospects and decimation of local services – these are the conditions in which many of our young people are living and which create the conditions for some to turn to crime and violence.

Working class young people are cast as passive victims without agency. The political views of working class youth, and the way they see themselves and their society, are neglected. If the Left is to have any hope of building support for its politics in the future, it needs to get to grips with the worldview of young people growing up in communities devastated by Thatcherism.

The kids I work with are predominantly from working class backgrounds. Most have parents employed in routine clerical or manual occupations, though a substantial minority come from families where neither parent works. Some are the children of immigrants who, due to lack of job opportunities or their own refusal to accept poverty pay, have set themselves up as self-employed – often in the “black” economy. Over 90% are non-white: Bengalis, West Africans and Caribbeans are the largest ethnic groups. Nearly all are classified as from “socially deprived” backgrounds. They should be part of the target market for Left groups, but very few have any awareness of socialism or progressive politics. Last month, anti-capitalist demonstrators descended on the Excel Exhibition Centre, round the corner from the College where I work. The students viewed the protests with a mixture of curiosity, amusement and indifference, but seemed to feel no sense of identification with the protestors.

Many of my students are highly ambitious – often ludicrously so. Kids with four GCSEs who have trouble reading and writing announce their plans to become corporate lawyers, doctors and businesspeople. I’m often reminded of Delboy from Only Fools and Horses and his reassuring words to a sceptical younger brother: “this time next year, Rodney, we’ll be millionaires!” As with Delboy, the bravado often masks deep insecurities. Through their time in education, a gap grows between their ambitions and their ability to achieve them. The more distant the prospect of educational success becomes, the more they cling to the fantasy of future wealth. Many give up on tasks after the tiniest set back, afraid to grapple with the problem in case the effort makes the anticipated failure more painful. It is common for kids to mock and take delight in the failure of others, as this provides a welcome distraction from their own inadequacies. Many of them refuse to take responsibility for their actions when they experience failure, since to do so would force them to address their weaknesses.

The kids I work with generally reject the idea that anyone could be motivated by altruism or any non-material concerns, and assume people are naturally selfish. They are keenly aware of their own “rights” but often dismissive of the rights of others. The vast majority of students in every class I have taught favour much harsher restrictions on the rights of immigrants, despite the fact that they are generally the descendants of immigrants themselves. They generally accept the view of British society as meritocratic. While most acknowledge the existence of class as a social fact, they do not see it as a structural barrier to material success. Instead of structural explanations, there is widespread support for “conspiracy theory” views of the world, with the Jews or the Freemasons cast as evil masterminds controlling events.

It isn’t hard to imagine the political views that flow from these assumptions about human nature and British society. My students tend to support the neoliberal model of “tolerance”, insisting upon the right of others to pursue their own self interest. On economics, most are firmly opposed to progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth: Tory proposals to raise the inheritance tax threshold and reverse Labour’s increase in the top rate of tax are popular. If I point out to my students that such taxes affect a tiny minority of the population, the response is that they might be in that tiny minority before too long. Most of my students support harsh, authoritarian policies on law and order, and blame crime on individual criminals rather than social factors.

In short, the majority of the working class young people I work with seem to have accepted Thatcherite principles and assumptions in full. There is no society; only competing and ruthless individuals. Collectivism is a doomed endeavour, since people are bound by nature to seek their own benefit at the expense of others. It is easy to move up through the class system, and anyone can “get to the top” with the requisite hard work. People are entitled to the fruits of their labour and have no obligation to give up any of their money in the form of redistributive taxes.

Of course, the picture is far more complex and nuanced than the one I have sketched. In their personal dealings with others, for instance, most of my students amply demonstrate the altruism they deny exists. It is also true that my students do not constitute a representative cross section of British society. Since many are the children of recent immigrants, they do not have the ingrained awareness of class that indigenous British people often do. Those whose parents are self employed are perhaps less likely to be sensitive to class than those whose parents are workers.

Most importantly, they are just kids with no experience of the world of full time work. Once they leave college or university, they are bound to come up against the realities of a deeply unequal and unfair society and their views will surely change. However, the direction of that change is by no means pre-ordained. Someone who has always believed that society is meritocratic will not necessarily abandon that belief once they find themselves unemployed or in a low paid, unsatisfying job. In the absence of a socialist political culture, they are as likely to blame their situation on Eastern European immigrants and cartels of Jewish bankers as they are to point the finger at an exploitative economic system. The evidence is that young people do have reactionary views on a number of issues. A report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2007 showed that young people were less concerned with economic inequalities and much less supportive of policies to redistribute wealth than older respondents. Indeed, it would be surprising if decades of neoliberal social polices, designed in part to weaken social solidarity and support for collectivism, were not successful in altering the views of those who have grown up under them.

A good way to begin to tackle some of these problems would be to set up community organisations to involve working class young people in activities that prove that altruism and collectivism are possible. The left-leaning Kurdish/Turkish youth organisation DayMer runs a number of such activities for kids in East London, including sports activities and trips away. This approach should not be confused with the left-liberal stance that working class young people are simply bored and do not have enough to do. Of course the dearth of youth and community facilities is something that should be addressed as a matter of urgency, but unless there are community organisations that facilitate activities that engage young people in self-sacrifice and teamwork, attitudes are unlikely to change.

The Left should also build on the elements of the views of working class young people that have progressive potential. Ideas about personal responsibility should be nurtured rather than dismissed as reactionary. For instance, any approach to crime that is seen to absolve criminals of responsibility for their actions is unlikely to gain many adherents among working class youth. Ideas about hard work can also be progressive, but the need to work hard for others as well as to fulfil personal potential should be stressed. Similarly, we should not argue against seeking “success”, but should try to broaden the notion of success to include non-material and intrinsic goals.

Romantic notions of young people as a revolutionary force are wide of the mark at present. In fact, unless community and political organisations can successfully intervene, it seems likely that the Left will have an even harder job recruiting and organising in the working class communities of the future than they have today.

At least half a dozen teenagers have been killed in the immediate vicinity of the college in the three years I have worked there. Communities in the area are extremely tight-knit, and many of my students have been personally affected by the killings. In my first term, I remember reading the account one girl wrote of the night her friend was stabbed through the heart in front of her at a party. A male student of mine took time off college after seeing his female friend murdered. Staff have also been attacked. A security guard was stabbed in the back in broad daylight outside the college gates after he allegedly offended a friend of the attacker. He survived.

One of the most pernicious affects of crime is the way it alters the social and political views of those whose lives it blights. Most of the kids I work with have a pessimistic view of human nature, refusing to believe that people have altruistic motivations. Far from having pride in their communities, they can’t wait to leave what they see as dangerous and neglected neighbourhoods. Whenever we discuss crime they voice support for the most authoritarian policies, including longer prison terms and the death penalty. They largely reject the liberal view that crime might have social causes.

My students are not alone. Concern about violent crime is widespread and growing in working class areas. 57% of respondents to a BBC poll in 2008 said they had become more concerned about knife crime in the past year. Among manual workers, the figure was 66%. On attitudes to punishment, class differences are even clearer. 53% overall supported an automatic four year prison sentence for anyone caught carrying a knife; among manual workers the figure leapt to 65%.

The Left often explains attitudes like these as the result of media over-reporting and sensationalism. The way the media frame the issue of crime is clearly important, but the relationship between the media and their audiences is a complex and reflexive one. Media messages must resonate with audiences if they are to be effective. To imply that people get their views on crime solely from the media is simplistic. In any case, to argue that public opinion on crime (or immigration, or anything else) is attributable to media influence is to miss the point. We have to deal with public opinion as we find it, not as we would like it to be. Telling people their views are “based on media lies” is unlikely to produce positive results.

The Left is more out of touch with public opinion on crime than on almost any other issue. A perfect illustration of this was provided by an article in Socialist Worker last month headlined “Capitalism and Rape”. After criticising judicial and police attitudes to rape, the writer points out that rape is a “social problem” and “Socialist Worker has no tradition of calling for more arrests or harsher sentencing to deal with social problems.” The root cause of this social problem, we are told, is the alienation brought about by capitalism. As for the solution, we read:

Abusers should receive treatment and counselling to help them to live normal lives and prevent them repeating their behaviour. But to eradicate all forms of sexual violence we need to fight together to create a very different kind of society.

There are several things wrong with this analysis. To argue that there will be no rape after the revolution dodges two very important issues. Firstly: how should we deal with sexual violence until we abolish capitalism (assuming this is a long way off)? Should we console rape victims with the news that there will be no rape in the new socialist society? Secondly, it is utopian to argue that sexual violence will not be a feature “after capitalism”. While removing alienation might dramatically reduce instances of rape, it is unlikely to completely abolish the crime. All societies are faced with the problem of how to deal with anti-social behaviour, of which rape is an extreme example.

The worst aspect of the article cited above is the way it appears to absolve individual rapists of personal responsibility for the heinous crimes they commit. People act within a social context and every individual action will have been influenced by numerous social factors, but ultimately we choose to act the way we do. If this were not the case, it would be impossible for criminals to change their ways or for people to resist the temptation to commit crime. Capitalism “causes” crime in the sense that it destroys bonds of solidarity between individuals, promotes the ruthless pursuit of self interest and creates material deprivation. It puts certain people in situations where they are likely to decide to commit crime. In the same way, any other social phenomenon can be said to be “caused by capitalism”, from sex trafficking to short selling, but it makes no sense to disregard personal responsibility in these cases.

Part of the reluctance on the Left to blame criminals for their actions might be due to the fact that the perpetrators of certain crimes tend to be working class. It is equally true, however, that the victims of anti-social crime are disproportionately working class. Crime in working class communities is generally committed by a small minority of individuals who enrich themselves at the direct expense of the majority. In this sense, the drug dealer is a miniature version of the capitalist exploiter.

There is also a concern on the Left that addressing crime is inherently reactionary. It is true that arguing for more police powers and bigger prisons legitimises and strengthens the state. However, being anti-crime does not necessarily mean being pro-police or pro-punishment. Experiences in the North of Ireland show how communities can address crime themselves, by standing up to the criminal minority and forcing criminals to atone for their actions. Such restorative justice schemes have more recently been adopted in other parts of the UK, for instance by the Independent Working Class Association in Oxford. This is not to say crime can be addressed by completely bypassing the police. Clearly they are needed to help find perpetrators and deter future crimes, but at the moment there is a perception in many working class areas that the police are more concerned with public relations than with tackling the problems that communities face. Rather than argue for more police powers, the Left should put pressure on the police to respond to the needs of the communities they serve. Like any collective action, community campaigns against crime can help to strengthen solidarity and build community pride.

According to the 2008 poll, 38% of people do not trust any of the three main parties to deal with crime (43% of manual workers). Working class people will look for alternatives if the Left is unwilling to represent them and address these concerns. At the moment, that alternative is the far-right British National Party, which has already started to give crime as much prominence as immigration in some of its campaigns.

To begin to reconnect with the working class, we must listen to the concerns of communities on issues like crime and formulate a progressive response. To do this, the Left urgently needs to build the roots in communities that it currently lacks. If we fail, we open the door to the far right, with catastrophic consequences.

Yet the response from Britain’s working class has so far been muted at best. French and Italian workers stage general strikes and Greece is rocked by massive protests, but the best Britain’s workers can muster is a small – if impressive – campaign of unofficial action against the use of non-unionised foreign labour to undercut local workers. Leftwing groups organise demonstrations declaring that Britain’s working class won’t pay the price for a crisis caused by the bosses, but by and large these attract only the usual crowd of seasoned protestors. Predictions by the police of a “summer of rage” in 2009 seem more like a transparent plea for more power and resources than a credible assessment of the likelihood of civil disorder.

As a consequence of all this, the Government is under no pressure to propose progressive solutions to the recession. On New Labour’s agenda for this year: further restrictions on the right to claim benefits, the part-privatisation of Royal Mail and an even greater role for the private sector in education and health. Billions of pounds are transferred to the banks from the taxpayer, without any increase in democratic control over the economy.

Why no backlash from the British victims of the recession? Part of the answer lies in a process begun in Britain thirty years ago by Margaret Thatcher. The smashing of union power, privatisation of council housing and deliberate promotion of the financial sector over manufacturing gradually broke down bonds of community and solidarity within working class communities and workplaces. Crime – which doubled under Thatcher as a predictable consequence of her social reforms – replaced empathy with fear in many working class areas of Britain. Thatcher’s famous refrain “There is no such thing as society” seemed like wishful thinking when she said it in 1987. Increasingly, it appears as though her wish has come true. Through its thirty-year onslaught against the values of collectivism and cooperation, neoliberalism has undermined the ability and the willingness of the working class to mount collective resistance.

Labour first failed to oppose Thatcherism, then enthusiastically took up the neoliberal baton under Blair. This denied the working class what had until then been the best method for defending its interests, but also opened up a huge political vacuum. Turnout slumped to 60% as people correctly perceived that all the major parties were organised in the interests of the middle and upper classes. The Left might have been expected to eagerly exploit this vacuum, given its professed desire to lead the workers towards revolution, but they have not. In fact, the left finds itself today with no real roots in working class communities. The far right looks far better placed to capitalise on Labour’s abandonment of its core supporters. How did this happen?

To some extent, the left are victims of the drift towards reactionary politics in British society generally, from which the working class have not been immune. However, the left has conspired in its own demise among the working class. As their representation in organised labour diminished, and following the wave of student rebellions in 1968, many left groups reoriented towards a more reliable market. Opposition to US foreign policy in British universities as well as the accessibility of campuses had long encouraged the left to recruit heavily among students. The harder it became to organise workers, the more tempting the prospect of student recruits became.This preference for the student option has had a number of negative side effects for the left. Groups that have a large student membership inevitably experience a high turnover of members, as graduates enter middle class professions, buy houses and become distanced from the concerns of the left. More damagingly, in chasing students, groups on the left have readjusted their priorities to make themselves appealing to a middle class market. Issues such as the Iraq War, climate change and global justice have become the focus at the expense of issues of more immediate concern to working class people such as crime, housing and education. All of this increases the distance between the left and the working class and leaves the far right able to claim that it alone represents the interests of the majority.

To begin to reclaim the right to speak for the working class, the left must first attempt to build a base in working class communities. This means addressing the immediate concerns of working class people, however unglamorous or unpalatable they might be. For instance: crime is a massive concern for working class people, particularly in cities like London and Liverpool where murders of teenage boys have been widely reported. The left responds by pointing out that the media over-report crime in order to distract attention from the real, underlying social problems. This approach leaves them out of touch with ordinary people, who are more likely to focus on the sheer horror of young men in their communities being killed for no good reason.

To address the issue of crime is not, in itself, reactionary. It is true that crime is in part caused by capitalist exploitation. It is also true that crime has a corrosive effect upon community spirit, increasing fear and suspicion. To argue that crime will only be eradicated once capitalism is abolished offers no solution to communities facing the immediate problem of anti-social behaviour. Where the left can help communities deal with anti-social crime, they will gain credibility and the trust of those communities.

Before any collective working class response to social problems is possible, it is first necessary to revive the community spirit that has sustained struggles for centuries. From the Black Panthers’ Free Breakfasts for Children programmes to the workers’ educational schemes established by the British labour movement, those on the left have long recognised the importance of providing a service to communities. Doing something positive for working class communities, rather than simply preaching to them about the unjust way they are treated, is the first step towards establishing roots in the working class. Community projects bring people together, reinforce solidarity and make people feel positive about the prospects for change.

The basic elements of this strategy are already in place in many parts of the country. Community activists who once would have worked within the Labour Party have established independent local groups committed to putting the needs of their communities centre stage. Dozens of groups have developed since 1997. From football supporters seeking to rescue their local teams, to health workers opposing hospital closures, this growing trend has involved a wide range of activists and ordinary people. Although some groups have put up candidates for local elections, on the whole the movement lacks a coherent political direction. It is also fragmented, with groups in some areas probably unaware of the existence of similar groups nearby. National networks and federations need to be created. Socialists should engage with such networks enthusiastically, but should expect to learn from and work with these groups, rather seek to control them or make them into “fronts” for their own agendas. Trade union activists are also well placed to create links with community groups. Community and trade union activists have already begun to cooperate through campaigns against post office privatisation, health service restructuring and the creation of city academies. These links should be developed further – not least because history has shown that workers’ struggles are most likely to be successful if they enjoy the broad support of communities.

If the left is to create organic links with the working class, its existing organisational structures must be completely overhauled. At the moment, too many groups on the left see their ordinary members as foot soldiers whose job is to propagate the party line. Instead, members should be seen as active participants with ideas and experiences that can help to mould the message and improve the strategy. It is vitally important that grassroots activists feel they have a real influence over their organisations, otherwise the left risks replicating the alienation they rightly criticise when they see it at work in industry, education and mainstream politics. The only way to bring about a participatory, democratic society is through participatory and democratic means.

We must be realistic about the scale of what we have to achieve if we are to build a movement capable of increasing the social, economic and political power of the working class. There is a tendency on the left to assume that working class people are itching for the opportunity to join a revolutionary movement. In fact, detailed analysis of public opinion suggests that the views of the working class at present are closer to the position of the far right than the far left. Immigration, for instance, was thought to be a “more important issue than health or education” by 52% of respondents to a Populus poll in 2006. An Ipsos-MORI study of the 2008 London Mayoral election results found that there was a far greater correlation between voting and ethnicity than there was between voting and class. Even white working class wards went for Boris Johnson more often than Ken Livingstone. In most areas of the country, BNP voters appear to be disproportionately working class. A report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation into inequality found that manual workers were less supportive of the principle of redistribution of wealth than the average.

None of this suggests that the task is hopeless or that we should give up faith in the working class as the agent of social change. Nor should it obscure the fact public opinion is notoriously contradictory and that working class people hold progressive views on a number of other issues. However, these figures do illustrate that the left has a lot to do if it is to rebuild support for its values. Rather than explain away reactionary views as the result of media propaganda, the left should listen carefully and respond intelligently. If we expect working class people to listen to our responses, we must first prove that we are worth listening to. The only way to do this is by pouring our resources into addressing immediate working class interests, establishing links with communities and creating opportunities for democratic participation. If we fail to do this, we have only ourselves to blame for what will surely be further decades of obscurity and frustration.