The Treatment of Political Parties in Maydays

If nothing else, political parties are means for individuals to pool their resources to advance mutually shared goals—generally, to get elected. At best, the party allows the realization of these goals. At worst, the party may actually stifle its members own well-being. David Edgar’s Maydays focuses on the interactions among parties, their members, and their members’ ideologies. Edgar’s characters demonstrate that at the point that the party takes precedence over its members and their well-being, the party has failed to serve its purpose and is better eliminated.

Ironically, the British left in the latter half of the twentieth century finds itself facing not just problems coordinating its many parties, but also with regard to those members of the working class who are not affiliated with any party. Just as leftist parties seem to own their members, the working class seems to be owned by their material possessions. The left has found itself fighting not only an internal war, but also a war against the political moderate and right wing who have been fooled into being happy with their material possessions: the "Hoover Automatic [and] … Mini-Cooper" (30).

The end result of the conflicts is that leftists like Amanda, Jeremy, and Martin end-up either leaving the party or getting run out of the party altogether. Of course, the three characters take different paths to get to the end result, but in the end discover that they can effectively advance their goals without any organized party at all.

The incident known as "Red Barcelona" (first referenced at 32) is the first of a series of global leftist hemorrhages debated by Edgar’s characters. Anarchists and communists, formerly allies, end up killing each other over disagreements about fighting their mutual enemy, the fascist Franco. Cited by Phil as a "cautionary tale," "anarchists were smashed … by the communists" (38). Indeed, while leftist allies were fighting, their mutual enemy managed to crush both of them, ironically, during the workers’ Five Days in May (38). Red Barcelona is but the first indication that if the left insists on fighting amongst itself, it will be wiped off the map like it was in Spain.

Yet dogmatic old James continues to see huge and meaningful differences among leftist groups, which he describes academically on page 40. Martin sees no difference, so he asks Clark what the difference is. Clark’s answer demonstrates the same type of conflict that doomed reds in Barcelona: "They’re wrong and we’re right." Not concerned to fight for his larger ideology, James is instead concerned with squabbling the other leftist revolutionary groups! James has allowed the party to overshadow the goals that he as a leftist originally stood for.

Certainly, Amanda is a bit more able to recognize the inherent contradictions in the party line. A leftist at heart, she finds that party membership requires her to abandon the beliefs that prompted her to join the party in the first place (107). Martin makes the same observation as he hitchhikes across the political spectrum (98). Jeremy’s recognition comes earlier, immediately following the Hungary incident (29) profiled in Act I, Scene 3. In short, the pervasive in-fighting among leftists that the characters discuss ends up contributing to their abandoning the party.

To say that in-fighting alone is responsible for the characters leaving the party is only telling half the story. The party itself is, in many cases, responsible for its own self-destruction.

To begin with, grassroots leftists in Maydays resent the party line being imposed upon them. Apparatchiks (an odd-sounding name likely derived from the Russian for "an instrument of the apparatus") are sent to "explain the [party] line" on Hungary (29), or leftists themselves must find the party line in a newspaper (81). For Amanda, the party’s perceived flip-flopping is reason enough to at least move off the reservation (as they say in politics). To Martin, the party’s "unfocused fury" is at least part of the reasoning he cites for his bolting (98). The difference in reactions, in my eyes, consists in the two characters differing personalities. Amanda is much more calm and laid back than Martin, whose frantic energy makes him seem tense and insecure. After being essentially forced out, Martin feels the need to be in an organized group (86), which is why (I believe) he eventually joins the Tory party. Indeed, his actions cast doubt on whether Martin really believed in leftist ideas, or if he was just in the party feel part of a group. The thoughtless stock-burning incident (44) before which Martin was dared to prove himself "a real traitor to [his] class" (43) lends support in my eyes to the latter view: Martin was trying to prove his loyalty by doing something he thought the group would like. The very fact Martin was so mistaken speaks volumes as to how little he knows about the group he is about to formally join. Verily, he never actually believes in leftist principles: he merely thinks of the left as a group to join for joining’s sake. Thus, Martin and Amanda handle the shifting leftists tides differently, yet neither appreciates or enjoys them. By changing its position so often, leftist parties drive away their best members. Edgar seems to be saying that such forced defections cannot continue if the left is to truly advance its goals.

The third hurdle facing the left is consumerism. Consumers in modern industrialized nations as a whole have more personal possessions than any other people in history. Yet who is doing the possessing: the possessions, or their owners? Jeremy claims quite eloquently in Act I, Scene 3, that the household objects that modern people take for granted are really the possessors. People live their lives around their possessions, and they define themselves by their possessions. Amanda defines herself as a person who "run[s] a resource centre," i.e., she defines herself by the work she does. Martin defines himself by his car (143). But in fairness to Martin, the rest of the welfare state defines itself in similar terms.

At this point in the analysis, the left’s third problem is found. Democratic socialism seems to satisfy the people, yet they are not free. The "cradle-to-grave" welfare system condemned alike by Trewlany (119), Martin (31), Phil (63), and Jeremy (30), has gotten so out of control that instead of Hoover’s "a chicken in every pot," we have the convoluted entitlement to "a stereo in every fridge" (63). The challenge lies in prompting the working class to realize that they are possessed (42). With people like Martin, however, the task will be a tall one indeed. Lacking a suitable alternative, he puts his roots on the very same plot that every Glass has: the old vicarage. He is characteristic of the rest of society: He doesn’t know that he can live without his possessions, so why bother trying?

The point Edgar makes is not limited to pointing out the three problems facing modern leftism. He also shows a solution as the play closes. Martin, now symbolic of the old blue-blooded upper class, finds a socialist group camping out on his property to protest a US missile battery. He immediately thinks to expel his unwelcome guests, who include his ex-friend Amanda. Yet he is stymied because the protestors stay anonymous, both in their dialogue, and in the play’s writing (e.g., 1^st "Woman"). He has no way to remove the transients because they are able to pass through his property, make their point, and move on. The group is the direct opposite of the highly visible and organized parties discussed in the book until now. The translucent group has no membership, committees, address, or leadership (145). Unlike the organized parties that flip positions, they are organized with a pure objective: to "resist a world that is … dramatically wrong and mad and unjust and unfair" (146). Martin promised to "resist" such a world on 31, but by now, he has joined the "scream of the possessed" and almost gladly entered that unfair world. In short, the real way to resist is not to have an organized party, but rather to engage in the sort of non-violent techniques that Amanda’s group has.

In conclusion, David Edgar’s Maydays points out three problems facing the modern left: infighting among leftists, a dictatorial leadership that imposes its will on its members, and a modern society that does not realize the value Edgar sees in socialism. The solution to the three problems is to scrap the organization altogether, and instead to form ad hoc groups which are ideologically pure and unhindered by internal conflict.