“The British
working class is entering a period when it requires the greatest
belief in its mission and its strength. To gain this there is no need
for any stimulants like religion or idealist morality. It is
necessary and sufficient that the British proletariat understands the
position of its country in relation to the position of the whole
world, that it has become clear about the rottenness of the ruling
classes and that it has thrown out of its way the careerists, quacks
and those bourgeois sceptics who imagine themselves to be socialists
only because they from time to time vomit in the atmosphere of
rotting bourgeois society.” (Leon Trotsky, Writings on Britain,
Volume Two, p.182)
This year we are
celebrating the 80th anniversary of the magnificent
General Strike of 1926, when Trotsky wrote the words quoted above, as
Britain stood on the brink of revolution. At first sight those events
seem distant, both chronologically, and politically, compared with
the situation which confronts us today.
The task of writing
perspectives against the background of general strikes and mass
demonstrations, or other dramatic political, social or economic
events would certainly seem to be easier than under the current
circumstances in Britain. Yet when Leon Trotsky did exactly that in
the period preceding and immediately following the General Strike he
was met with a stone wall of reactionary Stalinist ignorance in
Moscow, and infantile petty bourgeois cynicism on the part of the
left labour leaders in Britain. Eight decades on and when one reads
the analysis made by Trotsky one is struck by its vitality and its
relevance. In the long view of history eighty years is but the blink
of an eye. In human terms it is an entire life. Of course much has
changed in the intervening years. The betrayal of the leaders of the
workers’ organisations, the devastation of a world war, and the
long years of economic boom which followed, have all combined to
delay a new episode in that titanic struggle, although there were
mighty battles which came close to doing so in the 1970s and 80s.
The world looks very
different, as does Britain’s place in it, from the perspective of
2006. Nevertheless the method used by Trotsky has not only stood the
test of time, but is the only way we can understand the nature of the
period through which we are passing and the events that are being
prepared.
Some might argue
that so little has happened here over the last twelve months that we
could just as easily republish the last perspectives document, rather
than prepare a new one. There is a grain of truth in this; the
present document should certainly be read in conjunction with those
from previous years. The ideas presented there retain their full
force. It is important at each stage that we check and re-check our
previous perspectives, to correct errors, to compare developments as
they have unfolded, and to test whether or not the methods used
remain valid. The fact that we could indeed republish those documents
demonstrates, at least in part, that we have been correct in the
broad strokes and, indeed, in many of the specifics.
Perspectives must
deal with processes and not predictions. For this reason it is not
possible, necessary, nor even desirable to try to analyse every
single statistic, or event ad infinitum. Instead we must draw out
from the evidence available those elements which help to uncover the
processes at work in society, in politics, in economics, in every
field.
However, it would be
a serious mistake to believe that the continued slow tempo of events
here makes British Perspectives less important. On the contrary, to
orient our forces, to understand the causes and effects of events, or
the lack of them, to point the way forward in a period such as this
is, if anything, even more vital. The dangers of ultra-left or
opportunist errors, in an attempt to shortcut the historical process,
must be carefully avoided.
“The revolutionary
proletarian Party must be welded together by a clear understanding of
its historic tasks” Trotsky explained. “This presupposes a
scientifically based programme. At the same time, the revolutionary
party must know how to establish correct relations with the class.
This presupposes a policy of revolutionary realism, equally removed
from opportunistic vagueness and sectarian aloofness.” (Leon
Trotsky, Writings on Britain, Volume Three, p.79)
In any case it would
be a gross error to imagine that, just because events have (on the
whole) been far less dramatic here than elsewhere, nothing of any
importance is happening. This would be to fall into the trap of
empiricism, to be seduced by the surface appearance. One should never
judge a book by its cover. From the same evidence diametrically
opposing conclusions can be drawn depending on the method employed.
We must attempt to use Trotsky’s method, Marxism, if we are to
understand what is going on under the surface.
Perspectives for
2005 have already been supplemented by the analysis of the General
Election, which confirmed what we had written previously, and also
added new information for us to consider. In July London experienced
the shock of bombs on public transport which were the terrible price
paid for Blair’s kow-towing to US imperialism and its adventure in
Iraq.
The Tories have a
new leader, as do the Liberals, and before long so will Labour.
Ironically the New Labour leaders want to return to one of the worst
traditions of old Labour, buggins’ turn, by handing over the keys
to Number Ten to Gordon Brown with no leadership election.
The last period of
Blairism, which we have clearly entered, will not be a quiet one, and
the crises being prepared will leave their mark on the opening of the
post Blair period for which we must also now be preparing.
Blair has lost his
first votes in parliament, exposing the cracks at the very top of the
Labour Party. In the past when we pointed to the possibility of some
form of national government, we were met with scorn and derision.
Now, even before any serious crisis in society, Blair finds himself
increasingly forced to rely on Tory votes to get his legislation
through the Commons.
Important underlying
economic and social changes must all be considered too, not least the
latest developments in the housing market, and in relation to attacks
on civil liberties, two aspects on which we have laid heavy emphasis
in the recent past.
Make no mistake,
dramatic events impend in Britain no less than anywhere else. We can
assert this confidently. We have faith in the struggles of the
workers. The British working class has a very long and proud
tradition, before, during and since the great General Strike. That
whole history has left its mark on today’s outlook and will equally
play its part in the revolutionary struggles of the future. Our faith
however is not based on sentiment nor any kind of mysticism, but on
the sound science of Marxism and perspectives. When the most dramatic
events explode, they do not do so unannounced. All the conditions for
creating explosions are prepared in advance, by an accumulation of
changes beneath the surface. For some time now we have been trying to
describe that molecular process of change, and to understand it, in
order to arm ourselves, and to direct our activities in the
directions necessary to build our tendency.
Revolutionary events
will not simply fall from a clear blue sky. We cannot wait for those
events to build our organisation. Once the masses are on the streets
it will be too late. Our task is to prepare for those events, by
understanding the stage we are at and using that understanding to
direct our work and our efforts to build the forces of Marxism.
Therefore Perspectives are no less important in a ‘quiet’ period.
Rather they are essential if we are to build in readiness for
‘noisier’ times ahead.
That means digging
beneath the surface of society, of politics, and the economy, to
uncover the changes taking place and how they affect the outlook of
all classes.
Of course if we were
to confine that analysis to events on our small island we would be
able to understand little. Britain must be scrutinised against the
background of international events. Trends in politics, economics,
and society can only be understood in the context of world politics,
the world economy, and so on. In order to understand the role Britain
plays in the world revolution, and the impact of international events
on developments here, we must always read British Perspectives in
conjunction with world perspectives.
International
Situation
On a world scale,
no-one can doubt that we have entered the most turbulent period in
history. This must not be lost sight of no matter how quiet times
have been in our own backyard. Every aspect of human society –
politics, economics, diplomacy etc. – displays a profound
instability. None of these crises are accidental. They are all
expressions of the impasse of the capitalist system.
The system has
outlived its historical usefulness and is now an immense barrier to
human progress. The struggle to maintain itself against the tide of
history is what gives rise to one crisis after another in the shape
of wars, civil wars, revolutions and counter-revolutions. Nature
itself seems to be mocking those crises with disasters of its own. In
tsunami, hurricane, and flood we see not only the might of nature but
also the inability of capitalism to deal with it. The social
tragedies they leave in their wake serve to expose the true nature of
the capitalist system and its cold calculating cruelty. These
tragedies may not be directly caused by the profit system, yet they
are reminders of the damage being done to the planet by the senile
short-sightedness of capitalism.
In its death agony
capitalism’s ugly counter-revolutionary face is being unmasked for
all to see. However, dialectically and inevitably that death agony
also gives rise to new life, the seeds of the future are being
cultivated in the shape of the revolutionary tendencies growing and
maturing beneath the surface.
Revolutionary
developments are immanent everywhere, if not imminent here. This
process unfolds in different ways, at different speeds, in different
countries. After all if the revolution pursued a uniform course then
there would be no need for a revolutionary international.
Nevertheless, for all the differences on display, this same process
will find its expression in the changing consciousness of the working
class everywhere, resulting in all kinds of social and political
explosions.
As we have pointed
out previously the attempts of the capitalists to solve political
problems tend to exacerbate economic crises, and vice versa. The
world economy is experiencing enormous instability at present. The
abrupt changes in the price of oil are an expression of this
instability. In turn this is partly an expression of the political
and military convulsions in the Middle East following imperialism’s
adventure in Iraq. It is now three years since the invasion of Iraq,
and politically, militarily, and economically this folly continues to
dominate international relations. It continues to have the most
important political and economic consequences in the United States
and here in Britain.
Bourgeois economists
are now drawing parallels between the current situation and the early
1970s when rising oil prices served to provoke the first real world
slump since the second world war. Oil prices did not cause that
slump, it had already been prepared in advance, but the oil crisis
succeeded in tipping the world economy over the edge.
Similarly today all
the conditions are being prepared for a sharp crisis. The current
boom is a house built on chicken’s legs. For some time now the
entire world has been heavily dependent on the United States and to a
certain extent China. The high rates of growth in China cannot be
maintained indefinitely and are preparing for a crisis of
overproduction, whilst simultaneously creating an immense
polarisation of Chinese society. Social and economic crises are being
prepared in China, which, as we pointed out in the last document,
plays an increasingly important role in world perspectives. However,
it is not destined to play the role of saviour of the world market
previously predicted by many economists. Instead China will add
tremendously to the instability in every sphere in the next period.
At the beginning of
the last century those who believed in the dawning of a new era of
peace and prosperity could at least argue that there had not been a
major war involving all the great powers for nearly a hundred years.
The price level in the first year of the first world war was actually
lower than it had been at the time of Waterloo. New inventions and
new technology – the car, the aeroplane – were flourishing. What
followed was the most convulsive period in human history,
approximately four decades of revolutions and counter-revolutions,
two world wars, a global slump, and the rise of fascism.
As the great
American writer Mark Twain once wrote “History may not repeat
itself but sometimes it rhymes.”
The world is always
at its most unstable when the global balance of power shifts. Today
world relations are in flux. The centre of gravity, which some time
ago moved across the Atlantic from Europe to America, has continued
its journey on to the Pacific. In understanding this process we can
learn a great deal from a previous period of ‘globalisation’, the
decisive period in which capitalism became a barrier to progress on a
world scale, the years leading up to 1914 and the first world war.
By the end of the
19th century Britain’s role as the hegemonic power was
already being challenged by the United States, along with Germany and
Japan. The Ottoman and Hapsburg empires were already in terminal
decline. These years were dominated by the decline of British
imperialism, wars, civil wars, revolutions and counter-revolutions.
Does the position of the US resemble that of Britain 100 years ago?
There are many differences. Is their period of unquestioned
superiority drawing to a close? China is still a long way from
matching America’s wealth, but the growth in its economic strength
brings with it international political clout too. In the period ahead
there can be no doubt that China will look to flex its muscles.
Washington and Beijing are already competing for Africa’s oil
stocks. Competition from China is part of the reason why America now
imports so much more than it exports. The US is living beyond its
means to the tune of $60 billion per month, their current account
deficit is running at 6 percent of GDP. This cannot last
indefinitely.
The dominance of US
imperialism is not yet challenged by China, but battle lines are
already being drawn particularly in relation to world trade. This was
demonstrated by the latest stalemate achieved at December’s
international trade talks in Hong Kong intended to pursue further
reductions of tariffs, quotas and other trading restrictions under
the so-called Doha round of trade liberalisation.
The battle lines
over trade are drawn broadly between those who favour 'globalisation'
as the way forward, and those who fear that the opening up their
agriculture, or their industries and financial sector, to American
multinationals or imports from Latin America or Asia (produced by
American multinationals) will hurt the interests of their own ruling
class.
Behind the stalemate
in Hong Kong is the fact that globalisation is just not working. It
is not working for those economies that are raped by the big
multinationals once the doors are opened. But what worries some
strategists of capital much more is that, far from globalisation
generating steady economic growth that is balanced across the world,
it is breeding serious imbalances in capitalism.
One figure alone can
illustrate what these strategists fear: China's 1.3bn people consume
only 42 percent of their annual output, they save and sell the rest
overseas, 40 percent of it to the US. At the other extreme,
Americans consume 71% of their annual output, saving nothing and
increasingly importing all their energy and daily consumption needs.
The US is borrowing hugely to finance its spending binge and is
becoming increasingly dependent on the rest of the world,
particularly Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, India, Brazil and Japan to
provide these needs on credit. The US is now the world's biggest
debtor, while Japan and China are its biggest creditors, and the gap
is widening.
So far, the US has
sustained this imbalance because it controls the purse strings with
the dollar as the major international currency; it has a huge banking
and financial sector; and, standing behind it is the mightiest
military force ever assembled.
According to a
recent book analysing the impact of globalisation (The Politics of
Empire by Alan Freeman), between 1980 and 2000, the population living
in the so-called advanced countries (the main capitalist economies)
fell from 32% to 19% and yet their share of world income rose from
80% to 84% – such is the success of globalisation for all! The
annual income per person of the advanced economies was 11 times
greater than in the so-called developing countries in 1980. By 2000,
this ratio had reached 23 times.
It will come as
little surprise that globalisation is increasing inequalities between
nations and within them. This fact is of little concern to the
world’s capitalists. However, they will be more disturbed by the
fact that their much vaunted globalisation is not even helping the
capitalist system as a whole. Whereas in 1988 the average annual
output per person in the whole world was $4885, in 2002 it had fallen
to $4778! In the 1970s, annual world GDP per head rose at over 4% a
year; in the 1980s it slowed to just 0.8% a year; in the 1990s, it
was negative. The world under capitalism is going backwards. The
results would be far worse if one removed China – an economy only
just entering the control of capitalism – from the calculations.
Even in the US
itself globalisation has done nothing for the average American worker
as the big multinationals shift their industry abroad to cheaper
locations and the government allows cheaper imports of goods and
services to wipe out local industry.
As a result,
inequalities of income and wealth within the US have worsened
sharply. Now, if your household income in America is just $57,000
(£32,000) a year or below, you are in the majority 75 percent
of households. In 1993, the bottom 50 percent earned 15 percent of
national income; by 2003 that had fallen to 14 percent. Meanwhile,
the top 25 percent had increased their share from a massive 62
percent to an even more staggering 65 percent over the same period.
American consumers,
corporations and government, have overstretched themselves. As a
result the American economy is weighed down by unprecedented levels
of debt. In any other country this would already have led to a slump
by now. The position of the US as the most powerful and wealthy
nation has allowed this to continue as long as it has, but it cannot
last forever.
This boom has not
led to an improvement in living standards in general. Instead it is
based on an intensification of exploitation, lengthening working
hours, increased pressure in work. This is the case everywhere. The
increase in toil and stress is something we know a lot about in this
country. Britain’s foreign policy, home policy, and economy more
and more resemble a pale shadow of its American master. The
deregulated, hard-pressed British workers have become a model for
increasing exploitation internationally.
The fact that this
intensification is an international phenomenon, as is cutting social
expenditure and attacks on pensions, tells us that this is neither
accidental nor incidental. This is not the fault of one government,
but a generalised phenomenon. Everywhere we see the old mask of
reformism slipping away to reveal the greedy and rapacious face of
capitalism in its senile decay exposed beneath. Capitalism can no
longer afford the reforms it was forced to concede in previous
periods. What it was forced by the working class to give with its
left hand in the past, it is now forced by its own inadequacy to
seize back with its right hand.
Inequality between
nations and within nations has widened into a yawning chasm.
According to the United Nations some four billion people, two-thirds
of the planet, live, or more accurately struggle to survive, on £2.30
or less a day ($1500 dollars per year). Even in the richest
countries, while the share of the wealthy continues to pile up, the
poorest are sinking into absolute poverty. This was graphically
exposed by the tragic scenes created by the hurricane in New Orleans.
Today more than at
any other time in the past it is easy to recognise the process which
Marx described as the concentration of capital – both in the mergers
and acquisitions which constitute one of the main activities of the
huge multinationals that dominate world trade, and indeed every
aspect of life, as well as in the accumulation of obscene wealth in
the hands of the super rich.
The combination of
these factors – war, inequality, and stress – has an impact on
all classes in society. While the ruling class strip away the reforms
of a bygone age in pursuit of profit, and legislate in an attempt to
shore up their power and privilege, at the same time a mood of
discontent is prepared among the mass of ordinary working class and
middle class people, especially amongst the youth. In the US, in
Europe, indeed here in Britain, as well as elsewhere, this has been
reflected in the movements against globalisation and the mass
demonstrations against the war in Iraq. These are the first signs of
a growing revolutionary mood amongst the youth, which also proceeds
at different speeds, in different countries, at different times.
These changes are already evident in advance of a new world
recession, which is casting an ever-lengthening shadow over the whole
situation.
Of course the
situation faced by the masses in the Third World is immeasurably
worse. The impasse of world capitalism means misery, disease, war and
death for millions. Africa has been abandoned, for all the fine words
on TV and at rock concerts by bourgeois politicians. More accurately
the masses of Africa have been abandoned to their fate. The rich
natural resources of the continent mean one proxy war after another
as a land of plenty is raped in the interests of profit and power.
Millions die of
starvation, of curable diseases, or are slaughtered in wars and civil
wars. In other words what we are seeing here is a descent into
barbarism in one country after another, bringing Marx’s prediction
that the choice before humanity would be between socialism and
barbarism into stark relief. Yet there is another side to Africa,
where hope can be found. Not in foreign aid or charity but in an
immensely powerful working class. The general strike in Nigeria shows
the way. Only the working class of Africa can halt the slide to
barbarism by conquering power. Then, in association with the working
class internationally, Africa could be transformed into a paradise on
earth.
The profound
instability in every field is reflected in sudden and sharp changes
in the consciousness of the masses. We must be prepared for this in
Britain too. Its dependence on the world market and on US imperialism
combined with British capital’s own long term decline ensures that
it will not be immune from this process. We cannot allow ourselves to
be lulled into believing that because nothing much has happened
recently that this will continue to be the case. This may have been –
in general, anyway – a long period of calm, but still it comes
before a storm.
Closer to home in
Europe we have already seen general strikes and a government crisis
in Italy; a general strike and mass demonstrations in Belgium; a wave
of strikes and demonstrations in France (as well as rioting amongst
the dispossessed youth which is a symptom of their despair, and the
inability of the system to offer them any kind of future). The EU
constitution referendum was like a political earthquake in France,
and was in reality a referendum on Chirac (the EU referendum in
Holland was a vote on the political establishment as a whole). It can
also be seen as a rejection of the reforms argued to be necessary to
make the country more flexible and more competitive, in the British
mould. That is to say making the workers flexibly bend themselves in
two under stress and strain, until their backs break. Then, of
course, they can simply be fired like the workers at Gate Gourmet. In
the French referendum, at least in part, “flexibility” translated
as “work till you drop or you are fired” and was rejected.
The political
situation in France is extremely unstable, not only did the EU
referendum illustrate the mounting anger in French society, it marked
the opening up of a new period in the class struggle in France. The
mobilisation against the privatisation of the SNCM and the anti-CPE
campaign are also fantastic examples of that developing class
struggle. The events in France will have a huge impact on the
movement in Europe. France can become a model for the most advanced
workers and the youth
In the most powerful
country in Europe, Germany, there are over four million unemployed,
and a growing social and political crisis which is reflected in the
splits in the SPD and the vote for the left party in the recent
elections.
In Spain the right
wing PP government of Blair’s friend Aznar was overthrown by a
movement of the masses. The Zapatero government now sits like a loose
lid upon a bubbling cauldron of social unrest. The right wing in
concert with the Church organises provocations and demonstrations
with the aim of destabilising the government. Army officers even talk
openly about the need for a coup.
All across Europe,
without exception, we see a growing polarisation to the left and to
the right. Though this process is more visible in a country like
Spain, it is no less demonstrable in Britain. Politics here continues
to be dominated by the imperialist adventure in Iraq, as demonstrated
by the London bombings on July 7 last year, and the wave of
“anti-terror” legislation which followed. These legal attacks on
civil liberties have had a profound impact with Blair losing a vote
in the House of Commons for the first time, as he attempted to
overturn basic democratic freedoms enshrined in the Magna Carta.
For Jean Charles de
Menezes they had a more immediate and tragic impact, as we learned
that the police had been given the power to shoot to kill, not
through a debate in Parliament but through the brutal execution of an
innocent man on an underground train. We will return to this, but the
unprecedented attacks on democratic rights in Britain demonstrate
that the ruling class at least is preparing for sudden and sharp
changes in the situation. This is the meaning of a phrase we have
used many times before. The ruling class cannot simply rule in the
same way that they could in the past. They are forced to abolish
reforms, to squeeze the working class, and to attack democratic
rights. In doing so they are preparing for dramatic battles in the
future.
Furthermore this
turbulence is not confined to Europe, but is a truly international
phenomenon. Mass strikes and demonstrations have shaken Australia and
Canada, two countries which until now would have been considered to
be amongst the most stable of capitalist democracies. What we are
witnessing here is a worldwide crisis, which inevitably affects
different countries in different ways and at different times,
nonetheless it does not leave one single country untouched, not
apparently quiet Britain, nor even the mighty USA.
A large majority of
the US now opposes the continued occupation of Iraq. Two thousand US
troops have died there. Three times as many have suffered brain
damage from their injuries. Countless tens of thousands of Iraqis
have died. These facts – together which each new scandal of abuse and
torture – have a tremendous impact on the outlook of American
workers, and on the troops themselves.
The USA is the most
powerful imperialist nation in history. With the end of the cold war
stand off between the Stalinism of the USSR and the imperialism of
the US, came a profound instability in international relations. The
US is now spending some $500,000 million on arms per year. Just
imagine what that wealth could achieve put to productive use. This is
more than the combined military budgets of Russia, China, Japan,
Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and India.
In relation to British imperialism when it ruled the waves, Leon
Trotsky wrote that its military doctrine was based upon preventing a
single land power from gaining preponderance in Europe and then
maintaining a fleet stronger than the combined fleets of any two
other countries.
Now the US maintains
a military power greater not than its two nearest rivals, but than
two continents. The foreign policy of the ‘Bush Doctrine’ sees
the world as the domain of the US. This is an inflated version of the
famous Monroe Doctrine of the 19th century, through which
the ruling class in the US claimed the whole of the Americas as their
dominion.
Bush and co used the
excuse of the September 11 terrorist attacks to launch their new
gunboat diplomacy with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. This has
had the most profound impact on politics, on economy and on
diplomacy. It produced a split between the ruling classes of Europe
and the US. The European bourgeoisie has its own interests in the
Middle East and elsewhere and cannot simply accept the domination of
the US in their spheres of influence. The result has been divisions
within NATO and within the EU, reflected in the crisis over the
European constitution. There has been a sharp clash between Britain
and France, further destabilising the EU, where Britain plays the
role of faithful servant to its US master. Blair is Bush’s poodle
but more importantly what is demonstrated in this relationship is
that British imperialism’s power has diminished to such an extent
that it no longer really plays an independent role in world affairs.
For that matter,
Europe as a whole is experiencing a decline in its importance on the
world stage. The Mediterranean has not been the centre of the earth
for some time now. It will be across the Pacific, in Asia, and above
all in China, that the future will ultimately be determined. The US
and China are bound to come into conflict, economically and
politically, over the Pacific in the next period. China’s growing
economic power will be asserted politically, diplomatically and
militarily in the future.
American imperialism
now considers the whole world to be its sphere of interest, but above
all they seek to establish their dominance over the Middle East and
Latin America. For all their might they find themselves bogged down
in an unwinnable war in Iraq. Sooner or later they will be forced to
withdraw. The limits of their power will be exposed.
Those limits are
also on display in Latin America, though for different reasons. In
the space of just a few short months last year we witnessed an
insurrection in Ecuador which overthrew the government, and an
insurrectionary movement in Bolivia where only the absence of
leadership prevented the coming to power of the working class.
Alongside this we have the unfolding revolution in Venezuela.
The inspirational
events in Latin America, the insurrections and revolutionary
developments across that continent, above all in Venezuela, have the
ruling class of the US in a state of apoplexy. This is not the place
to go into the perspectives for those revolutions. However, the
revolution in Venezuela has entered a new stage in its development.
At present it is undoubtedly the key to the world revolution. It is
our duty to follow its progress closely, to offer the revolution
whatever assistance we can, to learn from its experience, and to use
its inspiration to raise our own sights and to win over new layers of
workers and especially the youth.
In the faces of Bush
and co we see the naked reaction of a feeble and senile system. On
the faces of millions of Latin American workers and peasants we see a
glimpse of the future.
The economic,
political, military and social changes of the last few years, which
we have described as opening the most turbulent period in history,
are now beginning to have an impact on the outlook of the masses.
This represents a most important turning point. Human consciousness
always tends to lag behind events. Now it is beginning to catch up.
The idea is beginning to take hold that these problems are not local
difficulties, nor are they temporary, soon to be replaced by a return
to the good old days, but instead something is seriously wrong with
the world.
That there has been
a delay in the movement of the proletariat can be chiefly explained
by the bankrupt leaderships of the workers’ organisations. Britain
suffers from this delay more than most, for reasons we have explained
many times, nevertheless this phenomenon is repeated everywhere. It
is no accident that the workers’ leaders, have moved as far to the
right as possible just as the movement beneath them will begin to
swing sharply to the left.
Here we have all the
conditions maturing not only for class struggle in general, but also,
at a certain stage in that process, struggles within the mass
organisations of the working class, the trade unions and the
political parties.
How does Britain fit
into this world view, and what impact are all these factors having on
British society, politics and economics? What impact are these
developments having on the consciousness of all classes in Britain,
above all what effect are they having on the outlook of the working
class and the youth? Finding the answers to these questions will help
to point us in the right direction to be able to build our tendency.
Britain and
the war in Iraq
“Britain had been
led into a war under false pretences. It was a war that was to
unleash untold suffering on the Iraqi people… During the build-up
to war and since, most of the electorate of this country have
consistently opposed the decision to invade. People have seen their
political wishes ignored for reasons now proved false. But there has
been no attempt in parliament to call Mr Blair personally to account
for what has transpired to be a blunder of enormous strategic
significance. It should come as no surprise therefore that so many of
this country’s voters have turned their backs on a democratic
system they feel has so little credibility and is so unresponsive.”
General Sir Michael
Rose, former adjutant general of the British army
and commander of the
UN force in Bosnia.
Politics in Britain
has been dominated for the last three years by the imperialist
invasion of Iraq and its consequences. Just a few weeks ago the 99th
and the 100th British soldiers died in Iraq. Walter
Douglas from Aberdeen (father of the 99th British
fatality) told the Daily Mirror, “He was against the war he
couldn’t see the point of it. The lives of 99 young men have now
been lost – and all for nothing.” To those 100 and the 2000 US
dead we must add, of course, the countless tens of thousands of
Iraqis killed in the interests of US imperialism.
Mr Douglas’
comments provide us with further evidence of the declining morale,
and the growing anger in the ranks of the armed forces and their
families. This was already demonstrated by the formation of ‘Military
Families Against the War’, and in the general election by relatives
standing as candidates to express their anger and to protest at the
loss of their loved ones.
The decline of the
Territorial Army, which is now being integrated into the regular army
provides yet more evidence. The TA is supposed to be 42000 strong but
500 are leaving every month. There are now only 35000 of these
‘part-time’ soldiers, the lowest figure since the Territorials
were formed in 1907. The morale of the troops is further drained by
excessively long tours of duty, as Britain’s armed forces are
overstretched by their role in Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost one in
twelve of Britain’s frontline soldiers are currently tied down on
ceremonial duties, rehearsals for state occasions and guarding royal
palaces. Meanwhile those on the front line have to remain there
longer than ever.
In the House of
Commons, Blair, Cameron et al express their condolences, and shed
their crocodile tears at the news of the latest deaths. Yet the
parliamentary cant for which British politics has long been famous
was exposed when only 20 or so MPs bothered to turn up to listen to
the Defence Secretary commit an additional 3300 more young British
soldiers to fight in Afghanistan.
With each passing
day new slaughter and new atrocities fill our TV screens. Still more
photographs from the appalling scenes of torture at Abu Ghraib have
been released at the same time as footage of British soldiers beating
unarmed young Iraqis, leaving their bodies in pools of blood, have
been broadcast worldwide. According to Blair, Bush and co, their
troops will only leave when asked to do so by the Iraqi (puppet)
administration. In reality they will be increasingly keen to get out
of the unholy mess they have concocted for themselves leaving behind
a hellhole.
Even the local
administration in Basra has announced that they will now refuse to
cooperate with British troops. So much for the more civilised,
understanding approach of the British army compared to the Americans.
We have pointed out previously what inane nonsense this was. The
American command shows absolutely no sensitivity at all towards the
people of Iraq, and in so doing they are following in the infamous
traditions of their British imperialist forebears.
The Iraqi people are
faced with one provocation after another. The occupation of their
country has brought with it the following fruits of ‘democracy’
courtesy of US and British imperialism: the destruction of the
country’s infrastructure; shortages of energy and water; mass
unemployment; torture, abuse and death; and now a descent into
sectarian conflict and civil war. A price worth paying, according to
Blair and Bush, for being able to put a cross on a ballot paper to
elect a puppet government.
The war in Iraq was
a central question in the general election of 2005. It was also at
the heart of the other major event of the year, the terrorist attack
on London’s public transport. Both have been analysed in great
detail elsewhere so it is not necessary to repeat what has already
been written. Instead we must draw out the lessons from these events,
their causes and consequences, in order to see where they lead.
In brief, the
election saw Blair’s majority reduced significantly in parliament.
This is the consequence of the government faithfully doing the
bidding of the banks and monopolies at home, and slavishly following
the diktats of US imperialism abroad.
Meanwhile the
terrorist attacks resulting from this policy are used to introduce
further new legislation with little impact on the ability of anyone
to bomb, but massive repercussions for our civil liberties and
democratic rights. We have devoted considerable attention to this
question in the recent past, and for good reason. This is not a
secondary question. It represents the preparations being made by the
ruling class for the period ahead. Attacks on democracy must be seen
as the other side of the coin of attacks on our living and working
conditions. It is not just the social and economic reforms won by the
struggle of the working class in the past that are being overturned,
but also the political and democratic freedoms too.
2005 General
Election
The 2005 General
Election was the least inspiring and most predictable for a century.
Labour won an unprecedented third successive term in office, yet
there were no celebrations. Barely 60 percent of eligible voters
turned out on May 5th, 2005 and less than 36 percent of
them voted Labour. Put another way, just 22 percent of all potential
voters went to the polling stations to keep Labour in office. As a
result the government’s majority was slashed by 94. ‘At least we
kept the Tories out’ was the view held by most people the day after
Labour won a third consecutive election for the first time in its
history. The reaction of Glenda Jackson, Labour MP for Hampstead &
Highgate and former transport minister, was highly indicative: “The
prime minister has spent his premiership distancing himself from his
party. Now the time has come for him to leave it for good.”
The combination of
widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, distrust of Blair, and
disillusionment with the failures of the last two terms of Labour
government means that Labour won the election with the lowest share
of the vote, just 35.3 percent, of any victorious party in history.
As we explained at
the time: “Labour’s majority in the House of Commons has been
reduced to 67. This may seem a solid enough foundation for Blair to
implement his programme, but remember with a majority of 161 Blair
only squeezed through foundation hospitals (a form of backdoor
privatisation) by fourteen votes, and student tuition fees by only
five in the first vote… With this reduced majority, in the absence
of those Blairite MPs defeated on May 5th, these policies would never
have been passed. Therefore it would seem likely that this smaller
majority will prepare new parliamentary rebellions over any further
attempts to privatise health and education, or to introduce identity
cards, particularly on the basis of pressure from below, of
developing events in society, and, above all, in the trade unions.
Under pressure from the movement of the working class outside
parliament, backbench Labour MPs will be able to defeat Blair, who
will have to look to the Tories and Liberals to vote for his
anti-working class measures. Labour has a majority of 67, Blair does
not.”
For all the
Blairites’ talk of ‘a mandate to continue with a reform of public
services’, the reality is that, despite winning the election,
Blairism is already dead, ‘New’ Labour is done for, and Blair
himself cannot be far behind. Blair should go, but merely to replace
him with Brown, the ‘anointed heir’ according to the media, would
be no more than a cosmetic change. Yet the desire for a change of
policy inside Labour is precisely what is reflected in the desire for
a change at the top of the party, even in the shape of swapping Blair
for his next door neighbour.
The real meaning of
the 2005 election result is clear. Huge numbers are disillusioned
with Blair and co; are opposed to the war, to the foreign policy and
the home policy being pursued by the Blairites; but the alternative,
a Tory government, would have been even worse.
With turnout
refusing to budge much above 60 percent, despite the highly
controversial ‘liberalising’ of postal voting, Blair won the
support of little more than one in five of those eligible to vote.
Never has an elected British government’s mandate been so thin. Not
only was Labour’s share of the vote, scraping just over 35 percent,
the lowest of any winning party, but the Tories 32.4 percent marked
the third consecutive election at which they have plumbed depths not
seen since the 1850s. They scraped a narrow majority of the popular
vote in England – 35.7 percent to Labour’s 35.4 percent – but
remain a distant second in Wales and fourth behind both the Liberals
and the Scottish Nationalists north of the border.
The Tory vote
actually fell in the north of England compared with the 2001
election, and they now hold just 19 of the 162 seats in the
north-east, north-west, Yorkshire and Humber regions. In reality they
remain a rump in the south-east of England.
The Liberals
improved their vote securing more MPs than at any time since Lloyd
George was their leader. However their share of the vote actually
declined in seats where they were trying to challenge the Tories,
illustrating their classic problem of being trapped between the two
main parties, moving to the left to win Labour votes loses them Tory
votes, while swinging back to the right to win those Tory votes will
lose them Labour votes. This is their ultimately insoluble dilemma.
The swing from
Labour to Liberal in those 50 seats with the biggest Muslim
populations was 8.5 percent. The increase in their vote as a protest
over the war is obvious, and is reflected too in the seven percent
plus swing in those seats with the highest numbers of students.
Election statistics like these are an important indicator of
political trends, like a snapshot they give an indication at least of
the most general picture, but they must be seen in context.
The turnout figures
tell us almost as much as the result itself. Halfway up Mount
Snowdon, on the Watkin path, there is a plaque that marks the spot
where in 1892 William Gladstone addressed a crowd of 2,000 people on
the issues of the day. “How politics has changed” complained
Labour’s General Secretary Matt Carter, following the election. “In
May, when we were out canvassing, it was often more than we could
manage to get voters off their sofas to answer the doorbell, let
alone climb a mountain to hear a speech.” Who can blame them?
Politicians, pundits
and the bourgeois press like to talk about ‘disengagement,
declining turnouts, and disappearing party members’. The reality is
that they do not understand the basis of what is an international
phenomenon.
Point to any trend
in modern British political life and you can find a host of other
countries with similar experiences. This is not an accident. Labour
Party membership has fallen in Britain, from the recent high point of
400,000 in 1997 to under 200,000 today. Membership of political
parties is falling in almost every European country, both as a
percentage of the electorate and in absolute numbers.
Turnout in elections
has dropped significantly in Britain, falling from 77.8 percent in
1992 to a low of 59.4 percent in 2001, rising only slightly to 61
percent last year. But global turnout has also decreased by almost 10
percent in the past decade, according to the International Institute
for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
Growing
‘disengagement’ is not restricted to these shores either. The
British Election Survey shows the number of people who say they have
no party attachment has risen from one in 20 voters in 1964 to almost
one in six in 2001. Recent studies in Sweden, Canada and the US have
revealed a similar trend.
A combination of
factors including the Iraq war, and the failure of governments to
address the problems of working people, explain the parallel process
on the continent. The same trends that helped to aid some of the
smaller parties in the UK were also evident in the rise of Haider's
Freedom party in Austria, the resurgence of Le Penn in France or even
the emergence of the Left party in the German elections. This
represents a growing polarisation in society, which we have described
previously.
The idea that low
turnouts represent contentment or apathy, and that this explains the
disinterest in politics is fallacious. According to Mori, people are
not switched off from politics. In 1973, 14 percent of the public
said they were very interested in politics, with another 46 percent
fairly interested. At the end of 2004, the figures were 13 percent
and 40 percent respectively. This is the result when people are asked
about their interest in ‘politics’. If they were asked their
opinion on the environment, the war in Iraq, or the attacks on
pensions being repeated everywhere – in other words real politics –
the figure would be much higher. It is not politics, but bourgeois
politicians and capitalist political institutions which hold little
interest for the majority of people.
Blair is
Finished
Labour has won an
historic third term in office, but Blair knows that he is mortally
wounded. Blairism is finished. Blair has announced that he intends to
organise an ‘orderly transition’ (not an election one notes)
before the next election. By that he evidently means just before the
next election, after having served another four years.
Blair’s aim has
been to beat Thatcher’s record (in modern terms) of eleven years as
prime minister. That means staying on until May 2008. That is highly
unlikely. Growing rebellions in parliament, even in advance of
movements outside, mean he will be lucky to survive another twelve
months. Despite his well documented tendency to be a control freak,
and this rather pathetic personal ambition, ultimately the decision
will not be in his hands but will be determined by events. As we
explained following the election, “the more he tries to implement
his programme, the greater the pressure will grow for him to go. If
he backs down on that programme he can last longer, but only as a
lame duck.” In other words, either he waters down his ‘reforms’
to prevent backbench revolts defeating him, or he relies on Tory
votes to get his ‘reforms’ past. On some legislation the Tories
may choose to back him, as Cameron tries to position himself as
Blair’s real heir, on others they may prefer to see Labour lose. In
either scenario pressure will mount on Blair to leave.
In trying to mimic
his idol Thatcher (in longevity as well as in policy) he may well end
up like her, despised and forced out. Exactly when he will go is not
yet clear, but go he will. As Oscar Wilde put it “some spread
happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.”
How is it to be
explained that having won a third successive term in office for the
first time in Labour’s history, with a majority of 67 in
parliament, we declared Blair and Blairism to be finished?
There is a widely
believed myth that Blair was the reason Labour won its landslide
victory in 1997, that Blair made Labour ‘electable’ again. In
reality the European Exchange Rate Mechanism disaster which pushed
interest rates up to 15 percent, combined with the pit closure
programme, following the Tories re-election in 1992 saw Labour’s
lead rise to over 30 percent in the polls before the death of then
leader John Smith. From the time Blair took over the leadership until
the 1997 election that lead fell, and it has continued to fall, more
or less, ever since. Labour won a landslide in 1997 regardless of
Blair and co.
Four years later, in
2001, Labour secured a second term with the lowest turnout on record,
in spite of Blair and the experience of four years of New Labour
rule. Some refused to vote in protest at Blair and co’s failures,
but some wanted to give them another chance. Labour needed longer
than four years to roll back 18 years of Tory rule, we were told.
In 2005 nine and a
half million people voted Labour, many holding their noses, to make
sure that the Tories did not win. That is two million less than voted
Labour when Kinnock was leader in 1992, and the Tories won. Labour
has shed 4 million votes since 1997. In other words, one in three
voters who put Labour in office in 1997 did not turn out to support
them in May 2005. The number of voters who chose Labour last year was
fewer than in any of the elections fought by Harold Wilson, Jim
Callaghan or Neil Kinnock.
It was not just the
voters who did not turn up. After being trodden on and ignored time
and again the party membership all over the country refused to
campaign, at least in anything like the numbers that would have been
seen in the past. Streets that once would have been thick with Labour
activists were instead thick with the chickens of Iraq, foundation
hospitals and tuition fees coming home to roost. Meanwhile Labour
posters in gardens and front room windows were about as rare as hen’s
teeth.
The
Parliamentary Labour Party, Blair’s Programme and Brown’s
Inheritance
With the election
out of the way, returning to their usual arrogance, the Blairites
claimed that their programme of privatisation and attacks on civil
liberties was in the manifesto and therefore is what people voted
for. "Our job is to implement the manifesto but it's only going
to be carried through if we are united as a political party… Our
fourth victory will be under different leadership but we have to
remain united until then," Blair announced at the first
post-election PLP meeting, holding out the carrot of his departure to
lure the backbenches to vote for his policies.
Of course, we should
note in passing that Brown has gone along with all of this, just as
he has supported PFI, student fees and the war in Iraq. In reality
Brown would represent no real change. However, the reality and the
perception are two different things. The left has no intention of
standing against him. Lacking the perspective of Marxism, they have
no programme (hence the twists and turns of their voting record) and
as a result they have no confidence. Nevertheless the desire for
change inside the party and the wider movement is reflected in a
distorted way even in the support for Brown. Of course, we can give
no support to Brown whatsoever. The choice between Tweedle-Glum and
Tweedle-Glee is no choice at all. Not that there will be any choice
if Blair and Brown get their way. The intention is a seamless
transition from Blair to the heir apparent.
Brown spelled out
his Blairite credentials at Labour’s last annual conference. The
Party conference voted by 60-40 to legalise secondary action
following the experience of Gate Gourmet, but Brown made it quite
clear that he will ignore that and any other conference decisions not
designed to impress the City. The Brownites no less than the
Blairites represent a capitalist trend in the Labour Party.
Those on the fringes
of the movement busily building their new mass parties of two and
three will see this as a confirmation of their empirical analysis
that Labour is now just another bourgeois party. They confuse the
leadership with the rank and file and the trade union links. Labour
remains the mass party of the British working class for all its
current bourgeois leadership and capitalist policy.
Blair has his
millionaires’ row mansion ready and waiting for him, and Brown has
booked the removal van for his short trip next door. They want Brown
to be anointed with no discussion, and no opposition, certainly no
election. The trade union leaders, and almost the entire opposition
to Blair – except the Marxists – have rushed to endorse Brown.
They have been willing to delude themselves that he is ‘better’
than Blair simply because he is not Blair. He has now made it quite
clear that he wants to be Blair the second. Brown’s succession is
the most likely outcome when Blair finally goes, but it will not be
as smooth and simple as either imagine.
Brown will want to
simply continue where his predecessor leaves off. However, Brown will
not get the honeymoon period enjoyed by Blair after 1997. Whether
Brown likes it or not New Labour is dead, it cannot be renewed. The
condition of the economy, the situation in the trade unions, in the
Parliamentary Labour Party, and in society is very different now.
Had Blair been
elected with a majority of 67 against a background of social peace
and a booming economy, with rising living standards and without a
disastrous war in Iraq, he would now be under less pressure, and
there would be little prospect of successful backbench rebellions.
Similarly if Brown were to inherit such conditions, his life would be
a lot easier. That, however, is not the case. Revolts in parliament
are only one element in a complicated equation of social, political,
industrial and economic unrest which confronts a third Labour term
and will ensure that it is fundamentally different to its two
predecessors.
During the last
parliament, between 2001 and 2005, Labour backbench MPs rebelled in
21 percent of divisions, a higher figure than in any other parliament
since 1945. The rebellions in 2003 over the introduction of
foundation hospitals broke the record for the largest health-policy
rebellion ever by Labour MPs against their own government. The 72
Labour MPs who voted against the second reading of the top-up fees
bill in 2004 were precisely double the number that had until 2001
made up the largest education rebellion ever by Labour MPs. And the
rebellions over Iraq were the largest by MPs of any governing party,
Labour, Conservative or Liberal, for more than 150 years. To find a
larger backbench revolt than Iraq, you have to go back to the Corn
Laws in 1846, when the franchise was enjoyed by just 5% of the
population. Since the beginning of modern British politics, in other
words, there has been nothing to match the Iraq revolts.
For the Blairites
the arithmetic is simple and depressing. The government's effective
majority is 71. To defeat the government it takes only 36 Labour MPs
to vote with the opposition. That has already happened and will
happen again. It is never possible to judge how sincere the
opposition of each of the ‘rebellious’ backbench MPs is, or how
principled their voting will be. As Lenin once explained there is no
such thing as a sincerometer. What really matters is the pressure put
on them from outside parliament by the labour movement. For example,
if the TUC were to call a national demonstration against the proposed
attack on public sector pensions (and it is yet another demonstration
of the depths to which they have sunk that they do not manage this
bare minimum of opposition), this would provide the rebellion of the
backbenches with a solid backbone.
When Labour
backbenchers do vote against the government, the Tories can, on some
questions, vote with the Labour leaders. These calculations will be
keeping Brown awake at night too. At present he is odds on not only
to take over from Blair but also to win a fourth term for Labour in
2009. However, that can change very quickly. An ICM poll in December
put the Tories four points ahead of Labour for the first time since
1992. Current polls indicate that Brown would defeat Cameron by 43
percent to 37 percent, but that is if an election were to take place
tomorrow.
Everything depends
on events. Changes in the economy, political or international
developments can transform the situation overnight. If a week is a
long time in politics, then in the space of four years anything can
happen. A crash in house prices, events in the Middle East, trade
union struggles, parliamentary revolts and any manner of unforeseen
shocks can disturb the situation in Britain suddenly and sharply.
Just such a shock
took place two months after the election when London was shaken by
its first experience of suicide bombers on public transport. On this
occasion there were fewer casualties than in the earlier attack on
Madrid. There the combination of widespread opposition to the war and
Spain’s part in it, and the Aznar government’s bungling of the
situation resulted in a mass movement which effectively overthrew the
government and led to the PSOE administration of Zapatero coming into
office.
Here the response
was different. The bombs caused a wave of shock, and the opposition
to the war is no less in Britain than in Spain. However, what was the
alternative here? The Tories who supported the war? No, instead the
attacks created a mood of fear amplified by the media and the
government to provide the background to a further assault on civil
liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.
Even before the rush
to write new legislation we experienced the further shock of the
police being given the right to shoot to kill ‘terrorist suspects’.
The brutal execution of Jean Charles de Menezes has been dealt with
in detail elsewhere, it is not necessary to repeat that analysis
here. On the one hand this operation demonstrated a degree of
bungling incompetence that is fatal when combined with firearms. On
the other it provided a graphic illustration of the changes tasking
place in the powers of the capitalist state machine.
To be continued…
