More than a century after the formation of the Labour Party, the
party still remains rooted in the organised working class. Despite
everything, the results of the recent general election confirm the
ingrained support for Labour throughout the working class areas of
Britain.
“The Labour Party gives one third of the votes in its electoral
college to members of its affiliated organisations. The most important
of these brother institutions are the trade unions. A century later, the
party born out of the Labour Organising [Representation] Committee is
still structured as the political arm of the labour movement… The
unions’ power is now a problem.” (Editorial, Financial Times,
14/6/10)
however, the party is dominated by the careerists of New Labour, the
attorneys of capitalism within the workers’ movement. The Blairites are
the new breed of bourgeois infiltrators, creatures of the boom years.
The domination of this trend has resulted in the disillusionment of
millions of Labour’s working class supporters. They were responsible for
the defeat of the Labour government. While many prominent Blairites
jumped ship with golden handshakes and promises of lucrative jobs with
big business, a significant number remained behind to ensure that the
Labour Party is kept in “safe” hands.
For those who want to change society, especially young people, the
thought of joining the Labour Party in the past period has been
distinctly unappealing, to say the least. Workers and youth were
completely repelled and alienated by New Labour’s pro-capitalist
policies, the support for imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
corruption scandals, the introduction of tuition fees, and the general
feeling of disappointment. One glance at the Blairite leadership was
enough to place a massive question mark over the party as a vehicle for
socialist change. The leadership, in the phrase of Lord Mandelson, were
completely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich. How could such a
party, so dominated by the right-wing carpet-baggers, ever serve to
change society?
This view is held by many sincere people on the left. However, for
the strategists of capital in the ‘Financial Times’, this is
not at all sure. The right wing control over the party was due to
certain objective conditions. These conditions, mainly an emptying out
of the workers’ organisations and an ebb in the class struggle, were
largely determined by a prolonged boom, which has now come to an end. We
have entered a period of capitalist crisis and austerity, carried
through by a Tory-Lib Dem coalition government. Labour finds itself in
opposition at a time when increasing struggle and social turmoil will be
on the order of the day.
Despite the understandable repulsion towards the right-wing leaders,
it would be a grave mistake to write off the workers’ organisations
because of them. This would be like throwing out the baby with the
bathwater.
Marxism takes the long view of history. We are not mesmerised by this
or that aspect, but seek to uncover the underlying contradictions in
the situation which will sooner or later break to the surface. This is
the whole essence of dialectics, which sees things not as static
entities, but as contradictory processes. The whole history of the
labour movement reflects the ebb and flow of the class struggle. In the
past period, we have been affected by a prolonged ebb. The period we are
entering will be fundamentally different.
Formation of Labour
Ever since the formation of the Labour Party in 1900, there has been
controversy on the left over whether or not to participate in the party.
To develop a correct understanding of this question, it is important to
look at the experience of the past. Our task is to learn from history
in order to avoid unnecessary mistakes. History, after all, is littered
with the wreckage of small sectarian groups who attempted to mould the
workers’ movement into its preconceived plans and failed.
To have a correct approach we need to understand the contribution of
the great Marxists. Both Marx and Engels explained that the task of the
emancipation of the working class was the task of the working class
itself. If the Marxists were going to influence the workers’ movement,
they should not set up their own sectarian barriers, but participate in
the real movement and go through the experience shoulder to shoulder
with the workers. Marx and Engels outlined this clear approach long ago
in the Communist Manifesto.
“The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working
class parties.“They have no interests separate and apart from those of the
proletariat as a whole.“They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which
to shape and mould the proletarian movement.“The Communists are distinguished from the other working class
parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians
of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the
common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all
nationalities. 2. In the various stages of development which the
struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass
through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the
movement as a whole.” (Marx and Engels – Selected Works, vol.1,
pp.119-120)
Independent party of labour
Marx and Engels welcomed the steps taken by the working class to
break from the old capitalist parties and establish their own
independent party of labour. Every real advance for the labour movement,
explained Marx, was more important than a dozen correct programmes.
In Britain, the Marxists in the Social Democratic Federation (formed
in 1881) correctly helped found the Labour Party, along with the trade
unions, the Independent Labour Party and the Fabians. Despite the fact
that the Labour Party was ideologically weak, it was a real step
forward. Its task was seen as simply representing the interests of the
working class in Parliament. However, the failure of the SDF to secure a
resolution committing the Labour Party to socialism and “the common
ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange”
resulted in them walking out within the first year. It was an impatient
childish protest that simply strengthened the hold of the right wing
over the Labour Party.
While the SDF (later called the British Socialist Party) “withered on
the vine” in isolation, the Labour Party grew in size and influence.
The demise of the SDF was the fruit of their sectarianism. Today, they
exist as a historical fossil in the form of the Socialist Party of Great
Britain, as ineffective and sectarian as they were 100 years ago.
Marxism in their hands was reduced to a sterile dogma.
they were genuine Marxists, they would have stayed and patiently put
forward their views. As was later shown, under the hammer blow of
events, the rank and file workers in the Labour Party adopted a new
socialist Constitution in 1918, containing the famous Clause Four, “To
secure for the workers by hand or by brain, the full fruits of their
industry based upon the common ownership of the means of production,
distribution and exchange…” On the basis of patient work, the SDF
could have built up a large influence within the Labour Party. They
chose instead to abandon the struggle. It was the mighty events of the
Russian Revolution of 1917 that changed the outlook of the British
workers and convinced them of their socialist aims.
Even prior to the adoption of Clause Four, the Labour Party had
affiliated to the Second (Socialist) International in 1908. The
affiliation was accepted by the International Bureau on a proposal of
Karl Kautsky, the then leading Marxist theoretician, and supported by
Lenin. In the debate, Lenin viewed the British Labour Party not as party
based on socialism and class struggle but as representing “the first
step on the part of the really proletarian organisations of
Britain towards a conscious class policy and towards a socialist
workers’ party.” (Lenin on Britain, p.97) Although the party was still
tied largely to the coat-tails of the Liberals, Lenin was convinced that
this would change following this “first step” on the basis of
experience and the powerful class instincts of the British trade unions.
In August 1914 the leaders of the Second International came out in
support of the imperialist world war. This betrayal of international
socialism came as a devastating blow. In Britain, the Labour leaders
entered the war-time coalition government. The horrors and chauvinism of
the War was however cut across by revolution in Russia. The October
Revolution changed the course of history, provoking revolutionary
situations everywhere and serving to bring the War to an end.
Unfortunately these revolutionary opportunities – in Germany, Hungary,
and elsewhere – were derailed by the old Social Democratic leaders. In
Germany, the Social Democrats even conspired to murder the Communist
leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.
The Second International was dead. In order to fight for the
socialist revolution, Lenin called for a new Third International to be
created and the establishment of new mass Communist Parties. Given the
political ferment at the time, mass Communist Parties were created in
Germany, France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Norway. As you
might expect, they were not born out of small sects, but arose from the
traditional mass organisations of the workers. For example, in France at
the Tours Congress in December 1920, the majority of the Socialist
Party voted to change its name to Communist Party and affiliate to the
Third International. This was similar in Germany where the Independent
Social Democracy (USPD) came over lock, stock and barrel to the new
International. In Italy the Communist Party emerged from a mass split –
one third of the membership in the Socialist Party in 1921 after the
treacherous role of the reformist leaders in the 1920 factory occupation
movement. The Social Democratic parties in many countries, either
through mass splits or as whole parties, passed over to the Communist
International.
One of the key exceptions was in Britain. The British Communist Party
did not emerge from the Labour Party. There was no split or mass
desertion. The CP was formed out of a small conglomeration of groups and
individuals, numbering only a few thousand, many of them with a very
sectarian outlook, a left-over from the days of the SDF.
The same problem of sectarianism, but on a much larger scale, had
appeared in most of the leaderships of the new Communist parties, which
were young and inexperienced. They lacked the theoretical grounding and
experience of the leaders of the Russian party. They therefore made
mistakes, some serious, mainly of an ultra-left character in the first
period.
The weak situation of the British CP was debated at the Second
Congress of the Third International in the summer of 1920. On the agenda
was a proposal that the British party apply for affiliation to the
Labour Party. Lenin gave support to this idea in order for the
Communists to get close to and hopefully influence the rank and file of
the Labour Party. This position, however, was opposed by many of the
ultra-lefts in the British CP, such as Willie Gallacher and Sylvia
Pankhurst.
Left-wing Communism
Lenin wrote a book against their arguments entitled Left-wing
Communism, an Infantile Disorder. These ultra-left moods,
reflecting impatience and inexperience, were widespread among sections
of the Communist International. The usual manifestations were a
rejection of parliamentary work, a refusal to work in reformist trade
unions, and a sectarian attitude to the mass reformist parties.
Lenin and Trotsky combated these ideas by advocating the United Front
with other workers’ organisations as a means of creating a bridge to
the mass of Social Democratic workers who were still a majority in most
countries. This meant links with the Labour Party in the case of Britain
The split to form separate Communist Parties was not about sectarian
principles or an act of salvation, but of winning the mass away from
national chauvinism. The point now was to influence the Social
Democratic workers who remained behind in the direction of socialist
revolution. As we see in the case of Britain, Lenin went much further in
this idea, given the numerical weakness of the British Communists,
advocating that the CP should try to affiliate to the Labour Party.
the Clyde Workers’ Committee.Left-Wing Communism was
written as an answer to the ultra-lefts, whose arguments re-appear at
every stage in the propaganda of the sects – even today. Lenin explained
that it was a crime to split away the advanced workers from the mass,
and that such tactics, far from undermining the labour and trade union
bureaucracy, actually serves to strengthen it.
Willie Gallacher was leader of the Clyde shop stewards and was keen
to establish a Communist Party in Britain. He travelled to Moscow for
the Second Congress and had personal discussions with Lenin.
“I was an outstanding example of the ‘Left’ sectarian and as such had
been referred to by Lenin in his book Left-Wing Communism, an
Infantile Disorder”, explained Gallacher in his memoirs. “I was
hard to convince. I had such disgust at the leaders of the Labour Party
and their shameless servility that I wanted to keep clear of
contamination.”“Gradually, as the discussion went on, I began to see the weakness of
my position. More and more the clear simple arguments and explanations
of Lenin impressed themselves in my mind.” (Revolt on the Clyde,
p.251)
Many in the young CP in Britain (formed in August 1920) had similar
ultra-left views to Willie Gallagher. As a result, the CP only voted by a
narrow margin 100 to 85 in favour of Labour Party affiliation. Their
first application was couched in such terms as to invite rejection. When
rejection came, the leadership’s relief was expressed in their paper, The
Communist of 16 September 1920: “So be it. It is their funeral,
not ours.”
It took the patient intervention of Lenin and Trotsky to curb this
ultra-leftism and steer the party on to a correct course towards the
unions and the Labour Party. Once corrected, this allowed the young CP
to build up a significant base in the Labour Party. While the Labour
leaders rejected their affiliation, CP members were allowed to be
individual members and participate within the Labour Party, including as
delegates to Labour’s national conference.
In elections, the young CP was advised to put up candidates in a few
safe Labour seats where there was no risk of splitting the vote and
letting in the Tories and Liberals, and giving critical support to the
Labour candidate in all other areas. Several CP members even stood as
official Labour candidates. Shapurji Saklatvala was elected as MP on a
Labour ticket in Battersea North in 1922. By the mid-1920s, despite
bureaucratic rule changes to exclude Communists, a whole number of local
Labour Parties were under Communist influence.
Where is Britain going?
Leon Trotsky had followed events in Britain and wrote a book called Where
is Britain Going? in 1925. The book’s content, which is strikingly
modern, has a clear bearing on today’s situation. It deserves to be
read by all those who want to understand what is happening in Britain
today.
“Throughout the whole history of the British Labour movement there
has been pressure by the bourgeoisie upon the proletariat through the
agency of radicals, intellectuals, drawing-room and church socialists
and Owenites” (early British socialists) “who reject the class struggle
and advocate the principle of social solidarity, preach collaboration
with the bourgeoisie, bridle, enfeeble and politically debase the
proletariat.” (p.48)
However, in predicting events that would unfold over the following
six years, including the 1926 General Strike, Trotsky wrote:
“The mole of revolution is digging too well this time! The masses
will liberate themselves from the yoke of national conservatism, working
out their own discipline of revolutionary action. Under this pressure
from below the top layers of the Labour Party will quickly shed their
skins. We do not in the least mean by this that MacDonald will change
his spots to those of a revolutionary. No, he will be cast out…. The
working class will in all probability have to renew its leadership
several times before it creates a party really answering the historical
situation and the tasks of the British proletariat.” (p.42)
At that time, he explained that:
“The Liberal and semi-Liberal leaders of the Labour Party still think
that a social revolution is a gloomy prerogative of continental Europe.
But here again events will expose their backwardness. Much less time
will be needed to turn the Labour Party into a revolutionary one than
was necessary to create it.” (Trotsky on Britain, vol.2, p.38)
Revolutionary transformation
While this revolutionary transformation of the Labour Party did not
come about, the crisis in the Party at the end of the 1920s and 1930s,
especially the ILP split in 1932, provided ample opportunities for such a
development. Unfortunately, ultra-left mistakes cut across this
potential.
Throughout the book, Trotsky regarded the Labour Party as the
“political section” of the British trade unions. The connection was a
class issue. So much so, that he regarded the payment of the political
levy to the Labour Party as a principled question. He went on to explain
that those who refused to pay the levy should be regarded as “political
strike-breakers”, who should be forced to pay:
“The struggle of the trade unions to debar unorganised workers from
the factory has long been known as a manifestation of ‘terrorism’ by the
workers – or in more modern terms, Bolshevism. In Britain these methods
can and must be carried over into the Labour Party which has grown up
as a direct extension of the trade unions.” (p.101)
The growing Communist influence within the Labour Party during the
mid-1920s was completely cut across by the degeneration of the Soviet
Union and the rise of the Stalinist bureaucracy, which played havoc with
the still immature leaderships of the Communist movement
internationally. The ultra-left zigzags of the Stalinists led to the
launching of the “Third Period” and “social fascism” in 1928. It was
based on the theory that capitalism was in its final stages and the
Communists had to separate themselves in the most ultra-left manner
possible from all other workers’ parties. The worst result was in
Germany, where the insane policy of “social fascism” split the powerful
German labour movement and allowed Hitler to come to power in 1933.
In Britain, the CP denounced the Labour Party as a “social-fascist”
party and advocated that its meetings be attacked and broken up. Such
hooliganism resulted in the utter isolation of the CP from the labour
and trade union movement. Any influence it had in the Labour Party
vanished overnight.
The world slump of 1929-33 and the rise of fascism in Germany had a
massive impact on the British Labour movement, especially the Labour
Party. A minority Labour government had come to power in 1929 and, due
to the capitalist crisis, had made cuts in the budget. By 1931 the
government collapsed, with the failure to carry out further cuts. Ramsay
MacDonald left the party to head a National Government. This betrayal
pushed the Labour Party far to the left.
The left wing gathered round the Independent Labour Party (ILP),
which had been an integral part of the Labour Party ever since its
foundation. Events created a deep ferment and propelled the ILP even
further to the left, with its leaders making very revolutionary sounding
speeches. The ILP became what Marxists term “centrist” in character,
i.e. half-way between Marxism and reformism. In 1932, the ILP tragically
decided to split from the “reformist” Labour Party with some 100,000
supporters.
Trotsky, who had been expelled by Stalin from the Communist
International, took a great deal of interest in what had been happening
in the ILP. Given his leading role in the Russian Revolution he still
had tremendous authority internationally. He personally contacted the
leaders of the ILP to offer advice. He thought the split from the Labour
Party was a mistake, carried out “at the wrong time and over the wrong
issue”. Nevertheless, he saw this break with reformism as an opportunity
to build a genuine revolutionary party in Britain. As a result, Trotsky
urged his British supporters to join the ILP.
“I wrote a series of articles and letters of an entirely friendly
kind to the ILP people, sought to enter into personal contact with them,
and counselled our English friends to join the ILP in order, from
within, to go through the experience systematically and to the very
end.” (Writings 1935-36, p.365)
advice to the ILP leaders was three-fold: 1) work out a genuine Marxist
policy; 2) turn your backs on the ultra-left Stalinists and face
towards the trade unions and the Labour Party; 3) join the new
International.
Even though the ILP had a considerable base amongst the advanced
workers, Trotsky insisted that they still face towards the Labour Party,
which remained the mass party of the working class. “It remains a fact
about every revolutionary organisation in England”, he wrote, “that its
attitude to the masses and to the class is almost coincident with its
attitude towards the Labour Party, which bases itself upon the trade
unions.”
“While breaking away from the Labour Party, it was necessary
immediately to turn towards it”, explained Trotsky (Writings on Britain,
vol.3, p.94). Brushing aside the objections of the ILP leaders, he went
on to argue for work within the party. “The policy of the opposition in
the Labour Party is unspeakably bad. But this only means that it is
necessary to counterpoise to it inside the Labour Party another, a
correct Marxist policy. That isn’t so easy? Of course not!” (Writings
1935-36, pp.141-142) Nevertheless, explained Trotsky, Marxists cannot
abandon such an essential task because of certain difficulties being
placed in their path by the bureaucracy. If that were the case, then one
may as well abandon all attempts to change society using “difficulties”
as a pretext for abandoning any revolutionary work.
The centrist leaders of the ILP chose to ignore Trotsky’s advice,
making ironic remarks about “dictators from the heights of Oslo”, a
reference to Trotsky’s place of exile in 1935. In the meantime, the
Labour Party recovered from the 1931 betrayal by MacDonald and moved to
the left in opposition. In practice, the mass of workers now could not
see a fundamental difference between the policies of Labour and the ILP
and, in such a situation, they inevitably rallied to the much larger
party. The ILP dwindled in size and eventually drifted back to the
Labour Party on a purely reformist basis. The attempt to create an
alternative revolutionary party failed.
ILP failure
After the ILP failure, Trotsky advised his supporters to enter the
Labour Party. This new tactic became generally known as “entrism”, and
was adopted in conditions of acute crisis of capitalism and where
centrist currents had emerged. The perspective was one of a rapid
movement towards either revolution or counter-revolution and one where
the task of building a genuine revolutionary Marxist party was of
paramount importance. Such a short-term tactic, based on Trotsky’s
perspective of the 1930s as a decade of revolution and counter-, is not
suitable for today’s work in the Labour movement.
In all of Trotsky’s writings on these questions we see a rounded-out
dialectical approach. He clearly did not view the mass organisations as
something fixed and static, but in their real development and internal
contradictions. Under conditions of convulsive crisis, it was
unthinkable that the traditional mass organisations of the working class
could remain unaffected. The tendency towards polarisation between the
classes inevitably finds its echo in the workers’ organisations. At a
certain point, this process gives rise to mass left reformist currents,
even centrist ones as with the ILP. Under these conditions, the ideas of
Marxism would find a ready-made mass audience. This is the historical
justification for patient work in the mass organisations.
Trotsky’s writings on the mass organisations are an important
heritage. They provide so many pointers. “What is … dangerous is the
sectarian approach to the Labour Party”, he explained (Writings on
Britain, p.144). Rather than waste one’s time in small splinter groups
on the fringes of the labour movement, it was important to get involved
in the mass organisations.
“A revolutionary group of a few hundred comrades is not a
revolutionary party and can work most effectively at present by
opposition to social patriots within the mass organisations. In view of
the increasing acuteness of the international situation, it is
absolutely essential to be within the mass organisations while there is
the possibility of doing revolutionary work within them. Any such
sectarian, sterile and formalistic interpretation of Marxism in the
present situation would disgrace an intelligent child of 10.” (Writings
on Britain, vol.3, p.141)
Counter-reforms
Despite these essential writings, different “Marxist” groups have
made one mistake after another on this key question. Towards the end of
the 1960s, a number of left groups abandoned work in the Labour Party in
disgust at the counter-reforms of the then Labour government. They
wrote off the party and set about building their own independent
revolutionary parties, ignoring everything that had been written on the
importance of the mass organisations. The more isolated they were, the
more ultra-left they became. Rather than connect with the real movement,
they continually sought to tear the advanced workers away from the
mass. They saw their prime task as to “expose” the leadership through
shrill denunciation. This has been the hallmark of all these different
sectarian groups. With such antics they end up playing into the hands
and reinforcing the position of the right-wing leaders.
Some on the left object to being described as sects, but this is not a
term of derision but a scientific definition. According to Trotsky,
“Sect is a term I would use only for an organisation of a kind that is
forever doomed, by virtue of its mistaken methodology, to remain on the
sidelines of life and of the working class struggle.” (Writings 1930,
p.383). What is the common error of these groups? “Each sectarian wants
to have his own labour movement. By the repetition of magic formulas he
thinks to force an entire class to group itself around him. But instead
of bewitching the proletariat, he always ends up by demoralising and
dispersing his own little sect.” (Writings 1935-36, p.72) This whole
approach is the complete opposite of Marxism, as can be seen from the
method outlined in the Communist Manifesto. It is also not
necessarily a question of size that determines the sectarian nature of a
group, but of a correct orientation to and relationship with the
working class and its organisations.
The only Marxist group that made any real impact in the Labour Party
was the Militant tendency, founded by Ted Grant in 1964. Ted
had explained that what was needed was consistent patient work in the
mass organisations. We needed to develop a Marxist tendency as an
integral part of the Labour Party, as was originally the case.
As a result, and in complete contrast to the sects, the Militant
patiently built up its position throughout the 1960s and 1970s,
especially within the ranks of the Labour Party’s youth section, the
Labour Party Young Socialists. Their whole approach was different in
that they regarded themselves as part of the labour movement, despite
having distinct ideas and programme. As a result, their influence grew
throughout these years together with the general development of the
left. They were able to connect with the working class, beginning with
the active layer in the ward Labour Parties, the shop stewards
committees, the trade union branches, and in the Young Socialists. Their
consistent energetic work in the party allowed them to go from a
monthly paper to a weekly, politically dominate the LPYS, achieve the
election of three Militant-supporting Labour MPs, and become
recognised as a serious tendency in the labour movement. In Liverpool,
by the early 1980s, Militant had established a huge influence
in the newly-elected Liverpool City Council.
Right-wing attacks
2007. Photo by dushenka.With success came the orchestrated
attacks of the right wing. A witch-hunt was launched by the capitalist
media against the “Trotskyist infiltrators” in the Labour Party. Their
aim was to use the witch-hunt against Militant to undermine the
swing to the left in the party. By 1983, the editorial board of Militant
was expelled. After Kinnock’s attack on Militant at the 1985
party conference, further expulsions followed. Along with Lambeth,
Liverpool Council was isolated and the councillors surcharged and
disqualified. Together with the defeat of the miners, this marked a
sharp shift to the right in the Labour movement. This was followed by
the effective closure of the LPYS and further organisational measures
taken to proscribe the Militant.
In contrast to the militant struggles of the 1970s, the 1980s (with
the notable exception of the miners’ strike) was a period of retreat.
The workers’ organisations emptied out and the left, which had been
powerful in the previous period, collapsed. It is clear that the boom of
1982-90 played a key role in these developments, providing a material
basis for these changes.
Revolutionary tendencies do not exist in a vacuum. They are subject
to the pressures of capitalism, as with the class as a whole. The
disorientation and confusion of the left generally, compounded by the
collapse of Stalinism in 1989-91, had an effect on the Militant
tendency. This led to impatience and frustration amongst a majority of
its leaders, who, despite everything, lost their bearings.
Shortcuts
They began to look for a short-cut to success and decided to break
from the Labour Party and establish their own party, which eventually
became the Socialist Party. The idea that a small organisation of a few
hundred, or even a few thousand, could compete with the Labour Party was
ludicrous. Trotsky considered the ILP, a sizeable organisation with its
100,000 supporters, a sect in the conditions of the British labour
movement.
The Socialist Party abandoned its previous orientation and moved
towards ultra-leftism, little different from the other groupings on the
fringes of the labour movement. Consequently, rather than increase its
size, its membership declined significantly. This led them further down
the road of ultra-leftism by calling on the affiliated trade unions to
disaffiliate from the Labour Party and instead form a new workers’
party. This call to break the union-Labour link is sheer adventurism. It
mirrors the same call of the extreme right around the Blairites, who
wish to see the Labour Party transformed into a bourgeois party. They
have in fact written off the Labour Party as simply another capitalist
party no different from the Tories or Liberals. They then call on
workers not to vote Labour “as they are all the same”. This is a
fundamental mistake as, despite its pro-capitalist leadership, the
Labour Party rests on the trade unions. This, in the last analysis,
defines its class character.
Trotsky answered this argument long ago:
“It is argued that the Labour Party already stands exposed by its
past deeds in power and its present reactionary platform. For us – yes!
But not for the masses, the eight million who voted Labour.” (Writings
on Britain, vol.3, pp.118-19)“The Labour Party should have been critically supported… because it
represented the working class masses.” (ibid, p.117)
In the recent period there have been numerous attempts to establish
parties to the left of Labour, all of which have utterly failed. Arthur
Scargill, the leader of the miners during the 1984-85 strike, set up the
Socialist Labour Party in 1996 in protest at the abandonment of Clause
Four. Despite the stature of Scargill, the party sank without trace.
In Scotland, the Scottish Socialist Party was set up, gained six MPs
in the Scottish Parliament, but then lost them, split and in effect
collapsed. The illusion that it could become the second workers’ party
in Scotland evaporated. In the recent general election, it won only
3,157 votes across 10 constituencies, averaging 315 votes per candidate.
This was less than the poor showing in the previous election of 2005.
In England, the Socialist Alliance was tried, and then came Respect.
All these efforts were based on opportunist politics, either pandering
to nationalism in Scotland or to communalism in the Muslim community.
Despite claims to the contrary, Respect was consciously trying to
present itself as a “Muslim party”. The success in winning a single
parliamentary seat in Tower Hamlets was short lived as the party split
and then lost its seat in the recent general election, coming third
after the Tories. The party has little future, being confined to a few
geographical areas.
“Socialist Alternative”
The SP won a few local councillors over the last decade under the
name Socialist Alternative. In Coventry, Huddersfield, and Lewisham,
where they held five council seats, they lost them all bar one to
Labour. This was held by Dave Nellist because of a personal following
based on his past position as the Labour MP in Coventry South East. Now
he is on his own on the council without a seconder for his proposals.
This followed on from the debacle in last year’s Euro elections, when
the SP along with others stood as the No2EU campaign. Despite backing
from Bob Crow and the RMT, they managed to scrape together only 1% of
the vote. The programme they stood on was completely nationalistic and
reformist. It was an attempt to opportunistically water down their ideas
to win more votes, but failed miserably.
In the recent general election, there was the formation of the Trade
Union and Socialist Coalition. This time, there was no national trade
union endorsement, only individuals. The result was worse than in 2009.
If you take all the votes for the 40-odd TUSC candidates, the combined
vote was only half of the vote achieved by left Labour MP John McDonnell
in Hayes and Harlington. After all the effort and money poured in, this
is what they managed to achieve – 1% of the vote. The Labour Party,
despite 13 years of New Labour government, still managed to poll
8,600,000 votes.
McDonnell speaking at a Hands Off Venezuela meeting.According
to them, if there was ever a time when the groups standing to the left
of Labour should have done well it was now. They said Labour was
discredited and offered the true alternative. But when it came down to
it, they were completely ignored in the election.
Although TUSC fielded some very good class fighters, this made no
difference. In Swansea West, Rob Williams stood. He is the convener of
the former Fords plant in Swansea and was victimised last year, but
reinstated after threats of strike action. Despite this, he was able to
pick up only 179 votes. He came ninth out of nine candidates, bottom of
the poll. Labour (described by Rob as the “capitalist party”) won the
seat with over 12,000 votes. In Coventry North East, Dave Nellist, the
former Labour MP and the most well-known TUSC candidate, managed to
scrape 1,592 votes (3.7%), but the Labour candidate got over 21,000
votes (49.3%). The vote for Dave, who was expelled from the Labour Party
in 1992, has gone down at every election since. In 1992 he polled
10,500 votes, while today it is down to 1,600, even less than the BNP.
This speaks volumes about the loyalty of the working class towards the
Labour Party. The attempt to create an alternative to Labour on the
electoral front has once again failed.
“But to those who dismiss our small votes, we say that Keir Hardie
and the Independent Labour Party received similar figures and derision
in their attempts to break the trade unions from the Liberals at the end
of the nineteenth century”, states the SP leaflet handed out at the
June UNITE conference. “We will not be deterred from advocating a new
mass workers’ party that reflects the labour movement’s aims and
policies.”
Keir Hardie
What the SP leaders fail to understand is that when Keir Hardie stood
in elections, there was no established Labour Party. Today a Labour
Party exists – whether we like it or not supported by millions of
workers as the general election shows. To believe that workers will seek
to establish a new party, without at first attempting to reform the
old, is to forget all the lessons of history. If after 13 years of
pro-capitalist policies of New Labour, workers show no intention of
breaking with the Labour Party, this shows precisely the deep roots the
party has in the working class. “Mass organisations have value precisely
because they are mass organisations”, explained Trotsky. “Even when
they are under patriotic reformist leadership one cannot discount them.”
(Writings 1935-36, p.294). And again, “If a worker barely awoken to
political life seeks a mass organisation, without distinguishing as yet
either programmes or tactics, he will naturally join the Labour Party.”
(Writings on Britain, vol.3, p.93). And finally, “workers do not leap
from organisation to organisation with lightness, like individual
students.” (Ibid, p.53)
first task, as part of attempting to change society, is to understand
what is. The ascendency of the right wing in the past period was based
on the boom of capitalism, albeit a boom based on credit and
speculation. That has now collapsed. A new period of storm and stress is
opening up in Britain and internationally. Events will propel the
working class into action, at first on the industrial front, then on the
political front.
As the Marxist tendency has explained many times, the working class
will take the line of least resistance and when it moves politically it
will move towards its traditional mass organisations. When this happens,
all those groups on the fringes of the movement will be left high and
dry. The main struggle for the future of society will be fought within
the Labour Party and the trade unions. On the basis of events, the right
wing will be squeezed out and the left will be in the ascendency. It is
the task of Marxism to “patiently explain” and fertilise this left wing
with revolutionary ideas. Before the ideas of scientific socialism can
conquer the broad mass of the working class, they need to politically
conquer the mass organisations. The mistakes and isolation of the
Marxists in the past, due mainly to their sectarianism, has been both a
tragedy and a farce. We need to learn from history and understand that
there is no short cut to the masses “At all costs we must be careful to
avoid either sectarianism or opportunism”, explained Trotsky (Writings
on Britain, vol.3, p.138).
The ruling class has maintained a firm grip on the Labour Party
through its right-wing agents. Their task was to make the party safe for
capitalism. They were able to accomplish this in the past period
largely due to the boom built on credit. That has now come to an end.
The crisis of capitalism is reflected in the demands for austerity
everywhere. As a consequence, we are heading for huge clashes between
the classes not seen in generations. Such a situation will radicalise
the working class and serve to transform the labour movement. This will
also shake the Labour Party from top to bottom.
Enormous opportunities
Enormous opportunities will open up for the Marxist tendency as our
ideas increasingly connect with the radicalised workers and youth. They
will look towards the mass organisations to solve their problems. We
will go through the experiences with them shoulder to shoulder,
explaining the need for the socialist transformation of society.
Whatever measures are taken by the bureaucracy, they will not succeed in
breaking the links between Marxism and the organised working class.
On the basis of, “patiently explaining” our ideas, in a friendly and
sober tone, we can win over the majority of class-conscious workers and
youth. In doing so, we can help to transform and retransform the mass
organisations and change them into genuine vehicles to change society.
We appeal to all workers and youth to join us in this fight.
“We are fighting for genuine scientific ideas and principles, with
inadequate technical, material, and personal means. But correct ideas
will always find the necessary corresponding means and forces…”,
explained Trotsky. “There was never a greater cause on earth.”
