💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000244.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:15:40.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
from Workers Solidarity No 32
paper of the Irish anarchist
Workers Solidarity Movement
FEW GENUINE socialists would claim the Irish
Labour Party has any sort of glorious socialist past,
outside of Connolly's involvement in setting it up. It's
record is one of abstention from real struggles,
attacks on the left and, in coalition, attacks on Irish
workers. Many of its supporters believe Labour can
come to power in Ireland in the long term through an
alliance with the Workers Party.
This article takes a brief look at the British Labour Party.
It demonstrates how the same problems arise in an
organisation which has been able to form majority
governments. We are looking at the history of the British
Labour Party because it is to this organisation that many
socialists in the Irish Labour Party look for inspiration.
In Ireland this is a curious thing as we have been at the
receiving end of over fifty years of the bipartisan politics of
Tory and Labour governments alike. It was a Labour
government that sent troops into the six counties and re-
introduced internment.
The support of Labour MP's for British withdrawal has
always been on the basis of "bring our boys home". This is
on the basis of what's good for Britain rather then in
support of the right of Ireland to self-determination. Even
this is a feature that has been unique to Labour being in
opposition. Leaving this aside, what has been the tradition
of the Labour Party in Britain?
CLASS COLLABORATION
>From late in the last century the British ruling class
sought to form a relationship between the state and the
trade union bureaucracy as a way of controlling union
militancy. Unions were recognised but the right to strike
was limited. Acts in 1893 and 1896 drew up compulsory
arbitration and conciliation procedures between bosses and
unions. It was these rather then strikes which settled
most disputes. The Liberals under Gladstone in the 1890's
appointed trade union bureaucrats as factory inspectors,
justices of the peace, etc. so that the well behaved
bureaucrat could look forward to a retirement post in the
Civil Service.
The convergence of interests between the bureaucrats and
the state led the bureaucrats to see the state as a neutral
organ (rather than one of class rule) and so look to
parliament to further their interests. The Liberals
regularly stood "labour candidates" from the ranks of the
trade union officials but in 1900 the bureaucrats set up
their own parliamentary organisation, the Labour
Representation Committee (L.R.C.). The policy of this
organisation which was to become the Labour Party was
one of class collaboration. In 1906 when the Labour Party
proper was formed it embraced "a readiness to cooperate
with any party which for the time being may be engaged in
promoting legislation in the direct interest of Labour".
FABIAN SOCIALISM
The ideology behind the Labour Party was Fabianism. The
Fabians were a group of intellectuals who were more
interested in social work then socialism. They saw socialism
being introduced very gradually through reforms and were
antagonistic to any revolutionary ideas that arose.
The Fabian writer Sidney Webb drew up the Labour
Constitution, including the much cited 'clause four' which
committed it to securing equitable distribution of the "full
fruits of industry" and "common ownership of the means of
production on behalf of the workers". This ideology ruled
out independent action by the working class and saw a
slow evolution toward socialism as inevitable.
Another Fabian, Beatrice Webb, exposed the basis for this
in "Our Partnership" when she said that the "myriads of
deficient minds and deformed bodies" of the working class
were incapable of acting constructively. In the
"Impossibilities of Anarchism" she derided the anarchist
call for the self activity of the working class as the means
for introducing socialism. Instead all kinds of deals and
tricks were necessary, involving "the gravest violations of
principles" and "compromise at every step". The
Constitution came into effect in 1918 at the close of the
first world war
WAR AND COLLABORATION
This war was to be the first international test of Labour
parties all over the world. They all failed, they voted with
their parliaments for an imperialist war which was to see
the slaughter of millions of workers. The left of the
Labour Party put up some resistance on the grounds there
was not sufficient cause for war but even the leader of the
smaller Independent Labour Party said "A nation at war
must be united". Prime Minister Lloyd George went so far
as to refer to Labour as "the best policemen for the
Syndicalist".
This proof of the Labour Party as a loyal opposition
however meant it became acceptable to the bosses as a
party capable of running the state in their interests. In
order to reinforce this further a stricter separation from
the Trades Union Congress was agreed, the TUC
parliamentary committee being replaced with a general
council. Later the first Labour government insisted Trade
union bureaucrats who became minsters gave up their TU
positions.
The first world war was to see another test of the Labour
Party. In 1917 the workers rose in Russia, overthrowing
first the Tzar and then the bourgeois government of
Kerensky. Although the Bolsheviks were soon to crush
independent working class activity, initially Russian
workers were to take over and run the factories through
their factory committees. Henderson, the Labour party
leader of the time who visited Russia, described this as a
disaster and complained that "the men are not content
with asking for reasonable advances".
The Labour Party presented itself to British capitalism as
its safeguard against revolution. The 1922 election
manifesto ended with the headline "Against Revolution"
and the explanation that "Labour's programme is the best
bulwark against violent upheaval and class wars".
A ROLE FOR LABOUR
Their support for the first world war and opposition to the
Russian revolution was to guarantee a role for the Labour
Party in the eyes of the British bosses over the next few
decades. This was the context of clause 4 of the
constitution. It served to tie those in the party to
working through parliament and provided left cover for the
party in government. The Labour Party formed a
government with the Liberals in 1923 and 1929.
In this period it was instrumental in defeating the 1926
general strike. At the time Ramsey McDonald, then leader
of the party, said in the House of Commons "...with the
discussion of general strikes and Bolshevism and all that
kind of thing, I have nothing to do at all. I respect the
constitution".
In the slump of the 30's Labour cut 20% off the
unemployment benefit before a split in the cabinet saw
McDonald doing a deal with the Tories and forming a
majority government. Electoral disaster followed in 1932.
In opposition the party became radicalised as membership
increased by 25% and it adopted radical policies based on
nationalisation of industry. Most of the lost vote was
recovered in 1935 and again the Labour party turned to
respectability and seeking alliances with the Liberals.
ANOTHER WAR:
SAME POLICIES
The second world war again allowed the Labour Party to
gain respectability as it entered into the 'national
government'. It played a major part in the creation of the
ideology of a "people's war" which aided the government in
making strikes illegal and keeping workers passive. In the
course of the war there were some strikes as workers
fought for their own interests above those of the ruling
class. When miners struck in 1944 Bevin (a leader of the
Labour left at the time) described it as "worse than if
Hitler has bombed Sheffield".
The war also saw full employment and economic efficiency
in the production of munitions. British workers asked if
this was possible at a time of war, why not also in
peacetime? The armed forces numbered millions, and they
were asking the same question, some regiments were at
the point of mutiny. It was clear they could not be relied
on to suppress any large scale workers' movement. In
addition a massive programme of re-building was necessary
for the British economy.
NATIONALISATION OR SOCIALISM
This set the scene for the massive Labour victory of 1945.
An enormous segment of the British economy was
nationalised including the Bank of England and the mines.
Some 20% of the economy was taken over. This occurred,
not as an attempt to build socialism, but rather as
necessary steps in the re-building of British capitalism.
The industries that were nationalised were those required
to service the economy as a whole but which were too
costly to attract private investment from individual bosses.
Even Churchill said the nationalisation of the Bank of
England was not "any issue of principle". The
compensation paid to the owners of these industries was
re-invested in the profit making sphere, while the
nationalised industries provided cheap goods and services
to British industry. In this way the bosses had their cake
and ate it!
SOCIALISM
OR STATE CONTROL?
The industries that were nationalised were not handed
over to the workforce to manage. Rather they were run by
boards which commonly included the old bosses. Stafford
Cripps a "labour left" of the day said "I think it would be
almost impossible to have worker controlled industry in
Britain even if it were wholly desirable".
Anarchists reject the idea that nationalised industry is
progressive for its own sake. Workers in such industries
live under the same conditions as workers in the private
sector. The purpose of nationalisation is always to bail out
bosses in trouble, or provide cheap services for the bosses
in general. It is never to give the workers any control of
their workplace, pay or conditions.
At the same time the Labour government was carrying out
more direct attacks on the working class. In 1947 an
austerity program which included cuts in housebuilding
was imposed. The largest proportion of Gross National
Product of any western power was being spent on defence
and in March 1946 peacetime conscription was implemented
for the first time. In addition the government sent British
troops to fight in the Korean war and was secretly
developing its own atomic bomb.
The wartime ban on strikes was continued. By 1950 troops
had been used 18 times to break strikes, up to 20,000
crossing picket lines at certain times. This, along with the
fact that much of the funding behind the rebuilding of
industry came from the Marshall plan, shows how the
policies of this government had nothing to do with
improving conditions for workers and everything to do with
saving British capitalism.
ON AND ON
Indeed after the Labour defeat of 1951 the Tories
continued working within the changes introduced by
Labour. Labour's record to the present day has been one
of compromise with the bosses and selling out the workers.
In government they cut social services and supported the
Vietnam war (1964-1970). In government between 1974
and 1979 they imposed a real cut in workers wages through
a 'social contract' in '75 and '76, (something no Tory
government has succeeded in doing since 1945) and used
troops (yet again!) to break strikes, this time of the
firefighters and refuse collectors.
Even the left of the Labour Party around Militant and
similar organisations showed itself on the wrong side of
the barricades in the Poll tax riots. Left MP George
Galloway ranted about "lunatics, anarchists and other
extremists". The British Militant of April 6th, although
condemning the cops for "lashing out at innocent
bystanders", blamed "anarchists and quasi-Marxist sects"
for "unprovoked attacks on the police".
Militant supporter Tommy Sheridan of the Anti-Poll Tax
Federation said their inquiry would have no qualms about
"informing the police" of the identity of rioters. The main
Labour Party was much worse, Kinnock for instance talked
of the rioters as "cowardly and vicious ...enemies of
freedom" who should be "treated as criminals and
punished".
NO PAST:NO FUTURE
There was no glorious period of Labour Party socialism,
and never will be. It is a bosses' party which at times of
crisis is every bit as willing to attack the working class as
the Tories. Some of the left in the Labour Party, unable
to avoid it's rotten record, will put their hope in some
future Labour government led by the 'left'. Their hopes
are as futile as those who see a majority Labour
government led by socialists bringing in socialism in
Ireland.
Many of the leaders of the Labour Party including
McDonald, Atlee and Kinnock were seen as on the left of
the party at one time or another. McDonald had been the
victim of press slander campaigns. Atlee in 1932 had said
"the moment to strike at capitalism is the moment when
the government is freshly elected and assured of it's
support. The blow struck must be a fatal one".
Even Kinnock had defended miners violence in 1972 and
voted against the Labour government of the 70's 84 times
(Tony Benn voted against it twice), Kinnock even voted
against the PTA twice. In power or in opposition all these
individuals however are exposed as something less than
socialist (to put it mildly). This is not because they were
secretly right wingers all along. It is because the election
of a Labour government and its ability to retain power
relies on it demonstrating to British bosses that it too can
manage capitalism for them.
In any case their concept of socialism, in so far as they still
have one, is large scale nationalisation carried out on
behalf of the workers. This is a far cry from the anarchists
who see socialism as something that can only be brought
about through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism
by an organised and independent working class.
The anarchist concept of socialism includes changing the
basis of production so that it satisfies the needs of the
mass of the people and is under the democratic control of
the workers. We want to see a maximisation of freedom for
the individual. We want a completely new form of society.
Today's Labour Party merely wants to administer a more
parental style of capitalism.
Aileen O'Carroll