💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › joe-black-labouring-for-what.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:05:02. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Labouring for what?
Author: Joe Black
Date: 1991
Language: en
Topics: the Labour Party, United Kingdom, history, Workers Solidarity
Source: Retrieved on 9th October 2021 from http://struggle.ws/ws91/labour32.html
Notes: Published in Workers Solidarity No. 32 — Autumn 1991.

Joe Black

Labouring for what?

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 6^(th),

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.