The Labour Party: unionism, reformism and
“betrayal”
Today, only a high ranking or committed
Labourite would refuse to admit that the Labour Party is anything other
than a political party of capitalism. Like any other party of
capitalism, it has made promises to better the lot of the workers,
establish comfort and equality, do away with crime, and bring peace and
security to the population. Like any other party of capitalism, it has
failed to deliver.
Seeing that the promised land has eluded them, many supporters of
Labour who held high hopes will feel disillusioned. Many will join the
Leninists, many will give up on politics and stick with a “they are all
the same” attitude to political parties, and some will even join the
extreme right. None of these changes in political attitude will ever
deal with the fundamental problems of society, since the problem
doesn’t lie with a particular party or leader, but with the economic
foundation of society itself.
This economic foundation is a simple one of production for profit. In
capitalism, if a profit cannot be obtained, production will stop,
regardless of the consequences. This has always been so, and the Labour
Party and the unions have been hard pressed to change this, simply
because they refuse to consider an alternative. Since many people still
associate Labour with socialism, and since Labour cannot deliver they
assume socialism will not deliver, the supposed link between the Labour
Party and socialism needs to be addressed.
An un-Marxist beginning
In 1900 the Labour Party took its fledgling steps in the form of the
Labour Representation Committee, a pressure group for the interests of
the trade unions. Several organisations were present at the founding
conference of this group, including the Independent Labour Party, the
Fabian society, and the Social Democratic Federation. In the latter’s
case, its organisation become so distinctly anti-democratic and
un-socialist that a political revolt occurred leading to the founding
of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The SDF had termed reformism
as “stepping stones to socialism”, which would lead the entire party
into the circular battleground of fighting for reforms and then trying
to make them work within the profit system, with the result that the
socialist revolution would take second place to reforms. The so-called
“impossibilists”, who were to create the SPGB, believed the road of
reformism was a diversion from the task of building socialism. They
were naturally outraged at the undemocratic methods of the SDF’s
leader, Henry Hyndman, who treated the party as his own personal
organisation, exercising control over much of its electoral platform
and propaganda.
However this was not by any means the only case of political friction
around that time. Before the split in the SDF occurred, there was
friction with the LRC. It refused to even admit the existence of the
class struggle or commit itself to socialism in the Marxist sense. This
would cause the SDF, partly prompted by the as yet undeveloped
“impossibilist” faction, to leave the LRC. This refusal by the very
organisation that would become the Labour Party to accept a basic truth
of socialism i.e. the existence of class antagonisms, casts massive
doubt on Labour’s past claims to be a socialist party.
In 1906, after winning seats in parliament, the LRC officially changed
its name to the Labour Party. The intention was for it to become the
permanent representation of the trade unions within parliament. From
the start, the trade union majority in the former LRC had no real
intentions of bringing about a socialist society, but simply attempting
to work within the capitalist system. This has been the blight of the
unions for some time now; they remain committed to simply struggling
within the rules of capitalism.
The LRC, and later the Labour Party, did not stand for socialism. At
most it stood for state management of the capitalist economy. The word
“socialism” was certainly branded on the party to gather popular
support, since at the time socialism was not as discredited (falsely)
as it is now.
Trade unions
Although it’s now clear that trade unions are not the “schools of
socialism” they were once seen to be, they should not be written off
out of hand. Without them, the workers have no economic weapon to
defend themselves against the encroachments of capital. Capitalists
would be able to consistently obtain labour-power below its value,
instead of being made to pay something nearer its full price. The
importance of the unions is therefore clear; a worker in a trade union
will generally be closer to class consciousness than any other. They
have realised their position in the world as a creator of wealth, and
that some form of exploitation is going on that needs to be checked.
The failing is simply not bringing this realisation to its logical
conclusion: the complete restructuring of society to end this
exploitation of which they strive against.
This is where socialist action on the political field becomes an
objective - action that does not simply seek to hold off some of the
exploitation inherent in capitalist society, but that seeks to abolish
it and bring about a truly co-operative and non-exploitive world.
Unions are economic weapons on the battlefield of class war, but
unfortunately, thanks to the efforts of reformist or right wing union
leaders, they remain committed to simply striving for economic gains
within the system.
Thus, the Labour Party, claiming to be the party of union
representation in parliament, has never been able to reconcile the war
between capital and Labour. When they have been in power, they, as the
supposed party of the working class, are in a bizarre situation. They
are attempting to take the reins of the very system (the capitalist
system of capital accumulation) that is in direct contradiction with
the purpose of trade unions, which is the opposition of the
encroachments of capital. Undoubtedly, this leads to a circular
political free for all, as Labour attempt to introduce union
legislation and still try to balance it with the profit system.
Obviously, this is no way to bring about socialism.
The view that trade union action on its own is unable to bring about
socialism was stated several times by Marx, and remains valid to this
day: “They (The unions) ought not to forget that they are fighting with
effects, but not with the cause of those effects; that they are
retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; they
are applying palliatives, not curing the malady.”
Not curing the malady? Too true, trade union action alone has failed to
remove the class antagonisms present in the capitalist world we live
in. It has made some excellent gains, certainly saving large sections
of the working class from even greater abuse, but the fundamentals of
exploitation and class antagonisms remain.
Clause Four “To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the full fruits of
their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be
possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of
production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and
control of each industry and service.”
So runs clause 4, adopted by the Labour Party in 1918. This use of
language is very much in the trend of classical Marxist propaganda.
Unfortunately, it was and still remains an abstract statement, with no
concrete meaning behind it. Since the start the Labour Party has been
the party of reformism i.e. of reforming capitalism, not bringing about
socialism.
The point in time clause 4 was adopted also requires examination. At
that time, the Bolsheviks of the old feudal Russian Empire had
successfully carried through their minority revolution to hasten
capitalism and, mistakenly, working class feeling in Britain was
somewhat sympathetic to the Leninists. The reasons for this are many,
but essentially then as now the Leninists hide behind socialist
rhetoric while standing for state control of a capitalist economy.
Fearing a massive increase in Bolshevik style sentiment in Britain, the
most prominent reformist power in the Labour Party, the Fabian Society,
set to work anaesthetising worker militancy. Thus Clause 4 was created,
clearly taking on the style of writing that Marx and other socialists
were known for, but there was little intention of enacting it in any
real way, as time has shown us.
The occasional mention of “common ownership” by Labour is certainly not
intended as common ownership in the socialist sense, that of direct
democratic control by the associated producers, but the nation-state
taking over the role as receiver of surplus value instead of the
individual capitalist. This was made quite clear when the original
wording of the clause was amended in 1929 to add a reference to the
“means of exchange”, by which was meant banks but the existence of
banks is incompatible with common ownership. What Clause 4 envisaged
was a simple change from a standard free market capitalist economy to a
nationalised “state capitalist” method.
Nationalisation has proved in the past to be not even a particularly
effective way of running a profit economy, and such industries were not
exempt from strikes and mass sackings. And all this from industries in
so-called “public ownership”, that were meant to belong to the workers.
As time went on Clause 4 became an embarrassment to those in Labour who
were gradually attempting to steer the party away from the more radical
elements and closer to the centre, hence the attempt by Labour leader
Hugh Gaitskell in 1956 to remove it. He failed. Since then it has
continued to be a cause of embarrassment for party leaders attempting
to change the party to a more central position in politics.
Betrayal
How often have disillusioned Labour supporters and voters cried
“betrayal!”? Why has this been the case, that when the Labour Party
have been in power, they have been obliged to continue to treat the
working class badly? It’s a simple matter of understanding economic
systems. Since its birth the Labour Party has been committed to running
capitalism, and it has continued to do so. The social and economic
problems we face are due to the capitalist system, not to some
individual leaders being less benevolent than others. In capitalism,
workers are dependant on finding a buyer for our labour-power. If they
can’t, they are in a lot of trouble, as they have no way to survive. If
they can find a buyer, their labour-power is bought as a commodity on
the market, and they are exploited in a manner where they create
greater values than they receive back as wages.
What to do about this unjust system? Many parties throughout the years
have claimed a desire to change the way we live for the better.
Unfortunately, their tactics and methods have proved wanting. The
Leninist groups in the country simply seek to establish a state
controlled economy such as the former USSR, with the workers remaining
economically exploited and politically subdued. They too claim
allegiance to socialism and Marx, something that is incredibly bizarre
seeing that they hold democratic control by the working class in
contempt.
What of the Labour Party itself? As stated, they did seek to reform
capitalism in the hope that perhaps a sudden change will take place and
capitalism will prove to be a fair and fulfilling society for all its
members. Now as the natural conclusion to reformism has completely
overrun them, they are a simple party of capitalist maintenance, with
objectives of some form of new society being not just shunted into the
background but completely out of existence. They are now more dedicated
than ever to running with optimal efficiency the very system that
creates poverty, misery, homelessness and war. As for those old
Labourites who blame all on the mistakes of the past and present on
certain leaders, this simply adds to the argument against leadership.
In any case, the leader as a individual is irrelevant. Knocking one
leader out of office and replacing them with another won’t change the
system, and it’s the system that all attention should be focused on if
we desire a radical change in the way we live. DAN READ