The thoughts of Premier
Brown (thirty
years ago)
In 1975 Gordon Brown edited The Red Paper on
Scotland, a collection of articles by leftwing Labour activists. He
wrote the introduction (“The Socialist Challenge”) from which the
passages below are taken.
“[T]he basic questions which face the
Scotland of the nineteen-eighties remain unasked as well as unanswered:
who shall exercise power and control the lives of our people? How can
we harness our material resources and social energies to meet the needs
of five million people and more? What social structure can guarantee to
people the maximum control and self management over the decisions which
affect their lives, allowing the planned co-ordination of the use and
distribution of resources, in a co-operative community of equals?”
“It is argued that
what appear to be contradictory features of Scottish life
today—militancy and apathy, cynicism and a thirst for change—can best
be understood as working people's frustration with and refusal to
accept powerlessness and lack of control over blind social forces which
determine their lives. It is a disenchantment which underlines an
untapped potential for co-operative action upon which we must build.”
“[T]he discontent
is a measure of the failure of both Scottish and British socialists to
advance far and fast enough in shifting the balance of wealth and power
to working people and in raising people's awareness—especially outside
the central belt of Scotland in areas where inequalities are
greater—about the co-operative possibilities for modern society.”
“[T]he question is
not one of structures not of territorial influence, but of democracy —
how working people in Scotland can increase the control they have over
the decisions which shape their lives and the wealth they alone produce
— and in doing so aid the struggle for a shift of power to working
people elsewhere.”
“If the prospects
for the least fortunate are to be as great as they can be, then they
must have the final say—and that requires a massive and irreversible
shift of power to working people, a framework of free universal welfare
services controlled by the people who use them.”
“But socialism
will have to be won also at the point of production—the production of
needs, ideas and particularly of goods and services. And that demands
ending the power of a minority through ownership and control to direct
the energies of all other members of our society.”
“[T]he experience
of the sixties shows that the market can no longer be seen as the
efficient allocator of resources and indeed that the productive forces
within our economy have outstripped the capacity of the market.”
“The more
automation there is, the greater is the need to deal with the social
consequences by increased public expenditure; yet the more the
government raises in taxation, the more urgent is the need for more
automation. Thus, increasingly, the private control of industry has
become a hindrance to the further unfolding of the social forces of
production. Consequently, Michael Barratt Brown has convincingly argued
that increased state intervention in social and economic affairs
implies that it is no longer realistic to envisage a socialist
commodity exchange market in a transition from capitalism to socialism
. . .”
“Workers’ Power”
“What has often
been cited as an irresoluble clash in socialist theory between
regulating material production according to human needs and the
principle of eliminating the exploitative domination of man over man
can only be met through producers controlling the organisation of the
production process.”
“Gramsci's
relevance to Scotland today is in his emphasis that in a society which
is both mature and complex, where the total social and economic
processes are geared to maintaining the production of goods and
services (and the reproduction of the conditions of production), then
the transition to socialism must be made by the majority of people
themselves and a socialist society must be created within the womb of
existing society and prefigured in the movements for democracy at the
grass roots. Socialists must neither place their faith in an Armageddon
of capitalist collapse nor in nationalisation alone. For if the Jacobin
notion of a vanguard making revolution on behalf of working people
relates to a backward society (and prefigures an authoritarian and
bureaucratic state), then the complexity of modern society requires a
far reaching movement of people and ideas, acting as a stimulus for
people to see beyond the immediacy and fragmentation of their existing
conditions and as a co-ordinator for the assertion of social priorities
by people at a community level and control by producers at an
industrial level. In such a way political power will become a synthesis
of—not a substitute for—community and industrial life. This requires
from the Labour Movement in Scotland today a positive commitment to
creating a socialist society, a coherent strategy with rhythm and
modality to each reform to cancel the logic of capitalism and a
programme of immediate aims which leads out of one social order into
another. Such a social reorganization—a phased extension of public
control under workers' self-management and the prioritising of social
needs set by the communities themselves—if sustained and enlarged,
would in E.P. Thompson's words lead to ‘a crisis not of despair and
disintegration but a crisis in which the necessity for a peaceful
revolutionary transition to an alternative socialist logic became daily
more evident.’”
Pretty radical-sounding stuff. We can’t go so far to say that he was a
socialist, but he did employ the language of socialism, talking in
terms of “ending the power of a minority through ownership and control
to direct the energies of all the other members of our society”, of
“eliminating the exploitative domination of man by man”, of “the
producers controlling the organisation of the production process”, of
“the wealth that they [working people] alone produce”, of “workers’
power”, and that “the market can no longer be seen as the efficient
allocator of resources” as well as the solution as lying in the
establishment of “a co-operative community of equals”.
His present views, as Chief Executive Officer of British Capitalism
PLC, are far, far from those expressed here. But the question is: is
this is a personal failing of an individual who has betrayed their
earlier views or a predictable consequence of the views outlined in the
last extract?
In that extract Brown outlined a gradualist strategy for getting from
capitalism to what he called socialism, a series of reforms “to cancel
the logic of capitalism” and “a programme of immediate aims which lead
out of one social order into another”. That was the original aim, many
years ago, of those in the Labour Party who wanted to do more than just
trying to tackle immediate problems as they arise, as any government
has to. But instead of the various Labour governments – since the first
one under Ramsay MacDonald in 1924 until the last but one under
Callaghan voted out in 1979 – taking measures to cancel the logic of
capitalism, they were obliged by economic and political circumstances
to apply the logic of capitalism. Which involved giving priority to
profits and profit-making and taking various anti-worker measures in
pursuit of this aim (wage freezes, strike-breaking, anti-union laws,
benefit cuts). Having no mandate to do anything else but govern
capitalism, they had do this, inevitably on capitalism’s terms.
Gradualism didn’t, doesn’t and can’t work.
In the end the Labour Party itself came to embrace the logic of
capitalism and to drop all pretence of trying to replace capitalism
with some other social arrangement. Under Blair, and with the full
support of Gordon Brown, Labour became the open supporter of the market
economy and capitalist economic system that everyone today can see it
is.
There will also have been an element of opportunism involved. The
Labour Party is a party of professional politicians, and one thing
professional politicians want is to be able to enjoy the fruits of
government office from time to time. Some time after Labour lost the
1992 election Brown must have decided that Labour was unelectable with
the sort of programme he had embraced in the 1970s and 80s and that any
such talk had to be abandoned if he was ever to become a Minister of
the Crown. Which he duly did, but his past is still there to haunt him.
ADAM BUICK
|