[In a lengthy article on the British general election, published in the April 15 issue of The Red Mole, Robin Blackburn argued against voting for the Labour party. In defense of his abstentionist position, he maintained that the Labour party is in substance indistinguishable from the Conservative party, both parties being mere bourgeois electoral machines like the Republican and Democratic machines in the United States. "We should disrupt the campaigns of the bourgeois parties and their leading spokesmen," he declared, "using all the imaginative and direct methods which the last few years have taught us." (See Intercontinental Press, June 1, page 524.)
[In its May 14 issue, The Red Mole carried a brief reply by Pat Jordan, secretary of the International Marxist Group (IMG), the British section of the Fourth International.
[However, the vigor with which Robin Blackburn presented his arguments and the way in which the editors of The Red Mole featured the article fostered the impression that the IMG, if not the Fourth International, stood in opposition to the slogan "Vote for Labour!" and had adopted a sectarian, abstentionist attitude in the general election. The Healyites, for instance, in Workers Press have done what they could to spread this interpretation.
[In its June 1 issue, The Red Mole published an extensive article by Pat Jordan taking issue with Robin Blackburn and stating the official position of the IMG on the British election. We are publishing this article below.
[For a copy of the article by Robin Blackburn which initiated the polemic, we suggest writing to The Red Mole, 182 Pentonville Road, London, N. 1. The cost for a single issue is 1/6. A one year's subscription in Britian is £2, in other countries £3.
[Three explanatory notes follow the article. We have taken the liberty of including these as footnotes. The subheadings appear in the original.]
Robin Blackburn's article on the Labour Party in Red Mole No. 3 was very welcome. It opened up a discussion on a vital question for revolutionaries in a refreshing and concrete style. Too often this matter is discussed in terms of fetishes and abstract schema. As indicated in my letter in the last issue of Red Mole, I wish to contribute to this discussion not just as an individual but to express the point of view of the International Marxist Group. Of course, I agree with much of what Robin Blackburn has to say about the role of the Labour Government and his strictures on the attitudes of various lefts. However, to save space I will concentrate upon those aspects where we differ. For the sake of clarity I will do this in the form of a series of fundamental assumptions which underpin my views.
1. The Labour Party is neither a purely bourgeois party nor a purely workers party but has dual aspects - having bourgeois policies, leadership and social function, but resting upon workers organisations.
Robin Blackburn quoted the excellent speech made by Lenin at the Second Congress of the Third International. However, later on in the speech Lenin explained his view that the Labour Party is "a very peculiar party, or more correctly, it is not a party in the ordinary sense of the word" because "It is made up of all the trade unions." I point this out not to prove anything (quotations like this never do) but to show that Lenin had a much more rounded-out view of the Labour Party. Comrades wishing to read the most important of his writings on the British Labour movement should get hold of Lenin and the British Labour Movement (available from Red Books, 182 Pentonville Road, London, N. 1, 25/- + 1/6 p.p.).
Instrument of the Ruling Class
One can agree with Robin Blackburn that the Labour Party has been the main instrument for implanting bourgeois political concepts in the organised working class movement. As demonstrated in Ralph Miliband's Parliamentary Socialism, the ideology of Labour's leaders from the very inception of the Labour Party has been dominated by fetishism about parliamentary democracy and by an overwhelming desire to "serve the national interest."
One can go further than Robin Blackburn: Labour's leaders have always tried to confine the aspirations of the working class to parliamentary means. They have opposed industrial action and other extra-parliamentary struggle even for the most modest of reforms. In and out of Government their commitment to the "nation's best interests" has led them to always oppose any reforms they thought the "nation could not afford." The 1945 Labour Government, which alone of Labour regimes carried out many reforms, did very little more than a Tory administration would have been forced to do. In political and ideological terms Labour's leaders have been fairly "honest" about this: they always argue that it is Tory stupidity that prevents the Conservatives from carrying out Labour's programme.
Labour Governments have always pursued a foreign and colonial policy geared to the interests of British imperialism. Labour's "granting" of political independence to India, Pakistan, etc., was determined more by the relationship of forces than by socialist (or even humanitarian) principles. Where they could, Labour's leaders in the same period used force to brutally suppress national liberation movements: Malaya and elsewhere.
Thus there is nothing fundamentally new about the policies of the present Labour Government. The only thing which is really different is the greatly weakened state of British capitalism -which makes it impossible for it (and a Labour Government) to concede any fundamental reforms.
Labour & the Working Class
The bourgeois aspect of the nature of the British Labour Party is determined by both its social function and the policies of its leadership. A Labour Government is just as much an instrument of the ruling class as any Tory Government. Having said all this it is wrong to compare the Labour Party with, say, the Democratic Party of the United States. The latter party is a purely bourgeois party in all its essential aspects: ideologically, structurally and in social function. The Labour Party has, in terms of ideology, a thoroughly bourgeois leadership, but, in terms of programme, a formal commitment to socialism which is taken seriously by a large part of its active membership. Organisationally, in one sense it is virtually identical with the organised working class because of the complex system of affiliations of trade unions at various levels. Robin Blackburn is quite wrong to say that this boils down to a bourgeois cash nexus.
The first unconscious act that most workers make as workers is to join a trade union. For a vast majority of organised workers this also means joining the Labour Party. Although the links between the trade unions and the Labour Party have become eroded and are not, at this stage, a vital living process, they certainly still exist in a form which directly involves thousands of the most politically active workers.
Multi-Million Stranded Relationship
On any night of the week there will be, in Britain, hundreds of small meetings of the basic units of the working class movement - trade union branches, Labour Party wards, co-op groups, etc. In most of these meetings "politics" will take the form of the people present defining their attitude and relationship to the Labour Party. When the people who attend these meetings, i.e. those who make up the bulk of the active members of workers' organisations in this country, discuss local, national and international affairs, they do it largely in the form of making demands of or suggestions to the Labour Party.
At certain periods this process has been extremely rich in political debate. Just now it is at an extremely low level but the whole mechanism creates a multi-million stranded relationship between the organised working class and the Labour Party. It is the essential reason why millions of workers think of politics in terms of the Labour Party. The policies of the Wilson Labour Government, especially its attacks on the trade unions, have placed a tremendous strain upon this relationship and have led thousands of militants to leave the Labour Party (or cease to be active). However, there has been no significant severing of these links. True, there have been a few local and one national disaffiliation (the Pottery Workers Union, which later reversed the decision) but from a long-term point of view the tendency has been for the identification of the organised working class with the Labour Party to grow. During the '60s the number of trade unionists affiliated to the Labour Party has tended to grow - some small units (the POEU, for instance) became new affiliates. Politically the grip of Labour upon the working class has become a virtual monopoly since the end of the Second World War: the ILP, Commonwealth, etc. losing their parliamentary representation. There is a long-term trend for the Liberals to be squeezed out by Labour. There has been a notable decline of support for the Communist Party in those areas where it contended with the Labour Party for the loyalty of the working class. 1 The only significant shift in this pattern in recent years has been the election successes of the Scottish Nationalists. However, this seems to be fairly ephemeral although we should be cautious about this. There are deep-seated and long-term structural reasons for the development of separatist movements (which will be intensified upon Britain joining the Common Market).
Historically, Labour has been able to survive the debacles of MacDonald and the 1945 Labour Government without any really significant decline in its votes (when Labour was voted out of power in 1951, it obtained the highest vote in its history). In fact, from a long-term point of view the voting pattern has been developing to consolidate Labour's grip upon the organised working class.
While ever this relationship between the organised working class and the Labour Party survives and while there is no political alternative there is always the possibility of the presently eroded links being revitalised (especially if Labour is in opposition with a Tory Government carrying out an offensive against the working class).
The Labour 'Left' and Clause Four
The formal commitment to socialism and the normal existence of a reformist left-wing in the Labour Party plays a key role in maintaining the grip of the party upon the organised working class. The reformist Labour left accepts by-and-large the essential ideology of the leadership, but not having the burden of office or leadership can posture as being defender of the socialist conscience of the party. The reformist labour left has always acted as counter-pressure to the formation of an alternative to the Labour Party or even the formation of a revolutionary current within it. Pointing to Clause Four, 2 these "lefts" have always argued that it is necessary to remain in the Labour Party at all costs and that the democratic (in theory) structure of the party makes victory within it possible. The reformist left always argues against those who want to fight the leaders' policies that it is necessary to do this in a circumspect manner because of the danger of expulsion and because the workers do not understand revolutionary policies. At critical times the reformist left step into the breach to prevent the mass of the active Labour Party workers from becoming completely disillusioned with the Labour Party. Harold played this role when the overtly right-wing policies of Gaitskell threatened to cause a split in Labour's ranks. However, all this is only possible because of Labour's nominal adherence to socialism through Clause Four. This is not to say that the mass of the left wing of the Labour Party at any given time are "fake lefts." Elements who place themselves at the head of the left currents undoubtedly are, but the majority represent sincere workers who are seeking to find an expression for their political aspirations.
To summarise: in its essential and most important aspects - social function, policies, etc. —the Labour Party is bourgeois, but structurally it rests upon the organised working class. This fact, together with the Labour Party's reputation as the party of reform and its nominal adherence to a form of socialism (together with the role of the reformist lefts), makes the grip of the party upon the organised working class extremely tenacious.
2. The Labour Party is the principal political obstacle to the development of the revolutionary organisation and consciousness in the organised working class; the aim of Marxists, therefore, must be to remove this obstacle.
Bourgeois ideology envelops workers from their very first moments of consciousness. The family, the education system, the church, the mass media all combine to get workers to accept the values of capitalist society. The average worker thinks that it is "natural" for there to be owners of industry and wage labourers. However, his or her situation in production daily generates another consciousness: that of him or her being a worker who has interests as a worker which are separate from and antagonistic to those of other sections of society. This level of consciousness is expressed by the creation of trade unions, co-op organisations, etc. In Britain it has gone a stage further through the creation of the Labour Party. In some countries -the United States, for instance - this stage has not been achieved as yet. In those countries the creation of a Labour Party based upon a break with overt capitalist parties would represent a big step forward. The creation, 60-odd years ago, of the British Labour Party was an important step forward because it broke the grip of two overtly capitalist parties on the minds of the working class.
Trade Union Consciousness & Socialist Consciousness
However, this has been a contradictory process and the very fact that the Labour Party was a step forward in the working class acquiring class consciousness has made it all the more effective as a barrier to the development of revolutionary socialist consciousness. Having a revolutionary socialist consciousness means not to accept the values of capitalist society — a mere class (or trade union) consciousness means to fight within the concepts of this society. The trade unionist wants a bigger share of the cake but thinks it "fair" that the capitalist has the rest; the revolutionary socialist wants the whole cake, candles and all, because he does not think it right for capitalists to have any.
The Labour Party is an organised expression of working-class consciousness freezing at this trade union level of consciousness. Its entire orientation to parliamentary struggle is, in fact, a method of getting the working class to accept that the only way to fight is through the existing bourgeois institutions. The capitalist class badly needs such a device: otherwise every time severe class struggle takes place there would be the danger that workers would go over to a revolutionary socialist consciousness. In the present world situation there are many revolutionary examples. It is essential from a capitalist point of view that these revolutionary examples be discredited from within the workers movement and another model of social advance be presented. Of course, the crimes of Stalinism have facilitated this process, but the principle is the same.
How to Remove the Labour Party
It is one thing to recognise an obstacle, but another to remove it. In fact, this problem of removing the obstacle of the Labour Party has dominated the thinking of Marxists in Britain over the past seventy years. Most of the polemics and splits in the British Marxist movement have had their roots in differing attitudes taken towards this problem. Roughly, there have been three main approaches to the question:
a) to try to destroy the grip of the Labour Party by propaganda and by building a rival organisation; b) to try to capture the Labour Party for socialist policies; c) to try to develop a Marxist trend within the Labour Party, thus trying to build organic links with the working class through the party.
No significant success has been notched up for any of these policies nor the numerous mutations and combinations of them: the Labour Party still stands as an obstacle. However, circumstances are changing:
The Labour Party, with its unique structure, is a product of British imperialism and its former dominant world position. The reforms that Labour has directly implemented or obtained from other governments were possible because of the strength of British imperialism.
The whole myth of British "freedom" and democracy, so important in Labour's ideology, has been built up by a policy made possible by the social stability of British imperialism's homeland. Now Britain has lost this position. Since the Second World War, the third industrial revolution, the post-war reconstruction boom and Keynesian economics 3 made some reforms possible. But now a very different economic situation dominates and the Achilles' heel of Keynesianism, inflation, is frightening the bourgeoisie as much as the fear of the consequences of high unemployment.
In essence, the economic basis of Labourism is steadily declining. However, history shows that we would be wrong to think that there will be an automatic end of the dominance of reformist thinking in the working class movement. Only revolutionary organisations can ensure that this more favourable situation is used to break the grip of Labourism on the organised working class.
Other changes are taking place too: social strata have emerged which are not under the domination of the Labour Party, e.g. the black population (overwhelmingly working-class), the youth vanguard and sections of militant white-collar workers. These may be soon joined by another in the not-too-distant future: the militant sections of the Irish population (also mainly working class). Whilst at present these sections are not organised, they have given a mass base for an extra-parliamentary struggle in Britain, and the potential is even greater.
Three Approaches
It is in the light of these changed circumstances that we have to look at the three approaches to dealing with the problem of the Labour Party. It is only necessary to say a few words in a journal like Red Mole about the theory that one should try to capture the Labour Party for socialist policies. Historically, the reverse has happened: those who have held this theory have been captured by the Labour Party for bourgeois policies - we see the representatives of this trend in various places in the House of Commons.
Traditional "entry" was accompanied by the use of the slogan "Labour to Power" and was premised upon the assumption that once Labour got elected, a mass left wing would gradually develop because of the contradiction between the working-class aspirations and the right-wing policies of the Labour Government. This mass left wing, which would have taken over some of Labour's organic links with the organised working class would provide the basis for a formation which would break the monopoly of the Labour Party on the working class (it must be said that the Marxists holding this view were usually quite vague about exactly how this was to happen).
The experience of nearly six years of Wilson's Labour Government has been very different. Far from a mass left wing developing, the left in the Labour Party has virtually disappeared. Part of the former Bevanite left having gone over directly to Wilson (Barbara Castle et al.), another section has postured as being in opposition but in practice has evolved to the right at the same speed as Wilson (taking care to be exactly one pace to his left to maintain its "left" reputation). Other sections have become completely disoriented. As the election draws near, most of these elements, anxious not to lose the spoils of office, have thrown away any pretence to be serious critics of Wilson.
Attempts to build an alternative to the Labour Party by waging propaganda war upon it have been no more successful: the SPGB, "third-period" Stalinism and the SLL are dreadful warnings. Indeed, the latter organisation seems to have gone into reverse gear at its well-known speed. We don't hear much now about those Young Socialists parliamentary candidates since the debacle of Swindon; instead the columns of the Workers Press are concentrating upon the danger of a Tory "counter-revolution," whatever that might mean in Marxist terms.
Revolutionary Youth Movement
The Fourth International has discussed this problem on a European scale and come to the conclusion that to break the grip of mass social democrat and Stalinist parties upon the working class, it is vital that the revolutionary forces are strong and capable of initiating revolutionary activities. The building of revolutionary youth organisations can be a very effective way of doing this.
Hence the problem of breaking the grip of the Labour Party upon the organised working class can be seen in a different way: externally, pressure should be put on by the building of a large revolutionary youth organisation and extra-parliamentary mass action; and internally, a Marxist trend should be built within the structures of the trade unions. (Should political life return to the Labour Party, it will be necessary to intervene). As Robin Blackburn noted, since 1964 there has been a huge development of non-parliamentary forms of struggle. The seventies are likely to be stormy years. The opportunities of building a revolutionary youth movement and a Marxist current in the trade union movement will be many and good. It is from this point of view that revolutionaries should judge the outcome of the coming General Election and their intervention.
3. There will be no essential class difference between a Labour Government and Tory Government. The significance of the election result will lie in the way it effects the ability of Marxists to build a revolutionary trend in the working class movement.
A lot of nonsense is now being talked about the danger of the return of a Tory Government. This is based largely upon the reformist and idealist concept that political policies are decided by the will of politicians. Whichever party gets returned to power will face the same problems, and in the absence of a socialist option, which no one takes seriously, will be compelled to attack the working class. In fact, the policies of the next Government will be determined by the vector of two pressures:
a) the economic situation arising from the relative backwardness of British industry, growing competition between capitalist nation-states because of decline of the post-war boom, and the failure, so far, to completely integrate the trade unions in Britain into neo-capitalist planning.
b) the fact that the British trade union movement is strong and undefeated and that its members will not readily allow its leadership to barter away their rights and conditions. The Tories are shrewd politicians and will only go as far as they think advisable. The difference between a Labour and Tory victory will lie in the fact that success for the latter will be, to a certain extent, a vote for anti-trade union legislation. However, Labour, too, is pledged to trade union reform. Only those who think that the Government of the day loyally carries out its election pledges will think that matters go much farther than that. Much more important in deciding the tactics of the next government will be its judgment of how likely trade unionists are to fight back. The key problem facing trade unionists is not the party label of the next government, but the working out of a strategy to fight back and take the offensive.
The Significance of a Labour Defeat
This is the main thing. However, I must take issue with Robin Blackburn's view that defeat for Labour would not be a defeat for the working class, not even a marginal one. I do so on two grounds:
a) in the absence of a socialist alternative, defeat for Labour (which equals less workers voting Labour and/or more voting Tory) would represent a certain depoliticalisation of the working class; b) that again in the absence of a socialist alternative, defeat for Labour would present the possibility for the rebirth of illusions in Labour.
Just now, the main significance of a vote for Labour by most workers is that it is a vote against the Tories, held by them to be the direct representatives of the bosses. Another victory for Labour gives much better opportunity to demonstrate that Labour leaders, too, are direct agents of the ruling class.
The emergence of a young vanguard movement has been an extremely positive development. One of the reasons it developed was because of the existence of the Labour Government carrying out very right-wing policies. It has no illusions to shed because it never had any. Should, however, Labour lose the election, and especially if the Foots and the Heffers take over the leadership of the Labour Party, there will be a regeneration of illusions in "left" social democracy even amongst the young.
To conclude this: I am in favour of the victory of the Labour Party in the election not because it will pursue any better policies or is less likely to attack the working class, but because Labour in power is the most favourable situation for the destruction of social democracy. I reject the view that this will be an automatic process but must emphasise that the danger of a renewal of illusion in "left" social democracy is a grave danger. It is from this point of view one has to judge what revolutionaries should do during the election campaign.
4. The importance of the General Election campaign is not that workers vote but in the fact that political awareness and interest increase, especially among young people. Revolutionaries cannot decisively influence the course of the election, but they can use the heightened interest to spread and develop revolutionary ideas.
For reasons given above, I am in favour of the victory of Labour in the coming election campaign. However, it would be the height of foolishness to draw from this the conclusion that revolutionaries' main activity should be that of calling upon people to vote Labour. In the first place, it is totally unrealistic to think that small revolutionary groups can influence the outcome of the election. Secondly, to make our main thrust the slogan "Vote Labour" would be to put ourselves on the left-wing of those forces mystifying the whole electoral process. This would, in effect, be adding our weight to those processes which enable the Labour Party to divert working class aspirations. It would also hinder our endeavours to spread revolutionary ideas and our efforts to warn the working class that its main concern should be to prepare for an attack from whatever government emerges.
To concentrate upon the slogan "Keep the Tories Out" would be merely another way of saying "Vote Labour," under present circumstances.
However, it is imperative, from a Marxist point of view, to explain very clearly to the politically aware why it would be best for Labour to win. This is an educational process, not an election-deciding exercise.
To those who quote Lenin's Left Wing Communism or Trotsky's advice to the ILP in the '30s, I would answer, be concrete in your approach. Lenin was advising a tendency which had the support of thousands of organised workers; he also advised the British Communists to propose an election-pact with the Labour Party -- should revolutionaries follow this bit of advice as well? Trotsky addressed himself to the ILP when it was a party claiming to be revolutionary socialist with thousands of members and considerable resources. He also advised it to immediately abandon its united front with the Communist Party and propose one to the Labour Party instead -- again I pose the question: should we follow that as well? To pose these questions is to demonstrate how completely different the objective situation is now from when those pieces of advice were given.
Raising the Real Issue
The most positive thing revolutionaries can do is to inject into the election discussions at all levels fundamental issues. In particular, every candidate should be put on the spot as to their attitude towards the most important struggle taking place in the world today -- the Indo-Chinese war. At every important election rally it is vital that the issue of this war is made a central focus of discussion. Those principally responsible for Britain's disgusting support for the vicious American war of aggression should be the target of demonstrations.
Trade unionists should demonstrate against any attacks on the trade unions from whatever party. To cease to criticise Wilson during the election campaign on this matter would be the height of folly. Labour leaders -- even Ramsay MacDonald -- have always used the argument of the lesser of two evils to persuade workers to accept their right-wing policies. The capitalist class undoubtedly hope that trade unionists will accept anti-trade union legislation from Labour because "it would not be so bad as the Tory brand of medicine."
The Irish should campaign against the support of both the major parties for the semi-police state of Northern Ireland. Irish militants would be justified in putting up candidates to express their opposition. They, too, should ensure that Labour and Tories cannot readily forget their support for repression and the neo-colonialist domination of Ireland.
The women's liberation movement should put all candidates to the test on where they stand on such questions as free abortion. The supporters of this movement should make life hectic for revolting Tory MPs who have waged the campaign against the timid reforms that Labour has introduced. They should demand that all candidates stand against this vile backward-looking election gimmick.
Everywhere black workers should expose the racialist policies of both parties and demand candidates repudiate them. Whilst Powell will undoubtedly be the target of many actions, no one should forget that it was Wilson, not Powell, who pushed racialist legislation through Parliament.
Revolutionaries should support all these protest actions. They should take the lead in calling for protest demonstrations and forming ad hoc committees to inject into the election discussions - at all levels - real issues. Propaganda material, discussion meetings, etc. should be organised.
Paradoxically, a campaign of this kind will do more to ensure the return of Labour than pathetic attempts to influence the course of events by chanting "Vote Labour." Our role should be to raise the level of consciousness, to prepare people for the coming struggles and to fight any illusion that the election result will solve any problems.
Certain critics of the IMG have called this abstentionism. Ignorant of the precise meaning of the term, they think that the only way one can intervene is to shout "Vote Labour." In so doing, they show that they, too, have parliamentary and reformist illusions. The SLL has accused the IMG of advocating the theory of "social fascism" -- coming from them, that's rich. One could scarcely find a more "third period"4 organisation. This is no accident: the SLL is a linear descendant of a tendency which originated in the Communist Party whilst third-period Stalinist ideology was rampant. This group, the Workers International League, was denounced by the founding conference of the Fourth International for its sectarianism and factionalism.
My last criticism of Robin Blackburn is that he seems to think that we can ignore the Labour Party, or merely propagandise against it. History has many salutary lessons in this respect. The Labour Party has been "buried" many times and yet still exists as an obstacle to the building of a revolutionary party. It won't bleed to death -- an executioner is needed. Only the working class, under revolutionary leadership, can destroy the Frankenstein's monster it created. This article is a contribution to the discussion the left is having as to just how we set about doing that.
Notes
1. So far as I know this phenomenon has not been studied in depth. A good indication of the trend is the successive decline of Communist Party General Election votes in Fife, Stepney and Rhondda. In each of these areas the CP vote is now down to that of an average constituency: one or two thousand. Yet in 1945 it won two seats and nearly won a third in these areas.
2. Clause Four: included in the Labour Party Constitution of February 1918. It formally commits the Labour Party "to secure for the workers 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 [amended in 1929 to: 'the means of production, distribution and exchange'] and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry and service."
3. Keynesian economics: system of economy propounded by John Maynard Keynes, the essence of which consisted in a theory that in times of depression, money could be pumped into the economy to raise the level of economic activity and that this could be done by Government intervention.
4. Third Period: period when the Comintern cut itself off from any work with other left or social democratic forces, even to combat fascism, and went even to the length of setting up "red" trade unions -- all this under the impact of Stalin's analysis that revolution was round the corner. The result of third-period Stalinism was the rise to power of fascism in Germany without the CP combatting it through a united front with social democracy.