First Published: Marxist-Leninist Quarterly Nos. 8 & 9, Autumn/Winter 1974-5.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Sam Richards and Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
Social democracy undoubtedly plays a central role in British politics today. The Labour Party, the main representative of this tradition, has recently demonstrated the degree to which it retains the support of many sections of the working class, and the current policies of the government clearly demonstrate the way in which reformist phraseology is used in the attempt to succeed where the Tories failed with the means of open confrontation. The Wilson government hopes to succeed with a policy of ’voluntary restraint’ and the social contract in resolving the present crisis in the only way open to reformism. In other areas of political life things are pretty much as they were under the Tories; the usual concealment of state repression has been seen over the Lennon case, over the death of Kevin Gately etc. Foreign policy, as is normal under Labour Governments, remains a continuation of Tory policy. Whilst this is, not new, and certainly no surprise for Communists, it is undoubtedly the case that the reaction to the present government is much more combative; a number of unions have challenged the validity of the social contract, and uneasy tensions are already apparent between the ’left’ and ’right’ wings of the Labour Party. The recent budget, with its inflationary implications and overt pro-capitalist nature, has only added to this unease.
This situation undoubtedly provides excellent opportunities for Marxist Leninists, but it also reveals a number of dangers. The article by DJ in MLQ no.7[1] presented a clear exposition of one tactical line on how to expose social democracy. In the article DJ provided an excellent warning to those revolutionaries who argue that the reactionary nature of the Labour Party is now clear for all to see. As he reminded us, it is essential to bear in mind the contradictory nature of the LP; it is one thing to be self-satisfied in the knowledge of the betrayals the LP and quite another to ensure that this recognition becomes an overt aspect of the consciousness of the working class, and that out of this experience comes a recognition of the need to construct a genuine Communist Party. In this rejoinder, I want to draw attention to a number of points which I believe are incorrect, and which lead DJ into an erroneous position. In making these points however, it should be clear from the outset that there is no strategic difference over the need to expose social democracy, but that disagreements are tactical i.e. concerning the means by which we are to carry out this exposure.
First – our points of agreement. It is essential to outline, as DJ did, the contradictory nature of the Labour Party. This is shown ego by the demands raised at the last party conference, which although firmly rooted in SD ideology, reflect the struggles and concerns of advanced sections of the working class.
An equally important point is made by DJ when he draws attention to the pervasiveness of social democratic ideology. Reformist illusions are not limited to the leadership of the Labour Party, who then go on to play a Machiavellian role of continuous “betrayal” of the “socialist” rank and file. They are in fact much more deeply rooted in the consciousness of millions of workers, as the content of the demands at the last conference again illustrate. There is not then, a membership of militant socialists attempting to take up socialist policies, yet held back by a social democratic leadership.
This point should be stressed, against those who place every shortcoming in the class struggle in Britain at the feet of the labour leadership, as well as against those who argue that abstentionism at election times demonstrates a progressive trend within the working class. The idea that “both parties are the same” can often provide the basis for a leftist view that social democratic ideology and politics are already sufficiently exposed, and that the agitation of ML’s should be on the basis of slogans calling for an ambiguous and undefined form of “socialist struggle”. In fact DJ is right to argue that the sectors who are fighting, however misguidedly, for reformist policies are, by and large, trade unionists who are in the vanguard of the economic class struggle and who have yet to be won to ML positions. It is also clear that they still retain, albeit unhappily, close relations with the Labour Party.
What are the terms of their support for the Labour Party, and why is this given, in the face of the experience of seven Labour governments? First and foremost there is the belief in the possibility of a “fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families”.[2] Associated beliefs are the strong opposition to poverty, demands towards “workers control”, demands for the right to work and democratic rights, for a real and comprehensive programme for housing, education, and social policy generally.[3] In short – a strong belief, and preparedness to struggle for the defence of workers living standards, and democratic rights, at a time when these are increasingly under attack from the Right. This belief is articulated with the view that these rights are best defended in and through parliament. All this is sound proof of the distinctive nature of the Labour Party. It is in advocating tactics for building on this basis, and constructing an alliance with sections of the working class in order to break from these illusions that DJ begins to advocate an erroneous position.
According to DJ the contradictions of social democracy on which we should concentrate our attacks is that its intentions, whilst honourable, are incapable of being achieved without a strong extra-parliamentary campaign in their support. I will quote the relevant passage of his article at length, because it reveals the major weakness of his analysis:
The decision of the 1973 Labour Party Conference and the 1974 Election Manifesto were probably the most progressive policies adopted by the Labour Party since 1945 and if they were to be honoured would undoubtedly be met by bitter opposition from the entrenched big business and financial interests in Britain and abroad. However, the reality of the situation is that the Labour Party leaders were negotiating with the International Monetary Fund for a massive loan to overcome “Britain’s crisis” almost before they took office in February 1974. The terms for such ’assistance’ can only mean an intensification of the attacks upon the living standards and organisations of the working class. For the Labour Party to enact even a moderate reformist programme of some benefit to the working class during a period of intense problems for monopoly capitalism – massive balance of payments deficit, raging inflation, lack of investment in basic industries etc. would require the support and involvement of the working class outside of the apparatus of State Government developed in Britain over the centuries. This, of course, would be a complete departure from the whole philosophy and actions of the L.P. since its formation, because for all its twists and turns on policy matters central to its whole existence has been a complete adherence to the Parliamentary system of Government. In other words, the dependence on the approval of the Monopoly Capitalist State machine for any measures on which it legislates. My emphasis[4]
How accurate is it to characterise labour policies as “progressive” (albeit in inverted commas) and as opposed to “the interests of big business and financial interests”? These judgements ignore any consideration of the full effects of the 1945 programme, and also that of 1974. In particular the relationship of these measures and their centrality for British capitalism is ignored. Examining first the 1945-51 administration railways, the mines, gas ,electricity, road transport, sugar, and steel where, all taken into “public ownership”. Of these the first two were already unprofitable – a consequence of the vast amount of investment in capital needed in these industries and handsome compensation was paid to the former owners. Gas and electricity were already partly nationalised (by a Tory Government) as a recognition that the type of operation demanded a national and standardised distribution network, in addition to a level of planning and, finance, beyond the means of individual private capitalism. The last three sectors of production provided the real source of political division over nationalisation as a principle but even in the case of steel it is now generally recognised that BSC represents a central strategic industry for British production generally and that further development of the economy demands a guarantee of the output of this particular section of the economy. In the present situation some form of state capital is essential to British capital.
In fact the real issue which has divided Labour and Tory has not been the question of state intervention, as such, but the question of the form which this takes. In this debate the latter party have been supported by both big and small capitalists who have defended the setting up of formalised corporate planning and intervention in industry including representatives from government, the employers and the unions (rather along the lines of the NEDC) as opposed to the centralised and highly bureaucratic parliamentary control favoured by Labour. In fact the reservations of the opposition have to a large degree been accepted by Labour to the extent that many sectors of the public sector now run on the lines of the relatively autonomous “public corporation” (e.g. the post office). Neither party is in fact in favour of real control and appropriation of the product by the workers themselves.[5]
Furthermore, it is essential to examine the role played by nationalised industries within a predominantly capitalist economy. In this context it is necessary to admit that these industries provide a convenient mechanism for the subsidisation of production through the provision of cheap raw materials, energy etc. But a dangerous side effect of the development of nationalisation in Britain is that, through generations of social democratic propaganda, workers are led into the position of mistakenly identifying nationalisation with socialism. Perhaps DJ should explain what is “progressive” about this in principle.
As far as the development of the Welfare State is concerned we have to be clear about both the history and the principle involved. Again both parties have a history of welfare legislation: the striking thing is that the basic platform of the welfare state was sketched out by the Tory dominated post-war reconstruction committee, which planned the system of social insurance and the health service in addition to placing the 1944 Education Act on the statute books. Again, during the enactment of subsequent measures by the Labour Government during the years 1945-51 there was no opposition in principle to the welfare state. Why is this? In addition to providing facilities for health and education which are of obvious benefit to the working class, the measures passed were fully in accord with the requirements of the capitalist for a healthy work force, and an educated one, and over and above this, were the minimum reforms which any party would have granted during this period, given the radicalism of the post-war mood[6]. It is in later periods, when capitalism has found itself in crisis, that these benefits have come under attack, by both parties.
In fact it was a Labour Government which launched the first erosion of welfare rights in 1951; this has been followed by the stringent cuts in 1966 and the bilateral policy of reduction of government spending throughout the seventies. At the same time as D.J. realises that the aim of redistribution of wealth is not a revolutionary platform he fails to get to grips with social-democratic ideology as such. This has been the basis of Labour Party programmes from the inception of the party, the fact that parliament is seen as the arena where the interests of all classes should be represented has important results.
Political class struggle is confined to this area, on the basis of the view that class co-operation for the benefit of all can be reached. Thus the economic class struggle is also regarded as occupying its defined place within society, as the mechanism by which workers can achieve their fair share of the social product. It was to allow the working class to achieve political and civil equality with the other classes that the Labour Representation Committee was first formed. There is no doubt that this view still permeates social democratic ideology today; the distinction between ’left and ’right’ versions of this ideology is the disagreement about whether or not equality has been achieved. Both agree however that redistribution can be achieved without attacking the fundamental production relations, In fact this assumption is totally false, and it is our duty to demonstrate that this is so.
Firstly does welfare redistribute wealth? The figures show that in fact the distribution of wealth has hardly changed at all in the last century[7], This is primarily because the system of production remains one of the extraction of surplus value from workers. Also it is quite easy to show that welfare benefits are paid for by workers through taxation, not only through stoppages, but more importantly through indirect taxation e.g. V.A.T. What redistribution does occur is from the higher paid to the lower paid workers i.e., within the working class itself. There is no significant redistribution from one class to another[8]. Again we have to repeat our question – What is progressive about all this?
As I outlined above, I am in agreement with the view that our analysis of the Labour party should not detract from a consideration of the distinctive relation between the Labour Party and its support base. The point is that while taking this into account tactically, the aspect of our propaganda which should be dominant is that which stresses the bourgeois nature of the Labour Party. Thus rather than arguing that extra parliamentary support is needed to force the party to carry out its illusory programmes, we have to argue that the Labour Party is not in contradiction with the bourgeois state apparatus, but that is precisely a central part of it.
For DJ the weakness of the Labour Party is that “...for all its twists and turns on policy matters, central to its whole existence has been a complete adherence to the Parliamentary system of government”. But this tends to project a misleading picture of the party’s policy as a form of misguided socialism rather than an alternative bourgeois strategy of containment of working class demands. It is also made in such a manner that the “good intentions” of the Labour Party are seen as in conflict with the state, which acts as a blocking mechanism.
Let us examine this in more detail. In Kautsky’s words “the capitalist class rules, but does not govern”. This means that, under the form of the state that we know as bourgeois democratic it is not necessary for the direct representatives of the bourgeoisie to hold positions of power in the governing apparatus. (Although at times especially under Tory governments finance capitalists, merchant bankers, industrialists etc may actually hold important office, this is not really the point.) The central point is the way in which the state and parliament etc work. A familiar argument, especially on the Labour Party ’left’ has been that bands of civil servants actively conspire to frustrate ’socialist’ policies. Actual examples of frustrated labour ministers are hard to come by however.
The basis of the process is rather that Labour party ideology is not socialist at all, but rather represents a bourgeois deformation of socialism, both at the level of the leadership and at the level of the rank and file. This can be related to the wider nature of ’spontaneous’ bourgeois politics, analysed by Lenin – the tendency to defend established positions, and therefore to defend the position of the working class as a working class, without recognising the need to transform class relations entirely.
The Labour Party programme then incorporates two aspects – the defence of workers living standards in a period of crisis, and the simultaneous attempt to secure the prerequisites of capitalist production, by channelling funds into capitalist industries through the NBD, Investment Banks, the relaxation of taxation on profits in the recent budget etc. It is because capitalist production has such a privileged position within Labour ideology that policies are enacted in this way, and that socialist measures are ruled out – not because of the blocking mechanism of the Monopoly Capitalist State. It is because of its working class support that Labour can provide an alternative government for capitalism in certain situations i.e. where reformism is more appropriate than repression.
DJ’s mislocation of the real contradiction within the Labour Party leads him on to advocate an erroneous tactical scenario for exposing the bourgeois nature of social democracy. The tactics advocated are for a series of demands for the fulfilment of measures which we know are impossible to achieve, (redistribution of wealth) or are counterproductive (nationalisation). As I have shown the measures are implicitly assumed to be progressive and, more seriously, the process of disillusionment, which would accompany the realisation that demands are impossible, is never taken seriously.
On the desirability of the demands – it should be clear from the above that welfare rights, and nationalisation are double-edged weapons. They can both provide certain basic services and act as diversions of class struggle. This is not to say that we should actively oppose such measures (thereby supporting some outdated form of laissez-faire capitalism) but that we should point out that nationalisation etc., makes no difference to the fact of exploitation. Private capital or state capital – what is the real difference? In specific cases this allows us to support nationalisation e.g., in the pursuit of defence of employment and the right to work, but this is really the only basis on which the demands can be supported. Without analysing more deeply the mechanics of e.g., North Sea Oil and the possibility that state capital may be needed for its development we cannot assume that this particular plank of Labour Policy will be against the interests of capital.[9]
The same reservations should be made in the case of food subsidies etc. Again we should campaign on the basis of a clear working class line, and not one which identifies working class interest with the Labour Government. To campaign for these demands, without an analysis of their effects and their meaning in the present stage of British capital leaves us in the situation where we are attempting to play off one variety of social democracy against the other.
It is, not as if, in a vague manner, DJ does not realise this. He says explicitly:
These policies are not presented here vehicles of achieving workers power, because indeed they are far removed from that, nor are they presented as issues around which we should campaign to make Social Democracy and Parliament work in the interest of the working class but as a basis from which we can show the inability of social democratic policies and methods to make any inroads into control of state monopoly capitalism.[10]
And yet we are to campaign for these measures!
The tactic of advancing unrealisable demands is a familiar one. Although DJ does not make the mistake of calling these demands socialist in content nevertheless his exposure tactics rest on the bas is of calling for their implementation. Is this because the real defence of workers living standards, a real redistribution of wealth presupposes a socialist revolution? If so DJ does not come cut clearly and say this. And if he means this then how is this to be distinguished from the Trotskyist tactic of transitional demands which basically consists of gaining support among the masses for demands whose implementation presuppose the taking of state power. It is thereby presupposed that the realisation of this task will come automatically as soon as support for the gains is gathered. Precisely the type of politics advocated by Trotsky in his attempt to find slogans which could translate one level of struggle into another. There is no guarantee however that this “consciousness raising” will automatically accompany the disillusionment with capitalist processes. If, as DJ reminds us it is necessary to guard against the error of leftism, it is also necessary to remind him that this can take several forms, one of which is the type of spontaneism that he himself falls into.
However DJ not only falls into the trap of advancing transitional demands but he argues also that the nationalisation of e.g. North Sea Oil will lead to a genuine gain for the working class, when he asks ̶Are these companies who in the first few months of 1974 made larger profits than ever before and whose budgets exceed those of many states going to stand idly by whilst their Midas Touch’ investments are taken out of their hands ?”[11]
Is he not arguing an identical case to that of the revisionists who still argue that nationalised industries provide the skeleton of socialist society, which is provided with a true content later, but which provides the framework for a socialist society within the confine of capitalism?
As I have argued DJ’s case is susceptible to these two interpretations both of which should be rejected. It is not our task to lead the working class into a disillusioning situation, neither is it our task to assist in applying the ’kiss of life’ to a moribund capitalism by attempting to encourage mass struggle to secure state capital for ailing Industries, in short DJ’s tactics have to be rejected for two reasons:
the content of the Labour Party programme illustrates a confusing idea of socialism which we should not encourage;
by campaigning for such demands we would be actively contributing to the reproduction of the very ideology we seek to destroy.
What then is the way forward? At the beginning of his article, I stressed that we have to recognise, as opposed to the abstentionist attitude, that the Labour Party still commands support amongst leading sections of the working class, some even regard it as a ’working class party’, and still see it as a vehicle for socialism. At the same time, many of those who are sceptical about the Labour Party nevertheless base their strategy and tactics on forms of social democratic ideology. Having clarified this point, we have to recognise that important tactical differences do exist between the Labour and Tory parties, differences which can be utilised in the course of the class struggle. These differences can be outlined in numerous ways:
* the material basis of social democratic ideology is distinctively rooted in working class conditions of struggle, primarily trade unionist, and linked with the ideology of those sections of the working class (labour aristocracy) which formed the basis of the early Labour Representation Committee.
* the history of the Labour party, especially the years 1966-1970 when successive measures against working class interests were taken but finally defeated by mass pressure against the Labour Party’s version of the Industrial relations Act a pressure far more easily exerted on a Labour Government than on a Tory one.
* the experience of the Labour Party in action between February and October of this year. The Industrial Relations Act was repealed, the Housing Finance Act was repealed, and union funds sequested by the Tories were returned.
* a referendum has been promised, again as a result of mass pressure within conference, on the Common Market. This would provide a hitherto unavailable arena of public debate in which we can involve ourselves -firstly in ensuring that the referendum does take place, and secondly in undertaking active propaganda work on the situation.
All the above listed points represent short terms gains, and at the same time represent material reasons why many sections of the working class still retain their support for the Labour Party; there is every reason for the working class to avail themselves of every short-term gain. This is the main reason why we should support voting Labour in the current situation, coupled with the added advantage of a Labour government in power as a prerequisite for thorough exposure. It is essential that, both during general elections, and throughout all areas of mass work we have to concentrate on trying to build up an alliance from below with those sections who still support the Labour party in order to enable us to translate our criticisms of social democracy into popular experience. This will not be done on the basis of demands which appear to support central planks of Labour policy, but only on the basis of those demands which place the interests of the working class to the fore and enable us to demonstrate concretely that the Labour party is a bourgeois party.
[1] “Expose the Revisionists of every Stripe and Hue”. MLQ No. 7. pp. 2-10
[2] Labour Party Manifesto. February 1974 Quoted by DJ p.2
[3] ibid.
[4] “Expose the Revisionists of every Stripe and Hue”. MLQ No. 7. P4
[5] This point is made more explicit in the article on Nationalisation in MLQ No.1 1972.
[6] For a useful analysis of this period in British politics see Miliband’s “Parliamentary Socialism”. Chapter 9.
[7] See Blackburn. R., “The Unequal Society” in Anderson and Blackburn (eds.),“The Incompatibles”.
[8] A thorough analysis of the Welfare State is still needed. It is clear however that it cannot be dismissed either as a capitalist bribery or as concessions wrung from the ruling class in times of acute class struggle, although it includes both aspects. The central point is that the Welfare State performs important functions for capitalism at the same time as it maintains the appearance of an equalising mechanism. Recent analyses have shown the way in which the system of taxation, together with the system of flat rate benefits only redistribute income within the working class. (see J. Kinkaid “Poverty and Equality in Britain”). A recent analysis by E. Wilson has also drawn attention to the Welfare State as an extension of state regulations and control of the working-class relying principally on the use of the of the family, (Red Rag Pamphlet No.2)
[9] An important point is raised here, i.e. the fact that the question of state intervention, especially when necessary for investment purposes, may cause disagreements within the ruling class, which are not necessarily indicative of a clash of class interests. The revisionist and trotskyist analysis of nationalisation often assumes that this disagreement over tactics represents a full blown capitalism versus socialism debate.
[10] Op. cit. p.4
[11] ibid.