19.10.1995

Flame of anger and flame of hope

Tony Benn spoke to the Weekly Worker about the implications of ‘new’ Labour and the state of working class politics today

THE DECISION to reject Liz Davies as the candidate for Leeds North East and the decision to admit Alan Howarth, the Conservative representative for Stratford on Avon, are a strong indication of the direction in which the Labour Party is now being taken.

It clearly indicates that we are moving towards some sort of centre party arrangement. This will make it much harder for those in the party who believe as I do that socialism needs to be represented in the House of Commons.

The British Labour Party was never a socialist party, although it had socialists in it. The current leadership of the party is an interesting phenomenon, however. The party certainly has had rightwing leaders in the past. This time, it’s a bit different.

The British establishment believes that Major is not strong enough to make the cuts in the welfare state that they need. They believe that New Labour will. They are giving full endorsement to Labour for that reason - they think it will be strong enough to attack these gains of working people.

The Labour Party rank and file and the trade unions are so desperate to win that they are giving the leadership support. I don’t say wholehearted, uncritical support, but just a desperation to get rid of the Tories.

It is a very strange coalition of the British establishment: New Labour and the majority of the labour movement for the purpose of getting rid of the present government and for equipping the ruling class with a government strong enough to impose some savage cuts on the welfare state. It’s very unusual.

All you can say is that if Labour win - and I think it will - it will be the first ‘victory’ for the labour movement since 1979. Morale will rise. Then the whole situation will come to a head.

Of course, the CPGB used to play a very important role, particularly in the unions. In its time, it had a considerable influence on the Labour Party. The communists really should have affiliated to Labour - initially they didn’t want to and later they were not allowed to, of course.

Despite this ‘arms length’ relationship to Labour, the CP really was the university of socialism within the British labour movement. When it was destroyed, a great gap was left. Militant and the SWP unsuccessfully tried to fill that gap.

The fragmentation of the left is one of its greatest problems. It is a tragedy really. The 20th century was a sort of trial run for socialism. Communism in the USSR failed because it was not democratic, but at the same time social democracy capitulated totally to capitalism.

Both wings of the workers’ movement failed this century therefore. Yet, as we move towards the next century, all the same problems of capitalism confront us still.

There is obviously a problem of the political alternative for the working class movement. In that sense genuine socialist democracy was not tried, failed and was rejected. The people of Europe were denied any serious alternative to the various managements of capitalism on offer.

I read all the left papers. I read the Weekly Worker, Socialist Worker, Militant and so on. They are all very interesting. But the trouble is that they are essentially schools of thought in a very broad socialist family. They shouldn’t spend too much time denouncing each other. Sectarianism on the left is a real danger.

After all, we are all part of a very long tradition. The word ‘socialism’ may be a relatively new one, but the ideas go way back and it is important to draw from that heritage. In every country, in every century there have been two flames burning. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that we can achieve something better. We cannot narrow our vision simply to Marx and Marxism. Marx illuminated the landscape with a brilliant, pyrotechnic intellectual display. This allowed us to see further than we had before.

But there have been many others. There has been a long battle for democracy, for the right to worship freely, for free speech, the right to publish and organise.

That is our common background and we have to build on it. As for the revolution in 1917, there is obviously an ongoing debate as to whether it was socialist or not. But it was certainly the world’s first anti-capitalist superpower. It fought off a war intervention supported by Britain and others. Twenty years later, it tore the guts out of the Nazi war machine and saved Britain - although I think there were many in the western establishment who would have preferred to fight a war with Hitler against the USSR.

So it was a powerful bastion in its way, but one with many problems.

When I visited the USSR, I used to point out a strange strength of capitalist democracy. You could discuss various forms of capitalism and vote for the one you wanted. What you couldn’t do is discuss capitalism itself. I told them they could do exactly the same with socialism, with free elections and so on. They probably could have pulled it off.

Without the Russian revolution we would not have survived against the Nazis, and also the great anti-colonial movement post-WWII would never have succeeded. But nevertheless, I think the collapse of the USSR will - in its own way - help to liberate socialism.

There is going to be a renaissance. The point is how can ‘holier than thou’ socialist groups fit into that great movement of renewal? That depends on their assessments, their willingness to play a positive role. It won’t come from them anyway. It will not be that suddenly one group gets a dominant position in the movement. It will come from a mass of different directions - a desire for radical change will emerge from below.

As a response to such an upsurge, fascism can rear its head of course. This is an option when capitalism has obviously failed and socialists have failed to provide an alternative. But I’m optimistic.

I think that despite the best efforts of the Labour leadership, there will be many, many expectations of the next Labour government. But rather than protest being curtailed by the threat of the return of the Tories - I think they will be divided and out of office for a long time - I think a different danger exists. Trouble with a capital ‘T’ could prompt the establishment to call for a National Government. A re-run of 1931.

You could get some re-formation of the political structure. Redwood and these 89 Tories who supported him from the right are a new, more coherent force. Major actually created them as such by standing for the leadership election. Then there is the centre group of all three front benches, all of whom agree about almost everything. And there is the trade union left group and many other single issue groups with progressive ideas.

Possibly Europe - or some issue associated with it - will refashion the British political party system. This would bring it into line with the real division and alignments that exist - the right, centre, the left.

It is a possibility since a National Government in a sense already exists. Where is the difference between the party leaders on any substantive matter? This is what is giving politics its very unattractive appearance at the moment. There is personal abuse, but there is no real argument over issues.

For socialists the important thing is not whether you are inside or outside the Labour Party. Everyone should now work wherever they happen to be.

Socialists should give people confidence in themselves, wherever they are working. That is the key.