WeeklyWorker

12.03.2020

Clause wars

James Marshall of Labour Party Marxists says RLB’s clause four owes more to Tony Blair than Sidney Webb. Either way, both amount to bullshit. What we need is a clause four that marks a real political shift.

In the final weeks of her floundering campaign Rebecca Long-Bailey has made a pivot to the left. She is proposing the adoption of a new clause four. The fingerprints of Jon Lansman - autocrat, witch hunter, master strategist and organiser of defeats - are all too visible.

Clause four, she writes, in her letter to Labour members, “is important for our party”. Quite right. In her own words, clause four is “a statement of our values, why we exist, and it tells voters what they can expect from us”. Yes, principles speak of the tradition, character, aims and methods of a political party.

Why the sudden alighting upon clause four? Why did she not raise the suggestion at the launch of her leadership bid? The answer is pretty obvious. With voting set to end on April 2, she looks set to lose, and lose badly.

However, true to form, her pivot to the left is calculated, feeble and trite. Long-Bailey is uncritical of both the 1918 clause four written by the arch-Fabian, Sidney Webb, and Tony Blair’s replacement, agreed in 1995. Dumbly, she tells us that “the original clause four promised common ownership and an equitable distribution in the economy”, while the Blairite version “described us as a democratic socialist party”. True enough. But the fact that the 1995 version abandoned the state capitalism previously espoused seems to entirely pass her by. Nor does the fact that Tony’s Blair’s “democratic socialist party” embraced neoliberal capitalism register.

No, the sole problem Long-Bailey identifies is time. A century has gone by since the original clause four. Twenty-five years since Blair’s revision. Hence we find Long-Bailey saying this: “Now it’s time to update clause four for the 21st century.”

Well, I suppose that would be the case if “common ownership and an equitable distribution in the economy” had already been achieved. To state the obvious, it has not. We live in the age of privatisation and unmatched inequality. The same goes for Labour being a “democratic socialist party”. Unfortunately, as shown by the ‘Anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism’ witch hunt, the party is hardly democratic. Nor, as shown by the 1995 clause four - the operative clause four - is Labour a socialist party.

The approach taken by Long-Bailey lacks any solid foundations. She wants to appeal to those in the party who despise Tony Blair’s attempt to de-Labourise the Labour Party. But she dares not say so. Instead she asks members to “let me know what you want to see in a new clause four”.

Not that she is completely lacking in ideas. It is just that her ideas are completely lacking. Her new clause four wish list certainly owes more to Tony Blair than Sidney Webb. Here is what she proposes in all its underwhelming glory:

I want to see a clause four that makes clear we are a democratic socialist party committed to justice and prosperity for all.

That we believe the welfare of the people is the highest law - and the duty of a Labour government is to improve living standards year on year.

To obtain the security and betterment of all our people, we seek the democratic and socialist transformation of society: the fundamental and irreversible shift in the distribution of wealth and power from the few to the many.

That’s why I think, to help us fulfil our historic mission, clause four should include commitments to:

  • a green economy and a sustainable planet that recognises socialism and environmentalism go hand in hand.
  • expanding democratic public ownership and universal provision of high-quality public services.
  • a prosperous economy with a more equal distribution of wealth, ownership and economic power.
  • an independent foreign policy based on peace, internationalism and human rights.
  • expanding democracy and devolving power, so people and communities have a real control over economic and political decisions.
  • equality, liberation and dignity for all.

Worthy mottos and fashionable buzzwords mix with empty phrasemongering. What is “socialism”? Are ever-improving living standards compatible with a sustainable planet? Don’t the Tories too say that they are committed to “justice and prosperity for all”? How does RLB square her commitment to equality with her self-proclaimed monarchism? How do you obtain the peace and human rights by pressing the nuclear button?

The giveaway, though, surely comes with this: “a more equal distribution of wealth, ownership and economic power”. The presumption must be that capitalism continues, along with wage labour. When it comes down to it, all Long-Bailey wants to change is the “distribution of wealth” between capital and labour. Yes, along with equality, justice and dignity, the time-honoured pledge of generations of social reformers, charity-mongers and vote-chasing politicians.

Anyway, as Long-Bailey has done us the favour of asking what we want to see in a new clause four, let us take up the opportunity to restate our views.

Sacrificial killing

Compared with the almost imperceptible changes achieved under Jeremy Corbyn, Tony Blair was a rightwing ‘revolutionary’. Fully backed by the Murdoch press, Blair “redefined the Labour Party as New Labour”.1 Riding high in artificially driven opinion polls, he presided over a sweeping series of internal ‘reforms’. Conference was gutted. No longer could it debate issues, vote on policy or embarrass the leadership in front of the media. Instead, the whole thing became a rubber-stamping exercise. Then there were the tightly controlled policy forums, focus groups and the staffing of the party machine with eager young careerists (most on temporary contracts). Blair thereby also asserted himself over the national executive committee, considerably reducing its effectiveness.

And then there was the old clause four. By sacrificing it in the full glare of publicity, Blair, and his New Labour clique, reassured the neoliberal establishment, the City, the Confederation of British Industry, the global plutocracy, the US hegemon, etc. Capitalism would be absolutely safe in their hands. A New Labour government could be relied upon to not even pay lip service to a British version of state capitalism. Leftwingers such as Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Diane Abbott and Ken Livingstone protested; trade union leaders grumbled. But the April 1995 special conference voted by 65% to adopt Blair’s clause four.

And, whereas Jeremy Corbyn made do with his plodding Straight Leftist advisors, Tony Blair had Alastair Campbell, Jonathan Powell and the high priest of spin, Peter Mandelson. His journey from opposition leader to a prime minister - with a record parliamentary majority - took just three years. New Labour promised a New Britain. Blair told the 1994 Labour conference that his proposed constitutional reforms would be the “biggest programme of change to democracy ever proposed”.2 It was not mere hyperbole. Much of it happened: Good Friday Agreement, Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly, reform of House of Lords, Freedom of Information Act, city mayors, etc.

What of Corbyn? His professed republicanism was quickly exposed as merely platonic. Ditto his opposition to Nato, Trident renewal and the standing army. Nor did Corbyn fare much better in terms of Labour Party internal reforms. Whereas many CLPs were set on restoring the old 1918 clause four, following backroom negotiations he got the 2019 Brighton conference to agree to a “working group” to consider the question - an attempt to appease the right-dominated Parliamentary Labour Party.

Strangely, the moving spirit behind the campaign to restore the old clause four was Socialist Appeal, the British section of the International Marxist Tendency - otherwise known, at least in our circles, as the International Fabian Tendency.

Here we find the minority faction of the old Militant organisation, which refused to go along with Peter Taaffe’s ‘open turn’. Socialist Appeal remained committed to deep Labour Party entry (apart from its brief infatuation with left nationalism and a busted-flush Scottish Socialist Party). Anyhow, in the spirit of the great chameleon, Ted Grant, Socialist Appeal’s long time cadre, Rob Sewell, wrote of the need to “restore Labour’s commitment to socialism”.3 As might be expected, Kier Hardie in 1901, and even Clement Attlee in 1937, are given his seal of approval.

The Labour4Clause4 campaign garnered support from the likes of Ken Loach, the leftwing film director, and MPs Karen Lee, Dennis Skinner, Ian Mearns, Chris Williamson, Dan Carden and Ronnie Campbell. Alongside them there are like-minded trade union officials, such as Steve Gillan of the POA, Ian Hodson and Ronnie Draper of the bakers’ union, and Mick Cash and Steve Hedley of RMT.

Fabian

But let us discuss the political significance and class nature of the original clause four.

Our February 1918 conference agreed the new constitution. Clause four (objects) committed the Labour Party to these aims (subsequently amended in 1959):

1. To organise and maintain in parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.

2. To cooperate with the general council of the Trades Union Congress, or other kindred organisations, in joint political or other action in harmony with the party constitution and standing orders.

3. To give effect as far as possible to the principles from time to time approved by the party conference.

4. 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, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

5. Generally to promote the political, social and economic emancipation of the people, and more particularly of those who depend directly upon their own exertions by hand or by brain for the means of life.

6. To cooperate with the labour and socialist organisations in the commonwealth overseas, with a view to promoting the purposes of the party, and to take common action for the promotion of a higher standard of social and economic life for the working population of the respective countries.

7. To cooperate with the labour and socialist organisations in other countries and to support the United Nations and its various agencies and other international organisations for the promotion of peace, the adjustment and settlement of international disputes by conciliation or judicial arbitration, the establishment and defence of human rights, and the improvement of the social and economic standards and conditions of work of the people of the world.

These formulations - crucially the fourth - are too often celebrated as being a defining socialist moment. Yet, when first mooted in November 1917 - amidst the slaughter of inter-imperialist war - Sidney Webb, its principle author, Fabian guru and dogged social climber, had no thought, no wish, no intention of promoting genuine socialism. Parliament, the courts, enlightened civil servants and the liberal intelligentsia provided his road to a streamlined British empire. Webb wanted an imperial government of high-minded experts, whose decisions would be no more than ratified in elections: even referendums were ruled out, as impeding the will of the educated elite.

Top leaders of the Fabian Society - eg, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Edward R Pease, Annie Besant, Sydney Olivier, HG Wells and George Bernard Shaw - considered themselves social engineers of the highest order, intellectual superstars, heralds of a glittering technocratic future. The role of these ever-so-clever people was to carefully, slowly, patiently, courteously persuade the great and the good of the benefits of ‘socialism’ … hence their organisation’s chosen name (taken from Quintus Fabius, the Roman general who avoided pitched battles with Hannibal’s superior Carthaginian army and instead pursued a strategy of attrition).

No surprise, Marxists have long considered Fabianism to be the crassest expression of opportunism. Friedrich Engels heaped particular scorn on this “well-meaning gang of eddicated middle class folk”.4 True, he credited them with enough wit to realise the “inevitability of the social revolution”. But the Fabians could not possibly entrust this “gigantic task to the raw proletariat alone”. Engels concluded that “Fear of revolution is their guiding principle.”5

The real class war was denounced by the Fabian ladies and gentlemen. The underlying contradiction in society, according to them, was not between labour and capital, but the idle rich and the industrious masses ... of all classes. Managers and entrepreneurs provide an invaluable service to society. As long as they honestly paid their taxes, fat profits and fat salaries are fully justified. In other words, original Fabianism amounted to nothing more than a form of bourgeois socialism.

That so-called modern-day disciples of Leon Trotsky want to embrace Fabianism testifies to a terrible degeneration. The Fabian Society was not only elitist: its leaders were thorough-going eugenicists too. Friedrich Nietzsche provided a warped inspiration. HG Wells urged the death penalty for those suffering from “genetically transferable diseases”. Defective men, women and children were to be dealt with by the means of a “lethal chamber”.6

As for the “swarms of black, and brown, and dirty white and yellow people” who did not match his criteria of intelligence and efficiency, “they will have to go”. It is their “portion to die out and disappear”.7 With that noble end in mind, Shaw demanded that “Extermination must be put on a scientific basis, if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically, as well as thoroughly”.8 Meanwhile, the working class was to be lifted out of ignorance. As for the unemployed, they would be herded into “human sorting houses” to be trained for useful work - those who refused would be sent off to semi-penal detention colonies.

The Fabians were committed pro-imperialists too. According to their Fabianism and empire (1900) tract, Britain needed to get its fair share of the spoils from the division of the world:

The partition of the greater part of the globe among such [great] powers is, as a matter of fact that must be faced, approvingly or deploringly, now only a question of time; and whether England [sic] is to be the centre and nucleus of one of those great powers of the future, or to be cast off by its colonies, ousted from its provinces, and reduced to its old island status, will depend on the ability with which the empire is governed as a whole, and the freedom of its governments and its officials from complicity in private financial interests and from the passions of the newspaper correspondents who describe our enemies as ‘beasts’.9

Over the years 1899-1902, as good patriots, the Fabians backed Britain’s war against the Boer republics: the “native races” must be “protected despotically by the empire or abandoned to slavery and extermination”.10

The British empire was portrayed as an unintended bringer of democracy to the white dominions and a saviour of the ‘lower breeds’ (shades of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty). The best interests of ‘black, brown and yellow’ peoples lie in being ruled over by young men fresh from Britain’s public schools. Under their guiding hand they would eventually be led to “adulthood”.11

Interestingly, as an aside, the Fabians thought that the South African war demonstrated the “superiority of a militia” system over the professional army.12 An idea that the timorous left refuses even to contemplate nowadays.

Naturally, come the 1914-18 great war, the Fabians did their best to serve the imperial cause. Europe had to be saved from the Junkers and Prussian militarism. However, as the war dragged on and the corpses piled up, any initial popular enthusiasm turned into discontent. The February 1917 revolution in Russia galvanised the hopes of wide sections of the working class. Strikes, including in the munitions industry, assumed epidemic proportions. Demands for a negotiated peace grew and, amongst sections of the ruling few, there were serious worries that Britain stood on the edge of revolution. Reports came of mutinies in army base camps and the killing of military policemen. June 1917 saw a big labour-movement conference in Leeds. Famously delegates voted for a national network of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Soviets on the model of Russia. Then came the October Revolution, which shook the capitalist world to its very foundations. Bourgeois politicians of every stripe rushed to make concessions. Hence, Sidney Webb’s clause four.

By cynical calculation he had three goals in mind.

Firstly, his clause four socialism could be used to divert the considerable rank-and-file sympathy that existed for the Russian Revolution into safe, peaceful and exclusively constitutional channels. Not that that stopped prime minister David Lloyd George from declaring, in his closing speech of the 1918 general election campaign, that the “Labour Party is being run by the extreme pacifist Bolshevik group”.13

Secondly, by adopting clause four socialism, the Labour Party could both distinguish itself from the exhausted, divided and rapidly declining Liberal Party and please the trade union bureaucracy. Since the 1890s the TUC had been drawing up various proposals of what ought to be nationalised: eg, rails, mines, electricity, liquor and land. Clause four socialism also usefully went along with the grain of Britain’s wartime experience. There was steadily expanding state intervention in the economy. Nationalisation was, as a result, widely identified with efficiency, modernisation and beating the Austro-German foe. It therefore appealed to technocratically minded elements amongst the middle classes.

Thirdly, clause four socialism had to be implicitly anti-Marxist. Webb well knew the history of the Social Democratic Party in Germany. And, of course, Karl Marx savaged various passages in its Gotha programme (1875) - not least those which declared that every worker should receive a “fair distribution of their proceeds of labour” and that “the proceeds of labour belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society”.14

Contradictory and vacuous, seethed Marx. What is fair? What about replacement means of production? What about the expansion of production? What about those unable to work? More than that, Marx explained these and other such formulations as unneeded concessions to the followers of Ferdinand Lassalle. His Workers’ programme (1862) called for “an equal right to the undiminished proceeds of labour”. Obviously Webb wanted to give clause four a distinct Lassallean coloration. Not out of admiration for Lassalle, but because he wanted to distance the Labour Party from Marxism.

Red ribbon

Almost needless to say, clause four was mainly for show - a red ribbon tied around what was Labourism’s standing programme of social liberalism. Labour customarily supported Liberal governments and their measures of palliative social reform. Because of its alliance with the Liberal Party, the party even found itself divided over the abolition of the House of Lords and the fight for female suffrage. While a minority - eg, George Lansbury and Keir Hardie - defended the suffragettes and their militant tactics, the majority craved respectability. As Ramsay MacDonald wrote, “The violent methods … are wrong, and in their nature reactionary and anti-social, quite irrespective of vote or no vote.”15

Yet, even if it had been put into effect, clause four socialism remains antithetical to working class self-liberation. Capitalism without capitalists does not count amongst our goals. Railways, mines, land, electricity, etc, would pass into the hands of the British empire state.

Capitalist owners might well be bought out - eased into a comfortable retirement. But, as they vacate the field of production, a new class of state-appointed managers and supervisors enters the fray. In terms of the division of labour, they substitute for the capitalists. The mass of the population, meanwhile, remain exploited wage-slaves. They would be subject to same hierarchal chain of command, the same lack of control, the same mind-numbing routine.

Marxism, by contrast, is based on an altogether different perspective. If it is to win its freedom, the working class must overthrow the existing state. But - and this is crucial - in so doing the proletariat “abolishes itself as a proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and antagonisms, abolishes also the state as state”.16

Capitalist relations of production and the whole bureaucratic state apparatus are swept away. Every sphere of social life sees control exercised from below. All positions of command are elected or chosen by lot and are regularly rotated. Hierarchy is flattened. Alienation is overcome. What is produced and how it is produced radically alters too. Need, not exchange, is the ruling principle. And, alone, such an association of producers creates the benign conditions which allow for the full development of each and every individual.

Doubtless, the old 1918 clause four resulted from progressive political developments. Opposition to the horrors of World War I and the inspiration provided by the October revolution has already been mentioned. But there is also the formation of the Socialist International, the worldwide celebration of May Day, the considerable influence of the socialist press, the increased size of trade union membership, the formation of the shop stewards movement and the election of a growing body of Labour MPs. Then there was state intervention and regulation of the economy. Capitalism was widely considered outmoded and doomed. Socialism more and more became the common sense of the organised working class.

By contrast, Fabian socialism meant arguing against unconstitutional methods, slowly expanding the provision of social welfare and persuading all classes of the benefits that would come to the nation if the commanding heights of the economy were put in state hands. In other words, the Fabians consciously sought to ameliorate the mounting contradictions between labour and capital … and thus put off socialism. Rightly, Lenin denounced Fabianism as the “most consummate expression of opportunism”.17

Revealingly, before 1918, attempts to commit the Labour Party to socialism met with mixed success. The 1900 founding conference rejected the “class war” ultimatum tabled by the Social Democratic Federation.18 Despite that, conference voted to support the “socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange”. The next year a socialistic motion moved by Bruce Glasier was defeated. In 1903 another socialistic motion fell, this time without debate. Two years later conference passed a motion with the exact same wording. In 1907 the previous endorsement of socialism was overturned at the prompting of … Bruce Glasier. The same conference agreed to set the goal of “socialising the means of production, distribution and exchange”.19

The explanation for the seesawing doubtless lies with electoral calculation. While most in the party leadership considered themselves socialists of a kind, they were mortally afraid of losing out in the polls. What appeared acceptable to likely voters set their limits. So, instead of fearlessly presenting a bold socialist vision and building support on that basis, Sidney Webb, Arthur Henderson, Ramsay MacDonald and co chased the vagaries of popularity. With the growth of militancy and radicalism, socialist declarations were considered a sure way of adding to Labour’s ranks in parliament20 - forming a government being both a means and an end in itself.

Reclaiming

Nevertheless, the Blairising of clause four in 1995 was hugely symbolic - the ground having been laid by the Eurocommunists and their vile Marxism Today journal. Socialism was declared dead and buried, the working class a shrinking minority. Only if Labour accepted capitalism and reached out to the ever-expanding middle classes would it have a future.

Neil Kinnock, John Smith and finally Tony Blair dragged the party ever further to the right. Out went the commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament, out went the commitment to comprehensive education, out went the commitment to full employment, out went the commitment to repeal the Tories’ anti-trade union laws, out went the commitment to “the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange”.

Needless to say, his clause four is stuffed full of managerial guff and classless nonsense. Eg, (IV.1) Labour “believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few; where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe and where we live together freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect”. Then we have similarly vacuous formulations about (IV.2a) “a dynamic economy”, in “the public interest, in which the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition are joined with the forces of partnership and cooperation to produce the wealth the nation needs and the opportunity for all to work and prosper with a thriving private sector and high-quality public services”. A “just society” (IV.2b), an “open democracy” (IV.2c), a healthy environment” (IV. 2c) follow, as does (IV.3): “Labour is committed to the defence and security of the British people and to cooperating in European institutions, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and other international bodies to secure peace, freedom, democracy, economic security and environmental protection for all.”

Note, the Labour4Clause4 campaign merely proposes to replace IV.2a. All the other Blairite shite remains. Hence, Labour4Clause4 leaves unchallenged the European Court of Human Rights, the UN, the Commonwealth (and by implication Nato). There are also the historically entrenched, labyrinthine restrictions, disciplinary offences and countless other bureaucratic command-and-control mechanisms. That explains why real Marxists - not fake Marxists - have never talked of “how to reclaim the Labour Party”,21 of fighting to “reclaim Labour” from the pro-capitalist right,22 etc, etc. Labour has never been ours in the sense of being a “political weapon for the workers’ movement”. No, despite the electoral base and trade union affiliations, from the beginning Labour has been dominated by career politicians, trade union bureaucrats and party functionaries: a distinct social stratum, which, no matter how left it might talk, serves not the interests of the working class, but the continuation of capitalist exploitation.

Lenin can be usefully brought into the argument here. Speaking in the context of the need for the newly formed Communist Party of Great Britain to affiliate to the Labour Party, he said this:

... whether or not a party is really a political party of the workers does not depend solely upon a membership of workers, but also upon the men that lead it, and the content of its actions and its political tactics. Only this latter determines whether we really have before us a political party of the proletariat.

Regarded from this - the only correct - point of view, the Labour Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party, because, although made up of workers, it is led by reactionaries, and the worst kind of reactionaries at that, who act quite in the spirit of the bourgeoisie. It is an organisation of the bourgeoisie, which exists to systematically dupe the workers with the aid of the British Noskes and Scheidemanns [the German social chauvinist murderers of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht - JM].23

Despite all the subsequent changes, this assessment remains fundamentally true. Labour is still a “bourgeois workers’ party”. Of course, Corbyn is not a reactionary of the “worst kind”. During his time as Labour leader he showed himself to be a right-moving, run-of-the-mill left reformist - albeit a left reformist with an enduring commitment to workers involved in economic struggles, campaigners for democratic rights and liberation movements in the so-called third world. Meanwhile, the vast bulk of Labour councillors, regional officials, MPs, AMs, MEPs, etc remain on the hard right.

Corbyn and Corbynism must be judged a failure. Even in its own terms. By definition, the same goes for that section of the left which insists that the “battle to defend the policy gains of the Corbyn era” is the “principal task of Labour Party socialists”.24 No, the “principal task” in the Labour Party is to advance a radically different agenda. Hence this version of clause four, championed by Labour Party Marxists:

1  Labour is the federal party of the working class. We strive to bring all trade unions, cooperatives, socialist societies and leftwing groups and parties under our banner. We believe that unity brings strength.

2. Labour is committed to replacing the rule of capital with the rule of the working class. Socialism introduces a democratically planned economy, ends the ecologically ruinous cycle of production for the sake of production and moves towards a stateless, classless, moneyless society that embodies the principle, ‘From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs’. Alone such benign conditions create the possibility of every individual fully realising their innate potentialities.

3. Towards that end Labour commits itself to achieving a democratic republic. The standing army, the monarchy, the House of Lords and the state sponsorship of the Church of England must go. We support a single-chamber parliament, proportional representation and annual elections.

4. Labour seeks to win the active backing of the majority of people and forming a government on this basis.

5. We shall work with others, in particular in the European Union, in pursuit of the aim of replacing capitalism with working class rule and socialism.

Clearly this clause four is based solidly on the Marxist world outlook. Not least the understanding that the class struggle is the motor of history. Therefore, we do not draw up quixotic plans to refashion society, preach to the capitalist class, appeal to their political representatives and paid agents, about how to introduce equality, fairness and dignity for all. Nor do we rely on stuntism, broad frontism or politically ‘independent’ trade unionism. No, our task is to organise the class struggle and lead the working class to the point where it can conquer political power. That being the starting point for a transition to a stateless, moneyless, classless society.

There are doubtless those ‘realists’ who dismiss this perspective as purist, sectarian and madly extreme. As being electorally suicidal, a proposal to convert Labour into an intolerant religious cult, etc. We know all about such people. No, instead of establishing a new, socialist, society, they propose to modify, tinker with, improve existing, capitalist, society and call it socialism. That is RLB to a tee.

  1. . T Blair A journey London 2011, p1.↩︎

  2. . Quoted in JE Alt, ‘The constitutional revolution of Tony Blair’ in T Cassey (ed) The Blair legacy: politics, policy, governance and foreign affairs Basingstoke 2009, p219.↩︎

  3. . labour4clause4.com/2018/02/26/need-bold-socialist-programme.↩︎

  4. . K Marx and F Engels CW Vol 48, London 2001, p449.↩︎

  5. . K Marx and F Engels CW Vol 50, New York 2004, p83.↩︎

  6. . D Stone Breeding superman Liverpool 2002, p115.↩︎

  7. . HG Wells Anticipations of the reaction of mechanical and scientific progress upon human life and scientific thought London 1902, p317. See www.gutenberg.org/files/19229/19229-h/19229-h.htm.↩︎

  8. . GB Shaw quoted in J Carey The intellectuals and the masses London 1992, p63.↩︎

  9. . https://archive.org/stream/fabianismempirem
    00shawuoft/fabianismempirem00shawuoft_djvu.txt.↩︎

  10. . https://archive.org/stream/fabianismempirem
    00shawuoft/fabianismempirem00shawuoft_djvu.txt.↩︎

  11. . G Foote The Labour Party’s political thought London 1985, pp29-30.↩︎

  12. . AM McBriar Fabian socialism and English politics 1884-1918 Cambridge 1962, p130.↩︎

  13. . Quoted in R Miliband Parliamentary socialism London 1973, p64n.↩︎

  14. . K Marx and F Engels CW Vol 24, London 1989, p83.↩︎

  15. . Socialist Review August 1912 - quoted in R Miliband Parliamentary socialism London 1973, p25n.↩︎

  16. . K Marx and F Engels CW Vol 25, London 1987, p267.↩︎

  17. . VI Lenin CW Vol 21, Moscow 1977, p261.↩︎

  18. . Though it had two guaranteed seats on the LRC’s leading body, the Social Democratic Federation disaffiliated in August 1901.↩︎

  19. . See RT McKenzie British political parties London 1963, pp465-71.↩︎

  20. . Labour gained 15 seats in the December 1918 general election, making it the fourth largest party in parliament after Bonar Law’s Tories, Lloyd George’s Coalition Liberals and Sinn Féin. It had a total of 57 MPs.↩︎

  21. . R Sewell, ‘Reject the blind ally of sectarianism’: see www.socialist.net/reject-the-blind-alley-of-sectarianism.htm.↩︎

  22. . H Sell, ‘For a fighting, democratic Labour Party’ Socialism Today April 2018.↩︎

  23. . VI Lenin CW Vol 31, Moscow 1977, pp257-58.↩︎

  24. . Editorial Labour Briefing March 2020.↩︎