12.06.1997

Sectarian project

Around the left

We have to face facts. Some leftwing organisations have totally lost touch with reality. Instead of having their feet firmly planted on terra firma, these unfortunate groups prefer to live in a world entirely of their own making. These fictional worlds have the advantage of being a lot more comfortable than the real thing, and hence cut down on the need for any actual thinking.

One of the worst offenders when it comes to reality-denial is the SWP. It is currently peddling the oh-so familiar ‘crisis of expectations’ theory (see main Jack Conrad article for a fuller discussion) which is fashionable amongst many on the revolutionary left. The SWP - in common chorus with explicitly Labourite groups like the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and Socialist Outlook - has concocted the notion that the masses have invested enormous ‘left’ expectations in Tony Blair, and will rise up in semi-insurrection when he lets them down. It is a pathetic fantasy of course, but the SWP desperately wants it to be true - so history can conform to its rigid, mechanical and evolutionist schema, which decrees that workers cannot fight back or raise their political consciousness unless there is a Labour/social democratic government in power. Real history tells no such thing, but the SWP will not let a little thing like truth get in its way.

As a logical corollary to the ‘crisis’ theory, the SWP has been pushing the even more ridiculous idea that the vote for Tony Blair was a “class vote”. This purely sociological - if you can call it even that - approach side-steps the political and demonstrates that the SWP does not have a Marxist conception of class.

In the latest June issue of Socialist Review, comrades Tony Cliff and Chris Harman venture into print to articulate and defend these ideas. The views and analysis presented by these comrades are so ludicrous it is hard to know where to begin. Instead of Marxist science we get vulgar prejudice and misinformed commentary.

The editorial prepares the ground for comrades Cliff and Harman. It argues that the “expectations vested in Tony Blair’s government remain very high”, that Blair’s landslide victory has “boosted the hopes of many workers” and that there is “more of a feeling of confidence”. That is nice. The same cannot be said for the editorial’s near advert for New Labour. Madly, it believes that the “Labour victory has lifted a burden from the shoulders of socialists everywhere. The sense that they are in a minority has gone, to be replaced with the belief that ideas are moving in a more left wing direction”. What colour is the sky on your planet, comrade editor?

A greater indictment is the editorial’s automatic identification with Labour. This sees it attacking the “miserablism of much of the left”. This “miserablism” took the form of “believing that Labour would never win again, that the most we could hope for was a hung parliament”, and which “now surfaces in the view that ... a vote for [Blair] was a vote for the political conservatism which he espouses”.

Obviously the post-general election issue Weekly Worker should have had ‘Hurrah for Blair!’ and “Masses turn left!” emblazoned on its front page.

Comrade Cliff’s article - which is a reprint of a speech he gave at a recent national SWP meting - continues this semi-triumphalist theme (you cannot help noticing that the intervals between his articles are getting ominously longer and longer). The speech itself is shockingly shambolic and meandering, and the comrade fails miserably to present a rational and cogent case. Frankly, it may be advisable for the editor of Socialist Review to think twice before publishing another piece by comrade Cliff.

Comrade Cliff too believes that there are “massive illusions in the Tony Blair government among millions of people in Britain”, making daft comparisons with the Atlee government of 1945 - an administration that Cliff lavishes praise upon - which was also a “complete rejection” of “Tory rule”. He even thinks that the “expectations of the new government are much higher” than that of the incoming Labour government of 1974. Curiously, the comrade thinks this is a good thing, as these “illusions” help to “raise expectations that can in the longer run lead to much greater demands being made on the government”. For Cliff there is no doubt that Blair’s victory was “overwhelmingly a class vote - a working class vote”.

When it comes to accounting for the difference - even though they both had millions of “class votes” behind them - between the “reformist zeal” of Atlee and the “conservative complacency” of Blair, comrade Cliff resorts to economism of the most appalling kind. The difference between the two prime ministers has all “to do with the state of British capitalism ... Over the last 20 years the total output of manufacturing industry in Britain rose by 1.66 percent ... Twenty years ago manufacturing output in Britain rose by 86% - this level of growth leaves space both for the profit of the capitalist and reforms for the workers. The path to reform is open when capitalism is expanding”. Comrade Cliff completely leaves out the subjective factor - ie, political struggle and the role of revolutionary leadership, the latter being entirely absent from the workers’ movement.

So he can square the circle, Comrade Cliff takes refuge in the ‘inevitabilism’ which is common fare on the left nowadays. Happily, “the explosions will be much sharper than in the past”, partly thanks to the disappearance of the old CPGB which “contained struggle” and gave stability to the government”. Cliff implies that the SWP will take the place of the old CPGB, as the SWP is in a “much stronger position” than it was in 1974 when it was only “10% of the size of the CP and much weaker”.

The future is bright and shiny, in comrade Cliff’s opinion. As he explains, because “capitalism is in deep economic crisis, in the final analysis this crisis will demonstrate the bankruptcy of reformism and show the need for a socialist alternative” (my emphasis). It does not seem to occur to the comrade that reactionary and rightwing alternatives could also emerge. For him, spontaneity will solve everything. But then again, Cliff does not give a fig for the long-term interests of the working class as a whole. He is embarked on a purely sectarian project and all that matters is building the “socialist alternative” - ie, the SWP. Cliff requires a phantom ‘crisis of expectations’ so that in such a “situation we can successfully build”.

Comrade Chris Harman’s effort to persuade us that May 1 saw a “class vote” is as bogus as Cliff’s, and not a little comical at times. He bombards us with dubious-looking sociological and psephological data, which tell us absolute nothing politically. Apparently, according to exit poll breakdowns, “Labour got 61% of the ‘semi and unskilled manual’ vote (the ‘Ds’ and ‘Es’) and 54% of the ‘skilled manual’ vote (the ‘C2s’), as against only 21% and 25% for the Tories in these groups ... By contrast, among the ‘professional and managerial’ ‘As’ and ‘Bs’, the Tories still got 42% this time, Labour only 31%. The swing to Labour here was only nine percent. This in itself points to a sharp polarisation along class lines”. Unfortunately, he never explains why this should be the case.

After a quick moan about how the “vote for Labour would have been much higher if it had campaigned more vigorously”, comrade Harman affirms that the “election result points to the real class map of Britain”. Now, the “decisive question in the period ahead is whether the class feelings develop into struggle which will achieve real gains for people”.

Comrades Cliff and Harman have fooled themselves into thinking that a leftwing revival is just round the corner, and that Blair’s landslide was the first sign of it. They are so mesmerised by statistics and Blair’s beaming grin they have forgotten to think politically. The science of Marxism has proved too much for them and so they opt for pious faith instead.

Don Preston