20.09.2006
No space left of Labour
The John McDonnell campaign marks a significant change, argues Owen Jones of the Labour Representation Committee and Socialist Youth Network
We must put the John McDonnell leadership campaign in its broader social context by referring to the state of the class struggle in Britain and the relationship between that struggle and the Labour left.
There is a theory that is common among many of the left that, upon the election of a Labour government, there will be a crisis of expectations among the working class. After having initial illusions in the capacity of the Labour government to deliver meaningful social reforms, a series of betrayals will radicalise sections of the working class and lead them to mobilise in order to defend those reforms or existing social gains; or else to oppose reactionary policies, introduced by a Labour government at the behest of the ruling class. There are precedents for this. For example, the movement triggered by In place of strife in the late 1960s, or the labour militancy sparked by Callaghan's programme of IMF cuts in the 1970s.
But this theory appeared to be effectively debunked after the Labour landslide of 1997. Despite this being the most reactionary Labour government there has ever been, there seems to have been no crisis of expectations. Strike levels remained at an historic low, trade union membership stagnated or even declined and there was a failure to organise young workers. Union leaderships preached 'new realism' or class collaborationism, summed up by John Monk's social partnership model.
There has been no dire economic collapse, which might help to explain the low level of class struggle. Despite this being the last hope of some catastrophists, economic collapse has in fact proved to be very unfavourable for class struggle, as events of the 1930s and 1980s prove. So why did the crisis of expectation not manifest itself upon the election of a Labour government?
Defeats
There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly, a vicious ruling class offensive, which left the labour movement smashed, atomised and disorientated. It is clear that the defeat of the miners in 1985 was a historic turning point. Defeat after defeat crippled the labour movement and this was conducive to the consolidation of a particularly docile, class-collaborationist trade union bureau-cracy. Previous Labour governments, when introducing reactionary policies on behalf of the ruling class, had a strong labour movement to contend with. Yet the past two decades have traumatised millions of working people, who above all fear the return of a Tory government and any action that would undermine or destabilise the supposedly Labour government. The working class was presented with no viable alternative. This led to further demoralisation. Rebellion at the ballot box presented itself as mass abstentions rather than desertion to the multitude of leftwing sects in existence.
Another fact which I believe has been largely ignored by the left is the change in composition of the working class. The victory of finance capitalism under Thatcherism meant the destruction of industries, such as manufacturing, which had large and concentrated workforces, relatively secure employment and high levels of trade union density. The growth of the so-called service sector has produced a 'hire and fire' labour force with low wages, poor job security, largely part-time labour and temporary workers, and much lower concentrations.
This large, unorganised and atomised labour force today presents a similar challenge to modern unions as faced by 'new unionism' a century ago. New unionism faced the challenge of organising unskilled workers, whereas previously union membership had consisted largely of skilled workers. Today, it is the atomised service sector that remains unorganised. Hence trade union density in the private sector is very low - about 20% - and in the public sector it is about 60%. That is where there has been militancy recently: the public sector is less atomised and more organised.
The absence of a crisis of expectations and the low ebb of class struggle in Britain are connected to the intimate relationship between the Labour left and the labour movement. For example, the rise of the Labour left - particularly Bennism and Militant in the 1980s - was the political reflection of the upturn in class struggle in the 1970s. The repeated defeats suffered under Thatcherism were equally mirrored in the Labour Party by the huge swing to the right, the witch-hunts and the reversal of the Bennite policy gains.
Another factor which has had a huge impact on the Labour left, and the left in general internationally, is perhaps the slightly controversial point of the collapse of Stalinism. Despite the different analyses of Stalinism current on the left, it is difficult to disagree that its collapse massively strengthened the forces of reaction across the globe and discredited the very notion of an alternative to capitalism. The bourgeoisie were so convinced of their historical victory following the fall of the Berlin wall that they declared the end of history. Altogether the disillusionment and trauma caused by a victorious ruling class offensive and the defeat of the labour movement formed the basis for the rise of New Labour.
New Labour is different from previous reactionary Labour leaderships. It is not a "distorted and bureaucratised representation of the working class", as my comrades Graham Bash and Andrew Fisher put it in their pamphlet 100 years of Labour, but rather New Labour is a bourgeois tendency. Although it may offer small concessions, such as the minimum wage, because of the slight remaining pressure of the labour movement, New Labour rules directly in the interests of the ruling class. Its aim is, of course, to liquidate the class nature of the Labour Party: to smash the trade union link and form a new party of capital along the lines of the US Democratic Party. As Geoffrey Howe puts it, "The conquest of the Labour Party negates its conquest of Thatcherism." In the 90s the Tories lost their usefulness from the perspective of capital and the New Labour clique seemed worthy and reliable successors.
The repeated defeats of the Labour left and the labour movement obviously took their toll. There was disillusionment in the ranks. There was a drift to the right under the pressure of events and thousands left the party in disgust over privatisation, the Iraq war and other issues. Huge numbers were simply burnt out by the events of the past two decades and drifted away from politics altogether. Most disastrously of all, no new generation emerged to replace those who left.
Today the Labour Party is down to around 200,000 members - and that is the official level. It is probably much smaller than that and in terms of its active membership it is only a fraction. Many Constituency Labour Parties are hollowed out shells. The FBU and RMT unions have gone - one expelled and the other disaffiliated. Thus only a small clump of the Labour left remains today. Some of this is marked by caution, defensiveness and lack of confidence as a result, understandably, of so many defeats. Given this context, it is hardly surprising that a minority on the left have been calling for so-called 'soft left' candidates to throw their hats in the ring in the leadership election.
End of reaction
So far I have painted a very pessimistic picture. If this is such a profound era of reaction, what is the basis of John McDonnell's candidacy? I would argue that a few years ago cracks began to form in the period of reaction in which we find ourselves. Internationally we saw upsurges in the class struggle, particularly in Latin America. At the turn of the century we saw the rise of the so-called anti-globalisation movement. Here in Britain, the disillusionment at the failure of the Labour government to pull back from the reaction of the past two decades manifested itself in a shift to the left within the unions.
In recent times, in order to win an election in the unions a candidate has had to at least posture towards the left - notwithstanding the weakness of some when in office. However, the fact they had to posture is significant in itself. The New Labour clique suffered numerous defeats in confidence because of this swing to the left in the unions. These defeats centred mainly round pensions, foundation hospitals, renationalisation of the railways, PFI and trade union rights.
Another symptom of a labour movement increasingly flexing its muscles is the rise in the number of strikes. In the first three months of this year there were four times as many days lost as the whole of last year. Another sign is the campaign for a Trade Union Freedom Bill. The TUC has been forced to adopt this campaign to repeal the Tory anti-trade union laws. Furthermore there was the 'Public Services Not Private Profit' campaign, which was chaired by John McDonnell and brought together 16 trade unions. One of the driving forces of this was the PCS, which 10 years ago, like many of the other unions involved, would not have touched such a campaign with a barge pole. But then the PCS was under the leadership of Barry Reamsbottom: now it has swung to the left.
Then there is the anti-war movement. I am sure we were all there on February 15 2003, when two million people were on the streets in the biggest demonstration in British history. That pressure from the streets was what caused 138 Labour MPs, for the first time in many years, to go against Blair and vote against the war in Iraq. We have seen an increase in these parliamentary rebellions. This parliament is now the most rebellious in recent political history and this is not because the MPs have suddenly started to wake up to principles or realise how reactionary their leadership is. The reason for the rebellions is the increasing pressure both from the labour movement and from the streets over Iraq.
Another interesting development was in the Labour Party itself. Even though thousands of socialists had left, had ripped their cards up in disgust, the party handed the left a hugely significant victory earlier this year in the NEC elections. Of six posts elected by the entire membership, the top four went to leftwing candidates. Even the rump of the Labour Party has swung to the left.
I would argue that after two decades of reaction we are beginning to see very significant changes. John McDonnell's candidacy is the reflection of these political shifts in society. Five years ago, John or any other left candidate would have laughed in your face at the suggestion they should stand for leader. It was not even contemplated. But the fact that it has now happened is the result of these very significant shifts.
What is the campaign about? It is about the working class base of the Labour Party reasserting itself. At the same time it will help to raise the political consciousness of the working class.
McDonnell's announcement in July that he would stand in a forthcoming leadership election gave his campaign months to prepare. It gave it time to gain momentum over the coming year. The election will take place via an electoral college, composed of three equal parts: MPs and MEPs; affiliated trade unions; and individual members of the Labour Party. For individual members there will be 'one member, one vote', so we are fighting for each and every vote. The campaign will be building throughout the country - holding mass rallies and campaigning in every major town and city and fighting to win the support of trade unionists on the basis that John McDonnell is the only candidate standing who supports their union's policies.
Large numbers of former members are rejoining because of the campaign. In fact, there are rumours that the Labour Party wants to cash in on the number of people joining by increasing the subs.
Why Labour?
But why the Labour Party? When we announced the campaign, the position of the Socialist Party, for example, was very hostile. The SP stated that the Labour Party was beyond being reclaimed - it has been a bourgeois party since they left and the task of our movement is now to build a new workers' party.
It is worthwhile going over what the Labour Party actually is and was. In contrast to the early Russian and German workers' movements, the Labour Party was created by the trade unions. As such, the party in Britain reflected the economic demands of the trade unions that were in the main led by men of impeccable 'moderation' and 'reasonableness'. This added to the long established strength of the British bourgeoisie, which had emerged victorious in the revolutions of the 17th century - much earlier than their European counterparts. So in Russia, for example, where the bourgeoisie had developed much later, it was far weaker and incapable of fulfilling its historic tasks.
Nonetheless, Labour gradually separated itself from class collaboration with Liberalism to form an independent working class party. It still rejected the notion of class war, but the fact is it was an independent working class party. Lenin supported its admission into the Second International, for example. The trade unions formed the base of the party, having created, funded and supported it. Its characteristic therefore is hegemony over the working class movement - it has always had that. Unlike the social democratic parties that were created before World War I and the Russian Revolution and do not have the same trade union base, it has been able to survive crisis after crisis. There have not been, for example, major revolutionary splits, and no serious electoral alternative based on working class politics has ever emerged.
The trade union link has meant that upsurges in class struggle have been reflected in the Labour Party. The call from some of the left for the trade unions to break the link therefore merely plays into the hands of the right. If the FBU and RMT were still affiliated, the John McDonnell campaign would have been in a much stronger position from the outset.
Should we call for Labour Party members to leave? Thousands of socialists have already left, but they have not embraced the left sects. The membership of such organisations has not been boosted as a result of Labour's declining membership - indeed far from it.
So our position is not to break from the Labour Party, but rather to break the Labour Party from New Labour. Similarly, if a union were to fall into the hands of a rival leadership, it would not be the correct stance to call for socialists to break away from that union and form their own leftwing version. It would be self-isolating and this principle applies today.
I would argue that the Socialist Party's Campaign for a New Workers' Party is based on the concept of bringing together sects with no basis in the labour movement. The Socialist Alliance was an earlier attempt at this and, as was reported in the Weekly Worker, it completely collapsed.
Communist Party sect
What do I mean by 'sect'? A sect is defined by its orientation towards the working class and the mass organisations of that class. You can be a sect of any size - from five to 5,000. Marx has an interesting definition of 'sect', which more than applies today: "The sect sees its raison d'être and its point of honour not in what it has in common with the class movement, but the particular shibboleth which distinguishes it from the class movement." One of its key characteristics is to provide a universal remedy for the movement's problems. For example, it is said of Lassalle that he fell into the same error as Proudhon in not seeking the real basis of his actual agitation and instead trying to prescribe the course of the movement according to a certain doctrinaire recipe. This again you can see within the revolutionary elements of the left today.
Supporters of the John McDonnell campaign are calling for realistic demands that are relevant to the working class and that relate to working class consciousness as it is today. For example, demands for a workers' militia are propagated by sects precisely because they do not have any roots in the working class itself, as it is in reality. We cannot have abstract programmatic demands that have no relevance to today's struggles. We must assess the situation as it is.
Trotsky's position is also interesting, as some of the worst offenders have claimed his mantle. When speaking of the Labour Party in 1936, he claimed that it was essential to be involved in the mass organisations of the working class. In the Transitional programme he wrote a fascinating essay about sectarianism. He says: "At their base is a refusal to struggle for partial and transitional demands: ie, the elementary interests and needs of the working masses as they are today "¦ They remain indifferent to the inner struggle within reformist organisations." This is very evident in some sects' positions towards the Labour Party.
A key characterisation Trotsky devised was: "Sectarians are capable of differentiating between but few colours: red and black "¦ They refuse to draw distinctions between the fighting camps in Spain for the reason that both camps have a bourgeois character." Here again we can see parallels with sects on issues such as Venezuela and Bolivia today and the way sects sought to preserve neutrality on the war between Japan and China, as Trotsky described: "Incapable of finding access to the masses, they therefore zealously accuse the masses of inability to raise themselves to revolutionary ideas "¦ The sterile politicians generally have no need of a bridge in the form of transitional demands because they do not intend to cross over to the other shore. They simply dawdle in one place, satisfying themselves with a repetition of selfsame meagre abstractions."
Another, fairly ironic, characterisation given is that "In their own circles they customarily carry on a regime of despotism." He went on to say that "A programme is formulated not for the editorial board or for the leaders of discussion clubs, but for the revolutionary action of millions."
I would argue that there is an inverse correlation between the success of the sects and the success of the class struggle. It is at times when class struggle is at low ebb that sects appear to dominate the stage. When there is an upturn in class struggle, sects are increasingly consigned to their proper place: that is, obscurity. The upturn of the class struggle in the 1970s did not transform any of the sects into major parties. Indeed, the biggest sect of them all, the Communist Party, continued its rightwing drift towards Eurocommunism. Its political reflection was in the Labour Party and the shift that happened within it.
During the miners' strike of the 1980s sects played no significant role. No mass party has ever been formed through sects: rather the pattern has been of recruiting a person here and there or through merging different groups together to create 'super-sects'. The mass parties of the Third International - for example, the German, French and Russian parties - came from splits within existing mass working class parties.
The Communist Party was formed from the merging of a number of sects, such as the British Socialist Party, a largely middle class section of the Independent Labour Party, the Guild Socialists and the South Wales Socialist Party to form a super-sect. The CPGB remained as such and degenerated swiftly.
Lenin's position at the time was to encourage the affiliation of the Communist Party to Labour, which was the mass working class party and the political expression of the labour movement. That remained as long as he lived. The theses of Lenin's Comintern in 1922 defined the united front of Britain as "the task of the English communists to begin a rigorous campaign for their acceptance by the Labour Party, making every effort using the slogan of a revolutionary united front against capitalists to penetrate at all costs deep into the working masses." The Communist Party did apply for affiliation to the Labour Party, but phrased it in such a way as to guarantee rejection. This was done in order to expose, in their view, the reformism of the party.
During the 1926 General Strike the Labour Party provided the local support committees in areas where there were no trade union links. We have to separate the party from its leadership and its betrayals. Following the struggles of the 1920s we saw a seismic shift to the left. The struggles are therefore politically reflected in the party.
To conclude, the organic link between the Labour Party and the trade union movement means that the political reflection of the labour movement and of the class struggle is within the Labour Party. In my view sects are irrelevant because they are isolated from that movement. No mass movement can be achieved by fusing various sects together because they have no basis in the movement to begin with. So long as the trade union link remains, there is no electoral space to the left of the Labour Party. This has been proven by the events of the 20th century.
There may well come a time when we in the Labour Party have to reassess where we stand. If the trade union link is severed or if the working class character of our party is completely liquidated, then that will be the time for an epic, historical period of creating a new party. I am not going to pretend that I would stay with a party whose class character had been liquidated, but today we remain far from that moment.