* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * Subject: Bourgeois workers parties > * From: Philip Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:50:25 +1200 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jose wrote: > > > But we should take note that the social-democratic parties of Lenin's time > > and those of our times are quite different. They play different roles in the > > bourgeois political system. Their roots in motion by working people towards > > independent class political action are now quite remote, and their role as > > open instruments of bourgeois rule long-since completely consolidated. It > > has been decades since the ruling class considered placing administration of > > their joint affairs in the hands of these worthies as an idea that was > > beyond the pale. I think when these parties become incorporated into a > > bourgeois shell game of a two-party system, or a three-party or a > > however-many-party system, which in fact happened long ago, this marks a > > very important change. They *now* have significantly more in common with > > parties like the American Democrats than they did in Lenin's time. > > > Nice one, Jose. > > There is a very bad tendency amongst a lot of 'orthodox' Trotskyists to > continue to act as if the LPs are the same now as they were when Lenin gave > his advice to the British CP to support Labour 'like a rope supports a hanged > man'. > > The British, Australian and NZ Labour parties have moved on over the past 80 > years and have now all been in government, in some cases for substantial > periods of time, administering capitalism. > > One of the things that strikes me about the NZ leftists who vote Labour at > election time, call on others to do so and argue Labour is a 'bourgeois > workers party' is that *none* of them have *ever* done any empirical > investigations into the LP and its evolution over the decades. While we get > labelled 'ultraleft sectarians' for opposing votes for Labour, we (and our > allies in the pro-Mao Workers Party) are the only people to actually present > detailed empirical data on the actual structure, membership and financing of > the NZ LP. > > In the NZ case, the vast bulk of unions have disaffiliated from Labour. There > are only three unions still affiliated - one is the notorious right-wing > engineers union, which is run by yuppie professionals and consistently > supports right-wing policies in the union movement and LP. Then there are two > much smaller unions affiliated. These affiliated unions organise about 3 > percent of the labour force and are affiliated on the basis of a tiny handful > of union bureaucrats (and the union tops here are increasingly yuppies who go > into unions as a career). The social composition of the *actual branch > membership* of the LP is predominantly middle class professionals. The last > few presidents of the LP have been millionaires. Of the leading ten Labour > politicians, as represented on their party list for the elections, nine are > academics, managers and a farmer. One is a trade union bureaucrat (and he's > number 10). The vast bulk of Labour funding - about 90 percent at least - is > from business and the state. In the 1999 election, which Labour won, they only > got $100,000 less from business than National; this election (July 2002) they > got hundreds of thousands of dollars more in business donations while National > was 'cash-strapped'. > > Today, there are maybe a couple of hundred working class members of the LP. > Indeed, the working class began dropping out of the LP in large numbers in the > 1930s, after Labour first got into power in 1935. That first Labour government > lasted until 1949, by which time a significant number of worker-members had > dropped out. > > Labour in NZ today is a liberal-bourgeois party. Its social composition is > overwhelmingly the liberal middle class and its politics are about > administering capitalism. In the 1980s it was economically to the right of the > National Party, and carried out the most extreme form of neo-liberal economic > policy of any First World country. > > It may well be the case that these changes have not gone so far in the > Australian Labor Party, but I think that the argument that these kinds of > parties are basically the same as they were in Lenin's day is really just > sterile dogma. > > Anyone can find a niche in the LPs and it is no doubt still possible to get a > few 'left' motions passed here and there - after all the liberal middle class > is perfectly capable of voting for progressive paper resolutions - but, as > Jose notes, the same is true for the Democrats in the US. All these parties > are means of administering capitalism and containing dissent. They are also > *not* necessary battlegrounds. They need to be fought from *outside*. > > I have my share of disagreements with the DSP and my doubts about, shall we > say, the staunchness of the politics of the Socialist Alliance in Australia. > But I wish them both well. If there is a chance of the SA developing into a > significant force and *even beginning* to lay the basis for a serious > challenge to Labor, then good luck to them. > > Philip Ferguson > Labour: A Party Fit For Imperialism > By Robert Clough > Larkin Publications 1992 > > Review by Ben Courtice > > The famous Russian communist V.I. Lenin would have shuddered if he had > foreseen how his characterisation of the British Labour Party (BLP) as a > "bourgeois workers' party" was to be misinterpreted British socialists. Many > conclude from Lenin's remarks that the BLP is fundamentally working class in > nature, especially through its link with the trade unions. They therefore > conclude that socialists must support it (even if building themselves at the > same time). > > Probably the most obvious example of this misinterpretation is in the > Socialist Workers Party (the International Socialist Organisation in > Australia), which calls a vote for Labour (and the ALP) a "class vote". > > With the term "bourgeois workers' party", Lenin was referring to the fact that > a section of the working class -- the opportunists -- had been bought off by > the capitalists and become agents of the bourgeoisie within the working class. > > In his work Imperialism and the Split in Socialism (1916), Lenin says that the > opportunists are "alien to the proletariat as a class ... [are] the agents of > the bourgeoisie and the vehicles of its influence, and unless the labour > movement rids itself of them, it will remain a bourgeois labour movement". > > The only honest conclusion to draw from this passage is that the labour > movement must rid itself of the opportunists' political party (Labour), not > support it. > > In the early 1920s, Lenin suggested that communists should call for a vote for > Labour, when the majority of the working class had illusions in it, in order > better to expose it and win a hearing from its supporters. He never elevated > this into a permanent principle based on some mystical "proletarian" quality > of Labour. Indeed, his comment on the ALP should be more widely remembered: he > called it a "liberal bourgeois party". > > British PM Tony Blair's neo-Tory "New" Labour may prompt some welcome changes > on the British left in this regard. Many in the left wing of the BLP have left > the party, and this is beginning to show in electoral politics. > > The Socialist Party (formerly the Militant tendency within Labour) has begun > to stand against Labour. More recently, the SWP seems to have begun to check > which way the wind is blowing, announcing that it will begin running its own > candidates. Some ex-Labour left activists have been trying to organise left > electoral alliances, such as the London Socialist Alliance. > > Labour: A Party Fit For Imperialism, although written before the advent of > "New" Labour, is an important contribution to understanding the BLP, and has > become even more relevant in light of these developments on the British left. > > In the spirit of Lenin's analysis, the book seeks to put on record the > opportunist trend upon which the BLP bases itself, and how this has led to its > being a vital supporter of British imperialism and the capitalist order. > > Using the analyses of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels and Lenin, the book starts > by looking at the privileged section of the British working class that arose > in the 1850s -- the section Engels termed the "labour aristocracy". As Engels > noted, the prosperity that conservatised this sector was possible due to > Britain's colonial dominance, in which it exploited the rest of the world. > > This privileged section of the working class dominated the unions; almost all > craft unions, based on particular skilled trades, excluded the large numbers > of unskilled workers. This phenomenon spread as imperialism became generalised > to a number of (mainly European) countries at the beginning of this century. > > The BLP was formed in the 1890s after the Liberals proved themselves to be as > loyal to the capitalists as the Tories, and hence unreliable allies for > workers. > > Nevertheless, the book takes care to show that this organisational break from > liberalism was not matched by a political break: the BLP retained a completely > liberal approach. The party continued to base itself upon the privileged craft > union workers and pursued a parliamentary alliance with the Liberals. > > Robert Clough points out that the deliberately vague wording of the party's > much-vaunted Clause Four (the "socialist" clause), adopted after the World War > I, gave the party undue left credibility. > > A great part of the book analyses the relationship between Labour (in > government and opposition) and the foreign, imperial policy of the British > state. > > Clough explains: "The Labour party ... was established to defend the > privileged interests of an upper stratum of the working class in alliance with > a section of the middle class. These privileges depended on the relative > strength of British imperialism; defending them therefore meant defending > British imperialism." > > Whether in government or in opposition, the BLP has been a staunch supporter > of the most reactionary imperialist policies, from the gassing of Kurds in the > '20s to using head-hunters to combat leftist Malay guerillas in the '60s. > > An analysis is made of the turning point in Britain's international role > following World War II. > > A Labour government undertook the delicate task of salvaging as much as > possible of Britain's empire from the forces of national liberation and > communism. "If [Britain] lost its colonial empire ... reconstruction would > have to be undertaken at the direct expense of the British working class, with > all the attendant risks of social upheaval ... it had to offer the semblance > of democratic concession to the colonial and semi-colonial peoples, if only to > buy time." > > Churchill and the Tories were too openly reactionary for this task. All over > Asia and Africa, British military forces put down the wave of liberation > struggles that swept these continents. Then Britain "handed over the baton to > US imperialism, and concentrated on building up the British economy at the > expense of the Empire ... > > "Labour never had to kill one British worker at home to rebuild British > imperialism. But it had to kill untold thousands in the rest of the world ... > Hence those who seek to show that Labour played a progressive role between > 1949 and 1951 can only do so on the racist assumption that the lives of the > colonial people are of far less importance than those of British workers." > > As interesting and incisive as the examination of Labour imperialism is > Clough's analysis of the relationship between Labour and the British working > class. > > Labour's undermining and attacking of the unemployed workers' movement in the > 1920s and '30s sets the scene: Labour has always opposed the struggle of the > most oppressed sections of the working class. > > After the war, Clough shows, the solid Labour majorities of 1945 and 1966 were > based on a large section of the middle class joining the more solidly > Labour-voting working class. In return, Labour maintained their privileges and > those of the labour aristocracy. > > By the end of the 1960s, the parasitic imperialism of the British economy was > beginning to head downhill. Labour was in government and its response "was to > attack its electoral base in the working class". It began to oppose strikes > and restrict immigration. > > Although its measures did not satisfy the ruling class, the subsequent Tory > government did not either, and Labour was elected again in 1974. During this > period of government, it continued with its previous measures and introduced a > wages policy in cooperation with the trade unions (like Australia's Accord) to > keep wages down. > > In analysing the long period of Tory rule that began in 1979, Clough points to > a change in the nature of the labour aristocracy. During the postwar years > there had been a gradual shift in the composition of the work force away from > manufacturing and manual labour to white-collar sectors. > > Clough argues that a corresponding shift occurred in the location of the > privileged section of the working class. "In 1979, the largest swing against > Labour was from within this stratum ... to survive as a party, Labour would > now have to appeal to this new labour aristocracy." > > Clough recounts how under the Tories, despite radical sounds from the Labour > left in the early 1980s (which seduced many socialists to enter the party), > Labour pursued a policy of "municipal socialism" in local government, "an > avenue through which Labour sought to appeal to the new labour aristocracy of > the public sector, and a particularly corrupt one at that". > > In conjunction with Labour, the Trade Union Council adopted a policy of > avoiding conflict, leading to the sell-out of the 1984-85 miners' struggle and > abandoning the sections of the working class most under attack by the Tories. > > The book provides a valuable insight into the process which resulted in the > election of Blair's "New" Labour, and raises the question of just how new this > BLP really is. In the current economic crisis, Labour is continuing to side > with the oppressors and the privileged against the poorest of the working > class. > > Labour: A Party Fit For Imperialism provides an analysis of the processes -- > often neglected by the left -- by which the working class in imperialist > countries is divided by capitalism, a process which is as real in Australia as > it is in Britain. > > [Robert Clough is a member of the UK's Revolutionary Communist Group. For more > information on the RCG, visit their website.] >
_______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
