textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp000244.txt

    from Workers Solidarity No 32
    paper of the Irish anarchist
    Workers Solidarity Movement



FEW GENUINE socialists would claim the Irish 
Labour Party has any sort of glorious socialist past, 
outside of Connolly's involvement in setting it up.  It's 
record is one of  abstention from real struggles, 
attacks on the left and, in coalition, attacks on Irish 
workers.  Many of its supporters believe Labour can 
come to power in Ireland in the long term through an 
alliance with the Workers Party. 

This article takes a brief look at the British Labour Party.  
It demonstrates how the same problems arise in an 
organisation which has been able to form majority 
governments.  We are looking at the history of the  British 
Labour Party because it is to this organisation that many 
socialists in the Irish Labour Party look for inspiration.

In Ireland this is a curious thing as we have been at the 
receiving end of over fifty years of the bipartisan politics of 
Tory and Labour governments alike.  It was a Labour 
government that sent troops into the six counties and re-
introduced internment.  

The support of Labour MP's for British withdrawal has 
always been on the basis of "bring our boys home".  This is 
on the basis of what's good for Britain rather then in 
support of the right of Ireland to self-determination.  Even 
this is a feature that has been unique to Labour being in 
opposition. Leaving this aside, what has been the tradition 
of the Labour Party in Britain?

CLASS COLLABORATION

>From late in the last century the British ruling class 
sought to form a relationship between the state and the 
trade union bureaucracy as a way of controlling union 
militancy.  Unions were recognised but the right to strike 
was limited.  Acts in 1893 and 1896 drew up compulsory 
arbitration and conciliation procedures between bosses and 
unions.  It was these rather then strikes which settled 
most disputes.  The Liberals under Gladstone in the 1890's 
appointed trade union bureaucrats as factory inspectors, 
justices of the peace, etc. so that the well behaved 
bureaucrat could look forward to a retirement post in the 
Civil Service. 

The convergence of interests between the bureaucrats and 
the state led the bureaucrats to see the state as a neutral 
organ (rather than one of class rule) and so look to 
parliament to further their interests.  The Liberals 
regularly stood "labour candidates" from the ranks of the 
trade union officials but in 1900 the bureaucrats set up 
their own parliamentary organisation, the Labour 
Representation Committee (L.R.C.). The policy of this 
organisation which was to become the Labour Party was 
one of class collaboration.  In 1906 when the Labour Party 
proper was formed it embraced "a readiness to cooperate 
with any party which for the time being may be engaged in 
promoting legislation in the direct interest of Labour". 

FABIAN SOCIALISM

The ideology behind the Labour Party was Fabianism.  The 
Fabians were a group of intellectuals who were more 
interested in social work then socialism. They saw socialism 
being introduced very gradually through reforms and were 
antagonistic to any revolutionary ideas that arose.  

The Fabian writer Sidney Webb drew up the Labour 
Constitution, including the much cited 'clause four' which 
committed it to securing equitable distribution  of the "full 
fruits of industry" and "common ownership of the means of 
production on behalf of the workers".  This ideology ruled 
out independent action by the working class and saw a 
slow evolution toward socialism as inevitable. 
	
Another Fabian, Beatrice Webb, exposed the basis for this 
in "Our Partnership" when she said that the "myriads of 
deficient minds and deformed bodies" of the working class 
were incapable of acting constructively.  In the 
"Impossibilities of Anarchism" she derided the anarchist 
call for the self activity of the working class as the means 
for introducing socialism.  Instead all kinds of deals and 
tricks were necessary, involving "the gravest violations of 
principles" and "compromise at every step".  The 
Constitution came into effect in 1918 at the close of the 
first world war

WAR AND COLLABORATION

This war was to be the first international test of Labour 
parties all over the world.  They all failed, they voted with 
their parliaments for an imperialist war which was to see 
the slaughter of millions of workers.  The left of the 
Labour Party put up some resistance on the grounds there 
was not sufficient cause for war but even the leader of the 
smaller Independent Labour Party said "A nation at war 
must be united".  Prime Minister Lloyd George went so far 
as to refer to Labour as "the best policemen for the 
Syndicalist".

This proof of the Labour Party as a loyal opposition 
however meant it became acceptable to the bosses as a 
party capable of running the state in their interests. In 
order to reinforce this further a stricter separation from 
the Trades Union Congress was agreed, the TUC 
parliamentary committee being replaced with a general 
council.  Later the first Labour government insisted Trade 
union bureaucrats who became minsters gave up their TU 
positions.

The first world war was to see another  test of the Labour 
Party.  In 1917 the workers rose in Russia, overthrowing 
first the Tzar and then the bourgeois government of 
Kerensky.  Although the Bolsheviks were soon to crush 
independent working class activity, initially Russian 
workers were to take over and run the factories through 
their factory committees.  Henderson, the Labour party 
leader of the time who visited Russia, described this as a 
disaster and complained that "the men are not content 
with asking for reasonable advances".  

The Labour Party presented itself to British capitalism as 
its safeguard against revolution.  The 1922 election 
manifesto ended with the headline "Against Revolution" 
and the explanation that "Labour's programme is the best 
bulwark against violent upheaval and class wars". 

A ROLE FOR LABOUR

Their support for the first world war and opposition to the 
Russian revolution was to guarantee a role for the Labour 
Party in the eyes of the British bosses over the next few 
decades.  This was the context of clause 4 of the 
constitution.  It served to tie those in the party to 
working through parliament and provided left cover for the 
party in government.  The Labour Party formed a 
government with the Liberals in 1923 and 1929.  

In this period it was instrumental in defeating the 1926 
general strike.  At the time Ramsey McDonald, then leader 
of the party, said in the House of Commons "...with the 
discussion of general strikes and Bolshevism and all that 
kind of thing, I have nothing to do at all.  I respect the 
constitution". 

In the slump of the 30's Labour cut 20% off the 
unemployment benefit before a split in the cabinet saw 
McDonald doing a deal with the Tories and forming a 
majority government.  Electoral disaster followed in 1932.  
In opposition the party became radicalised as membership 
increased by 25% and it adopted radical policies based on 
nationalisation of industry.  Most of the lost vote was 
recovered in 1935 and again the Labour party turned to 
respectability and seeking alliances with the Liberals.
 
ANOTHER WAR: 
SAME POLICIES

The second world war again allowed the Labour Party to 
gain respectability as it entered into the 'national 
government'.  It played a major part in the creation of the 
ideology of a "people's war" which aided the government in 
making strikes illegal and keeping workers passive.  In the 
course of the war there were some strikes as workers 
fought for their own interests above those of the ruling 
class.  When miners struck in 1944 Bevin (a leader of the 
Labour left at the time) described it as "worse than if 
Hitler has bombed Sheffield". 

The war also saw full employment and economic efficiency 
in the production of munitions.  British workers asked if 
this was possible at a time of war, why not also in 
peacetime?  The armed forces numbered millions, and they 
were asking the same question, some regiments were at 
the point of mutiny.  It was clear they could not be relied 
on to suppress any large scale workers' movement.  In 
addition a massive programme of re-building was necessary 
for the British economy.

NATIONALISATION OR SOCIALISM 

This set the scene for the massive Labour victory of 1945.  
An enormous segment of the British economy was 
nationalised including the Bank of England and the mines.  
Some 20% of the economy was taken over.  This occurred, 
not as an attempt to build socialism, but rather as 
necessary steps in the re-building of British capitalism.  
The industries that were nationalised were those required 
to service the economy as a whole but which were too 
costly to attract private investment from individual bosses. 

Even Churchill said the nationalisation of the Bank of 
England was not "any issue of principle".  The 
compensation paid to the owners of these industries was 
re-invested in the profit making sphere, while the 
nationalised industries provided cheap goods and services 
to British industry.   In this way the bosses had their cake 
and ate it!

SOCIALISM 
OR STATE CONTROL?

The industries that were nationalised were not handed 
over to the workforce to manage.  Rather they were run by 
boards which commonly included the old bosses.  Stafford 
Cripps a "labour left" of the day said "I think it would be 
almost impossible to have worker controlled industry in 
Britain even if it were wholly desirable". 

Anarchists reject the idea that nationalised industry is 
progressive for its own sake.  Workers in such industries 
live under the same conditions as workers in the private 
sector.  The purpose of nationalisation is always to bail out 
bosses in trouble, or provide cheap services for the bosses 
in general.  It is never to give the workers any control of 
their workplace, pay or conditions.

At the same time the Labour government was carrying out 
more direct attacks on the working class.  In 1947 an 
austerity program which included cuts in housebuilding 
was imposed.  The largest proportion of Gross National 
Product of any western power was being spent on defence 
and in March 1946 peacetime conscription was implemented 
for the first time.  In addition the government sent British 
troops to fight in the Korean war and was secretly 
developing its own atomic bomb. 

The wartime ban on strikes was continued.  By 1950 troops 
had been used 18 times to break strikes, up to 20,000 
crossing picket lines at certain times.  This, along with the 
fact that much of the funding behind the rebuilding of 
industry came from the Marshall plan, shows how the 
policies of this government had nothing to do with 
improving conditions for workers and everything to do with 
saving British capitalism. 

ON AND ON

Indeed after the Labour defeat of 1951 the Tories 
continued working within the changes introduced by 
Labour.  Labour's record to the present day has been one 
of compromise with the bosses and selling out the workers.  
In government they cut social services and supported the 
Vietnam war (1964-1970).  In government between 1974 
and 1979 they imposed a real cut in workers wages through 
a 'social contract' in '75 and '76, (something no Tory 
government has succeeded in doing since 1945) and used 
troops (yet again!) to break strikes, this time of the 
firefighters and refuse collectors. 

Even the left of the Labour Party around  Militant and 
similar organisations showed itself on the wrong side of 
the barricades in the Poll tax riots.  Left MP George 
Galloway ranted about "lunatics, anarchists and other 
extremists". The British Militant of April 6th, although 
condemning the cops for "lashing out at innocent 
bystanders", blamed "anarchists and quasi-Marxist sects" 
for "unprovoked attacks on the police".  

Militant supporter Tommy Sheridan of the Anti-Poll Tax 
Federation said their inquiry would have no qualms about 
"informing the police" of the identity of rioters.  The main 
Labour Party was much worse, Kinnock for instance talked 
of  the rioters as "cowardly and vicious ...enemies of 
freedom" who should be "treated as criminals and 
punished". 

NO PAST:NO FUTURE

There was no glorious period of Labour Party socialism, 
and never will be.  It is a bosses' party which at times of 
crisis is every bit as willing to attack the working class as 
the Tories.  Some of the left in the Labour Party, unable 
to avoid it's rotten record, will put their hope in some 
future Labour government led by the 'left'.  Their hopes 
are as futile as those who see a majority Labour 
government led by socialists bringing in socialism in 
Ireland. 

Many of the leaders of the Labour Party including 
McDonald, Atlee and Kinnock were seen as on the left of 
the party at one time or another.  McDonald had been the 
victim of press slander campaigns.  Atlee in 1932 had said 
"the moment to strike at capitalism is the moment when 
the government is freshly elected and assured of it's 
support.  The blow struck must be a fatal one". 

Even Kinnock had defended miners violence in 1972 and 
voted against the Labour government of the 70's 84 times 
(Tony Benn voted against it twice), Kinnock even voted 
against the PTA twice.  In power or in opposition all these 
individuals however are exposed as something less than 
socialist (to put it mildly).  This is not because they were 
secretly right wingers all along.  It is because the election 
of a Labour government and its ability to retain power 
relies on it demonstrating to British bosses that it too can 
manage capitalism for them. 

In any case their concept of socialism, in so far as they still 
have one, is large scale nationalisation carried out on 
behalf of the workers.  This is a far cry from the anarchists 
who see socialism as something that can only be brought 
about through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism 
by an organised and independent working class.  

The anarchist concept of socialism includes changing the 
basis of  production so that it satisfies the needs of the 
mass of the people and is under the democratic control of 
the workers.  We want to see a maximisation of freedom for 
the individual.  We want a completely new form of society.  
Today's Labour Party merely wants to administer a more 
parental style of capitalism.

Aileen O'Carroll