Labour and its leadership, part 1
Both Ed and David Miliband have begun their rhetorical repositioning for the leadership campaign. The by-line of the Guardian article on Brother David reads, “Former foreign secretary woos the party’s left…” but the reality is probably more accurately exposed by Paul Waugh’s summary over at the Evening Standard. David Miliband has set himself up as the ‘clean hands’ candidate – nodding to the past, nodding to the thousands of activists who had to watch dumbfounded as Labour waddled from mistake to disaster and so on.
Meanwhile, brother Ed has turned to rather naive-sounding guff about New Labour not having a sense of mission, but falling into the mindset of ‘technocratic caretakers’. His pitch is that Labour needs to hook up once more with the core vote, but that New Labour ‘asked the hard questions’ – that something can be saved. Some people seem to think that Brother Ed is appealing to the working class, and he picks out ‘real world’ examples, saying that we should prefer the realities visited upon people instead of abstract economics.
The harsh reality, of course, is both were cabinet ministers (one under Blair and both under Brown). They aren’t reformers, and a latter-day conversion towards Labour members having a greater say is opportunistic in the extreme. When we see concrete proposals on this ‘having a say’ bit, I’ll be sure to return to it, but the ‘feel’ of their speech is that there may be institutional adjustments and gasping policy announcements and lots of talk about ‘renewal’ but that very little will change. This is virtually inevitable if Brothers Ed and David don’t move beyond Blair – and I don’t think they will or can even imagine how to.
Just as interesting as those who have thrown their hat into the ring is who has not.
Jon Cruddas has ruled himself out of the leadership race, which probably removes the only chance the soft Left ever had at influencing the thing, beyond gushing pronouncements in favour of Ed Miliband, who is viewed as the more Left of the two brothers. Wannabe softie, James Purnell, is pushing the same line as Cruddas at the moment; re-connect with the vote (among C2 voters), move slowly, re-energise the Party. This seems to be standard for the so-called centre Left; thus too pressure group Compass’ post-election statement. Evidently Neal Lawson and the rest of that self-admiring cohort don’t think they’ve done enough damage with their urgings to vote ‘tactically’ for the Lib-Dems, to keep out the Tories.
All of this talk about renewal and reconnecting etc, from the centre-Left, is meant to fill the bloody great hole where actually doing something fits in. Around the world, indefinite strikes have been pronounced – here at home, workers (often against the wishes of their trades unions) are gearing up to fight the incoming cuts, whether from private business or the public sector…and meanwhile the lions of centre-left socialism are doing little but mewl in the press. Which is exactly what I and others expect, so that at least is gratifying.
A centre-Left candidate may yet emerge, of course. In the meantime, those who have been casting rather silly aspersions at John McDonnell’s potential candidacy find themselves in the unenviable position of wanting ‘a clean break from the policies and practices of the New Labour era’ while opposing the only leadership candidate likely to achieve it. Former MP Bob Clay’s article on the subject departs from reality entirely, with a mention of Michael Meacher as a more likely candidate (Meacher got three endorsements and crumbled at the 2007 debate).
McDonnell ran in 2007 and though he failed to get enough endorsements, his campaign was like a fresh wind through the often sterile internal debates of the Labour Party. Even a Cruddas candidacy, though more likely to gain enough nominations, would not necessarily provoke this – Cruddas is, after all, basically a Blairite, and support for him would still place the soft Left in contradiction to themselves – wanting a change from New Labour, a return to an older form of social democracy, while supporting a candidate who wants nothing of the sort. We’re spared making this argument because Cruddas isn’t running. His own reasoning (if such banalities deserve the title) can be read here.
This makes the attacks against John McDonnell seem all the more surreal. Without an alternative candidate of even basic Left credentials, McDonnell is the natural choice for any socialist remaining in Labour. What all the arguments against McDonnell clearly miss, of course, is the chance that a McDonnell candidacy gives the LRC – a group based around members, union branches and CLPs – to get a foothold in Labour around the country, to kick off real debate and to set up mini-groups of supporters who can deepen and broaden LRC support by campaign activities. Only this long game offers a glimmer of hope for the Left; otherwise they should get out of Labour and stay out.
Key among campaign priorities before the election demanded the full attention of every activist was the People’s Charter, which is solid Left stuff that appeals far beyond the narrow confines of the Labour Representation Committee. This is the sort of thing which could get off the ground, certainly in time for conference in the autumn. What plenty of the nay-sayers also neglect to note is that there are several McDonnell supporters running as the Left candidates for leadership of different unions. Paul Holmes, interviewed here, is a key one, over at UNISON.
This is a chance to energise and mobilise the whole Left – both its union and party elements. Meanwhile those people saying that John McDonnell is hostile to or likely to alienate the unions because of his opposition to union bureaucratisation need to catch themselves on. McDonnell is the only candidate who, as leader, would have any intention of mobilising parliamentary and extra-parliamentary elements of the movement to slam dunk the Trade Union Freedom Bill.
Whatever platitudes we get from the soft-Left, that fear of extra-parliamentary action will always keep them bottled up – that is why we need a candidate like McDonnell. The other regular rebels – like Jeremy Corbyn – will likely fall into line behind McDonnell, especially with the unanimous backing from the LRC’s National Committee put firmly on record, in the aftermath of Saturday’s conference, sponsored by the LRC, whatever remains of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and various unions.
If McDonnell doesn’t win, then Labourites face years of a Tory government whose best friends are the Labour leadership, as under Thatcher and Kinnock, when everything possible was done by the Labour heirarchy to smother mass activism and militancy, in fear that it could damage the credentials of the Party to lead ‘the nation’. Then, I guarantee you, that space outside of Labour for a Left party, which people are saying has closed or is closing, will be blasted wide open in no time at all. Tomorrow’s article concerns just that.
Good article. There seem to be concerted efforts going on in both Left Futures and Socialist Unity to rubbish the LRC and John McDonnell before we even get to the starting-block.
It would seem I am personally to blame for UNITE, UNISON and the other bureaucrats n the GMB moving en masse at Labour Party Conference 2008 to block a resolution from Calder Valley which woud have helped the left get on the ballot.
Bob Clay is re-inventing history and talking nonsense. Meacher, as you say, could not even get double figures last time . The notion the union buraeucrats would hve backed a similar resolution 12 months down the line is la-la land.
“Then, I guarantee you, that space outside of Labour for a Left party, which people are saying has closed or is closing, will be blasted wide open in no time at all. Tomorrow’s article concerns just that.”
I guess words are important here. There isn’t room for an openly labelled *socialist* or *communist* party, but there is certainly room for a openly labelled Left party that is affiliated with the European United Left “europarliamentary” group (getting past CPB nationalism by not being so chummy with continental Eurocommunist parties) and that has a socialist programme of some sort.
All that is needed is for Labour guys like McDonnell to ditch tred-iunion whoring (the whole history of Labour in comparison to the pre-war SPD, inter-war USPD, and even today’s Die Linke) and be Britain’s Oskar Lafontaine.
If there isn’t room for an openly labelled socialist or communist party, in what ways would such a left party be of any use, Jacob? More specifically, in what ways would it be resistant to the very pressures which have driven Labour rightwards?
As for the phrase ‘tred-iunion whoring’, when you’re comparing it to the pre-war SPD or USPD, I think I’ll stick with the whoring, thanks awfully.
The British labour movement is, comparatively speaking, more backward than the German worker movement.
It scabbed out on the International Workingmen’s Association by condemning the Paris Commune. The British left at the beginning of the 20th century was divided between an explicitly anti-socialist labour movement and socialist sects.
Unlike the post-WWI SPD, Labour has been unable to achieve political tasks like scrapping the monarchy and nationalizing all lands under aristocratic enclosure.
There is a reason why, according to Lars Lih, Lenin’s model was the state-within-a-state SPD with its Erfurt Programme and Kautsky’s authoritative commentary… and not the sad experience of the British labour movement.
Contemporarily speaking, the more militant elements of Die Linke didn’t have to rely on trade union $$$ to garner 11.6% at the national elections plus support for Socialist Leftist Bärbel Beuermann and Anti-Capitalist Leftist Wolfgang Zimmermann in the highly working-class state of North Rhine-Westphalia. British Labour never seemed to have gotten it right even on populist rhetoric.
Your argument here rests on some weirdly synchronic elements. For a start, ‘scabbing’ on the Paris Commune hardly makes the case that the British working class is currently backwards, nor does the fact that it has had strong anti-socialist elements in the labour movement during the 20th Century. Depending on how one defines socialism, so has the SPD.
Your arguments about the abolition of the monarchy carry a little more weight, as a properly revolutionary procession of events – which has been experienced less frequently and to a lesser extent in the UK than Germany – would probably sweep away the monarchy. But this does not prove that the labour movement is ‘more backward’ than that in Germany – and the sad fate of the inter-war SPD, the Erfurt Programme and Kautsky besides surely demonstrates that there are other factors to consider.
On a side note, I think it’s a bad joke of yours if you intend to draw a line between Lenin and Kautsky or the Erfurt Programme, whatever Lars Lih says.
Contemporarily speaking, saying that British Labour ‘never seemed to have gotten it right even on populist rhetoric’ is a demonstrably silly remark to make, if you intend to compare the elections in Nordrhein-Westphalia to elections in the UK, as you seem to. Die Linke’s manifesto has included things about how seeking profit is alright and other such remarks; their rhetoric leaves a lot to be desired.
And for all that you think the ‘more militant’ elements of Die Linke didn’t have to rely on trade union funds to get votes, it wasn’t merely the more militant elements of Die Linke which picked up such votes, and many of those involved were trade unionists, and Die Linke does a lot of work in that milieu, which surely counts as ‘tred-iunion whoring’.
None of which really proves your original point in any case – that simply by ditching ‘tred-iunion whoring’ (whatever that translates as), McDonnell could choose to be the next Oskar Lafontaine. I regard this as a strikingly facile conclusion.
[Sorry for the long reply, but here goes]
Re. your first paragraph: It is true that British trade unions scabbing out on the IWMA alone doesn’t make the case that the British working class is at the present time backwards. However, like you conceded later on, there are historical events later on. I should also point out the only time when the British working class was revolutionary: the Chartist movement. It is also true that there were anti-socialists in the SPD itself, but they never had the chance to express their influence more fully until WWI. Also, there were no sects organized outside the SPD.
One of the very few positive things to take out of the inter-war SPD was the fact that it had militias. Other than that, I’m more sympathetic towards the USPD, despite its failure to boot out the SPD-smooching renegades and snuff out the influence of a KPD whose very foundation was (yes) ultra-leftist from the outset.
I’m not drawing a line between Lenin and (pre-renegade) Kautsky; I am stressing their continuity. Lars Lih openly admitted to spearheading a “Kautsky Revival,” and I openly admit my political alignment towards such.
About British Labour and populism: why has British Labour been prone to control freakery on “civil” and “social” issues? The Orwellian CCTV fad is in fact one of several episodes in the history of British Labour’s control freakery. Say what you will about the SPD after Godesberg, but even they didn’t have this problem (the CDU does, hence the Free Democrats tempering them somewhat on that front).
“Die Linke’s manifesto has included things about how seeking profit is alright and other such remarks; their rhetoric leaves a lot to be desired.” I have read their draft program, and I don’t recall them saying such outside of their section on “Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.” I do recall them saying somewhat the opposite in other sections:
—–
An economy which serves the people and not profit, has to fulfil the following functions above all others: First of all, it has to meet the requirements of people and secure all of them a life in prosperity and social security; secondly, it has to be ecologically sustainable; thirdly, it has to innovatively tackle new challenges and, fourthly, use the social resources economically. Moreover, it has to be organized in a way that allows all people, directly or indirectly working in the economy, to freely develop their capabilities and to engage in learning and higher training in their work.
[...]
Which sectors, companies and plants are to be covered by democratic socialization, and what form of public or collective ownership should be chosen (state, municipal, cooperative or staff), has to be decided in a democratic process [...]
—–
There are rank-and-file trade unionists in Die Linke for sure. However, the $$$ I’m referring to is very much controlled by the union bureaucracies. British Labour is tied to union bureaucracies. Attempts by the British left to re-create “Old Labour” like TUSC are (failed) attempts to smooch to enough union bureaucracies to get “mass” backing. Just look at SPEW’s chummy relations with the prison officers’ union.
“Tred-iunion” is the Russian term used by Lenin (and elaborated upon by Lars Lih) to describe organizations stressing “nothing but the trade unions” activity (tred-iunionizm), whether it’s of the explicitly anti-socialist kind or of the syndicalist but still anti-political kind.
My conclusion is facile in only one respect: the UK doesn’t have, unfortunately, a voting system that reflects proportional representation (whether it’s German MMP or Israeli pure PR). With such a system, there’s no incentive for leftists in the Labour party to remain in that political corpse.
Once again you haven’t made your case, because you haven’t linked back all this stuff to anything to do with the run of John McDonnell for leader. But you have said a bunch of things which are disturbing.
The first is about the SP’s ‘chummy relations’ with the POA. I fail to see your problem. Brian Caton and other Prison Officers moved into struggle with a Labour government and got bitten for it, despite having been loyal Labourites for years. Having been so bitten, is it not natural for them to change party allegiance, whilst still retaining their perspectives on unions and the working class?
Related to this is your claim that TUSC was an attempt to re-create Old Labour. Again, I’ll simply say that this is nonsense! Absolutely TUSC sought union funding – and why shouldn’t it, if the money is available – but its key strength was in being open to any organised group of activists to sign on, as many did. Many were union members and activists, and some brought with them the endorsement of union branches, which were also in a position to supply them with facilities.
None of this constitutes a hunt after a new Old Labour. Quite the opposite; it was the solidification of a penumbra of left activists around a core of revolutionaries. Hopefully something will come out of this – a new Socialist Alliance perhaps, which is as analogous to Die Linke as one gets in British politics – but even if it doesn’t the attempt was worth making and it bore no reference to Old Labour.
The second is your implication that John McDonnell and/or the LRC stresses ‘nothing but the trade unions’, which is a nonsense. The LRC has a lot of union supporters – as does Die Linke, so you can have no criticism of that. But its primary constituencies, and the primary targets of its activism, are the CLPs and the building of a geographical network of activists. As I in fact say explicitly above, this long game is the one hope of all strands of ‘hard Left’ activists within the Labour Party.
Please do forgive me for having read numerous articles in the Weekly Worker critiquing “Labour Party Mark Two” stuff:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1003900
—–
Even if the Tusc campaign for a Labour Party mark two stood a chance of getting anywhere (it does not precisely because the actual Labour Party still exists – and could even swing far to the left after a period of opposition), then it will end up going exactly the same way as the Labour Party of the 20th century. Unless you begin with a programmatic commitment to overcoming capitalism, as opposed to managing it, you will set off along the long and winding road which culminated in the party of Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson and Gordon Brown.
Our task is to overcome Labourism through joint work and patient argument aimed at programmatic unity within a party of Marxism (and in my experience the LRC has been a slightly more responsive environment than projects like Respect). We should not sow illusions in Labourite perspectives, but make clear that it is a project which reduces the working class programme to demands for a ‘fairer’ share under a capitalism presided over by her majesty’s imperial Labour government. The ‘clause four socialism’ of old Labour was always a mere sound bite aimed at keeping in check a British working class inspired by the Russian Revolution of 1917.
The ruins of the Socialist Alliance and Respect highlight the folly of Marxists pretending to be Labourites. Tusc will go the same way. It has to. The left has to live up to the enormity of the tasks ahead, get its act together and offer a viable, qualitatively different, programmatic alternative for our class.
—–
The problem with the pretend CPGB and anything they write is that they frame everything in terms of inadequacies of leadership and programme. Thankfully, they are on hand to provide both. Convenient eh?
They’re only inadequate on the leadership front. Programmatically they are ahead of most of the British left, but on reform programs probably behind Die Linke.