The UK Labour Party

[Comrade Anarchist]

Okay the UK Labour party which is now the majority in the parliament and is a socialist party but from what i see they have no socialist policies. They dont have Tony Benn anymore and under tony blair the party seemed to stray form the socialist policies. So are they still socialist or have they officially switched off the socialism and are now controlled by capitalist interests?

[Die Neue Zeit]

They're either social-fascists or social-corporatists.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

There's not really a hair between them and the Tories... Because of the triangulation of the main parties, all three have occupied the same neo-liberal economic platform.

Elections are no longer fought on the basis of different policies but of managerial competence of the status quo.

The last nail in the coffin of socialist labour (it had been dead for a while though...) was when they dropped Clause IV in the early '90s which advocated collective ownership of the means of production.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Okay the UK Labour party which is now the majority in the parliament and is a socialist party but from what i see they have no socialist policies.

The Labour Party is not a socialist party by an definition. I'd like to know, what would you consider to be "socialist policies"?


They dont have Tony Benn anymore

Would you say this has an impact on their "socialist credentials"? How would you say this affects the class nature of the party? I would answer "It doesn't" to both.


under tony blair the party seemed to stray form the socialist policies.

Again, what would you say these socialist policies where? I don't think the labour party had any, unless of course you consider defending the British bourgeois state by acting as recruiting agents for imperialist slaughter in the First and Second World Wars, introducing statist measures to shore up the ailing British economy, committing Britain to the development of nuclear weapons as part of the US military bloc, defending the remains of the Empire in Malaysia, Aden and Palestine, enforcing austerity measures against the proletariat and sending in troops to break countless workers strikes throughout it's history in power - socialist policies.


So are they still socialist or have they officially switched off the socialism and are now controlled by capitalist interests?

The UK Labour Party have been a bourgeois party since their foundation.

[Yehuda Stern]

The UK Labour Party have been a bourgeois party since their foundation.

I think that's nonsense - clearly the Labour Party was a reformist workers party for at least the first couple of decades of its existence, and probably up to the 1970s as well. I wonder, though, if it's still that way - if it still has an organic relationship with the labor movement, working class base, etc. If anyone can shed more light on the subject I'd thank him very much.

[BobKKKindle$]

I think whether this is true depends entirely on what our definition of a workers party is. If we conceive of a workers party as an organization that maintains a consistently revolutionary line on all issues of political and economic importance, and is dedicated to the cause of internationalism and proletarian revolution, then obviously the Labour Party could not be considered a workers party in any meaningful sense, with the same being true of almost every other political organization that currently exists or has ever existed - including most parties that have described themselves as revolutionary. If, however, we see a workers party as an organization that has organic links with the working class through its connections with trade unions, and as organization whose ability to form a government depends on its electoral support from workers, then the issue becomes more ambiguous, because Labour did fit this definition in the past, if not in the present - it was created by the trade union bureaucracy and has always contained progressive or semi-progressive forces who mistakenly see the party as the best option for the working class, and still commands the support of trade union bureaucrats, although we have, in recent years, seen a shift towards funding from corporations and private individuals, as well as a more tense relationship with the unions.

In sum, I think we should characterize the Labour Party as a bourgeois workers party, because it, like reformist and xenophobic trade unions, rules in the interests of the bourgeoisie, but is still the political home of a significant portion of the working class. It is a party that is in the process of changing to a simple bourgeois party, as its trade union links are being eroded, and it is turning towards corporate financing.

These articles shed some light on the relationship between the Labour Party and the trade unions: Unions' troubled relationship with the Labour Party, (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13120) Are left wing union leaders too awkward for New Labour? (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=2495), Anger explodes at the union link with Labour, (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=469) Trade unionists, are you...Happy that Labour gets union cash? (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=4910)

[thejambo1]

the labour party of the 70's are no more the party that are in power are new labour and are not a socialist party or even a little bit left wing. they are no different to the tories in their fundamental politics. look how blair and brown both wanted their pics taken with thatcher at no.10. they have carried on her policies. there is no socialist party to support in general elections that have any sway.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Again, what would you say these socialist policies where? I don't think the labour party had any, unless of course you consider defending the British bourgeois state by acting as recruiting agents for imperialist slaughter in the First and Second World Wars, introducing statist measures to shore up the ailing British economy, committing Britain to the development of nuclear weapons as part of the US military bloc, defending the remains of the Empire in Malaysia, Aden and Palestine, enforcing austerity measures against the proletariat and sending in troops to break countless workers strikes throughout it's history in power - socialist policies.

I don't think it's fair to say that the Labour Party were never socialist, I mean, they were insofar as advocating the collective ownership of the means of production, instating the National Health Service and Welfare State. They were never revolutionary, but they were 'socialist'. Even up to the 80s with elements within the party such as the Militant Tendency, there were tenants of socialism within the party.

The party didn't have a 'hard left' so to speak, seeing as dual membership of the LP and the Communist Party was banned in 1919. In spite of that the party's membership was always to the left of the leadership. New Labour today is the party that Ramsay McDonald tried to create.

Granted this is all within the parameters of bourgeoise democracy. I think the idea of a Labour party was a radical one, but it's been a failed experiment.

[Pogue]

They're either social-fascists or social-corporatists.

These terms are meaningless for anyone other than you, why do you keep using them? You know no one is going to know what you mean by them, its like some form of intellectual masturbation.

Theres a number of theories in political circles as to what the Labour party of today are. The most accepted view is the 'Third Way', which is an idea created by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. Its like a more right wing of social democracy. Labour has at the core of its 'ideology' the idea of 'equal opputunity'. This is basically how they try to jusitfy poverty and social inequality, by syaing that if education is good enough, then its the individuals own fault if they don't succeed because we all started equal and they failed. Its based on false ideas of meritocracy that just doesn't exist because of differences in background and the class system.

This 'Thid Way' isn't really an ideology. Its more like Tony Blair's attempt to justify his Thatcherite way of governing and Thatcherite policies. He privatises everything from educaiton to the NHS to Air Traffic Control whilst spending alot of money on education and the NHS to try and look like he is staying true to social democracy. So basically they are right wing but are triyng to justify it by saying its some sort of 'social democracy for the 21st century'. Just look at them supporting the restrictions on the unions which are the most repressive in the world and their constant privatisations, and how they now ignore the TUC in favour of the CBI (which is like the TUC equivalent for businesses in the UK).

They are by no way socialist. They were social democrats since around the 20s onwards, prior to that you could have called them democratic socialists, and since 80s onwards they're 'Third Way', i.e. Thatcherism and neo-liberalism.

[MikeSC]

Okay the UK Labour party which is now the majority in the parliament and is a socialist party but from what i see they have no socialist policies. They dont have Tony Benn anymore and under tony blair the party seemed to stray form the socialist policies. So are they still socialist or have they officially switched off the socialism and are now controlled by capitalist interests?

The never were- I recommend "The Labour Party: A Marxist History" by Tony Cliff. Labour chose their side right from the start and have merely been faithful to that side. At their best it was "just enough socialism to save the ruling class from their inferiors."

Social Fascists is right.

[robbo203]

Okay the UK Labour party which is now the majority in the parliament and is a socialist party but from what i see they have no socialist policies. They dont have Tony Benn anymore and under tony blair the party seemed to stray form the socialist policies. So are they still socialist or have they officially switched off the socialism and are now controlled by capitalist interests?

The Labour Party is not and never was a socialist party. Ever. It is and always was a capitalist reformist party. Its (in)famous Clause 4, now discarded, which talks of the common ownership of the means of production distribution AND EXCHANGE, was a peice of incoherent gobblydegook which completely fails to recognise the obvious point that exchange is wholly incompatible with common ownership of the means of production and distribution. You cannot "exchange" what you hold in common

Tony Benn is just a left wing capitalist politician albeit rather more principled than most. But he is certainly no socialist

[Sam_b]

I don't think it's fair to say that the Labour Party were never socialist, I mean, they were insofar as advocating the collective ownership of the means of production, instating the National Health Service and Welfare State. They were never revolutionary, but they were 'socialist'. Even up to the 80s with elements within the party such as the Militant Tendency, there were tenants of socialism within the party.

Ah yes, but remember that the Atlee government of 1945-51 also showed their imperialist ambitions with their obvious siding in the Korean War, as well as creating a new education system of 'two tiers' which directly disadvantaged working class children.

I don't think New Labour are fascists, not at all. One thing we should always strive for in the movement is complete clarity, and as much as many of us like to band around meaningless statements like "OMG we live in a fascist dictatorship!", we really don't. If anything New Labour are the same as many Western European and North American political entities: increasingly authoritarian, imperialist and neo-liberal. But even they cannot stick to their own ideology: when their Schumpetarian neoliberalism goes up in smoke, they steal money from workers to bail them out.

I still think, however, that there are genuine socialists in the Labour party, and comrades from Socialist Appeal will attain to this. But of course they are in the minority, and I think, under the recent policy directions the party has been taking, had a crisis to try and justify their continued participation in the project. I would have had sympathies with their line up until the 1970s, but now to me it has become absolutely clear that socialists have to ditch the Labour party, and its increasing parroting of Conservatism and neo-liberalism: this is where we have to start encouraging activists, trade unionists and socialists within Labour to make the break with Brown and his stooges and join a genuine, class struggle socialist party.

[Bitter Ashes]

Wasnt Militant a splinter from old Labour? I guess if that's true, at one point it was once able to support activities that were somewhat closer to socialist.

I guess when Labour kicked them out in the early 80's it showed up the direction the Labour wanted to go, which obviously showed that they'd picked thier side. Still, it was good to see that the people of Liverpool stood by Militant even after the split. I wonder how the miners' strikes would have gone differently if Militant had the support of the Labour party to challenge Thatcher.

[BobKKKindle$]

Wasnt Militant a splinter from old Labour? I guess if that's true, at one point it was once able to support activities that were somewhat closer to socialist. I think there were many problems with Militant's methods, particularly their failure to clearly identify the impossibility of winning socialism through the institutions of the bourgeois state, which expressed itself in their plan to pass an enabling act in parliament once the Labour Party had been won over to a revolutionary position, but I still have a great deal of respect for what they did, and their activity inside the Labour Party is a proud chapter in the history of our movement. They decided to leave the Labour Party in 1991 and went on to form the Socialist Party, although a minority decided to remain inside the Labour Party and are today known as Socialist Appeal.

[Bitter Ashes]

I thought the Labour party expelled the Militant members from the party in the early 80's? I dont know too much about them to be honest, my Dad mentioned them a few times when I was little and he was a big fan of what they were doing in Liverpool.

[BobKKKindle$]

I think the national executive expelled the whole of Militant's editorial board, including Peter Taaffe, who is the currently leader of the Socialist Party, in 1983 once it had become clear that Militant had its own internal regime within the Labour party, with that decision being supported at the Labour Party conference later in the same year due to the block votes of right-wing trade unions. This wasn't the end of Militant's activity though, because its major victories in Liverpool took place in the years after 1983.

[ls]

I still think, however, that there are genuine socialists in the Labour party, and comrades from Socialist Appeal will attain to this. But of course they are in the minority, and I think, under the recent policy directions the party has been taking, had a crisis to try and justify their continued participation in the project.

You would think so, but I'm honestly not sure anymore.


I would have had sympathies with their line up until the 1970s, but now to me it has become absolutely clear that socialists have to ditch the Labour party

Many people did, from the circles of anti-fascism to trade unions, that doesn't mean it was the perfect line, granted, everything was much more organised but in the end, people chose of their own accord to split from things such as Red Action.


and its increasing parroting of Conservatism and neo-liberalism: this is where we have to start encouraging activists, trade unionists and socialists within Labour to make the break with Brown and his stooges and join a genuine, class struggle socialist party.

There may undoubtedly be some in Labour who are ok, but a massive core of Labour's base is extremely rotten and I think that rot has pretty much already spread over to the SWP.

[Sam_b]

Libsoc, I kind of agree, except with your last comment of course.

I don't think you can compare a party of neoliberalism with a revolutionary formation. And of course I see nothing wrong with encouraging working class Labour supporters to break with them and to join genuine socialist parties, be that the SWP, SPEW or whatever.

[neilhere]

They are most definetly not a socialist party. Anyone who thinks they are is living in a dream world!

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think that's nonsense - clearly the Labour Party was a reformist workers party for at least the first couple of decades of its existence, and probably up to the 1970s as well.

As Bob rightly notes, I think this all come down to the question: what is a "workers party"?

Without going into this question here, I think the notion of a "reformist workers party" is utter nonsense. In what sense can a party express the interests of the working class yet simultaneously be a reformist, that is to say bourgeois, political force?


I wonder, though, if it's still that way - if it still has an organic relationship with the labor movement, working class base, etc.

And here we have the issue. Whereas for you, the class nature of an organisation is dependant upon the sociological and class composition of it's support base, I would say this is a meaningless. Why you yourself recently admitted in a thread on Cuba that their was mass participation in the 'revolution', but whilst castroites like to use this as evidence of the proletarian nature of the Cuban revolution you rightly understood this not to be the case. Similarly we can talk about any number of bourgeois election campaigns or bourgeois political parties or even national liberation movements as having a basis in the working class - certainly you would not claim that this is a determinant of their class nature? What is the difference here?



In sum, I think we should characterize the Labour Party as a bourgeois workers party

Forward, backward, inward, outward
Come and join the chase
Nothing could be drier
Than a jolly caucus race

Backward, forward, outward, inward
Bottom to the top
Never a beginning
There can never be a stop

To skipping, hopping, tripping fancy free and gay
Started it tomorrow
But will finish yesterday

'Round and 'round and 'round we go
Until forevermore
For once we were behind
But now we find we are be-

Foreward, backward, inward, outward
Come and joing the chase
Nothing could be drier
Than a jolly caucus race!


They were never revolutionary, but they were 'socialist'.

This statement is contradictory.


Even up to the 80s with elements within the party such as the Militant Tendency, there were tenants of socialism within the party.

And what socialist tenants would you say there where? How did these effect the class nature of the organisation? Would you call the militant tendency a real expression of proletarian life within the party?

There were none. It doesn't. It wasn't.

[robbo203]

I don't think it's fair to say that the Labour Party were never socialist, I mean, they were insofar as advocating the collective ownership of the means of production, instating the National Health Service and Welfare State. They were never revolutionary, but they were 'socialist'. Even up to the 80s with elements within the party such as the Militant Tendency, there were tenants of socialism within the party.
.


This is nonsense. The Labour Party was never a socialist party. The Clause 4 you allude to calling for common onwership of the means of prodiction distribution and exchange is actually nationalisation or state capitalism since in a socialist society products are not "exchanged "and logically cannot be if the means of producing them are "owned in common". The welfare state has nothing to do with socialism but was actually proposed by Lord Beveridge in a landmark report the early 40s and had the support of several proiminant Tories on the grounds that it would boost wartime morale and be much more efficient than the peicemeal system of welfare that had prevailed up to then. Militant Tendency needless to say were just a bunch of entryist left wing pro capitalists advocating nationalisation of the commanding heights of industry and other measures for reforming capitalism. There was nothing remotely socialist about them.

No socialist would touch the labour party with a bargepole and the thought that this bunch of neo Thatcherite political opportunists have anything to do with socialism frankly is so ridiculous as to be laughable

[STJ]

Okay the UK Labour party which is now the majority in the parliament and is a socialist party but from what i see they have no socialist policies. They dont have Tony Benn anymore and under tony blair the party seemed to stray form the socialist policies. So are they still socialist or have they officially switched off the socialism and are now controlled by capitalist interests?

The Labor Party have never been a socialist party.

[The Idler]

The Labour Party is a member of the Socialist International (http://www.socialistinternational.org/) and in Europe it is member of the Party of European Socialists but is welfare capitalist.
Also the Labour leader is elected giving equal weight between the unions, members and MPs, whereas the Tory leader is elected by MPs, and the Lib Dem leader is elected by members.

[Pogue]

The Labour party was formed in the early 20th century was the Labour Representation Committee to try and give workers influence in Parliament. Intially they were a mix of social democracy and democratic socialism. I'm going to plot in a 'timeline' what happened with them, in a basic form, because I made a long post and accidentally lost it all halfway through.

- Early 20th century - LRC formed to give workers power in parliament. Because working class had no money to run for elections, they were sponsored by the TUC. Labour-TUC link established. Labour Clause IV calls for full public ownership and worker run society, which Labour have to abide by as part of their constitution (so most always support nationalisation over privatisation.)

10s/20s - Labour in power first times.

1945 - Labour Party elected by the working class devastated by war and by soldiers who wanted reforms. 'Quarter Revolution' occurs where the NHS is created by Nye Bevan in Clement Atlee government. Railway nationalised, working class people flood to NHS for treatment (they previously wouldn't out of fear of the bills). Labour is very left wing here, NHS was a big thing (it became and sitll is the world's biggest employer) and many wealthier docotrs opposed it, as did the Tories.

Post 1945 -1979 - Post-war consensus. Both major parties agree on welfare state but differ on how to implement it. One nation/social democratic ideas of a nation where everyone is supposedly looked after and cooperates (corporatism, uninos and businesses with government together etc).

1979 - James Callaghan government is ousted by Parliament led by Thatcher after Winter of Discontent and the 3 day week when militant unions opposing shit pay offers paralyse nation with strikes, etc.

1985 - Michael Foot runs on a very very left wing manifesto against Thatchers Thatcherite authoritarian policies. Clear indication (if you eneded it after years of Thatcher) that post-war consensus is over and adversarial politics comes about again. Foot calls for nationalisaiton, public spending, trade union powers, nuclear disarmament, Thatcher for privatisation, more nuclear weapons, attacks unions etc. Foot loses badly.

1985 - 1997 - Labour Party under Kinnock think they ened to change from traditional social democracy or face never ever getting elected again. Some politicla observers say Conservatives will never fall out of government. Kinnock expells Militant Tendency, radical Trotskyist entryist group trying to turn Labour in revolutionary direction. Limits trade union influence on party. Clause IV is changed in 1994 by Tony Blair from calling for public ownership to calling for 'dynamic mixed economy' and a laod of other vague stuff basically amounting to calling for privatisation and marketisation, whilst saying Labour is a 'democratic socialist' party even though it hasn't been for years and certainly isn't now. Blair publishes a *really* shit book about 'socialism'. I read it, its shit, trust me.

1997 - Labour is elected as New Labour.

2001 - To War in Afghanistan. Labour still hasn't granted Trade Unions their freedoms back, has privatised some stuff.

Basically the rest is modern events. Iraq imperialist war, illegal. Loads of privatisation, in city academies, NBS air traffic control, etc. Basically as Thatcherite as Thatcher but with loads of useless public spending on education and a bit but no where near enough on the NHS. Unions ignored more, some get a bit pissed off but don't do anything much. Trust, by 1997 the Labour party had nothing of worth left. Solidly right wing. Now we're in a new consensus politics which is free market competition consensus. Labour are well and truly sold out, definatly not even social democrat. Thats the Labour Party basically.

[Pogue]

The Labour Party is a member of the Socialist International (http://www.socialistinternational.org/) and in Europe it is member of the Party of European Socialists but is welfare capitalist.
Also the Labour leader is elected giving equal weight between the unions, members and MPs, whereas the Tory leader is elected by MPs, and the Lib Dem leader is elected by members.

They're not even committed to the welfare state anymore seen by their privatisation of education and healthcare and the fact they've just completely fucked up benefits, making them piss poor, shockingly bad. I've seen the proposed changes and its really brutal, its shocking. They're well and truly right wing. The SI is full of shit 'Third Way' parties, the 'ideology' Clinton and Blair 'followed', basically their justification for right wing policies whilst trying to act like they haven't abandoned social democracy.

Also note how Labour is now really brutal to immigrants too.

[Pogue]

And nowadays some of their old disillusioned voters are going BNP, others are staying to Labour with some hope of change, its generally a mess, absence of a left wing party being expolited by the BNP. Bad stuff.

[robbo203]

The Labour Party is a member of the Socialist International (http://www.socialistinternational.org/) and in Europe it is member of the Party of European Socialists but is welfare capitalist.
Also the Labour leader is elected giving equal weight between the unions, members and MPs, whereas the Tory leader is elected by MPs, and the Lib Dem leader is elected by members.

This is part of the problem. They use the label "socialist" but have absolutely nothing to do with socialism. I live in Spain where the PSOE is in power. Not that it makes a blind bit of difference whether the PSOE governed or the PP . If this is "socialism" in Spain then what distinguishes "socialism" from "capitalism" should say the PP get into power next time. Absolutely nothing. These pseudo socialists would do us an immense favour by abandoning all pretence at being socialists

[Pogue]

This is part of the problem. They use the label "socialist" but have absolutely nothing to do with socialism. I live in Spain where the PSOE is in power. Not that it makes a blind bit of difference whether the PSOE governed or the PP . If this is "socialism" in Spain then what distinguishes "socialism" from "capitalism" should say the PP get into power next time. Absolutely nothing. These pseudo socialists would do us an immense favour by abandoning all pretence at being socialists

I don't think what they label themselves is a problem really, most people recognise the so called 'socialists' are no longer this.

Whats interesting is how members of the CNWP believe they could prevent their new party from following Labour down this path.

[Yehuda Stern]

Niccolo: Like many people, you confuse proletarian with "good." I never said Labor was ever a "good" party - however, it seems somewhat ridiculous to me that a party created by the working class with the intention of being the political arm of the trade unions could be anything be a working class party. The counterexamples you use are miserable - voting base in elections does not equal the active social base of a party, and one should really know better. The example of Cuba is irrelevant because the workers have participated in it, but not led it. Leadership was always in the hands of the petty-bourgeois Castroists.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Niccolo: Like many people, you confuse proletarian with "good."

I think we both know this is misrepresentation. To clarify, I think the fundamentally determining factor in the class nature of any organisation is whos interests it defends, that is, it's platform, political line and it's practical actions and interventions in the class struggles. On this basis I don't believe the UK Labour Party can be called a proletarian party (whether it was in it's foundation is arguable more arguably).


I never said Labor was ever a "good" partyWho's interests would you say the party upholds? If these interests differed over it's history, where can the turning point be identified?


however, it seems somewhat ridiculous to me that a party created by the working class with the intention of being the political arm of the trade unions could be anything be a working class party. The fact that Labour is a "party created by the working class" has nothing to do with it's class nature. As I've said before, workers have been rallied in the defence of capitalism and the counter-revolution in countless numbers throughout the 20th Century.

I think this rests on a certain asumption about the unions, namely that they are organs of the working class. This however is another debate in itself.


The counterexamples you use are miserable - voting base in elections does not equal the active social base of a partyIn what way would you say they are distinguishable? In what way does/did the Labour party have this working class 'social base'?


The example of Cuba is irrelevant because the workers have participated in it, but not led it.Do you think workers lead/have lead the labour party?

P.S. Sorry if that seems like alot of questions and very little contribution to the thread. I'd very seriosuly be interested in your thoughts on these matters.