The (old) British Labour Party

[Rousedruminations]

hi comrades,

I recently saw a documentary where it spoke about the history of the British labour party (particularly the party's old policy orientation), and its indirect affiliation with communism in soviet Russia at the time of its formative years of development. Unfortunately its modernization has shifted the party more to the right, than left labeling itself ' The New Labour party' because of the petty international bourgeoisie media . The Soviet/communist influences, enabled it to build a solid foundation of socialism (perhaps skewed towards the Soviet's style of socialism ) for the labour party so that it could generate a world class universal healthcare system as depicted by michael moores film " sicko " and his recent film an analysis of Capitalism and its hegemony Capitalism: A Love Story. Any drug/medicine despite the condition or how expensive it maybe, costs 6 pound 65, an astonishing and glimmering wonder to the people that live in the US. In his film " Sicko" a retired British politician from the left, said that ' Margaret Thatcher ' from the right wing conservative party who served 3 terms in office, stated that " the British Healthcare System should not be privatized and it should be kept in public hands ". It seems like the British will always have a national health care system :cool: It is ironic then, that Barack Obama's national healthcare or socialized healthcare system in the US has failed, opposed by lame republicans who want it privatized to insurance companies, where greedy capitalists (CEO of those insurance companies) rake up all the money for themselves. Thus because of this epic failure, over 50 million Americans are without healthcare, a sad state the US are in i must say. Similar to Britain's healthcare system, is France. They have an equally powerful one i presume, in fact most European countries have an excellent healthcare system when compared to the one used in the US, would you not say comrades ? Could the Soviet historical influence in Europe , and thus loosely England have affected them to such a degree that now, most people living in Europe or England are completely covered ? .. i wonder why the US still has not learned from this ! after all Canada, had socialized medicine after Tommy Douglas rose as a potent politician of the left wing party there..

I really want to know if the reverberating and irrevocable effects of the political, ideological, economical systems after the October revolution and until the soviet unions,collapse whether it had any affect among the left wing party movements in Europe or England ? .. and what were the outcome of those influences with in those countries ?

[Hit The North]

Firstly, you seem a little misinformed on the history of the British Labour Party. It was set up in the early years of the twentieth century by the Trades Union leaders who saw the opportunities available to having political representation in the British parliament. From its inception it has been hostile to the ideas of socialism and has never supported the notion of workers power. It has certainly never been close to the ideas or practices of the Bolsheviks. Time and again it has sought to dampen working class resistance to capitalism. It has never officially supported a strike in its history! True, it has been the main vehicle of important reforms such as the NHS, which has improved the conditions of workers under capitalism, but it has never challenged or opposed capitalism in any form.

It changed into New Labour in early 1990s under the leadership of Tony Blair, ditching cherished clauses from its constitution, such as Clause 4 which committed the Labour Party to the eventual nationalization of the economy. However, this was more symbolic than anything else, because this apsiration had always been an illusion used to con socialist workers to their cause.

Secondly, your point about the backward conditions US workers find themselves in, compared to many in Europe, is the result of the North American working class being politically weak and disorganised. Every form of socialised health system in Western Europe was the result of a historical compromise in the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In other words, American workers will need to fight for any extension of equality. Obama cannot and will not do it for them.

[blake 3:17]

I really want to know if the reverberating and irrevocable effects of the political, ideological, economical systems after the October revolution and until the soviet unions,collapse whether it had any affect among the left wing party movements in Europe or England ? .. and what were the outcome of those influences with in those countries ?

The USSR did play a counterweight to free trade and privatization. A great deal of the welfare state in the West was a result of an indigenous class struggle and the threat of an alternative system which paid lip service and some real support for working people.


In his film " Sicko" a retired British politician from the left, said that ' Margaret Thatcher ' from the right wing conservative party who served 3 terms in office, stated that " the British Healthcare System should not be privatized and it should be kept in public hands ".

That must've been Tony Benn. Thatcher picked her battles fairly carefully, targetting one or two sectors at a time and then fucking them over big time.


after all Canada, had socialized medicine after Tommy Douglas rose as a potent politician of the left wing party there..

That was a very hard fought battle. The Canadian system is way more economically rational than healthcare in the US. One of the key differences is that the fight for public healthcare in Canada had doctors associations as the enemy, while in the US you're going up against hypermangerial health care and hospital "providers".

[Rousedruminations]

Much appreciated comrades !

[Hit The North]

The USSR did play a counterweight to free trade and privatization. A great deal of the welfare state in the West was a result of an indigenous class struggle and the threat of an alternative system which paid lip service and some real support for working people.


This is true to an extent, but we should not get carried away. The Soviet system had less of an influence on the response of the Western European economies switching to a partial form of state capitalism, than the need for the state to support the reconstruction of the post-War economy and particularly in terms of supporting heavy primary and manufacturing sectors. And whilst it is true that welfare states benefit the general conditions of the working class, and that class struggle, or the threat of it, is crucial for explaining the generosity or otherwise of those welfare state regimes, it also contributed to the stability of bourgeois rule in the medium term.



That must've been Tony Benn. Thatcher picked her battles fairly carefully, targetting one or two sectors at a time and then fucking them over big time.


Actually, Thatcher was an advocate of the privatization of the NHS and not switching the British welfare economy to a private sector based insurance scheme similar to the United States, is one of the chief regrets of the Thatcherites. Just think how much money their mates could've made! However, completing such a task was beyond them as the NHS and the general principle of a welfare state was consistently rated as high importance in opinion polls throughout the 80s and 90s. It would have been political suicide.

[A.J.]

"The Labour Party is a thoroughly bourgeois party, because, although made up of workers, it is led by reactionaries, and the worst kind of reactionaries at that, who act quite in the spirit of the bourgeoisie. It is an organisation of the bourgeoisie, which exists to systematically dupe the workers with the aid of the British Noskes and Scheidemanns."

- Lenin

[Rousedruminations]

it hence lacks purity ,

[HASTALAVICTORIASIEMPRE]

The labour party was never socialist to begin with but more generally,by the nature of democracy it is impossible for any party who has any pretensions of socialism to be involved in the democratic process. By becoming involved in the system a party becomes the system. Thus bourgeois and corrupt.

[The Idler]

Not socialist and never socialist.