'Don't move to the left', Blair warns Labour

[ed miliband]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-warns-labour-against-drift-to-the-left-2067509.html

I find the Labour leadership contest interesting inasmuch as it highlights the redudancy and intellectual bankruptcy of the party even better than the general election did. We've had Tony Benn endorse Ed Miliband despite the fact that Ed's politics are at odds with Benn's (and one candidate was running on a platform similar to Benn's own - Diane Abbot). Benn's reasoning is the punchline: he was friends with Ed's dad and young Ed did some work for him some decades ago - and we thought the Tories were nepotistic! Ed Miliband also deserves attention for describing himself as a socialist because he wants to look at the "different forms of capitalism we can have" (exact quote). Another candidate, Andy Burnham, has decided to create his very own type of socialism which he has called... "Aspirational Socialism". As to what "Aspirational Socialism" actually entails, your guess is a good as mine, but apparently it's a mixture of "Old Labour" and "New Labour".

It's really amazing, however, when one considers that Ed Miliband, a man deeply involved in the New Labour project, a real neo-liberal, is now seen as a left-wing candidate. Blair seems to think that Blairism was responsible for Labour's 1997 victory and that anything that differs slightly from it will revile the public. Surely Labour won in 1997 (and '01, '05) not because people were particularly impressed by Blair and his ilk, but because they couldn't bare the Conservatives? And surely Labour lost this year not because people were impressed by Cameron or Clegg, but because they could no longer bare New Labour.

You get people who call themselves socialists defending Blair, I wonder whether this will change? Blair describes George Bush as a "true idealist" in his new book. He endorses the cuts made by the ConDem coalition. I bet there are still people who will defend him simply because he's in the Labour party and describes himself as a "democratic socialist".

[rednordman]

Gobsmacked and bemused by the article. How on earth could anyone see Ed millband as a 'left-wing' candidate. You are totally correct in your assesment of him. I also think that Blair is being a total twat to Gorden Brown, even if I dont really like him either.

[welshexile1963]

What a mess The Labour Party are in and will continue to be in, how i wish for a mass party of the working class in the UK.

[Volcanicity]

Tony Blairs credibility disappeared up his own arse years ago,and the fact that he considers Ed Miliband left-wing shows how much he has been influenced by American politics.Its the same as right-wingers calling Obama Socialist,it makes no sense at all.

[welshexile1963]

Blair makes me want to go out and kick an MP!

[Dimentio]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-warns-labour-against-drift-to-the-left-2067509.html

I find the Labour leadership contest interesting inasmuch as it highlights the redudancy and intellectual bankruptcy of the party even better than the general election did. We've had Tony Benn endorse Ed Miliband despite the fact that Ed's politics are at odds with Benn's (and one candidate was running on a platform similar to Benn's own - Diane Abbot). Benn's reasoning is the punchline: he was friends with Ed's dad and young Ed did some work for him some decades ago - and we thought the Tories were nepotistic! Ed Miliband also deserves attention for describing himself as a socialist because he wants to look at the "different forms of capitalism we can have" (exact quote). Another candidate, Andy Burnham, has decided to create his very own type of socialism which he has called... "Aspirational Socialism". As to what "Aspirational Socialism" actually entails, your guess is a good as mine, but apparently it's a mixture of "Old Labour" and "New Labour".

It's really amazing, however, when one considers that Ed Miliband, a man deeply involved in the New Labour project, a real neo-liberal, is now seen as a left-wing candidate. Blair seems to think that Blairism was responsible for Labour's 1997 victory and that anything that differs slightly from it will revile the public. Surely Labour won in 1997 (and '01, '05) not because people were particularly impressed by Blair and his ilk, but because they couldn't bare the Conservatives? And surely Labour lost this year not because people were impressed by Cameron or Clegg, but because they could no longer bare New Labour.

You get people who call themselves socialists defending Blair, I wonder whether this will change? Blair describes George Bush as a "true idealist" in his new book. He endorses the cuts made by the ConDem coalition. I bet there are still people who will defend him simply because he's in the Labour party and describes himself as a "democratic socialist".

Neutrally speaking, he is right. If Labour wants to come into power in the next election, they must keep themselves on the centre. Experience has shown that no party in western Europe really could win on an economically left platform during the last 30 or so years.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Not suprising, 'New Labour' was built on the lie of the '83 Election and the 'longest sucide note'. Now I'm not usually one for tinfoil hat style conspiricy theories, but Thatcher was low in the Polls before Falklands, and knew of the Argintinan plans to invade but decided to withdraw military protection for the islands. The war happend and she rided into a huge parlimentary majoritiy on the back on nationalistic ferver. The left-labour (Bennite/Democratic Socialist) was distraught, and the right of the Labour used this to enact a silent coup. Changes made to the structure of the Party to repress the more left-leaning rank and file, changes to the ideals of the party, the '83 election was the last gasp of Labour as anything resembling a 'workers party', Blair would logically fight to keep his cronies in power, and rail against the left of the party, which he evicted in a silent coup in 94 with the death of John Smith.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Blair needs no more words from me. He endorses the ConDem cuts, refuses to apologise for Iraq and says that we should have used the economic crisis to be more bold with what he calls 'public sector and welfare reform', and what we lamen call privatisation and attacks on working class people.

Having said that, I have to slightly defend Ed Miliband. He's certainly the least bad of the bunch; on policy terms marginally, but in personal terms, he's certainly somebody that can be trusted not to repeat Iraq, tuition fees or the 10p tax debacle. He's a Capitalist, for sure, but he's something of a plank that can be used to move the party, if not far to the left, then certainly away from the neo-liberal New Labour dogma that is slowly killing the Labour Party, to the point where we must be very close to completely abandoning any hope of reclaiming it.

I've said all summer that the biggest dangers (as leaders) are Ed Balls and David Miliband, in effect the political re-incarnations respectively of Brown and Blair.

This isn't a change election for Labour; we aren't, in this leadership election, going to claim the party back for Socialism. However, we can prize it away from the New Labourism of Balls and Miliband, and the quasi-Blairism of Andy Burnham.

Diane Abbott has proved herself not to be one of those Old Labourites as Corbyn or McDonnell, but simply a left-liberal, middle class lady whose somewhat leftish views (unilateralism, for example) are tainted by her hypocrisy and frankly shoddy campaign.

It is a huge shame that John McDonnell was not nominated instead. He would at least not have been afraid to explain more leftwards positions on the economy, healthcare, schooling - all important issues in the UK at the moment. Diane Abbott has instead positioned herself on the left-most position within the current debate, and so has consigned herself as part of the reformist, class-unconscious centre-left. Disappointing.

[Zanthorus]

What a mess The Labour Party are in and will continue to be in, how i wish for a mass party of the working class in the UK.

To combat the Labour party, you must first combat Labourism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You can't eradicate Labourism, per se. Like it or not, it's ingrained in the psyche of the British working class and has been for over 100 years. After all, we never had a 'Marxist' revolution in the 19th/20th century. Our workers' movement came about via Independent Trade Unions and more 'labour-movement' engaging politics, as opposed to all out class warfare.

Any future mass workers' movement in Britain will have to be a mixture of Marxism and Labourism, like it or not. Our best hope is to find a common cause, or indeed a common figure, that could spark Socialism in the labour movement. The reason we need the Labour Party is because of its long-standing links to the Unions and the entire labour movement (despite its dodgy politics today), which shwos no sign of abating. So, like it or not, we need to use a combination of revolutionary rhetoric and action, and the apparatus of the Labour Party, to win over the Labour movement.

Lest we forget that, currently, there are over 8 million people on the scrapheap of economic inactivity; over 50% of Britions earn less than the median average wage (£23,000) and 90% earn less than £44,000. We have a massive, massive audience. We just need the right message.

[Palingenisis]

You can't eradicate Labourism, per se. Like it or not, it's ingrained in the psyche of the British working class and has been for over 100 years. After all, we never had a 'Marxist' revolution in the 19th/20th century. Our workers' movement came about via Independent Trade Unions and more 'labour-movement' engaging politics, as opposed to all out class warfare.

.

The Labour Party itself along with the reconstructing of the economy under the Thatcher goverment have pretty much eradicated "Labourism". A lot in "Labourism" was reactionary to begin with anyway.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Any future mass workers' movement in Britain will have to be a mixture of Marxism and Labourism, like it or not. Our best hope is to find a common cause, or indeed a common figure, that could spark Socialism in the labour movement.

If that's the case, there is still a case to be made for a new party to the left of Labourism, and the compromise ideology to be imported into Britain is that of Linke-ism. Besides, this Linke-ism is based on independent trade union activists uniting together, anti-capitalist radicals, and support from pensioners and hopefully from lots of service workers, too.

[Queercommie Girl]

Sustained reformism is not intrinsically wrong but under Labourite ideologies reformism is simply never going to be sustainable...

[Lyev]

Can someone please elaborate on this concept of "labourism" quickly?

[progressive_lefty]

You guys wouldn't want to hear a word about the Labor Party in Australia..

[Kiev Communard]

If that's the case, there is still a case to be made for a new party to the left of Labourism, and the compromise ideology to be imported into Britain is that of Linke-ism. Besides, this Linke-ism is based on independent trade union activists uniting together, anti-capitalist radicals, and support from pensioners.

Yes, this seems to be the most hopeful scenario for the modern Britain...

[Kiev Communard]

Can someone please elaborate on this concept of "labourism" quickly?


Of course. Here is an article: www.critiquejournal.net/peterk35.pdf
(www.critiquejournal.net/peterk35.pdf)

To sum it up, "labourism" is an ideology of Anglo-Saxon world reformist workers' party that concerns itself the most with the establishment of the welfare state and the state regulation of economy for "common good". Historically, Labourist parties were for some time more radical in their demands than their continental Europe's Social Democratic counterparts, but after the demise of the USSR and the rise of the "third way" ideologues such as Tony Blair they have become utterly redundant for the left. They are not even trade unionist parties anymore, therefore any attempts to somehow "infiltrate" them and "turn them to true Marxism" are doomed to miserable failure, as The Militant,and later IMT's example shows.

[ed miliband]

Of course. Here is an article: www.critiquejournal.net/peterk35.pdf
(http://www.critiquejournal.net/peterk35.pdf)

To sum it up, "labourism" is an ideology of Anglo-Saxon world reformist workers' party that concerns itself the most with the establishment of the welfare state and the state regulation of economy for "common good". Historically, Labourist parties were for some time more radical in their demands than their continental Europe's Social Democratic counterparts, but after the demise of the USSR and the rise of the "third way" ideologues such as Tony Blair they have become utterly redundant for the left. They are not even trade unionist parties anymore, therefore any attempts to somehow "infiltrate" them and "turn them to true Marxism" are doomed to miserable failure, as The Militant,and later IMT's example shows.

To be honest, the idea of a "Third Way" was nothing new within the Labour Party. The Fabian Society sought to find one long before Blair was even born.

[zimmerwald1915]

They are not even trade unionist parties anymore, therefore any attempts to somehow "infiltrate" them and "turn them to true Marxism" are doomed to miserable failure, as The Militant,and later IMT's example shows.
Heck, in 1920 Labour was being called a bourgeois party with a trade-unionist membership...

[RadioRaheem84]

To my UK comrades:

Is there still a distinction between liberals and leftist in the UK?

Or did Blair moving the Labour Party to the right totally blur the distinction, like Clinton did over here in the States?

I find it quite odd to see hedge fund managers like Oliver Kamm talk incessantly about leftist ideals and voting Labour.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Can someone please elaborate on this concept of "labourism" quickly?

Look at the definition of a "proletarian party" in the Communist Manifesto, and compare that to what Labourism aims for:

1) Formation of the proletariat into a class for itself? Maybe.
2) Overthrow of the bourgeois [cultural hegemonic] supremacy (and replacement with proletarian cultural hegemony)? No.
3) Conquest of ruling-class political power by the proletariat? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1171) Hell no.

This is also an indirect critique of the CNWP campaign, as it aims to form a Labour Party Mark II. I don't see how a Labour Party Mark II would immediately aim for an all-out jury system that scraps judges, would replace elections with random sortition, would create a separate sovereign socioeconomic government directly representative of ordinary people (a step above "economic parliaments" and French governmental cohabitation), average skilled workers' standard of living for public officials, recallability from multiple avenues, full freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association for workers, etc. (all mentioned in the link above).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If that's the case, there is still a case to be made for a new party to the left of Labourism, and the compromise ideology to be imported into Britain is that of Linke-ism. Besides, this Linke-ism is based on independent trade union activists uniting together, anti-capitalist radicals, and support from pensioners and hopefully from lots of service workers, too.



I'm not convinced. The reason(s) being that, whilst I agree that there is certainly a lot of leftward movement to be desired of Labourism in general, the actual forces that would be needed to make a 'left of Labour'-type party are already part of the intrinsic fabric of the current Labour Party, or have been in the past. Here, i'm thinking the Trade Unions and especially their members. I'm thinking a significant minority, if not a plurality, of the Labour grassroots membership, and i'm thinking about those, like George Galloway and John McDonnell, who would likely be at the forefront (indeed, look at Galloway since his expulsion from Labour in particular) of any left of Labour party.

Given my above analysis, i've come to the conclusion that the Labour party is a broad church. Unfortunately, this has led to the majority of it's history being as a reactionary party at the top - the likes of Ramsay MacDonald, Kinnock and the New Labourites have ruled from the right. However, it is simply a fact that the Labour Party contains the very forces which we need - Trade Unions and their millions of working members in particular. The Labour Party can still be turned into a left-Labour type ally, whilst we work both inside and outside the party to fight for Socialism. That is my view.

[Forward Union]

I'm not convinced. The reason(s) being that, whilst I agree that there is certainly a lot of leftward movement to be desired of Labourism in general, the actual forces that would be needed to make a 'left of Labour'-type party are already part of the intrinsic fabric of the current Labour Party, or have been in the past. Here, i'm thinking the Trade Unions and especially their members. I'm thinking a significant minority, if not a plurality, of the Labour grassroots membership, and i'm thinking about those, like George Galloway and John McDonnell, who would likely be at the forefront (indeed, look at Galloway since his expulsion from Labour in particular) of any left of Labour party.

Given my above analysis, i've come to the conclusion that the Labour party is a broad church. Unfortunately, this has led to the majority of it's history being as a reactionary party at the top - the likes of Ramsay MacDonald, Kinnock and the New Labourites have ruled from the right. However, it is simply a fact that the Labour Party contains the very forces which we need - Trade Unions and their millions of working members in particular. The Labour Party can still be turned into a left-Labour type ally, whilst we work both inside and outside the party to fight for Socialism. That is my view.

Crack on then.