The article below is from the English and Welsh section of the Committee for a Workers International, the Socialist Party. Appearing in Socialism Today, de facto theoretical journal for the International, the piece reflects the thinking of this important grouping on the question of what party working class people need to fight for socialism. Appended to the article are some critical notes from this blogger.
www.socialistworld.net
website of the committee for a workers' international
30 December 2009
Britain
Lessons from Labour’s early history
The British Labour Party was formed over 100 years ago to provide an independent political voice for working-class people. Ed Doveton describes this struggle, which is paralleled by today’s campaign for a new mass workers’ party. First published in Socialism Today
Ed Doveton
THE LABOUR PARTY was founded in 1900, first as the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) then as Labour Party in 1906. It emerged as a broad-based organisation reflecting the diverse range of existing organisations already developed by working people under capitalism. It encompassed the varied working-class political trends: the newly organised, militant, unskilled workers; the more traditional skilled workers; those involved in the co-operative movement; and others focused on issues such as education. Within its ranks were socialists, Marxists and reformists, such as those in the Fabian Society. The Labour Party in that sense became an arena within which the political arguments for socialism, and the differing policies and tactics to achieve it, were debated. It was seen by the working class as a tool with which it could fight for change, as a class.
A long period of struggle had preceded the foundation of the Labour Party, centred on the idea of establishing independent political representation of the working class, separate from the existing capitalist parties. In the 1890s, the major obstacles to the new workers’ party were two-fold. Firstly, the organisational support given by the traditional trade unions to the Liberal Party. Secondly, the mass electoral support for the Liberals and Tories by those working class men who did have the vote.
In an ironic twist of history, the situation in the 1890s has similarities 100 years later in our present day politics. Once again, socialists and class-conscious trade unionists have begun struggling for the creation of a new workers’ party. This time, however, the major obstacle is not from the Liberal Party but from New Labour. This party has become a clone of the capitalist parties it was set up to replace!
In the 1890s, the major trade unions saw the Liberal Party as the political party which would best represent their interests, although the unions were not formally affiliated to it. National and local union officials were often Liberal Party members and were wined and dined by the Liberal hierarchy. Trade unionists would put forward a version of Liberal ideology: that the economy of ‘the country’ was important and that the interests of capital and labour could often be the same.
This attachment of trade union officialdom to the Liberal Party began 40 years earlier in 1867, during the culmination of a mass working-class movement demanding the right to vote. The years 1866 and 1867 had witnessed large demonstrations all over the country and a mass rally in London which ended with a riot in Hyde Park. The establishment parties were fearful of a growing mood that hinted at revolution. To stem the tide, they quickly passed legislation giving the vote to millions of urban working-class males. The victory was incomplete, not least the exclusion of women and rural workers. But, in the ensuing general election, the Liberal Party moved quickly to absorb the trade union leadership in a successful attempt to capture sections of the new working-class voters.
The Liberal grip
THROUGHOUT THE following three decades the links between the unions and the Liberal Party remained solid. Over this period, the Liberals were seen by many as the ‘natural party’ for the working class. Some workers became Liberal councillors and in mining areas, where the working class vote was overwhelming, trade unionists actually became Liberal MPs (becoming known as the Lib-Lab MPs). Trade union leaders would argue that their relationship with the Liberal Party was beneficial, and would point to minor pieces of legislation, passed by Liberal governments, that helped the working class or the trade unions directly. The term used by these working-class Liberals was ‘labour representation’. This concept was expressed year after year during the 1880s and early 1890s at the TUC annual conference, as the TUC parliamentary committee reported on its work with the Liberal establishment.
Within this convivial partnership there were constant tensions. A relationship between a capitalist party like the Liberals and the working class is full of contradictions. When it came down to a direct decision about favouring profits and capitalism against working-class interests, it was always the former which was supported. Often employers headed the local Liberal Party establishment or, at a national level, the Liberal Party would simply ignore calls for more deep-seated reforms, such as the demand for the eight-hour day. The antagonism was also expressed in an attempt by the Liberal Party to keep out the undesirable working class from representing the party as councillors or MPs, not dissimilar to the control on these positions by the contemporary New Labour machine, which regards socialists as an alien species which should not belong to the party.
Some of these tensions would eventually spread into TUC conferences. As early as 1887, the president opened the conference by arguing: "One thing is certain, this labour movement is the inevitable outcome of the present condition of capital and labour; and seeing that capital has used its position in the House of Commons so effectively for its own ends, is it not the strongest policy of labour now that it has voting strength to improve its surroundings?" This speech set the tone of a debate to set up a new workers’ party headed by the then young delegate, Kier Hardie, representing the Ayrshire miners in Scotland. But the idea was soon squashed by a series of delegates, who were Liberal Party members. They put forward the argument, often repeated, that a new party would split the Liberal vote and let the Tories in. The voters were not ready for a new party of labour and it would be much better to keep with the Liberal Party. Hardie was ferociously attacked by the Liberal MP, C Fenwick (delegate of the Northumberland miners), because he dared raise the anti-working class record of a Liberal parliamentary candidate recently supported by leading Liberal trade unionists at a by-election in Northwich.
The striking turning point
A CHANGE CAME in 1889, in what would later be seen as a turning point. This was the victory of newly organised trade unionists in the gas workers’ dispute, leading to the formation of the National Union of Gasworkers and General Labours. Later that same year came the London dock strike, which also saw the setting up of a new union. These disputes brought previously unorganised workers into the trade union movement, led by men who were socialists and who supported the demand for a new workers’ party.
By the 1893 TUC conference, one of these leaders, Ben Tillett, was moving a motion for a separate fund to support independent labour candidates and an elected committee to administer these funds. It included a worked out process to select candidates who pledged to support the policies of the trade unions. James MacDonald, later an early leader of the Labour Party, put forward an amendment, (passed by 137 votes to 97) calling for all such candidates to "support the principle of collective ownership and control of all the means of production and distribution". It was the first move in the creation of what would eventually become the Labour Party. But, in the manoeuvrings of the conference, Liberal Party members ensured that this resolution became a dead letter. This was signalled in the defeat of a further resolution by Hardie calling on labour members of parliament to sit in opposition to the Liberals.
Over the next few years, socialists and militant trade unionists attempted to put flesh on the bones of this resolution, while Liberal trade unionists attempted to block its effectiveness. A critical issue centred on finance. The Liberal Party trade unionists prevented the funds of the unions they controlled from being used to support working-class candidates standing independently of the Liberal Party. Unlike today, when MPs make themselves rich by gaining a parliamentary seat, being an MP was a non-paying job. Only the rich could afford to sit in parliament. So it was necessary for trade unions to find the money for the election campaign and to pay a salary should the candidate be elected. By blocking funds, the Liberal trade unionists could hold up the creation of a new workers’ party.
Equally, the Liberals curtailed further debate on this issue in the TUC, defeating resolutions and proposals at the 1894, 1895 and 1896 congresses. In 1895, the congress president, councillor Jenkins, a Liberal president of Cardiff trades council and a delegate from the Shipwrights’ Society, used his opening speech to carry out a full frontal attack on the Independent Labour Party (ILP) for standing candidates in the 1895 general election. He even attempted a slur that, because independent labour candidates undermined Liberal Party votes, the ILP was funded by the Tories.
Catalysts of change
BUT THE TIDE of history was about to turn against the Liberals. Conflict between labour and capital was intensifying as the economic upturn of the early 1890s took a dip towards the end of the decade. Additionally, British manufactures were experiencing sharpened competition from the expanding economies of the USA and Germany. As a squeeze on profits developed the bosses turned to reduce wages and attack the power of the trade union movement to defend its members’ interests. Although the Tories were in power, having won the 1895 and 1900 general elections, the Liberal Party was reluctant to commit itself to reversing the attacks on the labour movement. Many Liberal Party members were also employers, the very people carrying out some of these attacks.
At the same time, throughout the 1890s in one local area after another, small but determined groups of socialists were beginning to influence the organised movement, enabling them to replace Liberal trade unionists with socialist representatives in a few places. This activity by socialists on the ground, combined with the numerical growth of the new unions such as the gasworkers and dockers, helped to transform the situation. This process, alongside the alienation of some of the more traditional unions from the Liberal Party in the late 1890s, began shifting the ground of support within the TUC.
The eventual formation of what would become the Labour Party was not automatic. There was a dialectical relationship between the general economic forces creating conflict between labour and capital, the old and new unions, and the conscious intervention of socialists acting as a catalyst of change. As the famous phrase of Karl Marx states, "man makes his own history, although not in circumstances of his own choosing". But within this it is necessary that man does indeed ‘make his own history’.
Historians often cite two legal judgments as being critical in the development of the Labour Party: Taff Vale (1900-01), and Osborne (1909). Both were strident attacks on trade unions. In reality, these judgments rapidly increased a trend which was already underway, rather than sparked the creation of the Labour Party itself. Setting up the LRC had been agreed a year before the Taff Vale judgment, at the 1899 TUC conference. This laid the foundation for what would become the Labour Party, and brought to an end the period of the pre-birth of the new workers’ party.
The next two decades would see the growth and spread of the new party in working-class communities, reflected in unions, local councils and, increasingly, parliamentary seats. But, as with the previous decade, success would not be automatic. The working-class voter was still wedded to the habits of the past and remained attached to the capitalist Liberal Party. Many of the old Liberal trade unionists were still influential and continued to claim that the Liberal Party was the party for workers. They cited as evidence the fact that large numbers of workers still voted Liberal, mistaking voting habits for a zodiac sign determining the character of the party.
Looking back at this history of the Liberal Party, which by its policies and ideology supported the interests of capitalism, we might wonder how little has changed today. The New Labour government and Labour-controlled councils act like ruthless employers, affecting millions of public-sector workers, who have endured low pay, effective pay cuts through below inflation pay awards, alongside real and threatened job losses. Labour stands by as employers close down businesses and sack workers. At the same time, the government gives away billions of pounds to prop up the banks. Its stated intent is restoring the profits of firms while demanding that the working class picks up the bill. It is this context that poses once again the need for a party which can represent the interests of working-class people. Conscious socialists should be fighting to achieve this objective.
What's wrong with the CWI view?
Principally the idea that just some amorphous Old Labour Party will stand for the workers interests. This is a flat refusal to view the history of the LP without reformist glasses on. The following section is the most revealing:
'The eventual formation of what would become the Labour Party was not automatic. There was a dialectical relationship between the general economic forces creating conflict between labour and capital, the old and new unions, and the conscious intervention of socialists acting as a catalyst of change. As the famous phrase of Karl Marx states, "man makes his own history, although not in circumstances of his own choosing". But within this it is necessary that man does indeed ‘make his own history’.'
This caricature of Marxism - economic forces created class struggle, with a splash of socialist action=LP. The actual content of these three aspects are ignored. Was the economic depression vital to the formation of the LRC in 1900? I would say not. The trade union aristocrats who made up the trade union movement well into the 1920s and 30s were opportunistic as hell. They often supported Tories as well as Liberals, depending on who promised the best deal for the less than ten percent of workers employed in skilled trades. The fact British capitalism suffered a boom-depression in quick order perhaps speeded up the development of a third opportunistic trade union politics-the LP, but it was likely to occur anyway in Britain, given the diseased nature of the economy, and the intransigence of a ruling class which had no understanding of the necessity to realign the political economy along collaborationist lines, apart from the fringe 'Empire Socialism' of the Chamberlain wing of the Tory Party (interesting to note Chamberlain was a former Liberal). It is vital to view capitalism as a social system, not a crude agglomeration of economic functions or bland class relations.
The approach the SP tend to use when producing their regular series on why we need an Old Labour Party is economic determinism, which is so often trotted out (pardon the pun) in lieu of a real and sophisticated understanding of both Marxism and working class social and political history. It postulates that economic crisis = the unions realising they needed their own party, with the assistance of some socialists. The economic dis juncture is vital to this schema in masking the issue of who built the LP? It is a very different narrative if we actually attempt to answer that question: the LP was built by trade union leaders who had for generations sucked at the teet of racist and often genocidal British Imperialism so long as they got a good share of the milk. When this Imperialist class began to falter in their class rule, linked obviously to both the rise of essentially better Imperialisms, and also due to anti-colonial revolts, the unions had to defend these hard won gains. What were these gains? the tiny minority of unionists had much better wages than the average, had access to employer insurance schemes, better holiday pay etc (see Eric Hobsbawm, 'Laboring Men', particularly the chapter on the labor aristocracy in C19th Britian,). This was paid for out of the super profits leached from the toil of workers abroad via the dual mechanism of unequal exchange of manufactured vs. agricultural/raw material products, and the huge surplus on overseas investments (even today five X the national GDP). This was all covered in Lenin's Imperialism, and has yet to be bettered or rubbished as a basic outline of the roots of social imperialists parties of the Labour Type.
Problems of labourismIf the SP were to admit that a privileged section of the class built a party to continue to defend those privileges, the argument in favour of a warmed over version today would be slightly undermined. This is the reason for the bluster about the new unionism of the late 1880s. The fact these unions largely died a death, due in no small part to the outright hostility of the skilled unions to these uppity labourers and women workers, is ignored. Also ignored is any recognition that the much lauded 'pioneers' of socialism were in fact reformist/trade unionist type socialists, whose imprint on the LRC and the LP was that of a class collaborationist and social imperialist organisation. The SP can lambast the SDF and other Marxists for cocking up an intervention into the LRC movement from the 1890s onwards, but they cannot ignore the fact the LP was built by an aristocracy of labour, assisted by reformist socialists, and as a non fighting, Parliamentary force.
'Within its ranks were socialists, Marxists and reformists, such as those in the Fabian Society. The Labour Party in that sense became an arena within which the political arguments for socialism, and the differing policies and tactics to achieve it, were debated. It was seen by the working class as a tool with which it could fight for change, as a class.'
The sophistry of the above statement, perhaps unintended (I hope), is patently absurd given any serious reading of the history. It was not a working class party, not then, not in the 70s, and not now. The party was always bourgeois in program and leadership. Is it a surprise that the LP only became a mass force after the Russian revolution, when the fear of Bolshevism gave a fillip to the left turn on nationalisation, and an organisational impulse to out-organise the fledgling communist party? The rewriting of our history is a travesty. What about the multi million syndicalist movement of the late 1910s and run up to WW1, a struggle and movement the official unions and LP did everything they could to smash and undermine? Where is the analysis of how this wonderful party scabbed on the post WW1 revolutionary wave, the 1926 General Strike etc and etc. This is all ABC stuff. (See, James Hinton, Labour and Socialism: A History of the British Labour Movement, 1867-1974, particularly C.5, The Labour Unrest, 1910-1914, and C.7, Working Class organisation between the Wars)
This is not to say that the LP can be equated simply with its leadership, or that it was always a party of the aristocrats-the industrialisation and monopolization boom of the depression, WW2 and post war, gave a real foundation to the growth of mass trade unions amongst the unskilled, and through the unions, the LP. This is what created the extensive branch network, the trades councils (A.J. Reid, United We Stand: A History of Britain's Trade Unions, Part Four) and the necessity of communists to work to win the fighting base of the LP to a class struggle program and party, in the early period as well as up until the 90s.
Best book on this subject is Paul Allenders 'What's Wrong with Labour: A Critical History of the Labour Party in the C2Oth, Merlin Press, 2001) which charts the essence of labourism embodied in the LP. Labourism embodied in the LP amounted to a reformed capitalism, shorn of its roughest edges by elements of public ownership, welfare provision and progressive taxation. Even Labours 1918 Manifesto,
Labour and the New Social Order makes explicit the commitment to capitalism. The CWI, as advocates of a militant reformism, cannot go beyond the framework of labourite parties wielding the capitalist state power in the name of socialism, hence the CWI position that socialism will come to Britain via a Parliamentary majority introducing an enabling act to nationalise the largest companies. The ideological power of reformism has bent many groups and individuals to its logic of class collaboration. The recent CWI leadership of xenophobic strikes, and the No2 EU chauvinist political party which flowed from this displays this in an almost chemically pure form. The more things change in the trade unions the more they seemed to stay the same, hence from Liberalism to Labourism; from labourism to...a new 'old labour'?
