A political party is
"a political organisation that expresses the interests of a
social class or its strata, uniting its most active representatives and
directing them toward the attainment of certain goals and ideals". ('Great
Soviet Encyclopaedia', Volume 19; New York; 1978; p. 305).
Labour is
"the general body of labourers and operatives viewed in its
relation to the body of capitalists or with regard to its political interests
and claims".
('Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 8; Oxford; 1989; p.
559).
Originally, a labour party was
"... a political party specially supporting the interests of
labour".
('Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 8; Oxford; 1989; p.
560).
A Social-Democratic Party was, originally, a labour
party in a country where the bourgeois-democratic revolution has not been
accomplished. Already, in late 1897, Lenin stressed the significance of the
term 'Social-Democratic' in relation to the name of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP):
"The object of the practical activities of the Social-Democrats
is ... socialist . . . and democratic. . . . Russian Social-Democracy has always
emphasised ... the inseparable connection between its socialist and democratic
tasks -- a connection which is strikingly expressed in the name which it has
adopted". pp. 496-97).
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Tasks of Russian Social-Democrats',
in:
'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1944; p. 496-97).
SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY IN BRITAIN
The Social-Democratic Federation
In June 1881, Henry Hyndman, who regarded himself as
"...the first important British Marxist",
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 6; Chicago; 1994; p.
199).
joined with others
"...in founding the Democratic Federation in 1884 the
Democratic Federation was renamed the Social-Democratic Federation (SDF)".
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 6; Chicago;
1994; pp. 199-200).
Engels describes Hyndman as
"an arch-conservative and an extremely chauvinistic but not
stupid careerist, who behaved pretty shabbily to Marx . . . and for this reason
was dropped by us personally".
(Friedrich Engels: Letter to August Bebel, 30 August 1883, in:
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: 'Selected Correspondence: 1846-1895: With
Commentary and Notes'; London; 1943; p. 419).
The Scottish Labour Party
The second party formed in Britain claiming to represent the
interests of working people was the 'Scottish Labour Party', founded in May
1888. (Michael Keating & David Bleiman: 'Labour and Scottish Nationalism';
London; 1979; p. 51).
This merged with the Independent Labour Party
"...at the end of 1894".
(Michael Keating & David Bleiman: ibid.; p. 53).
Fabianism
With the exception of the SDF, British Labour never based
itself, even formally, on Marxism. On the contrary, the roots of its ideology
were to be found in the Fabian Society, which was
"...founded in 1883-4 in London, having as its goal the
establishment of a democratic socialist state in Great Britain ('New
Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 4; Chicago; 1994; p. 647).
The Irish-born playwright George Bernard Shaw and the English
economist Sidney Webb,
"...later joined by Webb's wife, Beatrice, were the outstanding
leaders of the society for many years"
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 4; Chicago; 1994; p.
647).
The name of the society was
" derived from the Roman general Fabius Cunctator (the Delayer
-- Ed.), whose patient and elusive tactics in avoiding pitched battles secured
his ultimate victory over stronger forces".
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 4; Chicago; 1994; p.
647).
However,
"the British Fabians were only loosely the intellectual heirs
to Fabius Cunctator, enemy of Hannibal, from whom they took their name. Fabius
the Delayer told his troops to wait patiently -- then to strike hard. The
Fabians, on the other hand, never wanted to strike hard".
(David Reisman (Ed.): Introduction to: 'Democratic Socialism in
Britain: Classic Texts in Economic and Political Thought: 1825-1952', Volume 4;
London; 1996; p. x).
In fact, the essence of the Fabian outlook was that the
transition to socialism must be gradual enough not to arouse the opposition of
the ruling class, an outlook which postponed the transition to socialism
indefinitely. This outlook was embodied in Sidney Webb's phrase,
"the inevitability of gradualness of our scheme of change".
(Sidney Webb: Presidential Address to the Annual Conference of
the Labour Party, 26 June 1923, in: 'The Labour Party on the Threshold'(Fabian Tract No. 207); London; 1923; p. 11).
The purpose of the society
"saw its purpose as primarily educational. It consciously
rejected the class struggle; indeed, it held the working class in complete
contempt".
(Robert Clough: 'Labour: A Party Fit for Imperialism'; London;
1992; p. 23).
Beatrice Webb expressed this contempt clearly when she wrote in
her diary in July 1894:
"What can we hope from these myriads of deficient minds and
deformed bodies that swarm in our great cities -- what can we hope from them but
brutality, meanness and crime", (Beatrice Webb: Diary Entry for July 1894, in:
'Our Partnership'; Cambridge; 1975; pp. 83-84).
and in July 1895:
"We can expect no leader from the working class. Our only hope
is in permeating the young middle-class man". (Beatrice Webb: Diary Entry for
July 1895, in: ibid.; p. 125).
As Engels expressed it in a letter to Friedrich Sorge in
January 1893:
"The Fabians are an ambitious group here in London who have
understood enough to realise the inevitability of the social revolution, but who
could not possibly entrust this gigantic task to the rough proletariat alone and
are therefore kind enough to set themselves at the head. Fear of the revolution
is their fundamental principle. They are educated par excellence. Their
socialism is municipal socialism; not the nation but the municipality is
to become the owner of the means of production".
This socialism of theirs is then represented as an extreme but
inevitable consequence of bourgeois Liberalism, and hence follow their tactics
of not decisively opposing the Liberals as adversaries but of intriguing with
them, of permeating Liberalism with Socialism.
"With great industry they have produced amid all sorts of
rubbish some good propagandist writings. . . But as soon as they get on to their
specific tactics of hushing up the class struggle it all turns putrid. Hence too
their fanatical hatred of Marx and all of us -- because of the class
struggle."
(Friedrich Engels: Letter to Friedrich Sorge, 18 January 1893;
in: 'Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: op. cit.; p. 505).
The Independent Labour Party
In the 1870s and 1880s, working people had relied on electoral
agreements with the Liberal Party to secure the election of a few working class
MPs. Such MPs were called Lib-Labs, and were
"working class MPs who, whilst prepared to speak out on
'labour' issues, accepted the Liberal whip".
(John Cannon (Ed.): 'Oxford Companion to British history';
Oxford; 1997; p. 576).
The first Lib-Lab MPs were elected in 1874. (John Cannon (Ed.):
ibid.; p. 576).
But the Liberal Party was a political party which
"... represented the interests of the rising industrial
bourgeoisie as opposed to the great landowners. The supporters of these
'Liberals' included the most brutal exploiters of the workers".
(Note to: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: op. cit.; p.
505).
and so was unable seriously to represent the interests of
working people. It was
"the defeat of a strike in the cotton industry in 1892 that led
to the first organisational break in the Lib-Lab alliance -- the formation of
the Independent Labour Party (ILP).
Keir Hardie, who was the prime mover behind the founding
conference in 1893, was in favour of organisational independence from
Liberalism. But not political independence".
(Robert Clough: op. cit.; p. 22).
Thus, the Independent Labour Party (ILP) was
"formed in 1893 with the objective of sending working men to
parliament".
('Cambridge Encyclopaedia; Cambridge; 1997; p. 542).
The party was nominally
"socialist in aim"
('Cambridge Encyclopaedia'; Cambridge; 1997; p. 542).
this aim being defined in its Constitution as
"to secure the collective ownership of all the means of
production, distribution and exchange".
(Constitution of ILP, in: Independent Labour Party: 'Jubilee
Souvenir'; London; 1943; p. 31).
For its theoretical base, the ILP
"drew mainly upon the Fabian Society".
(Francis Williams: 'Fifty Years' March: The Rise of the Labour
Party'; London: 1949; p. 104).
but organisationally it still relied on electoral agreements
with the Liberal Party.
Lenin correctly said of the ILP:
"It is justly said that this party is 'independent' only of
socialism, but very dependent on liberalism".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Debates in Britain on Liberal Labour
Policy , in:
'Collected Works', Volume 18; Moscow; 1963; p. 360).
The Foundation of the Second International
In July 1869,
"the First Congress of the Second International, which was
actually the founding congress, was convoked . . in Paris. . . There were 393
delegates at the congress, representing almost all the existing national
workers' and socialist organisations of Europe and the USA". ('Great Soviet
Encyclopaedia. Volume 10; p. 336).
Friedrich Engels
"played an exceptional role in the creation of the new
socialist organisation"...
and "from the outset, . . . it adopted the Marxist standpoint
in all essentials".
('Great Soviet Encyclopaedia. Volume 10; New York; 1978; p.
336).
The Formation of the Labour Party
In February 1900
"the Trades Union Congress co-operated with the Independent
Labour Party (founded in 1893) to establish the Labour Representation
Committee'', ('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 7; Chicago; 1994; p.
82).
The declared purpose of the LRC was
"to establish a distinct Labour Group in Parliament, who shall
have their own whips and agree upon their own policy which must embrace a
readiness to co-operate with any party which may for the time being be engaged
in promoting legislation in the direct interest of labour". ('Encyclopaedia
Americana', Volume 16; New York; 1977; p. 584).
It must be noted that
"the LRC was formed by a trade union movement which excluded
90% of the working class... It was therefore an exclusive body, formed by
the craft unions to represent their interests in Parliament more adequately than
the Liberal alliance"
(Robert Slough: op. cit.; p. 26).
In other words,
"the unions which set up the LRC were overwhelmingly the
organisations of the aristocracy of labour"
(Harpal Brar: 'Social Democracy: The Enemy within' (hereafter
listed as 'Harpal Brar (1995)'; Southall; 1995; p. 21).
The LRC ". . . took the name 'Labour Party' in 1906". ('New
Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 7; Chicago; 1994; p. 82).
However, the Independent Labour Party
"remained active within the Labour Party occasionally as in
1914 and 1931, splitting from the main body". ('Encyclopaedia
Americana', Volume 16; New York; 1977; p. 584).
but it again "...rejoined the Labour Party in 1975".
(John Cannon (Ed.); op. cit.; p. 507).
"Up to 1914, "the Labour Party (as it was called from 1906)
played second fiddle to the Liberals... There was no attempt at political
independence: Labour MPs were still elected courtesy of pacts with the
Liberals".
(Robert Slough: op. cit.; p. 27).
In 1907, despite its hostility to the nominal Marxism of the
Second International,
"the Labour Party was accepted as a member under an ingenious
formula devised by Karl Kautsky which declared that the British Labour Party,
although it did not recognise the class struggle, carried it on"
(Francis Williams: op. cit.; p. 216).
The Character of the Labour Party
Marxist-Leninists maintain that, despite its name and the fact
that the great majority of its membership is made up of working people, the
Labour Party has always been a political party which serves the interests of the
capitalist class, of the British imperialists:
As Lenin said in August 1920.
"Of course, most of the Labour Party's members are working-men.
However, whether or not a party is really a political party of the workers does
not depend solely upon a membership of workers but also upon the men that lead
it, and the content of its actions and its political tactics. . . . Regarded
from this, the only correct, point of view, 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 in the spirit of the
bourgeoisie. It is an organisation of the bourgeoisie which exists to
systematically dupe the workers". (Vladimir I. Lenin: Speech on Affiliation to
the British Labour Party, 2nd Congress of Communist International, in:
'Collected Works', Volume
31; Moscow; 1974; p. 257-58).
It was, indeed, clear from the outset that the Labour Party
presented no threat to the continued existence of capitalism: For example,
Philip Snowdon, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first Labour
Government of 1924 and was made a viscount in 2931, wrote of this government in
his autobiography:
"The publication of the names of the Cabinet had a reassuring
effect upon that section of public opinion which had been in terror about the
advent of a Labour Government. The most timid Conservatives and the most
frightened capitalists took heart from the presence of men like Lord Parmoor,
Lord Chelmsford and Lord Haldane; they could not believe that these men would be
the instrument for carrying out the Socialist Revolution".
(Philip Snowdon: 'An Autobiography', Volume 2; London; 1934; p.
607).
Again, from its foundation the Labour Party made it clear that
it was firm supporter of the British Empire. John Clynes, who was Lord
Privy Seal the first Labour government of 1924, wrote in his memoirs:
"It has often been stated that British Labour is a disrupting
influence in the Empire. That is nonsense. In the same period of years, no
Conservative or Liberal Government has done more than we to knit together the
great Commonwealth of Nations which Britain calls her Empire"
(John R. Clynes: 'Memoirs, Volume 2: 1924-1937'; London; 1937;
p. 54).
Nevertheless, Marxist-Leninists recognised that, in its early
years, the British Labour Party was structurally different from political
parties on the Continent. In May 1920 Lenin was writing of
"the quite unique character of the British Labour Party, the
very structure of which is so unlike the ordinary political party on the
Continent".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: '"Left-wing" Communism: An Infantile
Disorder: A Popular Essay in Marxian Strategy and Tactics', in: 'Selected
Works',
Volume 10; London; 1946; p. 131).
The key factor in this difference was until 1918
"until the 1918 Constitution, the Labour Party was a
federation of trade unions... and a small number of political
organisations, such as the ILP and the Fabians. There were no local parties, the
Labour Party was represented locally by branches of the ILP in particular. Such
a structure was sufficient for a party which, for all its organisational
independence, was content to act more or less as an appendage to the Liberal
Party".
(Robert Clough: op. cit.; p. 28).
In these circumstances, the Communist International adopted the
policy that the 'Communist Party of Great Britain', founded at a Unity
Convention in July/August 1920, should seek affiliation to the Labour Party:
"The Communist International is in favour of the affiliation of
communist... organisations in England to the Labour Party, although the
Labour Party belongs to the Second International. For so long as this party
allows the organisations affiliated to it their present freedom of criticism and
freedom to engage in propaganda, agitation and organisation for the proletarian
dictatorship and the Soviet power, so long as this party retains the character
of an association of all trade union organisations of the working class,
communists must do everything they can, and even make certain organisational
compromises, to have the possibility of exercising influence on the broad
working masses, of exposing their opportunist leaders from a high tribune
visible to the masses, of accelerating the transference of political power from
the direct representatives of the bourgeoisie to the 'labour lieutenants of the
capitalist class', in order to cure the masses quickly of their last illusions
on this score"
(2nd Congress of Communist International: Theses on the Basic
Tasks of the Communist International, in: Jane Degras (Ed.): 'The Communist
International: 1919-1943: Documents', Volume 1; London; 1971; p. 125).
The Collapse of the Second International
In Lenin's words,
"the Second International 1889-1914)... grew in
breadth, and this entailed a temporary drop in the revolutionary level, a
temporary increase in the strength of opportunism which, in the end, led to the
disgraceful collapse of this International"
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Third International and its Place in
History', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 10; London; 1946; p. 30).
Opportunism "is the sacrifice of the fundamental interests
of the masses to the interests of an insignificant minority of the workers or,
in other words, the alliance of a section of the workers with the bourgeoisie
against the mass of the proletariat'.
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Collapse of the Second
International', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935; p.
203).
Thus, the core of opportunism
"is the idea of class collaboration" (Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid.;
p. 203).
A resolution of the Stuttgart Congress of the Second
International in 1907 declared that
"in case war should break out, .... it was the duty of the
working class to bring it to a speedy end and to take advantage of the economic
and political crisis caused by the war to rouse the masses in order to hasten
the downfall of capitalist rule. This resolution was endorsed at the special
International Socialist Congress held in Basle in 1912".
(Note to: Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Selected Works', Volume 5;
London; 1935; p. 350).
However, on the outbreak of the First World War, most European
social-democratic parties, in violation of these solemn undertakings, supported
the war efforts of their respective bourgeoisies. That is, in 1914
"the majority of the official Social-Democratic Parties have
glaringly betrayed . . the very solemn declarations they made in their speeches
at the Stuttgart and Basle International Congresses, and in the resolutions of
these congresses".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Collapse of the Second
International', in:
'Selected Works', Volume 5: London: 1935; p. 167).
The British Labour Party was no exception to this betrayal. In
February 1915, the British Section of the Second International brought together
the parties of Britain, France, Belgium and Russia in an Inter-Allied
'Socialist' Conference, presided over by Keir Hardie. The conference declared
that
"victory for German imperialism would be a defeat and the
destruction of democracy and liberty in Europe".
(Inter-Allied Socialist Conference: Resolution on the War, in:
Francis Williams: op. cit.; p. 226).
Keir Hardie himself insisted that
"... a nation at war must be united."
(Keir Hardie, cited in: Kenneth 0. Morgan: 'Keir Hardie:
Radical and Socialist'; London; 1984; p. 266).
Even the 'Marxist' Henry Hyndman
"...supported the First World War" (John Cannon
(Ed.): op. cit.; p. 502).
In Lenin's words,
"opportunism in the conditions of the war of 1914-15, engenders
social-chauvinism"
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Collapse of the Second
International', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5: London: 1935; p.
203).
Chauvinism is "exaggerated patriotism of a bellicose sort;
blind enthusiasm for national glory or military ascendancy;... Jingoism"
('Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 3; Oxford; 1989; p.
62).
the term being derived from the legendary 19th century French
soldier Nicolas Chauvin, whose
"professions of militant patriotism were so exaggerated that
his comrades finally turned him to ridicule".
('Webster's New Biographical Dictionary'; Springfield (USA);
1983; p. 201).
and for social-democracy which had sunk into this extreme
chauvinistic opportunism, Lenin coined the term
'social-chauvinism':
"By social-chauvinism we mean the recognition of the idea of
defence of the fatherland in the present imperialist war, the justification of
an alliance between the Socialists and the bourgeoisie and governments of 'their
own countries in this war... Social-chauvinism is opportunism which has ripened
to such a degree ...that it is impossible to tolerate the existence of
such a trend within the Social-Democratic Labour Parties"
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Collapse of the Second International',
in:
'Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 203, 210).
Thus, on the outbreak of the First World War,
"the chief parties of the Second International betrayed the
working class, and each of them. on the pretext of 'defence of the fatherland',
went over to the side of 'its ' bourgeoisie... It was at that moment that the
Second International finally reached bankruptcy and perished".
(First Comintern Congress: Resolution on the Berne Congress of
the Parties of the Second International, in: Jane Degras (Ed.): 'The Communist
International: 1919-1943: Documents', Volume 1; London; 1971; p. 25).
The Revival of the Second International
As the First World War drew towards an allied victory,
"in March 1918, a conference of Allied socialist parties
set up a committee to resurrect the Second International. Its
first conference took place in Berne in February 1919".
(Robert Clough: op. cit.; p. 49).
In March 1919, at its First Congress, the Communist
International referred to this move as an attempt
"to restore the old opportunist International and to rally to
it all the confused and undecided elements of the proletariat".
(First Congress, Communist International: Resolution
constituting the Communist International, in: Jane Degras (Ed.): op. cit.,
Volume 1; p. 17).
From the beginning, the British Labour Party played a leading
role in the revived Second International.
"From the outset, the Labour Party, which had been an
insignificant force in the pre-war International, played a leading role.
(Arthur --
Ed.) Henderson was its first Chairman and Ramsay Macdonald
its
Secretary".
(Robert Clough: op. cit.; p. 49).
In fact "the headquarters were placed in London, and in effect
the British Labour Party took charge of its affairs"
(George D. H. Cole: 'A History of Socialist Thought, Volume 4,
Part 1:
Communism and Social Democracy: 1914-1931'; London; 1958; p.
329-30).
and, apart from the Austrian, Friedrich Adler
"the Administrative Committee that took charge of the
International's day-to-day affairs was made up entirely of British
'members'.
(George D. H. Cole: ibid., Volume 4, Part 2: p. 684).
The Berne International
"...functioned from 1919 to 1923".
('Great Soviet Encyclopaedia', Volume 10: New York; 1976; p.
339).
The Foundation of the Communist International In his 'April
Theses', of April 1917, Lenin declared:
"Our Party must not wait, but must immediately found a
Third International".
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our
Revolution', in:
'Selected Works', Volume 10; London; 1946; p. 12).
And so, shortly after the triumph of the Socialist Revolution
in Russia in November 1917, in March 1919, on the initiative of the Russian
Communist Party headed by Lenin,
"... the first congress of the Communist International was held
in Moscow"
(Jane Degras (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 1; p. 5)
and founded the Communist or Third International, based on
Marxist principles.
In August 1920, the Second Congress of the Communist
International laid down conditions of affiliation to the Communist
International, drafted by Lenin. Of these, Clause 17 laid down that
"all parties which wish to join the Communist International must
change their names. Every party which wishes to join the Communist International
must be called: Communist party of such and such a country (Section of
the Communist International). This question of name is not merely a formal
matter, but essentially a political question of great importance. The Communist
International has declared war on the entire bourgeois world and on all yellow
social-democratic parties. The difference between communist parties and the old
official 'social-democratic ' or 'socialist' parties, which have betrayed the
banner of the working class, must be brought home to every ordinary worker".
(Second Congress of Communist International: Conditions of
Admission to the Communist International, in: Jane Degras (Ed.): op. cit.,
Volume 1; p. 166).
Thus, after August 1920, the term social-democracy came
to be used -- and not only by Marxist-Leninists -- to mean a
" political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary
transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political
processes".
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 10;, Chicago; 1994; p.
920).
It "was originally known as 'revisionism' because it
represented a change in basic Marxist doctrine, primarily in the former's
repudiation of the use of revolution to establish a socialist society".
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 10; Chicago; 1994; p.
920).
The Two-and-a-Half International
In February 1921,
"delegates from the 'centre' and 'left' Socialist parties that
had refused to join either the Second or the Third International met in a
congress in Vienna and formed the 'International Working Union of Socialist
Parties', also known as the 'Vienna Union', with the object of preparing the
ground for an all-embracing International"
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 7; Chicago; 1994; p.
81).
The 'Vienna Union' was popularly known as the
"... the 'Two-and-a-Half International'"
(Robert Clough: op. cit.; p. 50).
From the outset
" both the Second and Two-and-a-Half Internationals were
determined to isolate the Russian Revolution"
(Robert Clough: ibid.; p. 50).
The Labour and Socialist International
The Second and Two-and-a-Half Internationals
"drew closer together and ultimately united at a congress held
in Hamburg in (May - Ed.) 1923... It adopted the name 'Labour and Socialist
International'"
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 7; 1998; p. 81).
During the Second World War,
"Hitler's conquests in western Europe destroyed the basis of the
International in Europe. Only the British, Swedish and Swiss Socialist parties
survived, and the International ceased to function". ('New Encyclopaedia
Britannica', Volume 7; 1998; p. 81).
However,
"after World War II, the 'Socialist International' was created
in 1951 to replace the 'Labour and Socialist International'".
('Great Soviet Encyclopaedia', Volume 10; New York; 1976; p.
339).
The 1918 Labour Party Constitution
As we have seen, the First World War and the disruption of the
Second International
"had landed the British Labour Party in a position it had not
held before. Largely owing to the numerical strength -- and to the wealth -- of
the British trade-unions, the Labour Party found itself willy-nilly the leading
'Allied' socialist party and the rock upon which European social-democracy was
already building its fortress against Bolshevism. Consequently, it appeared
necessary to construct a political party appropriate to this industrial
support".
(Ross McKibbin: 'The Evolution of the Labour Party: 1910-1924';
Oxford; 1974; p. 91).
Furthermore,
"growing internal unrest combined with the political impact
of the Russian Revolution . . . forced the ruling class to concede universal
suffrage for men over 21 and women over 30. The Representation of the People
Bill encompassing that proposal would more than double the electorate. . . .
Labour's social base amongst the more affluent sections of the working class,
and in certain sections of the middle class, would in itself be far too narrow
an electoral base to enable it to become a significant parliamentary force in
the post-war world. It would have to broaden its electoral support, and the only
constituency it could appeal to was the newly enfranchised section of the
working class".
(Robert Clough: op. cit.; p. 29).
The extension of the franchise beyond the aristocracy of labour
required not only the establishment of centrally controlled local party
organisations:
"Labour had to establish proper local party organisations to
prevent any challenge to the domination of the labour aristocracy it had to keep
such organisations under tight central control".
(Robert Clough: op. cit.; p. 29).
It also required
"a piece of right-wing revisionism... to counter the distant
thunderclaps of Bolshevism... after the 1917 revolution".
(Jon Sopel: 'Tony Blair: The Moderniser'; London; 1995; p.
271).
So, when in September 1917
"a committee was established to draft a constitution. (Robert
Clough: op. cit.; p.
Sidney Webb
"saw individual membership as a means of recruiting middle
class support from both the Fabians and disaffected Liberals", (Robert Clough:
ibid.; p. 30).
and his draft "proposed individual membership", (Robert Clough:
ibid.; p. 30).
while it "allowed the unions to retain their block vote"
(Robert Clough: ibid.; p. 30).
and thus
"effectively gave the trade union barons complete control over
conference and the subsequently elected NEC".
(Robert Clough: ibid.; p. 30).
However, to counter the appeal of Soviet Russia and the
soon-to-be established Communist International, Webb felt it necessary to insert
in the new constitution of the Labour Party a vague reference to the aim of
achieving socialism, in the sense of a
"...social organisation which aims at...the ownership and
control of the means of production . . . by the community as a whole ('Oxford
English Dictionary', Volume 15; Oxford; 1989; p. 910).
Thus, Clause Four
"of the new constitution, and its elaboration in a programme
'Labour and the New Social Order' were to be the basis for its electoral appeal
to the working class. Sidney Webb wrote both, and in them restated the basic
principles of Fabianism".
(Robert Clough: op. cit.; p. 30).
Clause Four of the new constitution stated that the aims of the
Labour Party were
"to secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits
of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be
possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and
the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each
industry or service".
(Labour Party: Constitution and Rules; London; 1929; p. 3).
These aims remained unchanged until April 1995, except that in
1928
"the words 'distribution and exchange' were added"
(John Rentoul: 'Tony Blair'; London; 1995; p. 459).
Behind the new 'socialist constitution lay fear of the genuine
socialism represented by Soviet Russia and Marxism:
"Fear of Bolshevism and the extreme left throughout Europe was
almost certainly a preliminary to the new constitution, and international
developments were the occasion for its drafting".
(Ross McKibbin: op. cit.; p. 92).
Harpal Brar, in his on-the-whole excellent study of
social-democracy, undoubtedly correct when he says:
"As to Clause Four an assortment of Trotskyite and revisionist
organisations perceive it as an expression of Marxian socialism, which must be
defended and which makes the Labour Party an anti-capitalist party deserving of
working class and communist support... As a matter of fact, Clause Four has
little to do with socialism. On the contrary, it was an anticommunist provision
born out of the historical circumstances ushered in by the October Revolution in
the aftermath of the First Imperialist World War. The October Revolution . . .
had set a rather infectious example to the working class the world over. . .
With force alone, the bourgeoisie could not hope to cope with
this challenge. Labour needed much deceit and trickery to forestall such a
development. Clause Four was the answer of the thoroughly imperialist and
unashamedly racist leadership of the Labour Party".
(Harpal Brar (1995): op. cit.; p. 83-84).
A special conference of the Labour Party in June 1918 adopted
the new constitution. (Robert Clough: op. cit.; p. 30).
From Attlee to Foot
In July 1945, Labour secured a
"great victory in the general elections after the defeat of
Germany. The party polled 12 million votes and for the first time captured an
absolute majority of the seats in the Commons". ('Encyclopaedia Americana',
Volume 16; Danbury (USA); 1978; p. 585).
A progressive
"legislative programme was begun, and by 1951 about one-fifth
of the British economy had been nationalised. A "... national health insurance
scheme was put into operation and a sweeping social security plan was
enacted"
('Encyclopaedia Americana', Volume 16; Danbury (USA); 1978; p.
585).
At the general election in February 1950, Labour
"... continued in power with a majority . . . drastically
reduced". ('Encyclopaedia Americana', Volume 16; Danbury (USA); 1978; p.
585).
and at the general election in October the Conservative
Party
"won a majority . . . and took control of the government"
('Encyclopaedia Americana , Volume 16; Danbury (USA); 1978; p. 585).
Henceforth, Britain's two-party parliamentary system gave
office intermittently to the Labour and Conservative Parties. Clement Attlee
"retired as party leader in December 1955, and was succeeded by
Hugh Gaitskell".
('Encyclopaedia Americana', Volume 16; Danbury (USA); 1978; p.
585).
At the Labour Party conference in Blackpool in November 1959.
Gaitskell
"urged the need to revise the party's constitution...
On the question of public ownership, he pointed out that
the Labour Party had 'long ago accepted a mixed economy for the foreseeable
future', and that it should be made clear that nationalisation was not the
'be-all and end-all' of Labour policy".
(Keesing's Contemporary Archives', Volume 12; p. 17,182).
In March 1960, the National Executive of the Labour Party
approved a revised statement of party objectives based on a draft submitted by
Gaitskell
"in the form of a composite declaration in two parts: 1) a
recapitulation of 'the first full declaration of party objectives in 1918'
(including Clause Four, which was re-quoted in its original wording); and 2) a
new section which recognised that 'both public and private enterprise have a
place in the economy" '
('Keesing's Contemporary Archives', Volume 12; p. 17,518).
However, in July 1960, the party's National Executive
resolved
"not to proceed with any amendment of or addition to Clause Four
of the constitution.
The reaffirmation of Clause Four in its original form, without
the amendment previously approved in March, was regarded as a defeat for Mr.
Gaitskell".
('Keesing's Contemporary Archives', Volume 12; p.
17,521, 32,262).
"After his death in (January -- Ed.) 1963, Gaitskell was
succeeded as party leader by Harold Wilson".
('Encyclopaedia Americana', Volume 16; Danbury (USA); 1978; p.
585).
Wilson "resigned as Prime Minister in April 1976 and was
succeeded by James Callaghan".
('Europa World YearBook: 1998, Volume 2; London; 1998; p.
3,461).
The annual conference of the Labour Party held in Brighton in
October 1979 approved an NEC statement that in future
"the procedure for the election of the leader . . . should be
changed to allow for a widening of the franchise".
('Keesing's Contemporary Archives', Volume 27; p. 30.757).
through an "... electoral college"
('Keesing's Contemporary Archives', Volume 27; p. 30.759).
These changes were particularly strongly opposed by David Owen,
William Rogers, Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams, who
"...became popularly and pejoratively known as the 'gang of
four'," ('Keesing's Contemporary Archives', Volume 27; p. 30.757).
as "exemplifying the excessive leftward movement of the party
('Keesing's Contemporary Archives', Volume 27; p. 30.759).
In October 1980, Callaghan announced
"his decision to retire as leader of the party".
('Keesing's Contemporary Archives', Volume 27; p. 30.757).
and in November 1980,
"...Michael Foot was elected Leader of the Labour Party".
('Europa World yearbook: 1998, Volume 2; London; 1998; p. 3,461).
For the 1983 general election Foot
"presented a radical manifesto that proposed extensive
nationalisation of industry, unilateral nuclear disarmament and the withdrawal
of the United Kingdom from the European Economic Community". ('New Encyclopaedia
Britannica', Volume 9; Chicago; 1994; p. 82).
This was followed by
'"Labour's worst national electoral defeat in more than fifty
years
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 9; Chicago; 1994; p.
82).
In March 1981, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) was
launched
"... by four Labour Party cabinet ministers (Roy Jenkins,
David Owen, William Rodgers and Shirley Williams), who had broken
away from the Labour Party, charging it with extreme leftist tendencies and
excessive control by the trade unions"
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 10; Chicago; 1994; p.
920)
Subsequently, the party
"formed an alliance with the Liberal Party"
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 10; Chicago; 1994; p.
921).
and in March 1988 the two parties merged to form the Social
and Liberal Democratic Party.
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 10; Chicago; 1994; p~
919)
After the Conservative government headed by Margaret Thatcher
was returned at the general election of June 1983
"with a greatly increased majority over all other parties",
('Keesing's Contemporary Archives', Volume 29; p. 32,262),
Foot announced his forthcoming retirement. ('Keesing's
Contemporary Archives', Volume 29; p. 32,527).
From Kinnock to Blair
In October 1983,
"the Labour Party elected... Neil Kinnock as its leader"
('Keesing's Contemporary Archives', Volume 29; p. 32,527).
During his leadership campaign, Kinnock had made it clear for
whom he spoke:
"We can only protect the disadvantaged in our society if we
appeal to those who are relatively advantaged. The apparent over-concentration
of our energies and resources on these groups like the poor, the unemployed and
the minorities -- does a disservice both to them and to ourselves" (Neil Kinnock,
in: Robert Clough: op. cit.; p. 170).
Having secured election as party leader, Kinnock
"began a 'modernisation' programme".
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 9; Chicago;
1998; p. 82).
Under this cloak of modernisation', Kinnock led the Labour
Party significantly to the right,
"ridding it of its major left-wing policies -- unilateral
nuclear disarmament, nationalisation of key industries, union power and heavy
taxation"
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 9; Chicago; 1994; p.
82).
Harpal Brar sums up this policy as that the party's
"...response to each defeat has been to move further to the
right". (Harpal Brar (1995): op. cit.; p. 77).
Nevertheless,
"the new policy of moderation did not win elections ('New
Encyclopaedia Britannica'9 Volume 7; Chicago; 1994; p. 82).
and after the fourth consecutive Labour defeat in April 1992,
in October of that year
"...Kinnock resigned as party leader"
('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 7; Chicago; 1994; p.
82).
and was succeeded by John Smith, who
"embodied all the considerable virtues of 'Old Labour': the
moderation, the solid roots in the community, the link with the working class in
the form of the trade union movement".
(Andrew J. Davies: To Build a New Jerusalem: The British Labour
Party from Keir Hardie to Tony Blair'; London; 1996; p. 433).
Nevertheless,
"... Labour went into the 1992 Election almost
indistinguishable on major policy issues from the Tory Party it professed to
oppose" (Robert Clough: op. cit.; p. 178).
Smith
"...died unexpectedly of a heart attack in May 1994". (Andrew
J. Davies; op. cit.; p. 436).
and was succeeded by public-school-educated barrister Tony
Blair, unaffectionately known as 'Phoney Tony'. Columnists noted that 'Tony
Blair, HP' is an anagram of 'I'm Tory Plan B'.
Prom the moment of Smith's death,
"the media turned to Blair with a speed that many Labour Party
members felt was disrespectful".
(John Rentoul: op. cit.; p. 358).
One Labour MP
"cynically observed that Blair's supporters refrained from
launching his campaign for a decent period of mourning -- 'about twenty
minutes'"
(John Rentoul: ibid.; p. 362).
In comparison with Smith,
"...Tony Blair was a moderniser through and through".
(Andrew 3. Davies: op. cit.; p. 438).
'Modernisation' "was never defined, but it can perhaps be best
understood in terms of two concepts: a detachment from Labour's
established values and objects and an accommodation with established
institutions and modes of thought"
(Eric Shaw: 'The Labour Party since 1945: Old Labour, New
Labour Oxford; 1996; p. 218).
Blair
"... was duly elected the new leader on 21 July 1994". (Andrew
3. Davies; op. cit.; p. 439).
obtaining 57.0% of the vote, against 24.1% for John Prescott
and 18.9% for Margaret Beckett".
(John Rentoul: op. cit.; p. 404).
and distinguished himself by
"calling his party 'New Labour' in order to signal a fresh
start"
(Andrew J. Davies: op. cit.; p. 440).
BLAIR AND HIS POLITICAL SUPPORTERS SAW THAT THE LABOUR PARTY'S
MOVE TO THE RIGHT, WHILE ATTRACTING ELECTORAL SUPPORT FROM LABOUR ARISTOCRATS
AND PETTY BOURGEOIS, HAD LOST IT SUPPORT AMONG MORE POLITICALLY CONSCIOUS
MEMBERS OF THE WORKING CLASS.
THEY SOUGHT TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, NOT BY MOVING BACK TO THE
LEFT, BUT BY COMBINING FURTHER MOVEMENT TO THE RIGHT WITH AN INTENSIVE CAMPAIGN
TO CONVINCE BIG BUSINESS -- AND THE MEDIA IT CONTROLLED -- THAT LABOUR WAS NOT
JUST SOMETHING TO BE UNWILLINGLY TOLERATED, BUT WAS A PARTY WHICH COULD SERVE
THEIR INTERESTS MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN THE INCREASINGLY CORRUPT AND DISCREDITED
CONSERVATIVE PARTY -- AND THEREFORE A PARTY WHICH BIG BUSINESS SHOULD
SUPPORT.
'The unrelenting hostility towards Labour displayed by such
papers as the 'Daily Mail' and the 'Sun"'
(Andrew J. Davies: ibid.; p. 447).
was notorious. But
"Blair launched a charm offensive aimed at their proprietors,
Viscount Rothermere and Rupert Murdoch. He was happy to write columns in the
'Sun', to speak at Murdoch's 'News Corps Leadership Conference in Australia in
July 1995.
Interviewed in the 'Daily Telegraph'... in July
1994, Blair claimed that 'positions I have been setting out in the course of the
leadership campaign on the economy, education, welfare and crime are positions I
believe many 'Telegraph' readers entirely agree with' ". (Andrew J. Davies:
ibid.; p. 447).
Under Blair's leadership, the Labour Party
"now backs unequivocally the idea that the only way for a
country to prosper in the modern globalised economy is to guarantee monetary and
fiscal stability, and to ensure that its infrastructure and 'flexible
labour markets' -- in other words, low wages, low social costs, weak trade
unions and lack of legal restraints on firing surplus workers -- are attractive
to investors."
(Paul Anderson & Nyta Mann: 'Safety First: The Making of
New Labour'; London; 1997; p. 383).
'New Labour' "has also discarded the social liberalism
that was once its hallmark, taking instead a populist stance in favour of tough
law-and order measures, strong families and 'responsibilities as well as rights'
for everyone (but especially, it seems, social security claimants). Whereas in
1983 the Labour manifesto promised 'withdrawal from the European Economic
Community, the 1997 manifesto promised 'leadership in Europe'. In 1983, Labour
had a non-nuclear defence policy and was highly critical of NATO; in 1997 it was
in favour of keeping Britain's nuclear weapons and was uncompromisingly
Atlanticist"
(Paul Anderson & Nyta Mann: ibid.; p. 384).
In short, under Blair the Labour Party has openly sought to
create the image of 'New Labour' as a party serving the interests of the
capitalist class. In his pamphlet 'The Third Way', Blair speaks of
"New Labour's partnership with business"
(Tony Blair: 'The Third Way: New Politics for the New London';
'Century'; 1998; p. 8).
and boasts:
"In New Labour's first year of government we have started to
put the Third Way into practice, cutting corporation tax to help business (Tony
Blair: ibid.; p. 7).
and saying in Tokyo in January 1996
"I want the Labour Party to be seen as the party of business"
(Tony Blair: Speech in Tokyo, 5 January 1996, in: lain Dale: 'The Blair Necessities:
The Tony Blair Book of Quotations'; London; 1997; p. 108).
Business tycoon Anthony (Cob) Stenham writes in 'New Labour,
New Britain
"The strategies put forward by Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have
totally convinced me that serious and forward-looking business people should
back New Labour"
(Cob Stenham, in 'New Labour, New Britain', Autumn 1996; p.
7).
So, in contrast to the old image of partnership with the trade
union movement, 'New Labour'
"has embraced business wholeheartedly and distanced itself from
the trade unions"
(Paul Anderson & Nyta Mann: op. cit.; p. 383).
Indeed, since the beginning of the 90s the influence of the
trade unions over the Labour Party has been significantly reduced:
"In the 1970s the trade union block vote had amounted to no
less than 90% of the votes cast at the annual Conference. Any one of the big
three unions possessed a vote larger than the constituency parties put
together.
Now, however, the trade union block vote was reduced to 70% and
the upsurge in membership meant that this would automatically be slimmed down to
50% In February 1996 it was also agreed that unions would discontinue their
sponsorship of individual MPs in favour of advancing money to its various
constituencies"
(Andrew J. Davies: op. cit.; p. 443).
Finally, with the temporary liquidation of socialism in the
world, the Labour Party felt it had no need of the false 'socialist' image
projected, for anticommunist motives, in its constitution of 1918. Thus,
attempting to succeed where Gaitskell had failed, at the Labour Party conference
in October 1994, therefore,
"the recently elected leader Tony Blair outlined his desire to
see a revision of the party's constitution. This was universally taken as
involving an implicit intention to revise Clause Pour, one of the few areas of
the constitution setting out Labour's philosophy and policies. Unchanged since
1918, it committed the party to 'the common ownership of the means of
production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular
administration and control of each industry or service' "
('Keesing's Record of World Events', Volume 40; p.
40,239).
As the 'Economist' said:
"If politics were entirely about substance, this (the dropping
of Clause Four -- Ed.) would mean nothing. Labour had no intention of putting
Clause Four into practice. But in politics, symbols matter. Clause Four stands
for Labour's intellectual debt to Marx, for its origins as a party of struggling
proletarians, for the politics of protest and confrontation. It also stands for
Labour's ability to lie to itself, and to the electorate -- a tendency that Mr.
Blair explicitly named and denounced"
('Economist', 8 October 1994; p. 15).
In April 1995,
"... a Special Conference of the Labour Party... voted
65.23% in favour of ditching Clause Four"
(Harpal Brar (1995): op. cit.; p. 120).
Brar correctly comments on the motives for this change:
"The Labour Party must not only champion the interests of
British monopoly capital which it has always done, but must also be seen to be
doing so. As Clause Four obscures this perception, at least on the part of
dull-witted bourgeois, petty-bourgeois and labour aristocrats, it must be
consigned to the grave"
(Harpal Brar (1995): ibid.: p. 118).
The new Constitution pledges Labour to work for
"a dynamic economy serving the public interest, in which the
enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition are joined with the
forces of partnership and co-operation to produce the wealth the nation needs
and the opportunity for all to work and prosper, with a thriving private sector
and high quality public services, where those undertakings essential to the
common good are either owned by the public or accountable to them".
(Labour Party Constitution, 1995, Clause Two, in: 'Times', 14
March 1995; p.9).
Blair's tactics resulted, for example, in Murdoch's 'Sun',
which had claimed that its support had been responsible for Thatcher's election
victory in 1992, publishing an election eve message to its readers entitled:
"WHO BLAIRS WINS", ('Sun', 30 April 1997; p. 1).
and a leading article declaring: "We urge you to vote Labour".
('Sun', 30 April 1997; p. 6).
In the 1997 General Election campaign,
"the faltering campaign of the Conservatives was in sharp
contrast to what was widely seen as an efficient, disciplined and highly
professional campaign by the Labour Party. Spearheaded by the party leader, Tony
Blair, Labour targetted middle-class voters and marginal constituencies. Blair
emphasised that the party, increasingly styling itself 'New Labour', had thrown
off much of its socialist past and was now a party of economic caution"
('Keesing's Record of World Events', Volume 43; p. 41,600).
On 1 May 1997,
" ... the Labour Party won an emphatic victory in a general
election thereby ending 18 years of Conservative Party government
('Keesing's Record of World Events', Volume 43; p. 41,646).
The Marxist-Leninist Attitude to Social-Democracy
Lenin was insistent that the only correct attitude to
social-democracy is to expose, and not to conceal, the fact that its
policy is one of betrayal of the interests of working people:
"By exposing the fact that the opportunists and
social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the
masses, . . . that they are really allies and agents of the bourgoisie, we teach
the masses to realise their true political interests, to fight for Socialism and
for the revolution."
The only Marxist line in the world labour movement is to
explain to
"the masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with
opportunism, to educate them for revolution by waging a merciless struggle
against opportunism, . . . exposing all the vileness of national-liberal labour
politics, and not ... concealing it."
(Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Imperialism and the Split in Socialism',
in: 'Selected Works', Volume 11; London; 1943; p. 762-63).
In the preface to his -- on the whole -- excellent book
'Social-Democracy: The Enemy within', Harpal Brar quotes the words of Lenin
approvingly:
"The task of the communists -- revolutionary Marxist-Leninists
-- is
"... to fight against the 'bourgeois labour party , to explain
to the masses the inevitability and the necessity of breaking with opportunism,
"... and to unmask the hideousness of National-Liberal-Labour politics and not
to cover them up.
Marxist-Leninists alone are capable of accomplishing this task.
They can and must do it. The formation of a truly Marxist-Leninist party in
Britain would be a first, and very important, step in the accomplishment of this
historic task".
(Harpal Brar (1995): Preface to: 'Social-Democracy: The Enemy
Within (hereafter listed as 'Harpal Brar (1995); op. cit.; p. xi).
And in the preface to his later book 'Bourgeois Nationalism or
Proletarian Internationalism?', published in 1998, Brar again quotes this
passage from Lenin,
(Harpal Brar: Preface to: 'Bourgeois Nationalism or Proletarian
Internationalism?' (hereafter listed as 'Harpal Brar (1998)'; Southall; 1998; p.
xliii).
and calls for
"only the most resolute adherence . . . to the ideological and
organisational principles of Marxism-Leninism, only the pursuit of Bolshevik
revolutionary tactics"
(Harpal Brar (1998): ibid.; p. xliii).
The Socialist Labour Party
The Socialist Labour Party (SLP)
"... was formed on 1st May 1996".
(Introduction: Election Manifesto: The Socialist Labour Party';
n.p.; 1997; p. 3).
led by Arthur Scargill, President of the National Union of
Mineworkers.
Brar welcomed its foundation:
"One cannot but welcome the emergence of the Socialist Labour
Party". (Harpal Brar (1998): op. cit.; p. xxxix).
Perhaps, therefore, the SLP is the revolutionary,
Marxist-Leninist, party for which Brar had been calling, the kind of party which
alone (according to Brar in 1995) could lead the working people to
socialism?
Certainly, the formation of the party represented
"... a definitive organisational break" (Harpal Brar (1998):
op. cit.; p. xxxix).
with the Labour Party. Did it, however, signify, as Brar
claims,
"... a definitive organisational break with
social-democracy"
(Harpal Brar (1998): op. cit.; p. xxxix).
One must note that the stimulus for the formation of the new
party was
"New Labour's decision to ditch its constitutional commitment
to common ownership".
(Introduction: Election Manifesto: The Socialist Labour Party';
n.p.; 1997; p. 3).
But in 1995 Brar was saying:
"Clause Four has little to do with socialism. On the contrary,
it was an anticommunist provision born out of specific historical circumstances
ushered in by the October Revolution.
Through Clause Four which it had no intention of taking
seriously let alone implementing, the Labour leadership through Arthur Henderson
and Sidney Webb, both imperialist and racist to the core and authors of Clause
Four ... made vague promises to dupe ... the working
class so as better to assist British imperialism in its counter-revolutionary
vanguard role against Soviet Russia"
(Harpal Brar (1995): op. cit.; p. 83, 84).
and was calling upon Scargill to
"say good riddance to this stinking corpse called the Labour
Party and help build a revolutionary party of the British proletariat which
truly represents the interests of the British working class". (Harpal Brar
(1995): op. cit.; p. 104).
Since, as Brar correctly states, the presence or absence of
Clause Four makes no difference to anti-socialist character of the policies of
the Labour Party, the SLP's restoration of the equivalent of Clause IV in its
Constitution is of no significance. It represents merely a rejection of
'New Labour' in favour of a revival of 'Old Labour'
The objects of the SLP are defined in its Constitution
as:
"To secure for the people a full return of all the wealth
generated by the industries and services of our nation on the basis of the
common/social ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange of
each industry and service and to implement the most effective system of
administration, control and accountability of each industry and service by the
people"
(Socialist Labour Party: Constitution 1997; Barnsley; 1997; p.
4).
This is similar in principle to the aims of 'Old Labour' as
expressed in Clause Four of its 1918 Constitution. which read:
"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits
of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be
possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production,
distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular
administration and control of each industry or service". (Labour Party:
Constitution and Rules; London; 1929; p. 3).
Is it true, therefore, as Brar claims, that the SLP
"has made a definitive organisational break with
social-democracy"?
(Harpal Brar (1998): op. cit.: p. xxxix).
Is the SLP really a revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist party of
the type that Lenin (and Brar in 1995) called for?
An essential principle of Marxism-Leninism is the objective of
achieving working class political power, the dictatorship of the
proletariat:
"A Marxist is one who extends the concept of the class
struggle to acceptance of the dictatorship of the proletariat (Vladimir
I. Lenin: 'State and Revolution: The Marxist Doctrine of the
State and the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution', in:
'Selected Works', Volume 7; London; 1946; p. 33).
But in the Constitution of the SLP, the concept of the
dictatorship of the proletariat is not merely unmentioned; it is explicitly
repudiated. The 'socialist system envisaged by the SLP is one
"...whose institutions represent and are democratically
controlled by, and accountable to, the people as a whole"
(Socialist Labour Party: Constitution 1997; Barnsley; 1997; p.
4).
This, however, is not Marxism-Leninism, but what Brar has in
the past correctly denounced as Khrushchevite revisionism:
"In our country, for the first time in history, a state has
taken place which is not a dictatorship of any one class, but an instrument of
society as a whole, of the entire people.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary"
(Nikita S. Khrushchev: Report on the Programme of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, 22nd Congress; London; 1961; p. 57, 58).
Brar defends his support of the SLP by insisting that
"The SLP proudly pledges itself to the ideology of Marxism.
The SLP ... proudly defends the earth-shattering achievements
of the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union and their monumental
successes in every field".
(Harpal Brar (1998): op. cit.; p. xl).
Brar gives no evidence for this surprising statement, and in
fact, there is no mention at all of Marxism or the Soviet Union in the SLP's
Constitution, in its election manifesto or in any issues of its journal which
are available in the British Library.
From the evidence available, it seems incontrovertible that
the SLP is not a Marxist-Leninist Party, but another social-democratic
party albeit one which stands to the left of the Labour Party.
As long ago as September 1928, the Communist International, in
its programme adopted at its 6th Congress, characterised 'left' social-democracy
as follows:
"In systematically carrying out this counter-revolutionary
policy, social-democracy makes use of its two wings: the right, overtly
counterrevolutionary wing is indispensable for negotiations and direct contacts
with the bourgeoisie, while the 'left' is used to execute particularly subtle
manoeuvres for deceiving the working class... It is therefore the most
dangerous fraction in the social-democratic parties" (Programme of the Communist
International, in: Jane Degras (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; p. 483-84).
CONCLUSION
ON THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE, THE SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY (SLP) IS
NOT A MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY BUT A 'LEFT' SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
WHILE IT MAY BE TACTICALLY CORRECT FOR MARXIST-LENINISTS TO
COOPERATE WITH THE SLP OR ITS ORGANS ON QUESTIONS OF POLICY ON WHICH THEY ARE IN
AGREEMENT, AND IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES EVEN TO JOIN THE PARTY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF EXPOSING ITS TRUE CHARACTER, TO SUPPORT THIS PARTY IS TO DECEIVE THE WORKING
PEOPLE, WHICH IS IMPERMISSIBLE FOR MARXIST-LENINISTS.
IN SHORT, THE TASK OF MARXIST-LENINISTS IN RELATION TO THE SLP
IS THEREFORE NOT TO SUPPORT IT, BUT TO WORK TO EXPOSE IT AS A PARTY WHICH SERVES
CAPITAL, WHICH SERVES THE ENEMIES OF THE WORKING CLASS.
APPENDIX
SLP VOTING FIGURES AT GENERAL ELECTION
At the general election in May 1997, the Socialist Labour Party contested 64
seats -- 56 in England, 5 in Wales and 3 in Scotland. The Party's candidates,
together with the number of votes they received and the proportion of the
electorate this represented, are shown in the following table:
ANDERSON, Paul & MANN, Nyta: 'Safety First: The Making of
New Labour'; London; 1997.
BLAIR, Tony: 'The Third Way: New Politics for the New Century'; London; 1998.
BRAR, Harpal: 'Social Democracy: The Enemy Within'; Southall; 1995.
'Bourgeois Nationalism and Proletarian Internationalism'; Southall; 1998.
CANNON, John (Ed.): 'Oxford Companion to British History'; Oxford; 1997.
CLOUGH, Robert: 'Labour: A Party Fit for Imperialism'; London;
1992.
CLYNES, John R.: 'Nemoirs', Volume 2: 1924-1937'; London; 1937.
COLE, George D. H.: 'A History of Socialist Thought, Volume 4:
Communism and Social Democracy: 1914-1931'; London; 1958.
DALE, lain: 'The Blair Necessities: The Tony Blair Book of Quotations';
London; 1997
DAVIES, Andrew 3.: 'To build a New Jerusalem: The British Labour Party from
Keir Hardie to Tony Blair'; London; 1996.
DEGRAS, Jane (Ed.): 'The Communist International: 1919-1943'; London;
1971.
INDEPENDENT LABOUR PARTY: 'Jubilee Souvenir'; London; 1943.
KEATING, Nichael & BLEIMAN, David: 'Labour and Scottish
Nationalism'; London; 1979.
KHRUSHCHEV, Nikita S.: Report on the Programme of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, 22nd Congress CPSU; London; 1961.
LABOUR PARTY: 'Constitution and Rules'; London; 1929. LENIN, Vladimir I.:
'Collected Works', Volume 18; Moscow; 1963.
'Collected Works', Volume 31; Moscow; 1974.
'Selected Works', Volume 1; London; 1944.
'Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935.
'Selected Works', Volume 10; London; 1946.
'Selected Works', Volume 11; London; 1943.
MARX, Karl & ENGELS, Friedrich: 'Selected Correspondence:
1846-1895: With Commentary and Notes'; London; 1943.
McKIBBIN, Ross: 'The Evolution of the Labour Party: 1910-1924'; Oxford;
1974.
MORGAN, Kenneth 0.: 'Keir Hardie: Radical and
Socialist'; London; 1984.
REISMAN, David (Ed.): 'Democratic Socialism in Britain: Classic
Texts in Economic and Political Thought: 1825-1952', Volume 4; London; 1996.
RENTOUL, John: 'Tony Blair'; London; 1995.
SHAW, Eric: The Labour Party since 1945: Old Labour, New
Labour'; Oxford; 1996.
SNOWDEN, Philip: 'An Autobiography', Volume 2; London; 1934. SOCTALIST LABOUR
PARTY: Constitution; Barnsley; 1997
SOPEL, Jon: 'Tony Blair: The Moderniser'; London; 1995.
WEBB, Beatrice: 'Our Partnership'; Cambridge; 1975.
WEBB, Sidney: 'The Labour Party on the Threshold'; London;
1923.
WILLIAMS, Francis: 'Fifty Years' March: The Rise of the Labour
Party'; London; 1949.
'Cambridge Encyclopaedia'.
'Great Soviet Encyclopedia'.
'Oxford English Dictionary'.
