Debate:
What really IS new about New Labour?
Martin Wicks, convenor of Socialist Perspectives, replies to Neil Murray's article in September's Socialist Outlook ("Not so New Labour senses its weakness")
Comrade Murray seriously underestimates the changes which Blair has made in the Labour Party. Neil says you can only describe Blair as a Tory or a Liberal if you believe that there was "a ‘golden age’ of socialism in the Labour Party". This is false
You do not have to believe the LP was socialist - it has never been such - to comprehend that Blair is a neo-Liberal. He really does believe in a rapprochement between social democracy and Liberalism. That was the significance of his comment last year about the ‘tragedy’ of the split in the ranks of ‘progressives’ at the turn of the century (i.e. the political break from the Liberals and the setting up of the Labour Party).
Blair’s politics are firmly rooted in the legacy of Thatcherism.. His policies are not just ‘more right wing’ as comrade Murray implies. We are talking about a government which is carrying out a policy of privatisation, whether outright, or through PFI or PPP. They are systematically dismantling all the post war reforms that social democracy introduced.
To assert, therefore, that "there are limited differences between Blair and his predecessors as Labour leader" is a touch extraordinary! This underestimation of the change is also reflected by his identification of ‘social partnership’ with class collaboration which has always dominated the Party.
‘Social Partnership’ is an outlook which completely subordinates the unions to the interests of capital.
‘Social Partnership’ is not just a modern form of class collaboration. It is an outlook which completely subordinates the unions to the interests of capital. It is rooted in an acceptance of the ‘global market’ as a positive development and one which demands of workers that they unite with their employers in striving for success in global competition.
Class collaboration, in its many variants, was based on the idea of compromise between Capital and Labour, though this did not exclude a conflict of interests. But ‘social partnership’ accepts the ongoing productivity drive to make companies competitive. Indeed, the White Paper, "Fairness at Work" threatens to inscribe the ‘duty’ of employees to enter into a ‘partnership’ with their employers!
Murray says that "the most significant factor determining the right wing character of government policies is the low level of class struggle, meaning that there is very little pressure to do differently." He concludes: "Who is to say Blair’s (or Brown’s) policies would not be different if the level of class struggle were not higher. It is possible that Blair could pull back under the pressure of the class struggle, or that members of the leadership could force them out."
In my view this is false. New Labour reflects the political evolution of social democracy produced by the end of post war economic growth and the changes known as ‘globalisation’. It was only the fact that the Labour Party was out of power for so long which slowed its evolution in the same direction as the European and Australasian varieties, which in the ‘80s introduced a series of counter-reforms and privatisations.
Blair and his coterie have accepted the ideology of ‘globalisation’ which they view (ironically, given the current global crisis) as a progressive force. They have abandoned traditional social democratic views on progressive taxation, on redistribution etc.
It likewise seems false to imply that there would be any significant change in their policy. Whilst it is possible for any politician to tack course under pressure, even the Iron Lady did this, it is illusory to imagine that this government would change course significantly.
Murray says that "the Labour Party’s nature has not yet changed". However, you have to examine that ‘nature’ as a living thing rather than a wooden category: ‘bourgeois workers party’. New Labour is moving in the direction of being transformed into ‘a bourgeois party sweet and simple’. The affiliation of the unions is an obstacle to this. However, we should avoid formalism.
The schema of a wholesale split of the unions from the Party, or vice versa, after which we can safely place the label ‘bourgeois party’ on it, is not necessarily the way events will develop. Life is always more complicated than theory. The unions have accepted much of Blair’s neo-liberal agenda. Most of them have swallowed ‘social partnership’ whole.
More and more Labour Councils are attacking trades unions and carrying out privatisations, including Council Housing, which you might say is the very essence of social democracy and what was known as ‘municipal socialism’. Can anyone show me a Labour Council challenging the government in any way? I see no evidence.
These are not just ‘more right wing policies’. They represent a fundamental political shift by social democracy: beginning the process of overturning the post war reforms they introduced and which constituted the material basis for the mass support they had.
The current situation, says Murray, "demands that socialists are present (in the LP) raising their criticisms and alternatives to the government’s programme." The left should take heart from the fact that Blair saw the Grassroots Alliance as a threat and "step up the political and organisational assault". This view will no doubt be bolstered by the success in the NEC elections. But, of course, there is no assault We are in a defensive position in which the trades union leaders are striving to prevent a serious struggle against the government’s programme.
Does he mean that all socialists should be in the LP? This seems a justification for continuation of the concentration of forces in the Labour Party. I can understand people working in a constituency where there is an organised left resisting the direction of the government and their local government clones. However, there are few such local Parties left. The shift to the right is reflected in the fact that our old right wing opponents of the ‘80s are on the left of New Labour!
Of course, there is no reason why socialists inside and outside the Labour Party should not work together in building resistance to Blair. However, the issue of a new party of the working class is not today an abstract theoretical issue: a possibility at some unspecified date far in the future. We are seeing the beginning of the break up of social democracy. It is necessary to concentrate on assembling the forces for a new party rooted in building the broadest possible alliance of those resisting the government’s actions.
How far we are down this road is a question of dispute. But one thing is certain. There will not be an influx of radicalised workers or youth into the party which is attacking public sector workers, New Labour the party of privatisation, the ‘party of business’.
Of course, the new party we need cannot be brought about simply by the actions of a few people, especially when defeats have continued since the General Election. However, it is necessary to popularise the idea and to draw together all those who want to build such a party.
The battle in relation to the Labour Party is not yet over within the affiliated unions. However, even there it requires the struggle for a complete break with social partnership. The tensions between the unions and the government are all well and good but the very same union leaders who are whining about the minimum wage level refuse to break from the government and mobilise their members .
What is required is a political break from this neo-liberal programme. That is what we have to fight for in the unions, against the resistance of the union leaders. It would be wrong to take the view, from a formal definition of the nature of the Labour Party, that socialists should simply reaffirm affiliation on the basis of continuing the fight ‘within the Labour Party’.
Perhaps socialists in the RMT should propose that the union sponsor candidates who are opposed to privatisation
Let’s look at the way the issue is posed in the RMT. The debate at its AGM this year was instructive. The resolution which spoke of ending political and financial support for the party if it did not change direction was lost by 28 to 21. Those who had voted for a resolution which demanded that sponsored MPs sign a statement condemning the privatisation of the London Underground, or their sponsorship be withdrawn, changed sides and voted against the resolution which placed a question mark over the future of affiliation. However, not a single delegate defended the MPs, and the attitude of Labour Party members present was probably summed up by one delegate who said he wasn’t handing over his party card to "the Blairites who have hijacked the party". They would have to take it off him.
Of course, there is no alternative party for the unions to affiliate to at present. But there is no blue print to determine when you call for a break of the unions from the Labour Party. What is clear to RMT members is that New Labour will not re-nationalise the railways.
Prescott’s threat that train operating companies will be given back to BR if they do not produce the goods is just hot air. When London & Continental Railways failed, the European Passenger Service (which runs Euro Star) could have been taken back - it was in the contract - but Prescott did not do that even though it would have cost him nothing!
What credence has the demand that the government re-nationalise the railways when it is carrying out privatisation of the London Underground infrastructure? Members of the union which was instrumental in founding the Labour Party will have to build a new party to assist in taking the privatised railways out of the hands of the profiteers.
Perhaps as a transitional step socialists in the RMT should propose that the union sponsor socialist candidates who are opposed to privatisation, be they members of the Labour Party or not: ending the exclusive support for Labour Party candidates.
Socialists have to popularise the idea of a new socialist party, a new party of the working class and oppressed, seeking to draw together all forces opposed to the government’s policy and actions. This does not preclude some people working in the Labour Party where there is some purpose in a particular locality or a union. The political reality of the programme and actions of the government must be explained clearly. The real significance of the evolution of the Labour Party is papered over by Murray’s analysis.
Issue 11 of ‘Socialist Perspectives’ reports on a Training course for union reps involving the AEEU, MSF and TGWU, as well as the Engineering Employers Federation, which aims at reps "constantly re-assessing and re-evaluating your role to ensure you are in line with business development"! (Copies available for 76p from 333 Welcombe Avenue, Park North, Swindon SN3 2PF.)