LABOUR: Rump Or Rebirth? Eric Hobsbawm
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
8 March 1984 Marxism Today Eric Hobsbawm's 'Labour's Lost Millions' which we published last October, has led to a major debate in our columns and elsewhere. In this article, he responds to the argument. LABOUR: Rump or Rebirth? Eric Hobsbawm MARXISTS AND OTHER left-wing Labour, which have lately clustered around socialists — for many of them can hardly be my article 'Labour's Lost Millions' in regarded as Marxists, even when, as today, Marxism Today Oct 1983, being conducted they advertise themselves as such — have with much passion and some bad temper. never been happy about the Labour Party. Some on the Left — probably a majority — Before 1918 it did not claim to be socialist believe that the time has come when the at all. Since then it has, but many will agree Labour Party itself can be transformed into that 'it is reasonable to see (labourism) as the truly socialist mass party which we an ideology of social reform, within the would all prefer. Their scenario— to quote framework of capitalism, with no serious the admirably lucid Ralph Miliband again ambitions of transcending that framework, — is whatever ritual obeisances to 'socialism' 'the continuation of the struggles in which might be performed by party leaders on the Left has been engaged, with the purpose suitable occasions.' (R Miliband in Socialist of achieving predominance and turning the Register 1983 p 109). Or, to be more polite, socialist/marxist mass party look promis Labour Party into a socialist party free from that what most Labour leaders have meant ing. In Britain there has been only one the constriction hitherto imposed on it by its by 'socialism' is rather different from what genuine mass party of the Left, based on leaders. It must be presumed that many is in the minds of socialists. the working class and its movement, the leading figures in the Labour Party would Consequently the Left has, historically, Labour Party. then want to leave it and seek political homes had two views about the Labour Party. Most socialists, and today the great elsewhere ... In fact it would be essential Some have written it off and attempted, majority of Marxists, have accepted this as that such people should leave the Labour from time to time, to form another, truly a fact of life. Like it or not, the future of Party, for just as the Left makes life difficult socialist, party of the working class in socialism is through the Labour Party. This for a leadership which is opposed to it, so competition with it. This appears still to be has been the basis of Communist Party could determined Right and Centre parlia the position of some Marxist groups such as policy since its programme The British mentarians make life difficult for a party in the WRP and SWP, and was that of Road to Socialism in the early 1950s, and which the Left had acquired predominance.' independent socialists like Miliband who was implicit in its policy since the middle (P 116) argued that the 'hope of the Left to 1930s. Other Marxists have moved into the The Labour Party might lose some transform the Labour Party . was Labour Party either as individuals or, like members but would gain others. It might illusory, and that, far from representing a the Militant Tendency, as collective even lose unions which wished to short cut to the creation of a mass socialist 'entrists', thus incidentally making the disaffiliate from a party that went beyond party in Britain (which has never existed), Communist Party's long-held hope of labourism, but only in some cases, (p 116) it was in fact a dead end in which British winning collective and open affiliation to The other view — which I share — holds socialists had been trapped for many the Labour Party difficult to the point of that this is a dangerous day-dream. decades — in fact since the Labour Party impracticability. A great body of socialists Certainly the future lies in a Labour Party came into being.' (ibid 116) have always regarded the Labour Party as which moves to the left, not only under the History has shown this to be a their natural home and operated as a Left influence of the socialists within and non-starter. None of the organisations within it. outside it, but because its members and which have followed this line between 1900 supporters recognise the need for it to do so and 1983, from the Social Democratic A truly socialist mass party — just as formerly Liberal and non- Federation via the Communist Party at However, there is a fundamental distinc political Labour supporters came to see some periods of its history and the ILP in tion within this body of Labour-oriented themselves as socialists earlier this century. the 1930s, has got anywhere, nor do the socialists, and it lies at the root of the But Marxists must begin by taking the present advocates of an independent arguments about the Forward March of Labour Party as it has actually come into March 1984 Marxism Today 9 being and developed to be the mass party of evolution of the party will fail, if it takes since the 1950s, to which I have tried to the British Left. In the first place, it has place without considering the masses, draw attention for the past five years, make not developed as an ideologically homoge without whose support it is lost. To quote a corresponding re-thinking of the move neous or unified party, but as a broad class Lenin again: 'Change is brought about by ment's political approach necessary. It is and progressive front, containing a wide the political experience of the masses; never argued that the 'working class', the range of views from the Centre to the is it brought about by propaganda alone. traditional base of the party, is not revolutionary Left. In fact, Lenin (whose 'To march forward without compromise, declining, though the decline of 'the 'Leftwing Communism, an Infantile Disorder'withou t turning from the path' — if this is manual working class based on heavy repays careful reading even today), stressed said by an obviously impotent minority of engineering, the mines, shipyards, the 'the unique character of the British Labour the workers ... then the slogan is obviously docks etc,' is not denied. 'It is not true to Party the very structure of which is so mistaken. It is like 10,000 soldiers going say the working class has overall dimin unlike the ordinary political party on the into battle against 50,000 enemy soldiers — ished. It is a different working class' (Eric when it would be wise to 'stop', to 'turn Heffer Marxism Today Dec 83). 'The from the road' and even 'enter into a working class is the overwhelming majority Workers as well as leaders compromise' in order to gain time until the 2 of the population' (Socialist Worker 15 Oct In the second place, and even more to the arrival of the reinforcements of 100,000.' 83: 'Eric Hobsbawm: Guru on the wrong point, it has unfortunately never been true road') It is obviously true that the bulk of that the only thing which has prevented the FACING UP TO THE CRISIS the population of working age, insofar as Labour Party from being the party of our How 'impotent' is the movement today? they are not unemployed, are in one way or dreams, was the 'constriction hitherto How fundamental are the changes it needs another employed for wages/salaries, imposed on it by its leaders'. The British to undertake? Where- must it look for though it would be interesting to penetrate workers, even the workers politically its 'reinforcements'? The debate on my the statistically undocumented and almost advanced enough to join a party committed article has concentrated on the third certainly growing cloud of the 'black' or to socialism and to defend its commitment question, because, after the June 1983 'unofficial' economy, in which the differ- against the Gaitskellite attacks on 'Clause elections, not even the most blinkered of IV, were never an army of left-wing sectarians were prepared to claim in public socialists held back only by blind loyalty to that Labour had not suffered a disastrous the party which finished four right-wing leaders who betrayed their faith defeat or that nothing was wrong with the years of Thatcherism by losing at every opportunity, and the millions of conduct of the party which finished four a fifth of its supporters Labour voters fitted this image even less. years of Thatcherism by losing a fifth of its They have indeed often been misled and supporters. Yet the debate shows that in ence between bosses, workers and what betrayed by those they trusted — not least fact the depth of Labour's crisis has not historians of the Victorian era call 'penny by Attlee and Bevin who committed them sunk in. People like me, say some, are just capitalism' are much less clear-cut. If a to a cold-war policy they would certainly indulging in pessimism and 'the Left's study of the changes within the working not have chosen in 1945-7 and British current passion for slinging mud at itself class aims to discover the new ways of nuclear weapons they would not have (Massey, Segal and Wainwright in New mobilising this mixture of old and new, but wanted, had they known about them. They Socialist Jan-Feb 1984). They echo, say in all cases transformed, sections of the have certainly often been disappointed by others, the Labour Centre and Right of the employed, then it is useful.