sign in sign up
<<
Home , British Left, Eric Heffer, Ralph Miliband, Socialist Worker

8 March 1984 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?

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, 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 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 '' '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 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 , 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 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 . 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 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 , 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' ( 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. Westergaard, their party — more than ever since the 1950s, which thought there was no future who agrees that 'a labour movement disastrous 1960s — and by many of its for a working class-based party, and look dedicated to radical and constructive how wrong they were (Westergaard in New opposition to inequality can no longer hope Like it or not, the future of Socialist Jan-Feb 1984, Miliband in to swing a majority behind it by appealing 1983, pp 104-5). Hob- to class loyalties', has done a very good job socialism is through the sbawm can only think that Labour's of this kind in his 'Class of '84' ( Party forward march has been reversed, because Socialist Jan-Feb 1984). But if it merely he overlooks the 'wonderful, painful, asserts that the transformation of the leaders. They have, bitterly, seen a indispensable, transition from mere Lab­ working class proves that we should go succession of men and women whom they ourism to Socialism' which has been taking plugging on in the old way, then it is not trusted as people devoted to their cause, place within the Labour Party, though it is helpful. Of course there is also the view, abandon them for the anti-Labour parties not yet complete (Royden Harrison in recently expressed by , that 'all or revealed as ambitious or money-hungry Labour Herald Oct 28 1983), a statement this analysis of a fundamental change which careerists. But, by and large, they have which reminds me of the oarsmen in a boat means that everything is different is been content with a 'labourism' which which is being swept towards the rapids designed to demoralise and defeat', (City stood for something much more modest who congratulate themselves, no doubt Limits Jan 20-26 1984) which I record than socialism in practice, even if it held correctly on rowing much better than they without comment. out the hope of a . That is had ever done before. The question arises why, if the Labour still the case. Party has basically been on the right lines To accept this in not opportunism, but A different working class (give or take a failure here and there) it realism. Still less does it mean that the As for the changes which have to be made, suffered such a spectacular defeat in June Labour Party cannot move to the left. everybody agrees in principle that there is a 1983. And why those who believed it was, Indeed, it has done so to a notable extent lot to be done. Yet in practice it is denied since the days of Gaitskell and Wilson. that the profound changes in the social and 'Lenin Selected Works Vol X pl31. What it does mean is that the political economic structure and situation of Britain 2Lenin Selected Works Vol X pi27. 10 March 1984 Marxism Today did not predict what was going to happen, even assuming it recommends a move to the which has never read a word of Marxism as the realists did, being labelled as right, which it does not. It is, of course, Today simply as 'the man who wants a 'pessimists' for having been patently right. undeniable that, for reasons beyond my coalition of Labour and the Liberal/SDP Or, for that matter, why all the participants control, it is written by a man. Alliance.' Just to have it on the record, let in this debate are arguing so furiously about me say, once again, that I did not the future of Labour. Up-dated Popular Front recommend either an electoral coalition or The Communist Party was not the subject a coalition government, and still less that Feminism of 'Labour's Lost Millions', though its the Labour Party 'must abandon in I need say little about contributors who problems are inseparable from the pros­ advance the goal of forming a majority divert attention from the problems at issue pects of Labour, as are those of the rest of government' and seek a coalition instead (A by criticising me for not discussing the the socialist Left, Marxist or not. However, Freeman and D Minns, Guardian Oct problems of the Communist Party and the critics are right in pointing out that the 1983). I have never said that Labour 'can revolutionary Left (Eric Heffer in Marxism views expressed about Labour's future only really make if it makes some Today Dec 1983, Royden Harrison in prospects by me and others in Marxism electoral or other arrangements with the . . Labour Herald Oct 28 1983) or for a bias Today are in a way, 'an up-to-date version of Alliance' (Eric Heffer). I have simply against women (Anna Coote, Marxism the Poplar Front' (Heffer) and that, in my raised the question what happens at the Today Jan 1984, Doreen Massey, Lynne own case, 'Popular Frontism, in one form next election if Labour's recovery is not Segal, , New Socialist or another (has) characterise(d) his politics sufficient to beat Thatcher single-handed. Jan-Feb 1984). As for the question of over five decades' (Norah Carlin and Ian However we answer this question, someone feminism, what was said on the subject in Birchall, 'Kinnock's Favourite Marxist: has to ask it, because it does not go away if 'Labour's Lost Millions' can only be read Eric Hobsbawm and the Working Class' we shut our eyes. My own answer, in print, as meaning that the women's movement International Socialism 21, autumn 1983 p is that I regard 'the need to unite the and the problem of mobilising women can 90). This is not only the nostalgia of anti-Thatcher forces by electoral arrange­ someone formed in the anti-fascist 1930s ments in four years' time as the for the period which, after all, achieved the second-worst outcome in British polities', I am probably now known... greatest advances of the Left in Europe but nevertheless as 'preferable to the worst simply as 'the man who wants since the Russian Revolution, ranging from outcome, another Thatcher victory.' Labour triumph in Britain to, in some (Guardian Nov 2 1983). But that was not a coalition of Labour and the countries, autonomous social revolutions. what my article was about. It was about the SDP/Liberal Alliance' It is because we were able to discover in ways to avoid either of these two outcomes. practice how right Dimitrov was to tell us: not be treated as a mere sub-department of 'We want to find a common language Not just policies but supporters the working-class struggle, but that women with the broadest masses for the purpose of Why the debate has homed in so and their movement are forces in their own struggling against the class enemy, to find overwhelmingly on this one point, brings us right. It is in no sense anti-feminist. No ways of finally overcoming the isolation of the back to the basic attitudes of the Left to the doubt 'there may be a problem involved in revolutionary vanguard from the masses of the Labour Party. Most of the critics who reject appealing to the interests of women and and all working people, as well as the suggestion, merely express an under­ men at the same time' (Coote), though in overcoming the fatal isolation of the working standable outrage. But behind it, I think, the past labour movements have neverthe­ class itself from its natural allies in the there lies an approach similar to Milib- less succeeded in appealing to both with fair struggle against the , against and's, and which has success. (In the 1930s a consistent 41-42% fascism.' (G Dimitrov, Selected Speeches and put into the form of a careful argument in of the individual members of the Labour Articles, 1951, p 113) his article 'Socialists and Coalitionists' Party were women.) Situations change, and so do the styles of As socialists we simply have no option political discourse. But what Dimitrov said but to believe as a minimum that socialism and what we learned in the school of is consistent with the aspirations of women, politics, not least that the masses 'must be as Tricia Davis obviously does in the taken as they are, not as we should like to important article to which Coote rightly have them', made sense then and still draws attention. (Feminism is Dead? Long makes sense. Live Feminism' Marxism Today Oct 1983). If we thought it could not satisfy half the BUILDING SUPPORT human race, how could we be socialists? In So what changes have to be made? The the meantime the task is enormous: 72% of debate about 'Labour's Lost Millions' has voting women in June 1983 chose Alliance concentrated so overwhelmingly on one and the Tories, whose feminist record is incidental suggestion, namely that under hardly impressive. As for my article, I have certain circumstances an electoral arrange­ genuine difficulty in understanding how it ment among anti-Thatcher forces might can be read as an example of male bias, or have to be envisaged, that I am probably part of a 'Great Male Moving Right Show', now known to the large part of the Left March 1984 Marxism Today 11

New Socialist March-April 1984). He pursue if they want to do more than make masses, then there is no foreseeable way accepts that those who take a similar view the best of a bad job, and give capitalism 'a forward. There is only the prospect of to myself do not want a coalition, but a human face' — which, of course, many rallying a minority of convinced socialists Labour government. But, he argues, they non-socialists also want to do. And behind who hope against hope that sometime are prepared to entertain the idea of a this lies the even more crucial question, just something will turn up. In fact, of writing common front of Centre and Left, because how we envisage a British socialism. But off the hope of making Labour a force for they see even the Labour Party itself, as it these questions have two sides. They socialist advance. Raymond Williams, it has developed, as such a coalition, and so certainly require 'in the next four years . .. seems, is close to such pessimism — but they find a wider common front accepta­ the radical reconstruction of all the main then, he sees the past history of the Labour ble, if by any chance a victory of Labour directions of policy in the light of the most Party, in the very period when it became a open and informed socialist analysis.' But party committed to socialism and millions we also have to face the problem of how rallied to it as such, namely 'during the the prospect of rallying a people whose interest in politics, or for that generations of Liberal decline,' simply as minority of convinced matter unions, is not socialist, and not 'the only realistic Left-of-Tory coalition.' socialists who hope against necessarily identified in their minds with 'Labour's Lost Millions', which rejects this the struggle for socialism, can be convinced view, was not a call for retreat into hope that sometime that socialism, and a socialist Labour Party, opportunism making the best of a bad job, something will turn up is for them. This is the wider problem of but a call for advance. It did not even see the politics of Labour, which includes, but the broad anti-Thatcherite front which is (the 'narrow coalition') is impossible. But, is not the same as, the narrower problem of surely quite essential today, as a mere he argues, this side-steps the crucial its programme and policies. defence against encroaching reaction. It is question of the socialist character of its that, certainly — but the history of the policies. So indeed, he agrees, do others on Against sectarian radicalism anti-fascist struggles shows that those the Left, who have accepted the Labour It is not a new problem, though it is today purely defensive struggles were the founda­ policies of 1983 as 'left' and 'socialist', very much more difficult than during tion of major advances of the Left — not though there is actually nothing specifically Labour's 'forward march' in the first half least in Britain. It was not a call for a more socialist about most of them. Nor does of the century, when we could rely on a moderate approach against the 'more such a programme become more socialist growing number of workers accepting the radical tactics' of Williams and others, but by being combined with 'a bold announ­ equation: class=support for the workers' against the sort of short-sighted and cement of a committment to socialism,' or party=being against capitalism=for social­ sectarian 'radicalism' which Lenin, for one, by assuming that we only need to follow ism. Even that was not enough, as the criticised, and which, to put it mildly, has 'the answers . . . already known and history of the Labour Party shows. But done the Labour Party no good. And which advanced by the Left in the Party . . . today we can't rely on the automatic growth therefore has weakened the Left. For it is a (which) is the way to a repetition of a of with these implica­ historical fact that, since 1917, the Left merely divisive factionalism.' All the same, tions any more. We can no longer even rely (including notably the Marxist Left) and the so-called 'coalitionists' (little or big) are on the skilled workers, the traditional support for the Labour Party have tended basically content with another version of 'spine' of the labour movement, staying to grow and fall together, and not at each the old social-democratic policies, and unconditionally loyal to Labour as 'their other's expense. socialists cannot be. team'. And even where we can still rely on This undoubtedly puts its finger on a such loyalty which automatically identifies FOR UNITY AND AGAINST crucial question: what policies the labour class, party and (more doubtfully) social­ COMPLACENCY movement and Labour governments should ism, we cannot overlook the masses who no 'Labour's Lost Millions' was about longer have it, either shopping around changing Labour's approach and the among other parties, or alienated from general lines of its future work, rather than politics, or even drawn away by Thatcherite specific activities or policies. As to the propaganda. Let us not forget that the mass general 'model' for the future, it suggested support for the Tories has not significantly learning something from the Italian diminished since 1979, and remains at the Communist Party, just because 'it is and level of June 1983 even today, nine months wishes to remain a classical mass socialist after the election. So the problem of building , attempting to rally the widest a foundation for the advance of socialism, range of forces around its essential core of even among workers, cannot be simply the working class.' I would agree with treated as something internal to the Labour Westergaard that we can also learn from the Party. And when we consider other parts or Swedish Social Democrats who won their cross-sections of the people who can and way back to power in 1982 with a must be mobilised for the transformation of programme 'to ease economic power out of Britain, then it is even less possible to think private hands — and won, despite signs of a of it in this limited way. creeping erosion of traditional class If we can't win, or win back, these allegiance.' (New Socialist, Jan-Feb 1984). 12 March 1984 Marxism Today

Various relevant points have been made by Labour Party. It isn't likely that the de-selected because some faction or current Michael Meacher (with whom I entirely existing leadership of the party will be wants their seats. If the politics of civil war agree) and (with whom I directly challenged at present, since the are allowed to re-enter the Labour Party by almost entirely agree) (Marxism Today Nov 1983 Conference so clearly reflected the the back door, it is lost. 1983) as well as other contributors in party's desire for unity and an end to The second thing which must not Marxism Today (Bert Munro, Des Walshe fratricide, and since the new leadership has happen, is complacency. True, as Michael Marxism Today Jan 1984; Roger Poole, so obviously increased the party's support Meacher says, 'a consistent presentation of Dave Cook, Marxism Today Feb 1984) and — as registered in the polls — by a third. unity and a new charismatic leadership elsewhere (Stuart Hall, New Socialist But it is more than likely that local suddenly propelled the party (after the Jan-Feb 1984) whom I take to be broadly committee room battles to select and 1983 Conference) from third place in recent in agreement with 'Labour's Lost Mil­ de-select delegates and candidates will have polls to neck-and-neck with the Tories lions'. There is no disagreement either with (Marxism Today Nov 1983). (Well, not the proposals of what could and should be quite . . .) But while this showed that done made by Heffer and Massey/Segal/ millions demoralised by the millions demoralised by the sight of Labour Wainwright, but unfortunately most of sight of Labour aiming to aiming to score own goals, wanted nothing them could have been made, or were made score own goals better than to support a credible Labour and acted upon before June 1983, by the Party, it is not and will not be enough. It activists of the movement who did not the same effect. This would be a disaster. merely means that, if these people can be spend too much of their time on what The Right must not indulge in scandalous held — and they can go away as fast as they Robin Cook calls 'committee politics, of wangles such as the attempt to keep Tony returned — the fight to recover and extend which the battlefield was the branch Benn off the shortlist for Chesterfield, Labour's support does not have to start as meeting victory was the mandating of which fortunately failed. Benn, quite apart far back as it looked in June 1983. It will delegates.' So they are not, by themselves, from his personal qualifications, represents still have to be won. It will be very difficult enough. an important element in the Labour Party, to win it. We cannot rely on automatic This is not the place to discuss further which has the right to be represented in disillusionment with Thatcher or the what Labour should and can do concretely. Parliament. Just so (like them or not) Alliance to do the job for us. The Labour But it is certainly essential in conclusion to Healey and Hattersley represent something Party and all other parts of the labour remind ourselves of two things which must in the party, not to speak of MPs like, say, movement have a very full agenda for the not happen. Frank Field who are not, and are not even next four years. Now that the reasons for The first is the resumption, from any regarded as, standard-bearers on the Labour's defeat have been debated, it is side, of the suicidal civil war within the Labour Right, but who risk being time to concentrate on it.