Click on the headline to link to a Leon Trotsky Internet Archives online copy of his Leon Trotsky’s Writings on Britain-Volume 1-The Labour Movement
1906-1924 to give a little historical perspective to this post.
Commentary
Regular readers of this space have long been aware that this writer fights his propaganda war under the banner of struggling in America for a workers party that fights for a workers government. In the course of that propaganda war I have had occasion to use the British Labor Party (today, New Labor) as the whipping boy (oops, person) for all that the slogan does not mean. Over the past few days news has filtered out that in the recent local municipal elections in Britain the Labor Party has taken something of a political beating by the Conservative Party AND, hold onto your hat, the Liberal Party. These are desperate times in Labor Party circles, especially for the party bureaucracy and their remaining toadies in the Trades Union Congress. I will, however, not wake up screaming in the night over this development. I cry no tears that ‘radical’ Ken Livingstone has fallen as Mayor of London. Nevertheless a few remarks about how militants in Britain (and elsewhere) can take advantage of the situation seem in order.
One of the great truisms of British left wing politics for the last century or so (since the split with the above-mentioned seemingly previously moribund liberals and the formation of an independent working class party) is the need to have a strategic orientation toward the Labor Party. Most famously, Lenin in his nice little polemical of 1920 against the ‘wild boys and girls’ of anarcho-communism in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder noted that, at times, militants are forced to support the Labor Party like “a rope supports a dying man”. And on occasion that little advice might be true in the future. But not today.
Every British militant, as an individual, should be a member of the Labor Party, or one of its organizations. The truth of the matter is that the bulk of the working class still owes at least formal allegiance to that party. The problem historically has been, and continues today including by militants who know better, that one needs to know as an organization how to file for divorce. That, my friends, is the fundamental problem with long term entry into a larger labor organization that I have discussed elsewhere in this space. I would argue that this is an excellent time to think about a regroupment of left forces outside the Labor Party. The particular contours of that regroupment are contingent on local conditions and particular prospects. Of course none of that makes sense unless there is programmatic agreement, to my mind that is a given. But it is something to think about.
These recent British elections, and the defeat of Mr. Livingstone as mayor, have also brought in focus a question that has been raised by the International Communist League on the question of revolutionaries running for executive offices in the bourgeois state. The ICL’s argument is that, unlike in the past, including in their own past, where revolutionaries ran with the understanding that they would not take office, it is a matter of principle not to even run for such offices and that we confine ourselves to parliamentary races. I had in the past, not without a few qualms, continued to favor the old policy. I believe that I am now ready to change my position on this question; however, I wish to write on that question separately. So, perhaps, old Ken Livingstone’s defeat serves a purpose after all.
1906-1924 to give a little historical perspective to this post.
Commentary
Regular readers of this space have long been aware that this writer fights his propaganda war under the banner of struggling in America for a workers party that fights for a workers government. In the course of that propaganda war I have had occasion to use the British Labor Party (today, New Labor) as the whipping boy (oops, person) for all that the slogan does not mean. Over the past few days news has filtered out that in the recent local municipal elections in Britain the Labor Party has taken something of a political beating by the Conservative Party AND, hold onto your hat, the Liberal Party. These are desperate times in Labor Party circles, especially for the party bureaucracy and their remaining toadies in the Trades Union Congress. I will, however, not wake up screaming in the night over this development. I cry no tears that ‘radical’ Ken Livingstone has fallen as Mayor of London. Nevertheless a few remarks about how militants in Britain (and elsewhere) can take advantage of the situation seem in order.
One of the great truisms of British left wing politics for the last century or so (since the split with the above-mentioned seemingly previously moribund liberals and the formation of an independent working class party) is the need to have a strategic orientation toward the Labor Party. Most famously, Lenin in his nice little polemical of 1920 against the ‘wild boys and girls’ of anarcho-communism in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder noted that, at times, militants are forced to support the Labor Party like “a rope supports a dying man”. And on occasion that little advice might be true in the future. But not today.
Every British militant, as an individual, should be a member of the Labor Party, or one of its organizations. The truth of the matter is that the bulk of the working class still owes at least formal allegiance to that party. The problem historically has been, and continues today including by militants who know better, that one needs to know as an organization how to file for divorce. That, my friends, is the fundamental problem with long term entry into a larger labor organization that I have discussed elsewhere in this space. I would argue that this is an excellent time to think about a regroupment of left forces outside the Labor Party. The particular contours of that regroupment are contingent on local conditions and particular prospects. Of course none of that makes sense unless there is programmatic agreement, to my mind that is a given. But it is something to think about.
These recent British elections, and the defeat of Mr. Livingstone as mayor, have also brought in focus a question that has been raised by the International Communist League on the question of revolutionaries running for executive offices in the bourgeois state. The ICL’s argument is that, unlike in the past, including in their own past, where revolutionaries ran with the understanding that they would not take office, it is a matter of principle not to even run for such offices and that we confine ourselves to parliamentary races. I had in the past, not without a few qualms, continued to favor the old policy. I believe that I am now ready to change my position on this question; however, I wish to write on that question separately. So, perhaps, old Ken Livingstone’s defeat serves a purpose after all.
The problems are deeper. Not only was Labor defeated, but rightist candidates won more offices as BNP.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't break from Labor. The alternatives have been jokes. You need a more long term perspective.
Nicholas is back blogging. You'll like his blog.
Ren- this is one of those times when you and I definitely do not see eye to Renegade Eye on this question. I have already mentioned that, as individuals, militants need to stay in New Labor (just as we argue that militants stay in the trade union federations here-that is where the fight is and where the class fighters will probably come from). I am talking about a organizational strategy to replace New Labor as the dominant voice of the British working class. That cannot be done unless you split this New Labor party into its class components. That is the long term strategy (no easy task, I agree).
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I would argue that politically today militants cannot call for a vote to New Labor. I would also argue that just because the left of the New Labor Party world has not been successful or, as you say, has been a joke, doesn't negate the need to regroup. Otherwise you wind up regrouping with Gordon Brown.
I would point to the Militant tendency (Ted Grant) of the old Labor Party as the prime evidence that deep entry into the Labor Party is fruitless. They even admitted that themselves after spending umpteen years buried inside. The task in Britain is almost as hard as our task here but one must at least have a clear perspective or we keep reinventing the political wheel. Markin
hi ren - you know i'm going to disagree with you - here labour is a joke (in North West wales at least - perhaps to an extent for historical reasons), and although the alternatives have had a rough ride - to some extent the SWP are to blame for this, but also because capitalism has managed to stave of a rexession for so long on the back of debt etc. i think that affected people's outlooks. In my experience the last year or so has seen some radicalisation - particularly of youth on a range of issues and a will to fight - a will that menat that i have been able to build a small group in bangor - i don't think that would have happened if i had come here a few years earlier.
ReplyDeleteas i've mentioned before, however, new labour repels people - i've had some online discussions with some fo your comrades in the uk and it seems that they don't actually do that much work in the labour party itself - more through stuff like hands off venezuela and the TU's - there position is more one of waiting for the working class to re-enter labour - i doubt that will happen however.