18.05.2023
Labourism on Mogadon
Though a Labour government is by no means certain, it would represent a major political turning point. Vernon Price reports on the aggregate of CPGB members and supporters
Held online on May 13, the meeting focused on the Labour Party. Provisional Central Committee member Kevin Bean gave the introduction. He noted Labour’s gains in the local elections and the likelihood of a Starmer-led government after the next general election. Overall, the Labour vote had not gone up - the party’s good results, like those of the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, were partly due to a significant drop in Conservative votes.
The Tories lost a swathe of seats and councils, but this was hardly unexpected, and it is unlikely that we will see immediate moves to replace leader Rishi Sunak. The attempt to rehabilitate Boris Johnson and emphasise ‘traditional’ Conservative values, such as family, patriotism and religion, are about both pressuring Sunak in the here and now and preparing for a post-Sunak comeback.
Comrade Bean’s assessment of Sir Keir Starmer was of somebody who appeals to the ruling class - with a background in the state core, a foreign policy commitment to US interests and a business-friendly approach at home. The left, in the name of sensible, managerial politics, will remain marginalised and subject to constant attack. In the run-up to the general election Sir Keir will continue to present himself as a safe pair of hands. Advised by former prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, plagiarising Blue Labour and guided by endless focus groups, he will continue to target the largely mythical ‘centre ground’. The resulting politics are utterly vacuous, even when compared to New Labour. Unless there is a dramatic economic upturn - unlikely - there will be little inclination to give substantial concessions to the unions or to go on a spending splurge for the benefit of the working class.
Stepping back to view the wider context, Kevin reminded us that we are in a period of global instability, where events do not always pan out as expected. The Corbyn movement itself took everyone by surprise, even those, like the CPGB, who expected a revival of the left in the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn’s victory as Labour leader was a historical accident brought about by the ‘morons’ in the Parliamentary Labour Party who ‘lent him’ their votes in the first round. But more recently we have seen the false dawns of Enough is Enough and the Peace and Justice Project, which both burst into life full of expectations, but have failed to deliver anything tangible. Meanwhile, the recent wave of strikes was heralded by some groups on the left as a prelude to the outbreak of a revolution, when in reality the strikes, however welcome, have been very limited in terms of time and objectives.
Looking at the internal situation of the Labour Party under Starmer, comrade Bean described a regime of extraordinary tight control, evidenced in particular by the parliamentary and local government selection of candidates. Membership and activity has declined massively. Many have left through disillusionment or been expelled, but that still leaves a large membership with a significant number who consider themselves socialists of some kind. But the official Labour left is extremely weak and increasingly ineffective.
Fingernails
The Socialist Campaign Group of MPs illustrates this well - nominally it has around 35 members, but several of them are, or have been, junior ministers in Starmer’s shadow cabinet. Not a few took part in the recent coronation celebrations. Their perspective now is holding on by their fingernails, keeping their heads down and avoiding a fate like Diane Abbott’s or Jeremy Corbyn’s. A faint glimmer of hope is that the next election may deliver a hung parliament, where their parliamentary votes can be used to extract concessions.
Left pressure groups such as Momentum and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy also find themselves lost, much reduced and without any clear sense of direction. The Labour Representation Committee still exists but, more or less, in name only.
Kevin went on to describe the ideology of Labourism, which permeates leftwing politics in the trade unions, in the party itself and amongst those Corbyn supporters who are now outside the party. Labourism is not just a tribal commitment to Labour, or a willingness to compromise with the bureaucracy in order to further personal careers. The ideology of Labourism is rooted in parliamentary socialism - the idea that Labour can be won to policies of radical social change which can be delivered by laws passed in Westminster. Key to this strategy is the preservation of the Labour Party brand and compromises with the right, which usually maintains a firm grip on party structures and processes. This ensures that the fortunes of the left remain tied to the fortunes and indulgence of the Labour right.
Next, comrade Bean addressed the issue of whether the rightward shift under Starmer has produced a qualitative change to the extent that Lenin’s description of it as a ‘bourgeois workers party’ no longer fits. Such a position was adopted by many on the left following Tony Blair’s so-called reforms, which weakened the role of trade unions and removed the symbolic ‘clause four’ commitment to Fabian ‘socialism’. Kevin accepted that Starmer is historically the most rightwing Labour leader, but emphasised that all former Labour prime ministers had been pro-capitalist.
The party retains a base within the organised working class through its affiliated trade unions, and there are no moves to change that - indeed many union leaders are still hoping to obtain gains from Starmer when he becomes prime minister. The lack of success of the RMT union in backing the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition against Labour means that left trade union bureaucrats will, unless pushed, be unlikely to ditch Labour in favour of a tiny group with no influence in parliament. Also the Labour Party still maintains its working class electoral base. So, on balance, Lenin’s designation still applies.
Addressing the much-heralded initiatives for a new workers’ party, Kevin was of the opinion that any such development is unlikely until after the general election. The overwhelming desire is to kick out the Tories. Jeremy Corbyn may well stand against Labour and could win in Islington North, but his politics are those of the Labour Party, so he would see himself as an external faction of Labour rather than the spark for a new party. Starmer is emulating Blair in pledging little, meaning there is no likelihood of a crisis of expectations.
But there is still the possibility of the scattered fragments coming together in a new party project. The indications are that this will follow the politics of earlier attempts, based on a broad left amalgam of both reformist and would-be revolutionary elements - in other words, a Labour Party mark two - doomed to repeat the failures of the past. Any such development would provide an opportunity for us not only to intervene, but to argue for the idea of a Communist Party with a revolutionary programme. This would be consistent with our earlier interventions during the Corbyn period within the Labour Left Alliance - and before that within the Socialist Alliance, Left Unity, etc.
Comrade Bean ended his opening by posing some pertinent questions. Given the thoroughly bourgeois nature of Starmer’s Labour Party, should we continue to advise people to vote Labour? Should we only support Labour candidates who are on the left? Should we call for votes for leftwing candidates standing against Labour? And should we stand our own candidates?
Debate
Carla Roberts was first into the discussion. She was critical of the praise currently being heaped on the trade unions by some on the left because of the current strike wave. There is no coordination, no attempt to defy the law, no attempt to organise solidarity actions. More than that, the trade unions remain trapped in the capitalist politics of the working class.
Mike Macnair spoke next. He expected that Starmer’s remote Pabloite antecedence will lead to a Tory press offensive against him in the few months before the general election. On the question of the de-Labourisation of Labour, he agreed with Kevin that the trade unions are unlikely to sever their links. However, he thought it possible that the party might move to break its institutional links with the unions as part of a ‘Blair on steroids’ radical public-sector reform plan that involved wholesale privatisation.
On the failure of left-of-Labour parties to make any electoral impact, Mike pointed to the bourgeois media that block any sympathetic coverage - once again highlighting the need for the working class to have its own media. Another show-stopper is the unwillingness of left groups to work together. Unity is a political choice that was seen to work in the Socialist Alliance, where the most important groups agreed to cooperate in what was a partyist project.
Farzad Kamangar raised doubts about the likelihood of a Labour win in the next general election. She drew attention to the results in 1992, when the opinion polls all predicted a win for Labour led by Neil Kinnock, but instead John Major secured an overall majority of 21 seats.
Jack Conrad then spoke. He noted Keir Starmer’s ‘Clause four on steroids’ speech which promised changes to the DNA of the Labour Party, but without providing any details. We could see a situation where Starmer forces through a weakening of the trade union link as part of his efforts to bolster his pro-capitalist credentials. From the other angle, comrade Conrad also thought it possible that, if a Labour government attacked the trade unions, then this could lead to a rank-and-file backlash, resulting in disaffiliations from Labour. On the other hand, we should not discount the possibility that Sir Keir will talk ‘conservative’ to get Labour elected but act ‘reformist’ when in government. Unlikely, but with real movement from below, not impossible.
As regards the Labour left, it has been roundly defeated and is moving to the right. Its aims are becoming ever more modest and disassociated from calls for radical change. Jack agreed with Mike Macnair that Sir Keir was vulnerable when it comes to his Socialist Alternatives past. Surely Tory HQ and the rightwing media are just waiting to pounce.
Regarding Corbyn, it is not impossible for him to be recruited as the figurehead for a broad front project. Jeremy Corbyn, Ken Loach, Mick Lynch, Alan Gibbons, Left Unity, Counterfire, Socialist Labour Network, Liverpool Community Independents have all been involved in talks. Adding to comrade Macnair’s comments about the media, Jack pointed out that the world has moved on from when the only content was printed, and from when TV was only available on four channels. We now have social media and celebrities with millions of followers. Jack emphasised the need for us to have a collective voice - coordinating our content, translating it into a political line of action and acting as a sponsor of theoretical study.
Responding to the discussion, Kevin Bean considered where various fragments of the Corbyn movement are now. Some have actually stood in the recent local elections as candidates for the Green Party, and others as independents - this clearly represents a shift to a lower level of politics. People who were previously Marxists are now just claiming to be ‘representatives of their community’. If Starmer is ‘Blair on steroids’, he said that any broad front party coming from this direction would be “Labourism on Mogadon”.