The Left And Labour

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service. - Clause IV, before its revision in 1995

One of the most frustrating aspects of the British Left is the obsession with the Labour Party. A somewhat understandable obsession, but an irritating one nonetheless. To understand Labour's role within the Left, we must first establish a brief and probably horribly inaccurate history of the Labour Party.

Firstly, we must establish what it means to be a Labour Party, not just in the UK, but around the world. A Labour Party is, as the name suggests, a party that seeks represent politically the will of labour. The definition of "labour" as a classification of people itself is hard to pin down, generally seen as those that sell their labour or man-power to an employer for a wage. At the time of the Labour Party's origins the labour that was seeking political representation was that of the urban proletariat of the 19th century. This is what we must keep in mind at all times when considering the Labour Party: That its role should be that of representing the wills and needs of labour. In modern times we would perhaps hesitate to say that labour in this country is the "urban proletariat", however. Especially if we take the Maoist Third-Worldist line that a proletariat does not exist in the 1st world, due to the labour aristocracy's exploitation of 3rd world labour. A convincing argument if one steps back and takes a look at our conditions compared to those of the 3rd world. But this is diverging into how to define a proletariat, a subject left for later.

The incarnation of the Labour Party that most socialists in the UK are infatuated with is the party under Clement Attlee. It's hard not to be infatuated with it. Attlee's government was one of the most radical British governments of the 20th century, initiating a swathe of nationalisation of major industries and utilities. These included the Bank of England, coal mining, railways, canals etc. One of the most notable achievements of this government was the creation of a welfare state, described as "cradle to the grave". However, the most notable achievement of this government was the formation of the National Health Service, constructed under Aneurin Bevan. This government represented, to many left wingers, the peak of the Labour Party in its current form. This incarnation of the Labour Party is commonly referred to as Old Labour.

However, where there is Old there is New, and we must move on now to look at New Labour, the most loathsome modern incarnation of the Labour Party. Headed up by the notorious Democratic Socialist Tony Blair and later on by Gordon Brown, this Labour government is one that is fresh in everybody's mind. It is the Labour party of the centre-right, of creeping neoliberalism. To argue that this government, despite its achievements such as the minimum wage, was remotely leftist is absurd. New Labour presided over PFIs, backdoor privatisation, the Iraq War, legislation that restricted unions. It has allowed the interests of business and corporation to dictate the trajectory of the party, with activists no longer able to play a significant role in affecting policy, especially after the reforms of Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair. New Labour was a neoliberal, imperialist monster shambling through 13 years in power. It is not a party of the left, it is not the party of progressive socialist politics.

Many argue that since Labour swung from being the socialist Old Labour to the neoliberal New Labour, surely there is a possibility of the pendulum swinging the other way, especially as a reaction to the Coalition government's policies. I would argue that this will not be the case, and in fact may be impossible to achieve. New Labour is funded primarily through the donations of large business, with the donations of trade unions making up about a quarter of their funding. However, one would expect this quarter to shrink as unions continue to get sick of Labour biting the hands that feed. Many unions have threatened to pull funding already. They realise that Labour is hurtling, still, towards a neoliberal agenda and the election of "Red Ed" to Labour leader will not change a thing. Labour is irreparably broken. It is no longer a party of labour.

But where does this leave the left, both organised and unorganised? One can argue that even though Labour have become a party of the centre-right, it is the only party that can form an actual opposition to the Conservatives, especially after the Liberal Democrats destroyed their voting base. But so what? Labour would institute the same policies as the Conservatives, perhaps at a slower rate. They would still plunge the country into further economic peril through an ill-advised scheme of cuts and blind belief in the private sector. The privatisation of Royal Mail and of the NHS are all policies that New Labour didn't just fail to stop, but actively encouraged.

It is my belief that the organised left is damaging its power and its potential by continuing to affiliate with the Labour party. Time, effort and action are being put into a cause that, when elevated to the position of power, will ignore those that got it there and continue with its agenda of neoliberalism. Protests and actions are for naught. They are wasted.

The left needs to organise itself, not in the myriad of slightly-differently-trotskyistneoliberal nonsense of New Labour. The Labour party is not, and will not be again, a vehicle for progressive socialist change. The Labour Party does not represent Labour any longer.