miliband’s “new economy” : awkward or relevant?

21 09 2011

Clifford Biddulph argues that Labour will never be on our side 

Striking is irrelevant for Ed Miliband. He had an awkward lesson for September’s TUC conference: trade unions should offer better relations with their employers. What Labour needed was a continuation of the partnership between business and the unions. The way forward was not negative strikes but a positive “new economy” built on the Labourite value of cooperation, not conflict in the workplace.

But this New Labour desire for social peace is traditional Labour politics as well. The Labour Representation Committee originally founded Labour on the basis of  Keir Hardy’s resolution rejecting class war in favour of parliamentary representation and constitutionalism. Ramsay Macdonald, the leader of the first Labour government in 1924 advocated and acted on the commitment to growing  capitalist society, not a working class alternative.

Miliband was not talking about a new socialist economy. Labour’s perspective has always been to make themselves respectable enough to run capitalism.  Nor was Miliband proposing a return to Keynes as a way out of recession. He was simply rehashing the Labour mantra dating back to 1976, when then Prime Minister James Callaghan said to the party conference: “We would like to think we could spend our way out of recession.  I tell you in all candour that option no longer exists.”

Ed Miliband implied that you would like to think you can strike your way out of recession but “Strikes are always a consequence of failure”.  ‘Red Ed’ was opposed to the pension strikes in June: even if the negotiation with the unions was not meaningful on the government’s part, strikes were still morally wrong.  The Parliamentary Labour Party and its leadership have a long history of opposition to strikes, since they are not on the parliamentary agenda. Labour leaders were was against strikes in  the great unrest 1910-14; the general strike of 1926; strikes on the docks and elsewhere during the 1945-51 Labour government under Clement Attlee; the seafarers’ strike in 1966, when PM Harold Wilson denounced the strikes as a tight knit group of communists, the miners’ strike 1984-85 where Neil Kinnock condemned picket line militancy, and so on into the Blair years.

Ed Miliband denied being fatalistic. He was not saying ‘accept whatever the employers offered and do not strike’… well, he was saying that, but he was also implying something positive: don’t strike but vote Labour at the next election. There was a unwritten promise to provide a few crumbs of comfort for the trade union leaders, the future Labour government would facilitate more apprenticeships and would negotiate in good faith unlike the Tories. But obviously the trade union leaders would have to do the decent thing and help Britain’s economic recovery, and the cuts which were being implemented throughout the country by local Labour councils would not be restored. Why ask Miliband to stand with us: he stands against us.

Labour conference

Miliband’s speech to the Labour Party conference was full of the usual bourgeois rhetoric about ‘new politics’. He was bringing ‘new values’ like the youthful Tony Blair in 1997. It was the same old Labourite call for a ‘new morality’ which has been in the party’s DNA since its foundation. He called for an end to fast buck Britain and the quick profit. But Miliband is aware he cannot morally regulate capitalism: capitalism cannot be ethically run.

Underneath the apparent sincerity is the usual phoney sound bite. The goal of moralising people at the top of capitalism has never been more than dishonest political posturing. Remember ethical foreign policy and then imperialism in Iraq. And all the hypocrisy about how wrong it is for ordinary hard working people to be squeezed. All this from the leader of a party that is in favour of cuts to jobs and services. Behind the ethical stance is the respectible financial orthodoxy which has run the Labour Party for a century. No surprise then that Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls announced a future Labour government would not reverse cuts to jobs, services, benefits and living standards.

«Cartoons on pages 2, 3 by Edd Baldry—heymonkeyriot.blogspot.com

About these ads

Actions

Information

2 responses

23 09 2011
Ouvrieriste

It is important to remember, as the article points out, that ‘New’ Labour’s hatred of strikes, embrace of neo-liberalism (and indeed dislike of immigrants) is not ‘new’ but purest ‘vintage’ Labour. We need not be misty-eyed or nostalgic about Wilson, Callaghan et al. Of course, ‘New’ Labour operated in a different context from ‘Old’, with less social-democratic veneer and more naked repression of working class people – ASBO’s, dispersal zones and the like – which has made the Coalition’s current attacks on ‘lawless’ alleged rioters easier. But it is the same rancid wine in a different shaped bottle. In the 1980′s, many leftwingers flocked to Labour in opposition, as it opportunistically tacked leftwards (myself included). It looks unlikely that the large numbers of young people radicalised by the crisis and the Spring Revolutions will be as naive as we were.

25 09 2011
Barry

Another reason people flocked to the Labaour party in the 1980′s was the influence on the left of Lenins tactical recommendations from the early 1920′s for communists to vote labour,attempt to affiliate to the labour party and generally critical support the party as a compromise to aid the struggle for socialism.

At the time lenin freely aknowledged that the Bolsheviks were compromising or in alliances pacts blocks with all kinds of political and social forces including those with communist blood on their hands,to consolidate state power in Russia. These compromises included those with state officials,managers,capitalists,capitalist production methods and so on. So from the point of view of this kind of realism which helped establish a dictatorship over workers and socialism in one country what was the problem with compromising with Labourism?

The assumption of parliamentary decadence was mistaken and there never was any possibility of Henderson or any of the leaders of the parliamentary Labur party allowing communists to organise freely within the party. This perspective always was unrealistic given the changes in the party structure after the first world war. Lenins position was a continuation of the left reformist outlook of the British Socialist party,a constituent part of the CPGB, who had a perspective of turning labour left.

The tactic of voting labour to help labour into power also lacked lacked understanding of parliamentarianism. Also the general tactical formula of putting your opponents into power so that the masses can experience their weaknesses has been disasterous for the workers movement. It just gave a lever for anti revolutionary forces to crush or severely weaken revolutionary forces. Labour in power did mean an historical detour of “parliamentary socialism” and all the illusions and negative consequences for an independent communist party.

The tactic of voting for the labour party and the assumption that the communists could act as a ginger group on Labour or push it left or the idea that the Labour party in power was a way forward undermined communist independence. The tactic assumed a mass communist party which would have the political and social clout to engage workers in the manner proposed. The CPGB was tiny and the tactics only helped labour establish itself in local areas and form the political mold which has survived to this day.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,847 other followers

%d bloggers like this: