Labouring in vain - Labour Pains

“ I’ll make capitalism work for the people..." promised Ed Miliband during his successful campaign to become Labour leader.

Workers have heard this all before. The Labour Party has always tried to make capitalism work for the people. And every time that it has been in office, it has failed miserably to do so. The reason Labour – and indeed the Tories who also talk of a “people’s capitalism” – fail to make capitalism work for the people is that this is an impossible mission. Capitalism just cannot be made to work in the interest of all. It is a profit-making system that can only work as such, in the interest of those who live off profits.

Socialists should know their history of the Labour Party, if only to be able to refute the claim that it was ever a socialist party and to demonstrate its failure to gradually transform capitalism into something better. The Labour Party has now abandoned its goal of those days of legislation favourable to trade unions and workers generally and has become Tweedledee to the Tories’ Tweedledum—which is what the Liberal Party was in 1900. They are not even an independent trade union pressure group in Parliament, but an openly pro-capitalist party. Today, not too many would refuse to admit that the Labour Party is anything other than a political party of capitalism. Like any other party of capitalism, it has made promises to better the lot of the workers, establish comfort and equality, do away with crime, and bring peace and security to the population. Like any other party of capitalism, it has failed to deliver. How often have disillusioned Labour supporters and voters cried “betrayal!”? Why has this been the case, that when the Labour Party have been in power, they have been obliged to continue to treat the working class badly? It’s a simple matter of understanding economic systems. Since its birth the Labour Party has been committed to running capitalism, and it has continued to do so. The social and economic problems we face are due to the capitalist system, not to some individual leaders being less benevolent than others. As for those old Labourites who blame all on the mistakes of the past and present on certain leaders, this simply adds to the argument against leadership. In any case, the leader as a individual is irrelevant. Knocking one leader out of office and replacing them with another won’t change the system, and it’s the system that all attention should be focused on if we desire a radical change in the way we live. Instead of gradually changing capitalism, it was capitalism that gradually changed them. Nowadays, they don’t even claim to be aiming at socialism, only to be able to manage capitalism in a more efficient way.

The  Labour Party hasn't lost its way because what is currently the direction of its leaders has been part of its thinking throughout its existence. Labour has not betrayal of its core principles or "values". Its socialist credentials were always weak. The Labour Party was not created by people calling themselves socialists. In fact in its early days it made no claim to being a socialist party at all.  At its formation and in its early years the Labour Party had little connection with the growth of a socialist minority or even with the more militant sections of reformists. There were always some trying to build a "fairer" society but what emerged from years of effort was not a slowly evolving socialism but a labourism which increasingly judged itself on its electoral success, which depended on its ability not to rock the capitalist boat it was trying to captain and steer.

The Labour Party became associated with the name of socialism largely because of its history of supporting nationalisation, misleadingly called "public" or "social" ownership. Quite what was hoped to be achieved by bringing industry into state instead of private ownership was not very clear apart from as a vague and fuzzy means to "greater equality". Central planning under nationalised industries was supposed to transform capitalism into something that could be controlled by the state. This did not happen, of course. Labour governments were clothed in the misleading garb of collectivism but they were always managers of capitalism. As part of the state wanting more state control the party attracted to itself those sections of the ruling class who would benefit from it. Nationalisation is not, and never has been, socialism. Socialism means the common ownership of the means of production and distribution. It means getting rid of the bosses, getting rid of working for a wage or salary, getting rid of the whole rotten buying and selling system. It means that people will freely come together to produce what is needed and will freely take from the abundant products of their labour. It will involve the abolition not only of the ruling class, but also their state. It will not mean that state being replaced by a new state. Nationalisation is just one form of state capitalism.

It is often argued the welfare state, social security provision and council housing are examples of Labour's success in "doing something". The simple fact is that social welfare do not change the exploitative character of capitalism or even touch the surface of its symptoms. Poverty was not reformed away and poor housing, unemployment, job insecurity and related ill-health remained very real concerns for the working class. Faced with the reality that is capitalism workers want to do something about it. Clearly the solution needs to be at least partly a political one, so they look for a party which seems to offer change. Labour are most able to offer this because they are usually a party of opposition. Being out of office so frequently they can always claim that next time things will be different. However, things never can be different. The time has come to give up on the pretence of any hopes that remain for Labour. To successfully change society the working class will have to do away with all capitalist parties and institutions. This inevitably means that they will have to do away with the Labour Party.

 To those who support the Labour Party we would appeal to reconsider their position. What does its boasted achievements amount to after all?  In office and out, Labour is a party for capitalism. It is a party that has regularly and routinely acted against the working class. Yet we are constantly told not to give up hope. Every time an election comes round the different left wing groups tell us to vote Labour. Can Labour be changed? We think that its history proves the impossibility of changing Labour. Labour long ago gave up any pretence at wanting to get rid of capitalism.

AJJ