Law
Student (Politics as a non-law option)
Student
number: 163579
In what senses was the British Labour Party ever Socialist? Is it Socialist now?
Socialism must not be treated as fixed in
shape or scope. It is a fluid concept encompassing diverse principles.
Socialism in a party depends on a number of circumstances such as how the party
was created, by whom, for what purpose and the confines it has to work within.
The term Socialist derives from the Latin term ‘Sociare’ which means to combine
or share in it’s simplest sense.
In the early 1830’s followers of Robert
Owen (1771-1858)in the UK began calling themselves Socialists. Their beliefs
had been born largely from the aftermath of the French Revolution. The British
Labour Party was created in 1900. The Party labelled itself Socialist to win
popular support but consisted of disparate Socialist movements. It was formed
from the Fabian Society who were evolutionary Socialists, the Independent
Labour Party which sought purely to represent the interests of the working
class and the Co-operative movement who, like the ILP favoured more
revolutionary socialist beliefs. The party was financed by Trade Unions (less
so in recent years) as it’s political wing.
Socialism arose in the UK against the
social and economic uniformity which industrial capitalism produced which
abused the position of the working class. Women and children worked in
degrading conditions and the working class were abused by the wealthy. The
British Labour Party fought against this. In the parties early years, it was
very doctrinaire and campaigned successfully for universal suffrage to be
extended to all adults in the early twentieth century.
There are two major types of Socialism that
have been prevalent in the British Labour Party. The first (rare) is
Revolutionary Socialism which seeks to eradicate Capitalism through creating a
social order where communes for a common interest. Karl Marx summarised this
Marxist form of Socialism as “from each
according to his ability to each according to his needs.” Few members of
the Labour party have ever followed this understanding. Those who do are on the
far left of the party.
With the exception of the short term of
James Callaghan as Prime Minister, Labour have only been government when the
balance of power within the party has been on the right. Effectively this means
that Labour have often been unable to exert revolutionary Socialist principles
while in government. The ‘loony left’ as they have been termed are often seen
as unattractive to the electors.
The other type of Socialism that has been
much more successful is that of the Social democrats. This approach holds
Socialism as a vehicle with which to maintain capitalism, restricting its
influence. It represents the interests of the working class. This form of
Socialism has principles such as equality of outcome, commitment to the
community, an essentially optimistic view of human nature, Unilateralism, Large
interventionist role for the state, Decentralisation, Common Ownership, and the
distribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor. The extent to which the
Labour Party has wanted to and been able to exert positive policy in each of
these has fluctuated to the point where ‘New Labour’ in particular have been
accused of abandoning Socialism.
Equality of outcome is a core Socialist
belief. Policies such as Barbara Castle’s Equal Pay Act of 1970 and New
Labour’s minimum wage are on the face essentially Socialist. They also pander
to Socialist supporters but in practise offer little more than a façade. For
example the Equal pay act is poorly enforced as employers need only to separate
workers in a factory giving them slightly different jobs, and they can be paid
differently. The minimum wage has also been criticised for being too low and
has been poorly enforced. On a social sphere the Equal Opportunities Commission
and the Commission for Racial Equality created by the Sex Discrimination Act of
1975 and the Race Relations Act of 1976 respectively are on appearance
Socialist reforms. Upon closer inspection both bodies were from their creation
chronically under-funded and have always been toothless. New Labour have signed
the UK up to the Social Chapter protecting workers rights but have been
criticised for failing to implement it’s directives such as the European
Working time directive. Labour governments alike have tried to wear the
attractive cloak of Socialism but have meandered around to neglecting their
Socialist roots.
The role of the community is an essentially
Socialist belief. Socialists believe that the individual is inseparable from
society. Labour have generally adhered to this principle. For example the Party
protested against the 1980 Housing Act which allowed the sale of council
properties and created an easy process of Council exchanges. This was seen by
the Labour Party as breaking up the community as people could buy at huge
discounts, sell and move on or just exchange elsewhere. It also created
divisions between homeowners and those in rented property. It can be argued
that Labour learnt its lesson and changed its stance after seeing how popular
the Act was. New Labour have not repealed the Act but notably have removed the
largest discounts and placed restrictions on exchanges. They have done this in
the spirit of the community but have not taken revolutionary Socialist steps
due to the unpopularity it would no doubt bring about.
Socialists have an optimistic view of human
nature and believe in Unilateralism. They therefore believe in a limited role
for the police and armed forces. This is supported by Labours limited financial
support for the police (New Labour have reduced the number of Police Officers
by a third). Labour have also spearheaded claims for electronic tagging of
criminals and curfews on youths. Labour originally opposed the expenditure in
the Falklands as too high but changed their policy when an allegedly ‘rash’
decision by Thatcher won the war. New Labour have taken a fundamentally
non-Socialist multilateral approach. New Labour increased the U.K’s order of
Trident Nuclear arms by one third in 1997 and gave the UK a large role in the
recent Kosovo crisis as Blair chose to flex the state’s muscles.
Socialist principals include a condition
that there must be a large role for the state. This is to ensure Social harmony
and Social order. By teaching us how to behave, we can control ourselves and
work together in a community. Socialists believe that we must conform to the
same beliefs and actions for us to operate as successful, strong communities.
This is collectivism, which can be at the expense of Individualism. Labour have
followed this principal throughout. For example after World War 2 the Beveridge
report on establishing a comprehensive welfare state including an NHS was put
followed by the 1945-1951 Attlee government. Successive Labour governments have
increased expenditure on the Welfare state. New Labour pledged to “cut the
uncuttable” (Tony Blair on the Social Security Budget) to win favour with the
electorate but resorted back to the Socialist principals of expanding it. The
Marxist maxim “from each according to his ability to each according to his
needs” is again at large. New Labours Comprehensive Spending Review increased
expenditure on the NHS alone by £21bn. New Labour have also been heavily
criticised for being too interventionist by banning beef on the bone. Overall
government expenditure has increased significantly more during Labour terms of
government than during Conservative or Liberal terms of office.
Decentralisation is a Socialist principal
in that it spreads power out to the people to prevent elitism and encourage
communities working for their common good. Labour have again followed these
Socialists principals in the main. For example the 1972 Local Government act
decentralised power by creating the extra authorities of the Greater London
Council, the six Metropolitan boroughs Councils and the forty-seven shire
councils. Equally the 1999 Local Government Act has established the ‘best value
system’ which has removed many restrictions from local authorities. New Labour
have also delivered devolution in Scotland and Wales. However Blair has
centralised some power within the internal organs of government. He has
included himself in Labour’s NEC, incorporated the Office for Public Service
within the Cabinet office, bossed Cabinet meetings and many public affairs in a
Presidential style and curbed the actions of many of his political opponents
within the party.
Common Ownership is a key Socialist
principal. Revolutionary Socialists believe in the abolition of private
property while Socialism in the context of British Party politics (Social
Democracy) is concerned with the scope of nationalisation. Clause IV of the
Labour Party Constitution 1918 states “(we
aim) to secure for the workers 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.” Labour has changed its views on this numerous times. The
Attlee government nationalised the ‘commanding heights’ of electricity, coal,
gas and steel. Later Labour governments failed (as did earlier ones) to
nationalise major industries. After the Conservatives mass privatisation in the
Thatcher and Major years, New Labour were pressurised to re-nationalise many
industries. They have done much the opposite. They have set about what they
call ‘public-private partnerships’ whereby the state sells off a 49.9% share in
the industry, thereby retaining the controlling share. New Labour have even
gone further than the Conservatives dared by selling almost half of the Royal
mint. However calls to privatise the post office from Gordon Brown was refused
by then DTI secretary Peter Mandelson. With the recent Paddington disaster, the
government are looking into re-nationalising the railways. New Labour have
effectively abandoned the Socialist principal though by rewriting clause IV as
a “dynamic market economy.” Notably
though Hugh Gaitskill also tried but failed to scrap Clause IV. Labour have had
to be pragmatic to adapt to changes in society. It was Neil Kinnock who said “the kind of economy we are faced with is a
market economy, we must run it better than the Conservatives.”
The last of the major principals of Socialism
is the distribution of wealth. Again this refers to the aforementioned Marxist
maxim. Labour more so than any other political party are following and have
followed this principal. New Labour have pandered to the public by claiming to
be “wealth creators”(Stephen Byers)
but have bought in many redistributive measures. For example the reduction to
the lowest rate of income tax in the last two decades (23%) has been coupled
with the introduction of a basic rate of 10% which had been spoken about for
many years by Socialists but deemed only a dream. They have also introduced
measures such as the working families tax credit, windfall tax, reduction in
corporation tax for small firms to 20% (lowest in two decades) and the New
Deal. The middle class have been hit by many hidden taxes and those such as the
Windfall tax while the working class have prospered by guaranteed incomes. The
Harold Wilson government made a ‘social contract’ with the TUC in 1974 to
restrict wage demands in order to control inflation which had an adverse effect
on the re-distribution of wealth.
Labour governments have in many ways been
Socialist but have been limited in both what they have done and what they could
do. T Socialism has evolved to represent a new working class of private sector
skilled workers and home and property owners. Principals such as common
ownership are anachronistic in the modern world. New Labour’s ‘Third Way’ is
still Socialism but a far cry from the Socialism the public considers. No
longer is Socialism doctrinaire. It has to be pragmatic or it will die.
Partisan dealignement has catered that the Labour party can no longer rely on
the working class. For electoral success it must appeal to others. Many of
those groups will find revolutionary Socialist principals repugnant so Labour
must and have adapted. New Labour’s ‘Third way’ is a response to the success of
Thatcherism and a changing society. New Labour are an election machine who tell
the public what they want to hear. They still act upon Socialist principals but
often hide them in a midst of capitalism. It is true that suggesting that New
Labour are revolutionary Socialists is wrong but they are Socialists. Their
Socialism has been a pragmatic form of Social democracy influenced by a
commitment to both economic efficiency and egalitarianism. New Labour are
undoubtedly communitarianists who are able to support ideas of stakeholder
capitalism. Labour, both Old and New still believe in the Tripartite State.
Though Socialism in its original scope and
shape may have died with the death of Communism in 1989/91, it may still be
reborn. It may be in the shape of the Labour parties democratic socialism
originally found in the breakaway SDP or may be in it’s original state as a
reaction to the possible failure of Capitalism. Only time will tell the future
of Socialism in the British Labour Party.