New
Living Diary
Index

New  participatory democracy

Taming the Corporations

My Welsh socialism

My New Socialist Settlement

Globalise the left!

Bevan  re-visited

838    4 October 2003   

E-message 3 October 2003 from Peter Fitzgerald, Solicitor and socialist, from Caerphilly, South East Wales.

Roger

You seem to have had a bitter sweet Labour Conference.  It's some years now since I was last at Conference.  Your comment on the late-morning start sums up the attitude of professional politicians and their advisors to the role of Conference.  As I was reading what you had to say, I reached for a book from my bookshelf by Ralph Miliband titled Parliamentary Socialism  A Study in the Politics of Labour. It was written in 1960, my edition is 1973. There is section that I marked (in 1973!) which starts with the question -

What, then, is it reasonable to expect from
the Labour Party in the years ahead?

He then set out his reasons for choosing the second option.  The Labour Party was no longer a 'reformist' party, he contended.  'Reformist' socialism is the belief that a socialist society will be brought into being by way of a gradual series of structural and social reforms. This conviction lay at the core of Fabianism and it inspired, however tepidly, a long line of Labour leaders.

This is not to say (I would now say) that reforms are no longer on their agenda - they obviously are.  But such reforms as these leaders may support do not form part of any coherent strategy designed, in however long a perspective, to achieve the socialist transformation of British society. The leaders may occasionally prattle on about “socialism”, but it lacks all effective meaning. The 'revisionism' which dominates their thinking does not represent an alternative but an adaptation to capitalism.

Roger, our professional politicians are bourgeois ( I still like that term) with, at best, a certain bias towards social reform. They have no intention whatsoever of adopting policies which would begin in earnest the process of socialist transformation.

I think the crucial point, and you have made this point forcibly, has to do with the fact that the business of challenging the capitalist system, both nationally and internationally, is arduous and exacting.  But who is up to it?  And who is up for it?  Labour professional politicians will not even begin such a task.  They are part of the system - pace Foucault, they will talk the talk, but in philosophical terms they are part of the discourse, which in turn affects the way they think and act.

Roger - I speak from personal experience here.  I have not always been a practising solicitor.  Unlike you, I'm a working class kid who left school to do an apprenticeship in engineering. I've worked at Llanwern and at other big steel works, as well as in the Middle East.  I've been an active trade unionist, a shop floor steward and “representative”.  I still recall the days at Conference when the trade unions acted as a strongly anti-left force and used the Block Vote to insulate the Labour leadership from serious challenge. I know that the unions have now shifted more to the Left, which in union terms is a mere pendulum motion - and they think they can influence Labour Party policy. Unfortunately, their thinking is institutionalised - and will always be limited to representing their members interests.  Trade union consciousness will not lead to radical social reform – for the simple reason that such reform would mean a withering away of the role of trade unions. There will always be a role for organised individuals to pursue trade, professional and employment/health and safety issues.  But “trade union consciousness” will never be a path to substantive political change.

Having said that, I do think that the “shift to the Left” in the trade union movement is significant - because it does reflect a rank-and-file militancy, amongst ordinary workers.  But those workers are powerless. They will learn - as previous members have learnt - that their unions are strictly limited, in terms of political clout and influence.  But such militancy is, in my own experience, rare.   It tends to arise from job insecurity and changes in working practices. The demand for increased wages is a secondary factor. 

Let’s consider whether the Labour Party in government can have a “Parliamentary Left”.   I don't think so.  There may be MPs who consider themselves on the Left - but they cannot hope to run a Left-wing programme or strategy within either Parliament or the Government.   

The reason is structural. All parliamentarians, including those of the Left, operate within the rules of a game which is designed to limit their capacity - and indeed their very willingness - to challenge their leaders.  For example, the vote on whether or not to go to war against Iraq was, for Labour MPs, as much a vote for or against Tony Blair as Leader, as it was a verdict on the 'evidence'  for going to war.  In general, MPs are required to behave loyally and to accept compromise in order to help maintain the unity of the Party. They must not give aid and comfort to the other side – “Let’s go for that unprecedented third term…”

As I see it, in Parliamentary terms the problem is that the so-called “Parliamentary Left of the Labour Party” are uncertain as to what they actually stand for. This is because - and I speak from some personal experience, having contended for a Constituency seat myself - political survival depends on an early ability to blunt the edge of ones dissent and to minimize distance from the Leader, and from main-stream thinking within the Party.   Sad to say, the exceptions have ended up as isolated and often pathetic figures.

To sum up Roger, what Ralph Miliband was saying all those years ago, is that the Labour Party is not going to give us a socialist society.  I think that needs to be made clear today – as it was then.  But the absence of a viable socialist alternative is no reason either for resigned acceptance or for the perpetuation of hopes which have no basis in political reality. On the contrary, what we must continue to prepare the ground for such an alternative – and that means dispensing with any illusions about the true purpose and role of the Labour Party.

Roger, this is where you come in - because any new constitution of the Labour Party, where the members and rank-and-file can each have their own Conference,  must also recognise the limitations of what can be achieved through a Labour  Government.   I agree with you that an “Alternative Conference” should be set up for ordinary members of the Labour Party.  But who is going to organise it?  This very point was raised in the 80s' and those of us who wanted to get something done ended up with the Socialist Conference, which ran for a number of years. 

Perhaps a start could be made at Constituency level whereby the Conference is limited to delegates from the Constituencies.

What do you think?

Peter

Peter Fitzgerald, socialist solicitor from Caerphilly.

Dear Peter

Your letters are always perceptive, and challenging.  The differences in our background are, I suspect, pretty important, in determining our present positions.  Paradoxically, they may account for my greater optimism!  I am like Tony Blair in that "I was not born into the Labour Party, I chose to join it" - in my case, in June 1963, in my late-twenties. 

I was already classically bourgeois, in conventional terms - child of a middle-class professional couple in Cardiff, relatively well-off, no poverty in my life-experience, boarding school education, easy access to Cambridge and the London metropolitan elite, "good" pupillage at the Bar (alongside Derry Irvine..) - it was all pretty comfortable.  But I have always had a deep sense of the structural injustices of society - my Dad was a "reforming" Lloyd George Liberal, and an active Councillor in Cardiff for most of his long life.  And all those "Welsh" perceptions were reinforced by a marvellous Quaker education, at Leighton Park School, in Reading.  The George Fox injunction to - "Respond to that of God in every man" somehow put everything into place.

Certain things follow. 

I have no sense of a "divide of principle" between a capitalist and a socialist society.  For me, every society is a kaleidoscope of colours, between red and blue.

I have indeed no sense of any fundamental systemic divide between capitalism and socialism at all.  For me the former merely describes a society in which the arbitrary power of private property (=Kapital) has got out of hand and grown to oppress the lives of ordinary people (alongside the older forces of military and ecclesiastical oppression...)  The latter - "socialism" - describes a society in which the abuse of private property power is effectively constrained, and large swathes of life enhanced by a public service ethos predicated upon equality of entitlement and equality of honour.  But there is a continuum of infinite complexity, between the two extremes.

I have no high expectations of the new class of "professional" politicians, who (like solicitors and barristers and the rest of the bourgeoisie) are principally ambitious young people in pursuit of wealth, influence, recognition - and happiness.  I wish them well, but they cannot carry the burdens of political leadership on their own.

I have no "socialist" expectations of the trade union movement, of which I have no relevant personal experience - I have always recognised them as a conservative force, merely "using" their Parliamentary muscle to achieve TU ends - I do not object to that, of course, but it forms no part of my view of socialism.

I therefore start from here, from precisely where I am now.  I ask -

Given the evident truth
of the Miliband/Fitzgerald thesis, what do I do now?

The total embourgeoisement of the political salariat has, in my view, fundamentally changed the nature of the political process.  It is a global, not just a national, process.  The challenge to the rest of us is now "How do we influence those in power?"  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The stage-managed entry of Gladiator Blair at the Bournemouth Party Conference was a grotesque pantomime, demonstrating the sheer poverty of salariat technique.  And yet with massive socialist challenges arising globally, there has never been a time when widespread political engagement has been more necessary than now.  The world needs socialist perceptions now, as never before.  Just at a time when society needs a great broadening of political engagement, the new salariats are striving to close it down.

You ask Where do we start?  We must start with our own Party, and demonstrate its ability to widen - rather than constrain - popular political engagement.  That is why I set such store by the Fabian Society, and why I spend so much of my time working with the Fabians.  I would not favour trying to set up an "Other Conference", in parallel with the Labour Party Conference - such "breakaway" devices (which I have often contemplated) put the Party faithful "on the spot", and generate the cordite of disloyalty, which itself inhibits their success.  This is what I suggest.

You and I should sit down with the current Party Constitution (which I have on my desk) and DRAFT the necessary amendments, to create a binary Party structure, a much looser, plural and diverse political confederation.  We both have the skills of lawyers, and we should put those skills to good use, in the service of the people.  I believe it can be done.  It would take the two of us one whole day to do that - within the day we would produce an effective Party Reform Manifesto.

Whaddya say?  Shall we convene a Fabian Field Day for a Saturday in December - solely to draft amendments to the Constitution?  And we could invite others to join in...

Roger

839  5 October  2003  

But - there are buts.  I recognise that, while "cracking down" on the conduct of UK asylum claims, Blunkett is introducing by stealth measures which will shift the political spotlight away from the asylum procedure itself.  And I commend to him a further, comparable, measure.

First: he is without doubt extending the system of temporary work-permits, admitting more and more immigrants to come and work, particularly in the agricultural economy - this will help to satisfy one element in the tangled net of "illegal immigration".

Second: he has resisted the temptation - to which many other EU countries have succumbed, in the current "expansion round" - to defer the entry-for-work provisions in their application to the newly-joining countries.  In some countries (e.g. Germany) these access rights have been deferred for up to seven years.  The UK has so far made no move to trigger any such restriction - and I welcome that.

Third: he has implemented an excellent new process of "final UN adjudication", under which the UK will accept for settlement refugees who have been certified by the UN as genuine.  Next year will be the first year of operation, and admittedly the numbers have will be limited next year to 500; but the systemic change is one of great significance, and could signal a wholly new approach to the asylum issue.

These are all sound measures - and they are to be set against the staged paranoia of the Government's performance on the "headline" asylum issues, and its studied disregard for human rights issues.  I wish to give credit where credit is due.

But there is a fourth initiative which could be successful, from the same strategic locker.  Instead of forcing illegal immigrants to pay huge sums to human traffickers, why not permit wider lawful entry, allow them to work (though not to draw unemployment benefit) and charge them an annual insurance premium, to cover the other costs of their using the services of the UK welfare state?  Why not create a new category of "self-sufficient worker", legal and not illegal in status, and paying their way by way of a lump-sum premium, to cover the marginal costs to the welfare state?  Is not the modern state like a giant insurance company anyway?

They would be expected to find their own way in the economy (by working, or by drawing on family or community or charity support) and paying their "dues to the UK State" by way of a substantial insurance premium - payable in advance.  This could be further finessing process...

• Keep thinking, David.

Created by GMID Design & Communication

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The originating content of this website is my own work, and subject to my copyright. But on one condition only, I hereby give my consent to its unrestricted reproduction for any purpose: the condition is that its source is subject to proper acknowledgment, giving my name, my assertion of copyright, and the name of this website as its source, namely: www.warrenevans.net - is that a deal?  Roger WE