by Angela Eagle
Intolerance, bigotry and hatred are deeply entwined, and while we have made progress in this sphere in our society, there are signs of fracture. Reactionary forces, such as those that have empowered UKIP, Le Pen and Trump, are growing in confidence. Identity politics is starting to clash with social democratic politics as well as conservative politics. It will be necessary in the twenty-first century to take stock in a substantive way and plot our course to more tolerant societies. Technology may indeed be part of the solution. Without modern technology, we’d have a much poorer understanding of the world around us and the commonalities we share. But there is a darker side too.
As our shop floors disappear, we have fewer opportunities to mix with people with different opinions, from different hometowns and cultures. We are less likely to know our neighbours than ever before. A YouGov poll in 2015 found that ‘65 per cent of British people say they would not call any of their neighbours “good friends”’, ‘an even greater majority (67 per cent) have not invited any neighbours into their house for a meal or drink in the past year’ and ‘only 32 per cent of people living in urban areas know all five of their nearest neighbours’ names. In rural areas most (51 per cent) do, and in town and fringe parts 47 per cent do.’
Benedict Anderson, a political scientist, wrote a book in 1983 called Imagined Communities. In it, he hypothesised that the printing press and the creation of media written in a common vernacular allowed the creation of nationalism by making it ‘possible for rapidly growing numbers of people … to relate themselves to others in profoundly new ways’. The emergence of online disaggregated publishing platforms, like blogs, Twitter and Facebook, has allowed for the creation of even more granular communities with their own normative values, common knowledge and even language. Furthermore, the richness of communication has reduced. Think about text messages and the number of times a recipient has misinterpreted levity for anger, opprobrium or nastiness. A tweet is a geographically dislocated burst of communication to someone without a hint of context, mood or tone, and, most importantly, the instant feedback you would get if you said something to someone else in person: a look of shock or hurt, tears of pain.
These pose a serious threat to the Enlightenment project of greater commonality, exposure to and debate of ideas, and to social democracy’s most fundamental characteristic: solidarity. As technology extends our reach as well as our ability to listen and talk to other people, we will have to be even more vigilant that we ensure our communications are tolerant, respectful and inspire solidarity. At the very least, all social democrats should set themselves that target; because one thing we know is that once a movement allows itself to be defined by hatred rather than a desire to improve things, there is no end to the horrors it can cause.
PART 3
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE HISTORY AND FUTURE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM
ORIGINS OF SOCIALISM
Socialism was forged in tumultuous times, in which rapid social and economic change was causing great hardship. The emerging philosophy took a variety of forms from its very inception, ranging from the utopian ethical views of English socialists such as Robert Owen, Edward Carpenter and William Morris, to the Marxist vanguardism of Lenin and Trotsky, the gradualist Fabians such as Sidney and Beatrice Webb, the Christian socialists, the nascent trade union movement, the industrially based guild socialists, syndicalists and everything in between.
It was during the French Revolution of 1789–99, following an explosion of egalitarian ideas, when early socialist ideas began to be put forward as assumptions about the moral legitimacy of absolutist rule by monarchs slowly gave way to the emerging democratic age. In his 1754 Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, the idealist French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that law must be made for the good of society as a whole, not merely to protect the interests of a privileged few. His melding of humanism, romanticism and social contract theory formed the building blocks of what would become democratic socialism. While Rousseau predated socialism, it could not have been developed without the egalitarian and democratic shift inspired by his writings.
While many different interpretations of socialism developed in parallel and, ironically, in competition, initially there was much common ground due to widespread agreement on the huge injustices that had to be fought. The evils of untrammelled capitalism were in the sights of socialists of all types. It was hard to witness with equanimity the effects of the developing capitalist society on the lives of those who lived through these times. All socialists fought against poverty, exploitation and squalor, especially that which emerged from the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century. This created vast urban conurbations and the cruelties of the factory system, which were well documented in the UK by writers such as Dickens and Engels. Socialists of all kinds believed that there should be rights for workers who at that time had none. They believed everyone deserved to live in a good society where all could flourish, free from the waste of capitalist crisis and class privilege, free from the fear of poverty, illness, malnutrition and early death. They rejected the rule of competition and the free market in favour of fraternity and co-operation. They aspired to something higher than work slavery and stunted lives for those who were without property or independent wealth. Ethical socialists emphasised a more egalitarian society with opportunities for personal expression, leisure and fulfilment for all.
From the beginning, then, despite its variants, socialism became almost a generic term for a political creed that sought economic and social development in a different way than liberal, laissez-faire capitalism was delivering. Under this broad umbrella shelter all of socialism’s many adherents. These range from Marxist revolutionaries who believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat and the dominance of one Communist party in an authoritarian regime, to the democratic socialists in Scandinavia, the German SPD and the UK Labour Party, who believe in the parliamentary road to socialism within the rule of law and an accepted democratic system. After the Second World War and subsequent decolonisation, countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America developed their own versions of socialism, in keeping with their own local traditions. As a result, the blanket meaning of the term continued to be stretched as it evolved to meet many culturally specific requirements. The development of feminism and environmentalism were later to challenge and enhance the meaning of the concept. The drive for social justice and equality continues to be a common theme binding disparate movements together, as does a desire to harness and use market forces rather than submit blindly to the wildly unequal income, wealth and opportunity distribution and intermittent crises that the erroneous ‘rules’ governing the ‘unfettered market’ deliver.
THE BIRTH OF THE LABOUR PARTY
As the Industrial Revolution grew apace in Britain, socialist ideas became stronger in reaction to the appalling conditions that emerged in the urban slums and factories. In response to a positive desire to create a more equal society, devoid of the huge inequalities in wealth and privilege, many campaigning organisations sprang up with the aim of turning this hope into reality. They created trade unions to fight for fair pay and rights in the workplace, for the enfranchisement of women and the working class, for sanitation and access to medical care, for education and decent housing.
The rapid social and economic changes that occurred during the Industrial Revolution in the UK created the conditions for the Labour Party to be forged as a new expression of the collective political aspiration of the emerging working class. Progressives were still agitating for the completion of the universal franchise in the UK, as the already established Tory and Liberal parties sought to win the newly enfranchised working man to their cause. Women would not get the vote until 1918, and it was not until 1928 that suffrage was broadened to give them electoral equality with men.
Labour evolved out of many social reform movements, most notably the British trade union movement, the Independent L
abour Party (ILP), the Marxist Social Democratic Federation (which quickly left) and the Fabian Society. One of the first major tasks was to wean a large part of the trade union movement off their political connection to the Liberals. Labour was, from the beginning, dedicated to winning power through parliamentary endeavour so that it could make the lives of working people better. This explicit commitment and its lack of individual membership in its formative years (see below) set it apart from many other socialist parties which were springing up across Europe, especially in the industrialising countries. It also attracted the exasperated ire and ridicule of revolutionary socialists, most notably Lenin and Trotsky, who were scathing about what they regarded as its reactionary leaders, who they believed were overly influenced by democracy and religion.
A key characteristic of the British Labour Party has been its ideological pragmatism. It was not until 1918 that Labour became explicitly socialist by adopting Clause IV of its new constitution, which outlined its aims and values. Yet even then, the ‘s’ word was not mentioned, merely alluded to.
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.3
One hundred and eighteen years after the formation of the Labour Party, its origins are set out succinctly on the party website:
The Labour Party was created in 1900: a new party for a new century. Its formation was the result of many years of struggle by working class people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of working class voices represented in British Parliament. It was this aim that united Keir Hardie and the colleagues who gathered for the famous inaugural meeting of the Labour Representation Committee at London’s Memorial Hall in February 1900. Ignored by the Tories and disillusioned with the Liberals, they gathered together to push for change.4
In 1900, the Labour Representation Committee came formally into existence. It was a body that accepted affiliated organisations rather than individual membership. It was not until Fabian and early British socialist Sidney Webb’s constitution was adopted in 1918 that the Labour Party finally accepted individual membership and began to organise that membership in Constituency Labour Parties based on parliamentary boundaries. Prior to this, only the Independent Labour Party accepted individual rather than collective memberships. This unusual origin continues to explain the party’s affiliated structure, which is regarded erroneously as incomprehensible and illegitimate by some observers. This collectivist origin also affects the distribution of power and voting rights expressed at Labour’s supreme decision-making body: Annual Conference. The modern Labour Party still accepts the legitimacy of collective affiliation, with accompanying voting rights for those organisations that join as well as individual membership voting rights for the purposes of decision-making at the conference. The balance that should be maintained between the two types of voting, however, has been a matter of much dispute over the years on both the left and the right of the party.
From the beginning, the Labour Party existed explicitly to gain working-class representation in Parliament. With the adoption of the 1918 constitution, it also aimed to create a political mass-membership organisation in the country at large. This founding aim is stated in Clause I of the party’s constitution: ‘This organisation shall be known as “The Labour Party” (hereinafter referred to as “the party”). Its purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.’
The huge disjunction created by the carnage and dislocation of the First World War exacerbated the desire for radical change. Despite the promises made, there was to be no ‘land fit for heroes’ awaiting those who returned home from the horrors of the trenches in 1918 – only more of the same grinding poverty, falling wages, hunger and humiliation. When the UK returned to the gold standard with the resulting crushing austerity in 1925, it was clear that pursuing the existing political and economic policies could only lead to a return to pre-war insecurity and unimaginable hardship. In fact, the narrowness of the political possibilities on offer combined with the radical nature of what the Labour Party stood for ensured it made rapid electoral progress at the expense of the Liberals in the early part of the twentieth century. Throughout this period, there was a genuine three-way split, with each of the main parties taking around 30 per cent of the vote share at elections – though this was not proportionally reflected in the number of seats won in the House of Commons.
A SHORT HISTORY OF LABOUR’S POLITICAL INFLUENCES AND EXPERIENCES
Labour is a democratic socialist party that has consistently been more concerned with pluralism, pragmatism and praxis than being in thrall to any particular theorist. Many diverse views have flourished within the party, some becoming mainstream, because the party has always been a broad church. The experiences of governing have also influenced the development of Labour’s thought and political programme, and we will consider key examples of these below, along with some of the main theories and influences that have helped shape the historical evolution of the party.
THE EARLY UTOPIAN SOCIALISTS
There was a genuine mix and ferment of ideas in the period before the coalescing of the forces which were to bring the Labour Party into existence. In the UK, there had been many earlier strands of socialist thought which did not put at their centre the demand for a revolutionary overthrow of the state. Rather, they emphasised a more evolutionary transformation of the economy and society. Robert Owen was an early pioneer. His New Lanark model community was initially about employer philanthropy, but it turned into a more holistic co-operative ideal. In 1832, after returning from the United States following the failure of a co-operative venture there, he established the giant Grand National Consolidated Trade Union (GNCTU). This rapidly gained half a million members and so alarmed the authorities that they responded by arresting and transporting the Tolpuddle Martyrs for daring to join it. The GNCTU collapsed after two years, unable to reconcile the difference between those who wished to fight for better wages and conditions and those, like Owen, who believed that the co-operative ideal was the way to reorganise the economy. Ten years after the demise of the GNCTU, the Rochdale Pioneers followed Owen’s example and founded what was to grow into the modern co-operative movement. There is great merit in seeking to end the ‘monoculture’ of the PLC as the dominant form of company.
‘LABOURISM’ – THE UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY
Trade unions had a critical role in creating and sustaining the Labour Party. Indeed, we grew up thinking of Labour as the political wing of the trade union and labour movement. And, in many ways, it still is. It was born because the trade unions wished to take their destiny into their own hands. They wanted direct representation in Parliament for the working class. Rather than lobbying other political parties for the change they needed, they opted for self-reliance and self-organisation. Labour continues to be supported and sustained by those trade unions which remain affiliated to it, and although the membership of trade unions has halved in the past four decades and the density of trade union presence has been ruthlessly driven down in the private sector, this link is still essential. At 6 million members strong, trade unions still represent the largest organisation of civil society in the UK, and they are a vital conduit to what is happening in the UK workforce for Labour. In the 150th anniversary year of the founding of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), it is clear that trade unions have to reform and rebuild to maintain their relevance, especially in the private sector. A strengthening of trade union organisation is a prerequisite for the rebalancing of the share of national income that goes to labour, and a Labour government must help to make that possible.
The inescapable history of its trade union origins is lodged in the party’s DNA and the political ideology of the party has since e
volved within these bounds. Economically, Labour’s thought owes at least as much to the analysis of Thomas Hodgskin (1787–1869) as it does to Karl Marx. This ‘Labourism’ distinguished UK Labour from its European sister parties which had developed along more classical Marxist lines, separately to the trade unions. It accounts for the fact that one of Labour’s primary obligations remains to this day to protect the living standards of workers by political action. Labour still responds to the expectation of the trade union movement for the development of a society that meets the needs and wider aspirations of their members. This is both legitimate and desirable. However, the weaker the trade unions become, the more problematic Labour’s dependence upon them is. For now, however, they remain a formidable strength.
The practical effect of ‘Labourism’ is to connect the Labour Party directly to the experiences and aspirations of many millions of those who work. That connection is a powerful tool in a participatory democracy. When women moved into the workplace in great numbers in the 1980s, their needs were rapidly reflected in changes to the bargaining agendas of their unions. Demands for childcare arrangements, maternity leave and flexible working hours suddenly predominated. And these changes were soon reflected in the development of Labour policy at Annual Conference. Likewise, as memorably portrayed in the film Pride, the solidarity shown by LGSM (Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners) with striking Welsh miners was reciprocated in 1985 when the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) supported the first motion at a Labour Party Conference demanding equal rights for LGBT people. This motion formed the bedrock of all the advances in LGBT rights which were legislated for by the Blair government when it came to office in 1997.
