Answer with Organising for Working Class Power and People’s Empowerment

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Gordon Brown’s Leadership Launch:
Answer with Organising for Working Class Power and People’s Empowerment

Gordon Brown set out his core beliefs in a speech on May 11, launching his “campaign” to be leader of the Labour Party, and the next Prime Minister.

            He attempts to portray himself as the bringer of change, a provider of a manifesto which will win back the trust of the people. Indeed, the candidates for the deputy leadership express similar sentiments also. This is a difficult task, because not only has Gordon Brown been the co-architect of the New Labour programme, he explicitly takes responsibility for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which he declares was the right decision. In introducing his campaign, he says that he expects citizens to “play by the rules”, rules of the game which Tony Blair emphasised were changing; they are the rules as declared by the government. Future “fairness” is to be extended only to those “who earn it”. The people’s “priorities” are to be his “driving purpose”, but he is quick to point out as another warning to the people that it is also the case that “as the world changes our priorities must change”. It is evident that the aim of the exercise is to overcome the opposition of the working class and people to the New Labour programme which has unfolded over the past ten years with an elaboration of “new ideas”, “vision” and “experience” which do nothing to change the direction of that programme.

            The speech of Gordon Brown begins to unfold the scenario for the future that serves the interests of the powers-that-be, the owners of capital that wield economic and political power. The power-striving-to-be, the working class, the creators of wealth in the social economy, must answer with their own scenario.

            The powers-that-be wish to consolidate the stance of taking the moral high ground at the same time as wrecking society and committing crimes of aggression abroad. This they reason can shore up their defence of universal values and the fiction of Britishness at a time when the people’s demand is for the defence of the rights of all and the flourishing of all cultures. It is also a time when the demand for national rights is taking root, and the movement to ensure modern sovereign states of Scotland, Wales and England is gaining momentum. It is also a time when the attacks on the rights of migrants and asylum seekers is being fiercely resisted, and the different sections of the people are demanding that it is they who should have a say and play by their own rules, not some rules imposed by condescending saviours. The powers-that-be wish to move on from the crime and tragedy that is the occupation of Iraq and the eradication of its sovereignty. But the people will not and cannot forget this crime against humanity and demand that those who are responsible be brought to account.

            The demand of the people is also for a written constitution which enshrines the rights of all and gives them a guarantee, including their national rights and the right of the people to govern themselves. But the issue is, who will write such a constitution, upon which experience will it be based; will it be framed so as to shut the people out from decision-making, and claim authority from some higher power, or will it be based on the foundation of the people being sovereign and political power deriving from that authority. The powers-that-be want to pre-empt the demand that a written constitution derive its authority from the movements of the working class and people who see the necessity for the principles of an anti-war government to be expressly elaborated, and do not wish that any such principles can be abrogated at will by a parliament or a judiciary that stands over and above the electorate.

            On all these counts, Gordon Brown stands with the powers-that-be and not with the movements for change and empowerment of the working class and people. He states that he wants to govern in a different way. But this is a feint to cover over that he is trying to sweep under the carpet the crisis of credibility, and actually consolidate power in a parliament that disempowers the people. What is meant when Gordon Brown says: “This is the 21st century progressive view; the citizen in control, being served not told by government, a servant state”? The people demand new arrangements of governance, to be not subjects but decision-makers.

            The old programme of “New Labour”, that is of anti-labour, “one-nation”, chauvinist labourism, is one of “making Britain great again”. Gordon Brown’s programme of being a “servant” because one has “faith” is this self-same programme. It has a rationale which enforces rather than diminishes the 19th-century values of the English ruling elite under conditions of global neo-liberalism and the hegemony of US imperialism and the dictate of the monopolies and the international financers. These are the values of “Britishness”, by which is meant the Britain of empire, of the “white man’s burden”, of paternalistic colonialism. The fact that these values are so anachronistic and the people will not accept them means that in today’s world they are applied with “hard power”, that is with increased viciousness, revenge-seeking and armed force.

            The working class must answer with strengthening its orientation to become itself the power-that-is, and empower the people as the decision-makers.