Does the Centenary
the Labour Party Is Celebrating Have Any Significance?
When the Labour Party issued its annual report for the
1999 Labour Party Conference, they entitled it a centennial report, alluding to
the fact that the Labour Representation Committee was formed on February 27,
1900.
This is the first indication that New Labour is not being
altogether straightforward about yesterday’s centenary that it is
celebrating. The Labour Representation Committee was not yet the Labour Party.
It had definite aims, while in 1906 there were also definite reasons why the
LRC gave rise to the Labour Party, rather than it being a name change without
significance. This may be a quibble, but the issue is that the New Labour is
having no qualms about rewriting history to suit its aims in 2000, and of
saying without blushing that the Labour leaders through the 20th century would
have been proud to be members of New Labour at the start of the 21st century,
that New Labour upholds traditional Labour values in modern circumstances.
The point here is not first and foremost to give a
judgement of leaders from Keir Hardie and Ramsay MacDonald onwards or get upset
that New Labour is claiming them as its own. It is to underline that New Labour
is being dishonest about historical facts and developments, and not giving a
straightforward appraisal of how things have changed. Why was the LRC formed,
how has the Labour Party developed, how has the world changed and what features
does New Labour think it is responding to? Instead, New Labour writes about its
"core values" – in which it includes such phrases as
"social justice", "strong communities and strong families",
"reward for hard work", "decency" – and asserts these
were the "founding values" of the Labour Party.
History shows that as the working class movement developed
in the 19th century, the demand for the working class to have its own party
also developed. Hitherto, the Liberals had been the champions of reform, the
defenders of the downtrodden and the advocates of great public works. Working
class leaders appeared on the Liberal platforms and at the beginning of the
20th century, this was still the case. But with the LRC, and then the formation
of the Labour Party, the issue that the working class should have a party of
its own was put on the agenda. Of course, at that time, its function was not to
declare itself as a socialist party but as an organisation to put up
independent labour candidates for parliament. In 1906, it was concluded that
the workers had to have a Party in parliament to take a stand against the
anti-union and anti-working class legislation, and the Labour Party became a
fully constituted political party.
If we examine the development of capitalism in 1900 and the
early 20th century, we find that capitalism is entering its monopoly capitalist
stage, the era of imperialism. The need for an independent party of the working
class was becoming the order of the day. Social revolution was put on the
agenda. It is not that the Labour Party became that instrument of social
revolution, far from it. The bourgeoisie was doing everything to ensure that
social revolution did not take place. But the Liberals who had had the workers
and the rebels as their constituency finally lost, because the workers found
they had a political party which they could call their own. Only then did the
Conservatives stage a come back and were associated with everything that was
old and reactionary. But now the Labour Party is even trying to create nothing
but confusion about its origins, rather than honestly saying that it too stands
opposed to the new, to the independent role of the working class, to the
socialist road.
Other developments have taken place in the 20th century
which New Labour will not honestly address. When the Labour Party was created,
it represented the interests of labour, and was directly connected with the
organisations, the trade unions, that defended the interests of the working
class in the class struggles on the economic front against exploitation. But as
monopoly capitalism was emerging as the 20th century emerged, so also the
bourgeoisie was perfecting its party system with the express intention of
keeping the working class away from political power. The Labour Party has
always had reactionary leaders, that is, leaders whose heart was with the
bourgeoisie and not the working class. But its development and the experience
of Labour in power has shown that it has finally consummated its role as a
party of the old type, which is a champion of the bourgeoisie and depoliticises
the working class and the mass of the people, an electoral machine of the type
suitable to ensure that society pays the rich and that the bourgeoisie’s
agenda is carried forward.
One hundred years after the LRC was formed, the issue
presents itself anew that the working class must build its own mass party. Our
Party, RCPB(ML), is addressing the issue of laying the foundations of a mass
communist party, a communist party based on modern definitions. A party based
on modern definitions does not strive to come to power on its own account, but
is an instrument for politicising the people. A mass communist party organises
the working class to constitute itself as the nation and ensure that it is the
people who are empowered.
The aspiration of the working class to have its own
independent party and utilise that party as its instrument to bring about a
socialist Britain is one that the 20th century has left as a legacy for this,
the 21st century. It is evident why New Labour does not want to draw this
conclusion from 100 years of history. An independent programme of the working
class is the order of the day, and New Labour has never stood more opposed to
such an objective.
