Britain

A new moment
www.socialistworld.net, 28/03/2016
website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI
Extracts from a statement discussed at the Socialist Partys recent
congress
Socialist Party (CWI in England & Wales), published in April 2016 issue
of Socialism Today
The EU referendum has brought into the open stark divisions within the
Tory party, raising the real prospect of a split. This crisis of capitalist
political representation is being played out as the fate of the Corbyn
insurgency within the Labour Party is still unresolved. In extracts from a
statement discussed at the Socialist Partys recent congress we look at the
new period that is unfolding in Britain.
The speed of political developments in Britain has quickened dramatically.
Last years Socialist Party congress document argued that the weakening
of the social base of the major parties, a process that has taken place over
decades, is now reaching a tipping point. In the next period, faced with
increased class struggle and social explosions, these parties now little
more than shells can suffer serious splits or even be destroyed. Today,
both Labour and the Tories are deeply divided; it is not possible to say
with certainty which will split first. Such is the Tories weakness that
David Cameron, or even the government, could be evicted from power
within months.
While the immediate reasons for the fissures in the Tory and Labour
parties are different the EU referendum for one and Jeremy Corbyns
leadership for the other they share a common underlying cause.
Worldwide, the crisis of capitalism has undermined the social base of the
traditional pro-capitalist parties. In country after country, traditional parties
and politicians are increasingly undermined by populist and other forces
from both the left and right. Worldwide, the capitalists are no longer able
to control the political direction of the major parties to the degree that they
could in the past.
Cameron rushed through the EU negotiations, cobbling together a few
inconsequential crumbs that he can claim as concessions, in order to

enable him to hold the EU referendum on 23 June. He hoped that by

holding it quickly, he would avoid it becoming a referendum on his rule
and the Tory government. However, this is far from guaranteed to work.
Like the 2014 Scottish independence vote, it is possible that the EU
referendum could become a means by which many workers express their
rage at continued austerity. We have to pose the referendum in those terms,
explaining that voting Leave could lead to the possibility of getting the
Tories out.
Referendum splits
A clear majority of the British bourgeois are in favour of remaining within
the EU. They fear that Brexit will lead to foreign capital, which invests
heavily in the finance sector of the City of London and looks on Britain as
a springboard for investment in Europe, relocating to the continent. The
EU, with over half-a-billion people, is one of the biggest markets in the
world, if not the largest, and takes over half of Britains exports. There are
a minority of finance capitalists particularly the smaller hedge funds
that favour exit from the EU, dreaming that it will lead to an even less
regulated Square Mile. The view of this minority of the capitalist class
has the initial support of nearly half of Tory MPs and the vast majority of
Tory party members. That the opinion of the big majority of the capitalist
class on this important issue is so severely underrepresented in Britains
traditional capitalist party is a very clear example of the increasingly
dysfunctional character of capitalist politics.
This could reach crisis point in the coming months. If Cameron loses the
referendum he would be politically finished and would probably have to
resign very quickly. It is possible that the government would fall and a
Corbyn-led Labour Party could come to power, but there are still huge
roadblocks to this, not least the determination of the right wing of the
Labour Party to prevent it. Losing the EU referendum would also be likely
to lead to a new independence referendum in Scotland. Cameron could still
go down in history as the Tory prime minister responsible for the breakup
of the United Kingdom!
Even if he wins the EU referendum, particularly if only narrowly, the
Pyrrhic victory could very quickly turn into its opposite with voters
punishing the Tories for austerity in the same way as Labour has been
punished after the indyref in Scotland. A split in the Tory party could
become unstoppable. Even prior to the referendum, it is only the first-past-

the-post electoral system which is holding the Tory party together. Given
the profound divide that also exists in the Labour Party, a fundamental
realignment of British politics could not be ruled out, with the pro-EU
Tories uniting in a new party with the right wing of the Labour Party,
possibly also involving the remnants of the Liberal Democrats.
If Jeremy Corbyn had been prepared to lead a socialist, internationalist
campaign for exit, it could have gained a huge echo. It would also have
been able to reach out to important layers of working-class UKIP (UK
Independence Party) voters, most of who are to the left of Corbyns
election programme on many issues. Instead, one of his first major
concessions to the Labour right was to agree to back the Remain
campaign unequivocally, potentially abandoning millions of workers to
UKIP. The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) therefore has a
vital role to play in ensuring that there is a pro-working class,
internationalist campaign for exit.
A different kind of new formation
Alongside predicting the crumbling of the establishment parties, last years
document also stated that the rapid development of new parties would be
on the agenda. We drew a comparison with Podemos in Spain erupting
onto the scene and topping the polls within eight months and argued that
we could see similar developments in Britain. That has been borne out,
albeit in an unexpected form, by the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader
of the Labour Party.
Having scraped onto the ballot paper for the leadership election, Jeremy
Corbyn became a focal point for hundreds of thousands of opponents of
austerity. Ironically, Labours new electoral system, introduced by Ed
Miliband to remove the last vestiges of trade union power from the party,
meant that those enthused by Corbyn could sign up for the price of a pint
(3) to vote for him. It was this new layer, combined with some returners
to Labour, which swept Corbyn to a landslide victory. As we have stated
from the beginning, there are now two parties in formation within the shell
of the Labour Party: the pro-capitalist rump which has dominated the
Labour Party for decades and still has a grip on the machine and
Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP); and a new, anti-austerity, anti-war party
around Corbyn.
We have long predicted the development of such a new formation. We
considered it more likely to come into being from forces outside of the

Labour Party as has been the trend in most countries given its
transformation into a capitalist party. The lack of democracy in the Labour
Party and growing levels of working-class alienation from it meant a
movement within the party structures was not the most likely scenario.
Nonetheless, we have no fetish about the route by which the crisis of
working-class political representation would be solved and have never
excluded the possibility of Labour swinging left. As long ago as 2002 we
argued: Under the impact of great historic shocks a serious economic
crisis, mass social upheaval the ex-social democratic parties could move
dramatically towards the left. (Socialism Today No.68, September 2002)
Does this invalidate our analysis that Labour had been transformed in the
1990s into a capitalist party, rather than, as it previously was, a capitalist
workers party with a leadership which acted in the interests of the
capitalist class but with a mass working-class base able to put pressure on
the party leadership? Not at all. The class character of a party is not fixed
in stone but can change under the impact of major events. Workers parties
can be formed out of splits from capitalist parties such as when PASOK
in Greece was formed out of a split from the bourgeois Centre Union, or
the MAPU in Chile that became part of Salvador Allendes Popular Unity
but which originated in a split from the capitalist Christian Democrats.
For a historical period, Labour became a party which was a completely
reliable tool for the capitalist class. This was reflected not only at the top
of the party but also at its base although, of course, a few remnants of the
past still remained. Margaret Thatcher famously declared that her greatest
achievement was Tony Blair and New Labour, and the capitalist class
understand that her achievement is now under threat. But it would be
premature at this stage to characterise the Labour Party once again as a
bourgeois workers party. It is more accurate to say that it is two parties a
capitalist party and a potential workers party within one.
Labours fate still unresolved
It is not possible to predict the outcome of the civil war that is taking place
within Labour. Jeremy Corbyn was elected on a surge of goodwill, which
he largely still has. However, he is facing determined resistance from the
unreconstructed right wing, which still controls the party machine. Even
highly undemocratic structures like the compliance unit remain wholly
intact. Our role in this situation is primarily, as Trotsky said in 1932, not
speculation but a strategy for action. We trenchantly oppose the right. We

give critical support to Jeremy Corbyn, while seeking to push him

energetically to the left, and combating any hesitation or retreat on his part.
We recognise that this battle will not take place exclusively in the Labour
Party, but that the struggles of workers against cuts and austerity, in which
we play a central role, are in many ways more crucial.
While Corbyns programme is, objectively speaking, barely reformist, the
capitalist class does not want to run the risk of a Labour government which
intends to take any measures in the interests of the majority, as this would
awaken an appetite for far more radical measures. They particularly fear
this given the likelihood that the next general election will take place
against the background of a new, deeper phase of the economic crisis. If
they cannot ensure Corbyn is overthrown, it is possible that the capitalist
class will shift its position on proportional representation suddenly
noticing the undemocratic character of the first-past-the-post system in
order to try and prevent a left-led Labour government coming to power.
It is not a simple matter for them to overturn Corbyn, given the size of his
mandate. This in the end reflects the lack of a social base for the Labour
right. They may dominate the PLP but around what policies are they going
to be able to mobilise an anti-Corbyn movement? Keeping tuition fees?
Private ownership of the railways? Support for another disastrous
imperialist intervention into the Middle East? To ask the question is to set
out the difficulty they face. Today is a completely different world to when
New Labour came to dominate the party. Not least that, since then,
workers have experienced in practice what Blairs third way actually
meant through thirteen years of Labour government.
New Labours prince of darkness, Peter Mandelson, has commented on
the paucity of social forces available to the right wing in the ongoing civil
war. He has, however, pointed out two forces to look towards: While the
trade unions can no longer be relied upon to rescue the party as they
helped Kinnock do, it would be a mistake to disregard them entirely, or
Labours legions in local government, who are a bigger force for sense and
moderation in the party than at any time in the recent past. (Guardian, 31
December 2015) There is no doubt that the majority of Labour councillors
form a bureaucratic caste which is a bulwark for the right. Only 450 of the
7,000 Labour councillors supported Corbyn, a smaller percentage than of
the MPs.

The Trident test

As far as the trade unions are concerned, Mandelson is undoubtedly
correct that right-wing leaders would be keen to assist in the overthrow of
Jeremy Corbyn. But this will be not be easy for them without undermining
their own base among trade unionists. Dave Prentis, general secretary of
UNISON, felt he had no choice but to back Corbyn in the election
campaign not least because he was standing for election himself. Now
formally re-elected, although facing an investigation into electoral
malpractice, Prentis will have to be cautious about openly undermining
Corbyn. Nonetheless, it is revealing that the campaign manager for Liz
Kendall the most right-wing of the Labour leadership election contenders
has been appointed to a senior union position.
Of course, this does not mean that the right will not be able to win some
support assisted to the utmost by the capitalist class, and by relying on a
more conservative section of the working class. The proposed renewal of
the Trident nuclear weapons system is one issue around which they are
attempting to mobilise, backed by right-wing trade union leaders who are
playing on defence workers genuine fears about jobs. Corbyn has
correctly promised investment in alternative jobs for Trident workers, but
to put a convincing case that can win workers in the industry it is
necessary to go further than he has. This means calling for the
nationalisation of the companies concerned and working out a concrete
alternative plan of production, as the Lucas Aerospace workers did in the
1970s. At the same time, opinion polls have generally shown a substantial
part of the population opposing the renewal of Trident. The idea that
Trident is a waste of money and the billions it would cost could be better
spent on public services is potentially very popular.
Like the bombing of Syria, a central part of the reason that the Labour
right and sections of the capitalist class are so irate over Trident is because
they see it as a means to strike a blow against Corbyn. Conversely, they
understand that a victory for Corbyn on either issue would strengthen the
anti-austerity and anti-war movement. Neither issue is a matter of military
principle for the capitalist class. Rather, they are a matter of prestige for
British capitalism on the world stage, with the possession of nuclear
weapons securing a place at the top table of the capitalist powers, for
example at the UN Security Council.
While it is true that, once Cameron had declared he wanted Britain to take
part in the bombing of Syria, it would have been a blow to the prestige of

British capitalism if he had once again been unable to accomplish it, much
of the capitalist class in Britain are at best doubtful about the merits of
adding Britains puny contribution to another doomed intervention in the
Middle East.
Equally with Trident, when Blair first agreed the renewal in 2007, many
capitalist commentators, including a Financial Times editorial, questioned
the point of doing so. Now, however, the FT is fulminating at Corbyns
opposition to Trident, calling for the Labour right to refuse to serve in his
shadow cabinet. Grinding their teeth, the editorial (7 January) declared:
By reopening the question of the nuclear deterrent and empowering the
hard left, he is reaching way back to the 1980s, when unilateral disarmers
controlled the party until being ground down, constituency by
constituency, town hall by town hall.
It is one thing for the FT to identify the problem for the capitalist class but
it is another to find a viable way forward for their supporters within the
Labour Party. They are currently enormously weakened in the face of
Corbyns support and cannot see an easy way forward. Of course, over
time, particularly if Corbyn consistently retreats in an attempt to pacify the
right wing, they hope that his supporters will become demoralised and
demobilised and they will be able to push him aside.
A split by the right?
If they feel they have no other choice, the right wing could resort to its
plan B to split to found a new party. In the immediate aftermath of
Corbyns victory, Sunday Times journalist Adam Boulton reported: The
first hope of the Blairites and Brownites appalled by Corbyns election was
that all but a tiny rump of Labours 232 MPs would defect to a new party
in such numbers that they would become the official opposition. Backers
were prepared to put up millions of pounds for the new party, provisionally
called the Progressive Democrats, which would have left the Labour Party
behind with its debts. They would not do this lightly, however, as it would
mean handing the Labour label to a new radical left party, and also because
they fear a right split from Labour would suffer the fate of the Social
Democratic Party (SPD). However, these factors would not prevent them if
their plan A failed. Even the SDP, from the point of view of the capitalist
class if not the politicians who pinned their careers to it, was not a failure
as it played an important role in ensuring that Labour lost the 1983 general
election.

The civil war in the Labour Party cannot continue indefinitely without
events tipping one way or the other. Every incident, no matter how minor,
results in a new crisis, worse than the one before. Nonetheless, it cannot be
excluded that the deadlock between the two sides can continue for a period
if the right cannot find a way forward and the left fails to effectively
mobilise its support. What is excluded, however, is an end to the civil war
and crisis for as long as the deadlock continues.
Limitations of the left
A critical factor is the extent to which Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters
mobilise and build on the anti-austerity movement which thrust him into
the leadership. Unfortunately, up until now that has not been done
effectively. On the contrary, the general tendency has been to try and win
the right over by making concessions to it. This will not pacify but
embolden the right while, eventually, demoralising and demobilising
Corbyns supporters.
Compared to the majority of the Labour left of the late 1970s and early
1980s, the tendency in the Corbyn camp particularly the self-appointed
leaders of Momentum is to move to the right very quickly under
pressure. This is ultimately a reflection shown on a much broader stage
by the election and then capitulation of the Syriza leadership in Greece
of the character of the first wave of left reformism in this new era.
On the one hand, the popular support for them is still largely passive and
unorganised, and is based mainly on a more petit-bourgeois layer. This
means that the pressure from below is not yet comparable with the
pressure from the organised working class that existed in a previous
period. At the same time, the pressure from the capitalist class is greater
than ever. Objectively speaking, a reformist approach is completely
utopian in this era. This means that reformist movements and parties will
be inherently unstable. However, this does not preclude the development
of more left-wing and determined strands of reformism in the future. The
mass of the working class will not go straight from their current
consciousness to drawing revolutionary conclusions. At first, they will test
out the seemingly easier road of reformism in practice. In the course of this
experience, workers movements can exert more intense pressure on
reformist leaders to go much further in the fight to defend workers
interests than has been the case up until now.
It is a real possibility that continued retreat by Corbyn could lead to the

dissipation of the new party that has begun to form around him, and to his
eventual return to the Labour backbenches. Even this worst-case scenario
would not mean that everything went back to how it was before. On the
contrary, the idea that an anti-austerity party would be popular would have
been firmly established. Many who had been enthused by Corbynism
would draw the necessary conclusions about the need for a new party. In
this situation, TUSC and our party could have a very important role to
play. However, this scenario is very far from certain. It is likely that any
attempt to oust Corbyn particularly if the right wing acts prematurely
could lead to a new upsurge from below in support of him. In this
situation, the momentum towards a rupture in the Labour Party would
become unstoppable.
A new more, unstable era
Traditionally, the pace of politics in Britain has been drawn-out. The
working class, while very determined once in action, has also been slow to
enter the struggle. Those ponderous traditions ultimately reflected the
power and stability of British capitalism. They are now in the process of
being burnt away by the reality of British capitalism in the 21st century.
Increasingly, we have to be prepared for sudden, and sometimes
unexpected, developments as workers anger at austerity searches for a
viable outlet. This can mean sudden new political developments but also
explosive struggles where workers find an effective means to fightback.
This can include social movements (like the water charges movement in
Ireland) particularly where workers feel blocked on the industrial front by
the right-wing trade union leaders.
The increasingly southern European character of British politics also
means that we will have to be much more flexible in our own tactics. In
the last six months, we have shown our capacity to respond effectively to
this new era. However, that has only been the start. The process towards
the fragmentation and reconfiguration of politics, which we described in
the last perspectives document, will continue.
It is not possible to predict what the exact outcome of the battles will be,
within either Labour or the Tories. Beyond drawing general conclusions
about the shallow social base for capitalist parties and the resulting
instability of capitalist politics, the most important conclusions we have to
draw is on the growing radicalisation of important sections of the working
class and young people. The movement which thrust Corbyn into the

leadership of the Labour Party demonstrates beyond doubt the potential for
a new mass party of the working class on an anti-austerity programme. At
the same time, his election has fuelled a wider debate on socialist ideas
what they are and how they can be achieved which is a very important
step forward.
At this stage, the concept of socialism is very hazy among those who have
been galvanised by Jeremy Corbyn. However, the experience of
Corbynism, combined with participating in the struggle against austerity,
can lead many thousands of new activists to conclude not only that
socialism is possible but that to achieve it requires a party such as ours,
organised around a clear programme for the complete transformation of
society.
Committee for a Workers' International
PO Box 3688, London E11 1YE, Britain, Tel: ++ 44 20 8988
8760, Fax: ++ 44 20 8988 8793, cwi@worldsoc.co.uk