The combination of the increasingly right wing policies of the Labour Party and the tremendous decline in working class involvement in that party have led some revolutionaries, and even a certain number of worker militants, to believe that the working class will now bypass the Labour Party in any struggle. They have advanced the view that the entire working class has somehow "seen through" the Labour party and regards it in exactly the same light as the Tory party. This has led to suggestions such as calling on workers to abstain in any General Election, organising the breaking up of Labour party meetings, and so on. While such attitudes. particularly amongst worker militants, are an extremely welcome siga of increased political radicaliation, nevertbeless they constitute a recipe for political disaster. No matter how much the organisational hold of the Labour Party over the working clans las declined, as Jong as there exists no credible alternative to the Labour Party the working class will still be dominated ideologically by that Party, This domination may express itself either in an active for in Terms of involvement in the Labour Party or even in the negative form of refusing to undertake certain courses of action because they see no alternative to Labour.
To understand this domination you simply have to consider for example what would be the effect if prominent members of the left wing of the party were expelled. Even if workers still refused to take a part in the affairs of the party, it would still be the case that every worker would be aware that there was a political dispute, and would in a vague sense know who stood for what. Such an event would politicise certain sections of the working class in a way that, for example, the mass exodus of members from, and crisis in, the Communist Party in 1956-57 never did. For the mass of politically conscious workers politics still mens Lite Labour party, and that fact is not altered in the slightest because they may follow shop stewards who are Communist Party members, or take part in and even organise political strikes which are viclently condemned by the Labour Party. The most that the changes that have taken place over the last 15 or 16 years can signity is that. the tactics for dealing with the Labour party may change. In no way however cun these tactics be raised to the level of a principle. The principle still remains that the working class will only break with the Labour Party in the course of a struggle against the leadership and bureaucracy of that party. It will not simply bypass that party.
Without a correct understanding of the role and nature of the Labour Party it is impossible to make a meaningful intervention in the work workers movement. Until a really credible alternative exists for workers, politically advanced ones will always vote for Labour rather than Heath & co. In this the instincts of the working class are perfectly correct. A worker who votes Tory is a backward worker. A person who refuses to vote Labour when the only alternative i the Tories is aiding the Tories. He is voting for an oxplicitly class class collaboratist policy As long is this situation continues resolationaries will shruer tell workers to vote Labour.
But merely to say vote Labour rather than Tory is not nearly sufficient. IF workers wore to vote Labour in the belief that a Labour government will actually solve the problems of unemployment, housing, inflation, etc. then they would suffer a complete demoralisation and become apathetic when they find that this is not the case. This means that although revolutionaries explicitly tell workers to vote Labour, never under any circumstances do they tone down their criticism of that party. On the contrary the task is to explain at all times that in order to solve its problems the working class will have to fight not only the Tones but the Labour Parly as well. The correct attitude to the Labour party is the one expressed at the Fourth Congress of the Comintern, "Vote for it, but prepare to struggle against it". It is not sufficient however to say simply that it is necessary to fight the Labour Party. It is necessary to fight for something as well as aguinst something. It is at this point of deciding. what demands and policies it is necessary to put forward that Marxists part compuny with every type of reformist.
WHAT POLICY FOR REVOLUTIONARIES? The basis from which the Labour Party and all reformists start their thinking is that it is pessible to solve the immediate problems of the working class without destroying capitalism. They believe that Socialism is a good theory but in the short term capitalism can he reformed to soive the problems of unemployment, rising prices, etc.
All their energies go into trying to retorm capitalism. This means for example that they put forward plans of economic growth to cure unemployment which rely the investment to create the means to carry them out on the same capialists who are throwing people out of work.
In fact the destruction of capitalism is not some distant dream but is the only way of solving the immediate, direct, everyday needs and problems of the working class. Without the ending ef capitalism no government would have the economic means to carry out any programme of measures in the real interests of the working class.
From this simple fact it follows that the demands and policies which revolutionaries.
must advance are those that directly challenge capitalist ownership of the economy. Simply to advocate 4 or 5 refor mist demands not including the ending of capitalist ownership of the economy, is to try to get the working class to fight for a policy which will not solve its problets even if that policy were carried out. Such a policy is a recipe for disiljusionment. and demoralisation. not for success.
But if the policies which need to be fought for are sociulist and not reformist ones, this does not solve the problem of where the people to fisht for them use to come from. It is at this point that the decline in working class partici pation in the organisations of the Labour Party does begin to come in. This decline in Involvement does not alter the general principles as regards the Labour party, namely that workers will not simply bypass it in struggle, but it does alter the tactics and strategy that need to be persaci, THE ORGANISATIONAL DECLINE OF THE LABOUR PARTY As a result of the pulicies of tite last Labour government, and even more because of the failure of the "left" wing of the Labour party to really oppose them, there has been a catastrophic fall in the membership and organisational strength of the Labour party. For example since 1966 over 36,000 individual members have left the Labour Party. Attendance at ward meetings has slumped ever more. Largely due to this rapid fall in membership and activity the organisation of the Party is in a state of complete disrepair. The number of full timo party agents is now down to 144 compared to a figure of 296 in 1951.
It is worth looking at the changes in party membership and compare it to say 1951, In that year there was no doubt that what political activity there was in the working class expressed itself in the Labour party. Every single revolutionary organisation carried out serious work inside the Labour party. In that year individual membership of the Labour party stood at 876,000, In the General Election of that year although it lost the election it still received 48,8% of the vote.
The situation now is changed beyond belief. Purely in terms of votes (probably the worst indicator of the working class's interest in the party), in 195l the Labour Party received 1,800,000 more votos than it did int 1970 and that despite the fact that in the meantime the number of electers has risen by 3 million. Membership has fallen by nearly 200,000, and from 876,000 it now stands at 680,000. This figure itsolf is probably a gross exapgeration ot the number of members. This exaggeration springs from the fact that no constituency Labour Purty can affiliate on less than 1,000 members. This means that if only 5 people attend meetings and only a couple of hundred pay any subscription, this still goes down in the figures as 1,000 people. It is difticult to find out what the real figures are but there are only 90 constituencies which have over 1,000 menbers. All the other 500 or so huve less than that figure (2) One survey which may show just how exaggerated the figures for membership are was one in Birmingham which found that the average membership of the 13 constituency parties in the city was 390. If these figures were typical of the entire country then the Labour Party would only have something like a third of its claimed membership. The decline of interest and participation in party affairs is even greater than the decline in membership. For example last year 172 constituency and borough parlies did nol even bother to send representatives to the Party's annual conference (3).
Although the polcies of the Wilson government were an open attack on the working cluss, and were seen as such by many workers, this need not necessurily have produced such a fall in purticipation in the Labour party. On the contrary if the Tribunites and the general "left" had put up real fight many workers would have joined in the activities of the party as a way of fighting Wilson. What really condemned the Labour Party to its present state was the refisal of Michael Foot, Eric Heffer, Stan Newens, etc. to wage any sort of fight against Wilson's policies This was completely in line with their retreat on previous positions such as the 1960. Labour conference decision calling for Britain to abandon the Il bomb. In the name of "unity the so called left winger steadfastly refused to wage a real campaign aguinst Wilson. They are continuing this policy even now by, for exampl withdrawing their motion against the Industrial Relations Bill in the interests of "unity" with Wilson and Castle. As long as no real fight is pu up inside the constituency section of the Labou party, workers are unlikely to rejoin in significunt numbers and the Tribunites have already shown that they do net intend to fight. It cannot of course be ruled out that in the future there will not be a revival of activity inside the Labeur Party constituency parties, but for now he forces to fight nguinst the policies of the Labour Party and against the Tories must be sought elsewhere.
THE CLASS NATURE OF THE LABOUR PARTY It is at this point that the decline in participation of the working class does begin to determi tactics even although it does not alter the general principle concerning the Labour Party Although in social terms the Labour party draws its support from the working class, in political terms it defends capitalism. It thereto is, as Marcists have always recognised, a bourgeois parsy (4). In fact in certain situation such as 1931 and 1945 it plays a role that in defending capitalism no other party cou play.
However just because Labour is politically speaking a bourgeois party it is not the case that revolutionaries have the same attitude to such a perty as they do to for example the Tor party. On the contrary although the Labour party is not a workers party in a political sense it is a party of the working class. An organisation can be a party of the working class on at least two counts. Firstly, it can be such a part if its programme is at least nominally opposed to capitalism. i.e. a socialist one, or it can be one because the party rests on the organisation of the working class. It is now chiefly on the sccond of these two counts that the Labour Party can be considered a party of the workin class.
But because an organisation is a party of th
ЯОА