In the third part of our draft document on the political perspectives for Britain, we examine the civil war that is raging inside the Labour Party between Corbyn and his supporters on the one side, and the Blairite cabal of MPs on the other. Given the immense political instability, the prospect of a future National Government is on the cards.
In the third part of our draft document on the political perspectives for Britain, we examine the civil war that is raging inside the Labour Party between Corbyn and his supporters on the one side, and the Blairite cabal of MPs on the other.
With the Tories imploding over Europe, the ruling class will, at some stage, end up pushing for a National Government to “restore order” and carry out the austerity and attacks that the capitalist system requires.
Corbyn vs the Parliamentary Labour Party
Within the Labour Party, relations between the right and left will get increasingly bitter as right wing MPs are threatened locally with reselection. Already many MPs are fearful of the Momentum organisation, which they see as a machine for de-selection, no matter what Corbyn or Momentum says. It is ironic that Momentum and its leaders have come out strongly against de-selection, which should be a democratic right of party members. But this cuts no ice. It would take only one de-selection to set off a chain reaction.
The capitalist press will become even more hysterical in its attacks on the Left. It would be similar to the ferocious campaign around the attempt to de-select Reg Prentice, Labour MP for Newham NE in the mid-1970s. This became a cause celebre and opened up the witch-hunt against the Left. Eventually, Prentice resigned and joined the Tory Party, ending up in the Thatcher government. The whole episode polarised the situation. It will do so again as the civil war in the party reaches fever pitch.
History is repeating itself but on a higher level. The ruling class has again lost overall control of the Labour Party, as in the 1970s. But this time it is even more serious. At a certain point, they will come to the conclusion that Corbyn cannot be removed, despite all their efforts. The tide is flowing against them. The right wing is increasingly isolated. The ruling class will therefore be left with a stark choice: either allow Corbyn to lead the Left-moving Labour Party to victory in the next general election, with all the dangers that poses, or move to split the Labour Party as they did in 1931 and 1982. It is not a new tactic for them, but it comes with certain dangers.
Ian Gilmore, who was a leading Tory politician and strategist, wrote a book in 1977, which assessed the threat posed for the bourgeoisie.
“It is only since 1970 that the Labour Party has become a threat to the constitution”, writes Gilmore. “Extremists have penetrated it at every level, and swung it violently to the Left… And of course the situation became far worse soon afterwards… From 1974 onwards Mr Prentice and other MPs were under threat from their constituencies from various local Soviets and Commissars… It had adopted in 1973 an unprecedentedly extremist programme, which threatened the mixed [capitalist] economy and the rule of law… The next Labour Government, led perhaps by Mr Wedgwood Benn, would very likely complete the process. British freedoms would be obliterated; they could not survive in a fully Socialist economy. The constitution would become an irrelevance, to be disregarded at will before being formally buried and the British people would enjoy an Eastern-European standard of life.
“The most important inference to be drawn from this is that the two-party system in this country is crumbling and will continue to crumble unless or until Labour reverts to being a moderate democratic party operating within the British political tradition.”
The bourgeoisie took this sound advice to heart. To block the “extremist” Labour Party, it decided to rest on the right wing within the Parliamentary Labour Party to carry through a split. This it did in 1982 with the “Gang of Four” and the formation of the Social Democratic Party (SDP). This succeeded in splitting the Labour vote and handed victory to Thatcher. They then rested on the soft left in the Labour Party, starting with Neil Kinnock, to push the party to the right. This process was completed under Tony Blair, which got rid of Clause 4 and purged the Left within the party. The Labour Party had once again become a “moderate” party under New Labour, firmly back under the control of the ruling class and its agents. Everything went well for them…until the election of Jeremy Corbyn turned everything upside down.
Civil war in the Labour Party
This development, which they never anticipated, upset the political apple cart. Once again, the ruling class lost control of the Labour Party. Their agents – the Blairites – had made a terrible blunder and opened up the party to supporters, on the assumption they would loyally support the right wing. But they completely miscalculated and fell victim to their own hubris and propaganda, as they were completely detached from the real mood in society. Those right-wingers who had nominated Corbyn to “widen the debate” now saw themselves as “morons”. The masses were far to the left of the existing ranks of the party. For them, this influx of new members – the “Corbynistas” – meant that the party has been taken over by “extremists” as in the 1970s. What frightens them is not simply Jeremy Corbyn himself but above all the radicalised layers standing behind him, which are anti-austerity and anti-capitalist.
The right wing is waging a losing battle as “moderate” members desert the party and left wingers continue to join. It was said, in one week alone, at the time of the vote on Syria, that some 15,000 people had left the party, while the supporters of Corbyn still continued to pour in. Let us recall that on a single day when Corbyn’s victory was announced 15,000 new members joined the party.
If a Labour government were to come to power led by Corbyn, it would, under crisis conditions, be subject to enormous pressure from below. While there is much talk of the unelectability of Corbyn, the serious bourgeois understand that such an outcome cannot be discounted at all. The result in Oldham, despite all the right wing briefings by MPs that Corbyn had lost the white working class vote, confirmed the fact that Corbyn is electable. As the Tory government proceeds with its vicious austerity, it will rapidly haemorrhage support towards Labour, the anti-austerity party.
The bourgeoisie would not want to risk a Left Labour government at this time. With a deep crisis, they want a “strong” government that would represent their class interests. A Labour government coming to power on an anti-austerity programme would be too much to swallow. It would be anathema to them.
Of course, they could blackmail Corbyn, as the capitalists blackmailed Tsipras into capitulation. After all, inherent in reformism is compromise and betrayal, as Trotsky explained. By why take the risk when there could be a safer route?
Once again, the idea of splitting the Labour Party would become part of their calculations. That could serve to keep Labour out of power as in 1983, when the SDP split the Labour vote. But, unlike in 1983, the ruling class could go further and champion the idea of a National Government as in 1931. That would be a way of creating a more stable government composed of elements from all the main parties.
How likely would a repeat of the 1931 betrayal be? Clearly, it would be a very simple matter for the ruling class to split the Labour Party. The Parliamentary Labour Party is completely dominated by the right wing. Rather than a handful of right wingers leaving, as in 1931 or 1983, the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party could cross the floor to form a National Government as easily as switching carriages on a train.
By this time, the Tory Party could also be in the process of splitting, poisoned by the referendum over Europe. A Tory split would see the creation of a new extremely right wing party, anti-Europe, anti-immigrant, and pro-monarchy. This would absorb the remnants of UKIP, to become a royalist-Bonapartist party, on the extreme right of British politics. Such a development would not be a fascist party as in the past, but would be more like Le Pen’s party in France. There is no social basis for a fascist party. The paraphernalia of “classical” 1930s fascism has been discredited and reaction and fascism would need to take on a different form in order to gain any significant resonance. British reaction will be based on Tory/Royalist Bonapartism, which will have links to the state. It would be well financed from big business. Its aim, of course, would be some form of totalitarianism.
Clearly, any attempt to use such a reactionary movement against the working class, given the present class balance of forces, would mean civil war. That is why the bourgeois would not be keen to go down this road. They would only do so if there was absolutely no other way out. The working class is a hundred times stronger than before the war. The professional layers have been drawn towards the proletariat. The students, who before the war were used to break strikes and were a basis for reaction, have overwhelmingly swung over to the left. The social base for reaction in Britain is very slim. Therefore, the ruling class would repeatedly hesitate as they could not be certain that they would win. However, if things became completely intolerable they would out of sheer desperation move to crush the working class. But that is the music of the future. There is no question of Bonapartist reaction today or in the near future, despite the hysteria of the sects at every real or imaginary turn to the right.
The moderate, pro-European Tories would likely fuse with a Blairite split from the Labour Party, which would also absorb what was left of the Liberal Democrats, crushed by the class polarisation. Some elements of the Liberal Democrats may end up joining the Labour Party.
The Tory government will have exhausted itself, wracked by splits and divisions. It would be too weak to stagger on in face of deepening crisis. That would be another sound reason to go for a National Government.
Under these circumstances, the Labour Party, with the right wing being spewed out, would move dramatically to the left. Corbyn would preside over a radicalised left-reformist or even centrist party, with the support of the unions. It would have similar consequences as in 1931-32, where the ILP shifted to centrism following the MacDonald betrayal. But rather than the ILP, it would be the Labour Party.
This move to split the Labour Party would need to come before the planned general election in 2020, possibly within the next 2 or 3 years, if the ruling class is to derail a Corbyn victory. There is a threat that the government will not last that long.
Lessons of 1931
In Britain, the fracturing of the political parties is not a new phenomenon and tends to take place in times of crisis. We have already seen support for the two main parties dwindle from 98% in 1950 to around 65% today. This was the case in the 1920s in the run up to 1931. Sharp divisions had opened up in the Labour Party as the right wing, led by MacDonald, Thomas and Snowden, battled with the Left wing. Mosley had split away to form his New Party, a precursor to the British Union of Fascists. The Liberals were fragmenting into Simonites, Samuelites, and the Lloyd George family. The Tories had been fighting over the Baldwin leadership and the Free Trade Crusaders.
“These splits and disagreements reinforced the opinion that some new political arrangement was needed”, writes Colin Bell, author of National Government 1931. “There was a crisis, all three parties were divided among themselves, and all authoritative observers held that it was essential that the country rallied round and accept a swingeing bout of public parsimony.”
A similar process will take place now. Splits and fissures are on the order of the day in all parties.
In 1931, this fracturing led to a ferocious campaign in the press, headed by the Times, to bring about a National Government. For them, patriotism demanded the coming together of “the best minds” of Britain, which would entail some temporary suspension of certain customs, rights, liberties, in the interests of Strong Leadership, which all “decent” people would crave.
This campaign by the bourgeois press ended in a split in the Labour Government, and the betrayal by MacDonald, who went over to form the National Government in August 1931. In the October general election, the parties that made up the National Government won a landslide victory by denouncing the Labour policy as “Bolshevism run riot”. The Labour Party held on to only 46 seats, while Lloyd George (who kept out of the National Coalition) managed to hold a mere 4 seats.
The bourgeoisie got their “strong government”, made up of “National” Tories, Labour and Liberals, which proceeded to “balance the books” by a programme of savage cuts and austerity. This austerity was to produce riots in Birkenhead and a naval mutiny in Invergordon.
This acute situation produced a further split in the Labour Party with the breakaway of the ILP in 1932, with its tens of thousands of members, reflecting a further radicalisation of the situation. The ILP became a centrist party, meaning revolutionary in words, but reformist in deeds, a product of the pre-revolutionary crisis in society.
“The situation in Britain”, explained Trotsky, “can likewise be termed, with a certain degree of justification, pre-revolutionary, provided it is strictly agreed that a period covering several years of partial ebbs and flows can elapse between the pre-revolutionary and immediately revolutionary situation.” The process was cut across by the centrism of the ILP leaders and the treacherous role of the Stalinists.
National Government
History does not repeat itself in the exact same way, but tends to do so on a higher level. There are of course differences, but there are also definite parallels. As we have already seen on the Continent, especially in Greece and Italy, as the crisis deepened, the bourgeois reverted to technocratic and “national” governments. To prevent a Left Labour Party on an anti-austerity programme assuming power, the British ruling class also is likely to resort to extraordinary measures. Splitting the Labour Party, with the right wing walking out, would be an easy option, despite the dangers, and serve its purposes very well.
The establishment of some kind of Grand Coalition or National Government would, as in 1931, gain a big majority. It also would have the “mandate” to resolve the crisis. The National Government would carry through draconian attacks on the working class, as the crisis continued. But more and more, it would lose ground and prepare the way for a Left Labour Government, in 2025 or even earlier. There will be no stable governments, which will tend to follow one upon another in a quick succession. This Left government would be, to use Trotsky’s phrase, a British Kerenskiade, a government of deep crisis, where a serious struggle for influence would open up between the forces of reformism and those of revolution. However, this would not be as short-lived as the Kerensky government in Russia, which was due to the existence of the Bolshevik Party. It would be a far more protracted affair.
The Left government would meet the open resistance of the ruling class, the fierce resistance of the House of Lords, the monarchy, City of London and the entire mass media. Without a perspective of socialist revolution, it would be put to the test and tend to buckle under the pressure of the ruling class. Attempted half measures would not satisfy the masses. Such a Left government would experience the worst of all worlds.
However events work out in practice, there will be an enormous polarisation to the right and to the left in British society. There will be colossal instability. We cannot even rule out a Left wing split in the party, as with the ILP in 1932. Certainly, in such a scenario, this radicalised situation would provide the forces of Marxism with enormous possibilities, which, if they worked properly, could be on the verge of becoming a mass force.
As Ted Grant explained: “Under such conditions a strong Left Reformist or even Centrist current, with a mass base, would be formed within the LP; a current similar to that which developed in the LP during the second Labour Government [1929-31], when they moved away from reformism. Had there been a Marxist wing, or even a strong fraction working within this milieu, the basis could have been laid for the development of the revolutionary party.”
The ruling class will be seriously preparing for civil war under these conditions. However, given the enormous strength of the working class, they would hesitate a thousand times before taking to this road. Behind the scenes, nevertheless, they would be preparing to put an end to democracy, democratic rights, and suppress the Labour movement. This is not only a perspective, but a warning to the working class.
Ian Gilmore, who certainly was no crank, but an important member of the British establishment, justified a military coup in certain circumstances:
“Conservatives do not worship democracy. For them, majority rule is a device… individuals do not always act in their own interest, as Halifax and many others have pointed out; still less do groups… Similarly, majorities do not always see where their best interests lie and then act upon their understanding. For Conservatives, therefore, democracy is a means to an end not an end in itself… And if it is leading to an end that is undesirable or inconsistent with itself, then there is a theoretical case for ending it.” (Gilmore, Inside Right, p.211)
He continues, “If our free institutions are overthrown or totally perverted, the Left not the Right, will be responsible… There is no danger of a right wing coup. Only if the constitution had already been destroyed by the Left, might the Right react and the Left find itself overthrown in its turn by a counter-coup from the Right.” (ibid, p.212)
In other words, if capitalism were under threat, even in an election, a coup would be completely justified. The general staff has a long history of political interference, especially in times of crisis. According to custom, they are supposed to be above politics, but this is a sham.
Leading figures were involved in the plot, promoted by Cecil King, the newspaper baron, in 1968 to overthrow Wilson as PM and bring in Lord Earl Mountbatten to head a government of National Unity. In 1974, there was open talk of a coup involving the military. Brigadier General Kitson was promoting the idea of the army being used not externally but internally. Army manoeuvres took place at Heathrow Airport against “terrorism” without the knowledge of the government. These activities, given the strength of the working class, were curtailed and considered too premature and too risky by the strategists of capital.
The fact that even now an unnamed general was extensively reported to have threatened a military coup if Corbyn attempted to abolish Trident and undermine Britain’s defence reflects the real thinking of sections of the high command. In addition, the head of the British armed forces questioned Corbyn’s suitability of being a prime minister given his unilateralist views, and was backed by Maria Eagle, the right-wing shadow defence secretary.
It is no accident that Prince Charles has also been intervening politically, writing to ministers on all sorts of questions. The government has been forced to release some of his selected correspondence, which is only a glimpse at what he has been up to. This interference will grow as the polarisation increases. The monarchy will play a reactionary role and act as a rallying point for Bonapartist forces, as was the case before the war, where they openly admired the fascist dictatorships.
Plots and conspiracies will multiply in this polarised atmosphere. The security agencies, MI5 and MI6 will also be involved. The gentlemen’s Clubs in Chelsea and Kensington, frequented by members of the ruling class, the top judges, military chiefs, high ranking civil servants and Tory politicians, will be full of intrigues and plans to “Save the Country” from the extremists and “Trotskyites”.
To be continued…
