It is not and, though better than a one-man dictatorship it is not the finest imaginable as we are led to believe. Neither do I believe in the myths portrayed by various Labour parties around the globe that a parliamentary road to socialism is possible, certainly while parliaments remain in their present form, bourgeois committee’s to manage the affairs of the rich, elected by the poor.
Parliaments, certainly in England, have been around in their present form since the revolutionary overthrow and beheading of King Charles 1st in 1649 and have remained with us ever since. At the time the reformed parliament was progressive, taking away the so-called divine right of Kings to rule. Perhaps this is why the now British Parliament is called; “The Mother of Parliaments”. For many years would-be revolutionary parties like the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) were telling their membership, including me for a short time, and anybody else who cared to listen, there is “no parliamentary road to socialism” which I still subscribe to. I can remember this party many years ago (I was no longer a member thankfully) running down O’Connell Street in Dublin, trying to impress shoppers who took no notice whatsoever, shouting “one solution, revolution, one solution…” A sorry sight to say the least. If this was the best the revolutionary socialist camp had to offer then the bourgeoisie had and have no need to worry.
Today we see the same SWP members, under the guise of People Before Profit sitting in the lower house of the Irish Parliament, Dail Eireann. What happened to the no “parliamentary road to socialism”, and “one solution, revolution”? Parliaments, in their present form as rich men’s committees meaning that the same class of people - the capitalist, or bourgeois class - still rule irrespective of who is in government. The capitalist state and all its instruments of law and order and, albeit as a last resort, terror will still prevail as Harold Wilson found out back in 1964 in Britain. He believed when elected to Number Ten he was actually in charge. He soon found out this was not in fact the case.
The persons who behind the scenes dictate economic policy are the Governor of the Bank of England and senior Civil Servants, and the persons who decide Foreign Policy are the Imperial General Staffs, MI5 and MI6. As he stood in the Cabinet Office at Number Ten, he was reportedly thinking to himself, ‘if I press this button, I can summon the Imperial General Staff, and if I push this button, I can summon the Governor of the Bank of England’. How right he was, he could summon these people who would then tell him what he could and could not do. Fair play to Wilson on one occasion: he did get his own way on foreign policy, usually tailored to suit the United States, when he refused Lyndon Johnson's demand, dressed up as a request, for British troops in Vietnam, Wilson refused and got away with it! Despite my criticisms of Parliament and parliamentary elections I do exercise my right to a ballot paper. My right to register my vote it is, after all, about the only democratic right, limited as it is, anybody gets.
In Britain and Ireland, the respective Labour Parties still pedal the myth that socialism can be delivered through Parliament, not so much the British variant these days as they appear to be more of an opposing Conservative Party in much of what they say.
In Britain and Ireland, the respective Labour Parties still pedal the myth that socialism can be delivered through Parliament, not so much the British variant these days as they appear to be more of an opposing Conservative Party in much of what they say.
The Irish Labour Party
Ireland though is a different ball game especially, it appears, since the election to the party’s leadership of Ivana Bacik. On Saturday 25th March I listened to her maiden speech at the Irish Labour Party Conference (they don’t call it an Ard Fheis, they perhaps should but do not) and for once I heard some progressive soundbites. Echoes of the British Labour Party, now long dead, but alive and well here in Ireland it appeared. Not the seditious talk of one of the party’s founders, James Connolly, granted, but given the hot air we have heard over the years from various previous Labour leaders what Ivana was saying was progressive. She opened her address with “Friends and Comrades”, a long time since any Labour leader anywhere in the world, Jeremy Corbyn exempted, has used such language.
She went on to describe “Labours vision of change” - a new way forward for the party it appeared “to deliver an Ireland that works for all”. So far, usual kind of opening bar the comrades bit, explaining how Fianna Fail and Fine Gael equal an unequal Ireland which are “failing the people of Ireland”. How correct she is on this one as the housing crisis worsens, the flames of homelessness are getting bigger so the Government throw a huge tin of petrol on it to increase the flames by ending the eviction ban. Housing is starved of “public investment” as the Government coalition of FF, FG and Greens turn to the “private market” whose sole aim is not to build houses, unless they are profitable, but only to make profits. Like any other service under capitalism, if there are no profits then the service does not get provided, this includes housing. Ms Bacik continued, “having a safe and secure home is a human right” and called for an extension of the eviction ban. It was also noticed she did not attack capitalism outright so let’s not get over carried away from a Marxist perspective.
The Labour Leader then addressed the issue of workers' rights and trade unions, a very important aspect of any Labour party bar, it would appear, the British version. More on this below. “The Labour Party is rooted in the trade union movement and no worker should have to work in uncertain conditions. Labour would end the situation where apprentices are not covered by the minimum wage. We would endure workers and unions have the right to organise”. That is the first time I have heard any party leader use that kind of language regarding trade union organisation, having “the right to organise” as a right, suggesting labour would legislate in this direction. “The best way for workers to organise is in the trade unions”. To any trade unionist this must be what we want to hear, to any worker including apprentices this should be music to their ears.
The Labour Leader then addressed the issue of workers' rights and trade unions, a very important aspect of any Labour party bar, it would appear, the British version. More on this below. “The Labour Party is rooted in the trade union movement and no worker should have to work in uncertain conditions. Labour would end the situation where apprentices are not covered by the minimum wage. We would endure workers and unions have the right to organise”. That is the first time I have heard any party leader use that kind of language regarding trade union organisation, having “the right to organise” as a right, suggesting labour would legislate in this direction. “The best way for workers to organise is in the trade unions”. To any trade unionist this must be what we want to hear, to any worker including apprentices this should be music to their ears.
She continues in this positive vein, “this vision is across the thirty-two counties and Labour supports a referendum” on Irish unification. She also indicated closer links with Labour's “sister party the SDLP”. Perhaps Sinn Fein should take such closer links seriously as each party could act as an extension of the other in the two jurisdictions, the six and twenty-six counties. At the moment Sinn Fein are very appealing to many nationalists in both jurisdictions. A Sinn Fein Taoiseach in the south and a Sinn Fein First Minister in the north is an appealing all Ireland factor in Sinn Fein’s popularity. If the Irish Labour Party forge closer links with the SDLP could this arrangement rival the position of Sinn Fein as the only all Ireland party? We should not run round with the idea that Irish Labour have suddenly become republican in their outlook, certainly not in the traditional Irish sense. That died in Irish labour with James Connolly.
Another point well worthy was a proposed “ban on all goods coming from the Israeli occupied territories” something which if uttered in the British Labour Party would be deemed “anti-Semitic” by the current leadership. Ivana Bacik included Palestinian refugees among the worlds needy and not, as appears to be Irish Government policy, just Ukrainians. The actions of the Netanyahu Government against the Palestinian people in Tel Aviv were condemned without reservation.
These were just a few of the points covered by the new Irish Labour Party Leader, Ivana Bacik, which to me sounded more progressive than those of Sinn Fein, who have not mentioned the “thirty-two counties” for, I don’t know, the signing of the Good Friday Agreement (Sell Out). This, it appears is a new dawn for Irish Labour just as the British labour Party had a new dawn with Jeremy Corbyn, but in favour of British capitalism, ditched him. Let us hope the Irish variety have more sense than to ditch Ivana Bacik.
The British Labour Party
In sharp contrast to the progressive sounding language spoken by the Irish Labour leader, in Britain the Labour Party appears to be continuing its rightwards direction of travel started by Tony Blair when he became the party leader in 1994. He abolished Clause IV, which had served the party well since 1918 and was in reality the guts of the constitution. Clause IV was a commitment to public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and therefore a commitment to socialistic ideas, if not all out socialism. It separated Labour from the other parties in Parliament. Tony Blair got rid of this and replaced it with some obscure wording about being a modern party. Roughly translated that means a party of capitalism. Little wonder Margaret Thatcher once said of New Labour, they were her “greatest achievement”!
Another point well worthy was a proposed “ban on all goods coming from the Israeli occupied territories” something which if uttered in the British Labour Party would be deemed “anti-Semitic” by the current leadership. Ivana Bacik included Palestinian refugees among the worlds needy and not, as appears to be Irish Government policy, just Ukrainians. The actions of the Netanyahu Government against the Palestinian people in Tel Aviv were condemned without reservation.
These were just a few of the points covered by the new Irish Labour Party Leader, Ivana Bacik, which to me sounded more progressive than those of Sinn Fein, who have not mentioned the “thirty-two counties” for, I don’t know, the signing of the Good Friday Agreement (Sell Out). This, it appears is a new dawn for Irish Labour just as the British labour Party had a new dawn with Jeremy Corbyn, but in favour of British capitalism, ditched him. Let us hope the Irish variety have more sense than to ditch Ivana Bacik.
The British Labour Party
In sharp contrast to the progressive sounding language spoken by the Irish Labour leader, in Britain the Labour Party appears to be continuing its rightwards direction of travel started by Tony Blair when he became the party leader in 1994. He abolished Clause IV, which had served the party well since 1918 and was in reality the guts of the constitution. Clause IV was a commitment to public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and therefore a commitment to socialistic ideas, if not all out socialism. It separated Labour from the other parties in Parliament. Tony Blair got rid of this and replaced it with some obscure wording about being a modern party. Roughly translated that means a party of capitalism. Little wonder Margaret Thatcher once said of New Labour, they were her “greatest achievement”!
The last time the British Labour Party tried to remove the once sacred Clause IV was after the 1959 election defeat. Then leader, Hugh Gaitskell, proposed to remove Clause IV but was defeated by the party’s left-wing. Blair succeeded in not only getting rid of Clause IV but also in diminishing the relevance of the left-wing within the party. Even though it was not greatly acted upon when Labour were in government the fact it was there in the constitution was the weapon of the left-wing. The nearest Labour came to enacting Clause IV was after the landslide victory of 1945 when Clement Attlee nationalised much of the major British industries, including coal, rail, gas and electric, and transport, and introduced the National Health Service (NHS).
When Blair abolished Clause IV he removed the guts of the Labour Party’s constitution, the part which made them a reason for existence. The Conservative Party have a much older set of ideas based on the 1834 “Tamworth Manifesto” and although capitalism has moved on since those days it is still said the Tamworth Manifesto is the basis for modern Conservative political thinking. They did not just rip it up, they adapted the wording and meaning to suit modern times. In contrast, the Labour Party took their jewel in the crown, Clause IV, and ditched it. Now, in British parliamentary politics there is very little between the Conservative government and the Labour opposition.
Blair immediately started distancing the party from the trade unions while at the same time accepting their money to fund his project, “New Labour”. With the short break in this pattern of party leaders, Jeremy Corbyn who was on the left was leader between 2015 and 2020 and represented traditional labour policies and values, the election of Keir Starmer to leader in 2020 signified a return to the rightwards political direction. Any hope of resurrecting Clause IV under Corbyn died with Starmer’s election as did the brief return to traditional Labour policies. There is very little mention under the Starmer leadership of the trade unions, except to condemn strikes and the strike waves currently running through Britain. The Labour leader refuses to support openly the strikers and forbids any Shadow Ministers attending picket lines, though he stops short of outright condemning the unions and blames the government, as the party of opposition should, for not “sitting down and talking”. He condemns the disruption strikes cause, suggesting the trade unions who are representing their members' interests, should reconsider this strategy. Compare this with the pro-union part of Ivana Bacik's maiden speech. Starmer should realise he, as a Labour leader, cannot sit on the fence as one of his predecessors, Neil Kinnock, did during the 1984/85 Miners Strike. Whereas the Irish Labour Party are calling for “workers and unions having the right to organise” the British variant cannot even openly support those millions of workers taking strike action. Strike action, it must be said, as a last resort after government and employers refused to listen.
Keir Starmer has also expelled former leader Jeremy Corbyn for what he, Starmer, calls anti-Semitic language. Jeremy Corbyn has fought against racism and ant-Semitism all his political life and is certainly not guilty of what Starmer is suggesting. All Corbyn was saying was pretty much along the lines of what was contained in Bacik’s speech to the Irish Labour Party on goods from the occupied areas being banned and condemning the Israeli Government for their actions against the Palestinian people. Language like this cannot be used in the British labour Party in case it upsets the Israeli Government! In other words, any statement offensive to the Israeli Government is anti-Semitic! Really? This is a complete redefinition of the term “anti-Semitic” more over it is anti-Semitism according to Keir Starmer. Keir Starmer appears to be more concerned with not upsetting the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv than supporting the beleaguered Palestinians.
Whereas the British Labour Party appear hell bent on “thriving” in a capitalist society rather than challenging such a society, the Irish labour Party appear to be moving in the opposite direction, leftwards. Being left-wing does not make a person revolutionary, the terms left and right-wing are parliamentary terms originating from the French Revolution. Who sat on which side of the “Constituent Assembly” - the left, who advocated social and economic change, or the conservative right who wanted more of the same, the status quo. It would seem the Irish Labour Party have rediscovered, if Bacik's speech is any indication, some of their original values, but not the revolutionary anti-capitalist part of these values. They are still not the party formed by James Connolly, Jim Larkin, Richard O’Carroll and others who used seditious terms like “I want to talk sedition” and “capitalist robber barons” often used by Connolly and Larkin. That aside Ivana Baciks speech was a breath of fresh air and more radical in many respects that Sinn Fein’s Mary Lou McDonald. She certainly appears to have put the breaks on the right-wing trajectory of recent years within Irish labour.
Historically the British and Irish Labour Parties have had differences. When the Irish party was formed in 1912 the British Labour Party agreed to remain exactly that, British not a UK party. This was agreed between the two leaderships to give the Irish party room to develop its own entity separate from Britain, it was early British Labour policy to support Irish independence. Even today the British Labour Party do not organise in the six-counties. James Kier Hardie, a friend and comrade of James Connolly’s agreed this was the best direction to give the Irish the best chance to develop. Both organisations were part of the “Second International” at the time. When, in 1914 the First World War broke out in Europe the British party, despite early opposition, along with most of the international voted to back their indigenous bourgeoisie in the war as did the Germans, Italians, in fact all of them bar the Russians under Lenin, the Bulgarians and the Irish (though Connolly and Lenin never met). This was a complete change for both parties, British and Irish, in political direction. It appears such change in travel is occurring again.
All the socialist rhetoric by the new Irish Labour leader is all very well while she is not in a position to implement it! The employers would fight back, be under no illusions, against her pro worker and pro trade union measures. The question is, would she, if necessary, legislate against the bosses just as the various governments of the employers have demanded legislation against the unions? Time may well tell on that one. I refer back to the well-meaning Harold Wilson back in 1964 who soon found out how far the British state would allow him to go. Would the Irish state also put a block on some of Ivana Bacik's policies? Again, time will tell!
Blair immediately started distancing the party from the trade unions while at the same time accepting their money to fund his project, “New Labour”. With the short break in this pattern of party leaders, Jeremy Corbyn who was on the left was leader between 2015 and 2020 and represented traditional labour policies and values, the election of Keir Starmer to leader in 2020 signified a return to the rightwards political direction. Any hope of resurrecting Clause IV under Corbyn died with Starmer’s election as did the brief return to traditional Labour policies. There is very little mention under the Starmer leadership of the trade unions, except to condemn strikes and the strike waves currently running through Britain. The Labour leader refuses to support openly the strikers and forbids any Shadow Ministers attending picket lines, though he stops short of outright condemning the unions and blames the government, as the party of opposition should, for not “sitting down and talking”. He condemns the disruption strikes cause, suggesting the trade unions who are representing their members' interests, should reconsider this strategy. Compare this with the pro-union part of Ivana Bacik's maiden speech. Starmer should realise he, as a Labour leader, cannot sit on the fence as one of his predecessors, Neil Kinnock, did during the 1984/85 Miners Strike. Whereas the Irish Labour Party are calling for “workers and unions having the right to organise” the British variant cannot even openly support those millions of workers taking strike action. Strike action, it must be said, as a last resort after government and employers refused to listen.
Keir Starmer has also expelled former leader Jeremy Corbyn for what he, Starmer, calls anti-Semitic language. Jeremy Corbyn has fought against racism and ant-Semitism all his political life and is certainly not guilty of what Starmer is suggesting. All Corbyn was saying was pretty much along the lines of what was contained in Bacik’s speech to the Irish Labour Party on goods from the occupied areas being banned and condemning the Israeli Government for their actions against the Palestinian people. Language like this cannot be used in the British labour Party in case it upsets the Israeli Government! In other words, any statement offensive to the Israeli Government is anti-Semitic! Really? This is a complete redefinition of the term “anti-Semitic” more over it is anti-Semitism according to Keir Starmer. Keir Starmer appears to be more concerned with not upsetting the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv than supporting the beleaguered Palestinians.
Whereas the British Labour Party appear hell bent on “thriving” in a capitalist society rather than challenging such a society, the Irish labour Party appear to be moving in the opposite direction, leftwards. Being left-wing does not make a person revolutionary, the terms left and right-wing are parliamentary terms originating from the French Revolution. Who sat on which side of the “Constituent Assembly” - the left, who advocated social and economic change, or the conservative right who wanted more of the same, the status quo. It would seem the Irish Labour Party have rediscovered, if Bacik's speech is any indication, some of their original values, but not the revolutionary anti-capitalist part of these values. They are still not the party formed by James Connolly, Jim Larkin, Richard O’Carroll and others who used seditious terms like “I want to talk sedition” and “capitalist robber barons” often used by Connolly and Larkin. That aside Ivana Baciks speech was a breath of fresh air and more radical in many respects that Sinn Fein’s Mary Lou McDonald. She certainly appears to have put the breaks on the right-wing trajectory of recent years within Irish labour.
Historically the British and Irish Labour Parties have had differences. When the Irish party was formed in 1912 the British Labour Party agreed to remain exactly that, British not a UK party. This was agreed between the two leaderships to give the Irish party room to develop its own entity separate from Britain, it was early British Labour policy to support Irish independence. Even today the British Labour Party do not organise in the six-counties. James Kier Hardie, a friend and comrade of James Connolly’s agreed this was the best direction to give the Irish the best chance to develop. Both organisations were part of the “Second International” at the time. When, in 1914 the First World War broke out in Europe the British party, despite early opposition, along with most of the international voted to back their indigenous bourgeoisie in the war as did the Germans, Italians, in fact all of them bar the Russians under Lenin, the Bulgarians and the Irish (though Connolly and Lenin never met). This was a complete change for both parties, British and Irish, in political direction. It appears such change in travel is occurring again.
All the socialist rhetoric by the new Irish Labour leader is all very well while she is not in a position to implement it! The employers would fight back, be under no illusions, against her pro worker and pro trade union measures. The question is, would she, if necessary, legislate against the bosses just as the various governments of the employers have demanded legislation against the unions? Time may well tell on that one. I refer back to the well-meaning Harold Wilson back in 1964 who soon found out how far the British state would allow him to go. Would the Irish state also put a block on some of Ivana Bacik's policies? Again, time will tell!
🖼 Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist
Caoimhin - Good piece. Labour took flak in the Dail yesterday despite a strong rhetorical flourish from Ged Nash because they are so vulnerable around the pull of coalition. They just seem unable to help themselves, like a moth to the flame. Had Labour held out one more term under Gilmore he likely would have been the first Labour Taoiseach. But they just had to give the electorate the old Rabbitte punch and then take cover behind the flag of patriotism. I too think Ivana has brought something fresh to the party but can she hold the careerist element back if Labour grows again? There is space for a Labour Party as SF will simply fill the vacuum left by FF. But I am not optimistic.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree Anthony, labour have a history of knee buckling when the pressure is on dating back to the fabled 1918 General Election. They stood aside to allow Sinn Fein a clear run, SF policy was "labour can wait" hardly encouraging for the future but Thomas Johnson buckled. Had Connolly survived, would he have done the same? It is hypothetical but basing it Connolly's track record, he was not a man for shifting ground to suit others, so he in all liklihood would not have stood aside.
ReplyDeleteThat is the question with Ivana, can she hold the careerist element back? Time will tell us the answer but first impressions are promising.
Caoimhin O'Muraile
These are the things we shall never know. How Connolly would have turned out had he lived out his life is an imponderable. Many people change their view but he was old enough and not one of those yuppies who sign up for three years to do a bit of revolutionary posturing, get a job in the civil service and then . . you know how it goes.
DeleteI could not imagine Connolly, who took his Marxist socialism seriously, wearing the mandatory Leon Trotsky lookalike round glasses, a woolly jumper three sizes too big and joining the SWP. Neither could I envisage him buying a pair of expensive jeans, tearing out the knees to complete the SWP uniform. Thats how they, the SWP, seemed to me back in the early eighties. I didn't last long.
ReplyDeleteMany people do shift ground, as did Connolly in his youth, but this ground moving was only insofar as how best to achieve socialism. His run-ins with Daniel de Leon in the USA made him begin to question the roll of the party, if any, a point covered in his pamphlet, The Axe to the Root. We all move ground in this way, I have myself now having little faith in parties and groups proclaming to be the "vanguard of the proletariat". Connolly changed his opinions, particularly in his youth, but never shifted off the main road towards socialism, just perhaps the best way to achieve it. Connolly had more strings to his bow, in this respect, being a founder of the Irish Labour Party. At the time this party was considered revolutionary, as liberal democracy was still in its infancy.
But you are correct, Anthony, we'll never know to the letter how Connolly would have developed further his politics. As you point out he was of an age, 49, old enough to perhaps have perfeced his ideology. We can only go by his writings, very similar to those of Karl Marx in many respects but updated to fit his times.
Caoimhin O'Muraile
some of the Stalinists wear a Lenin cap and try to grow a goatee. Guess if you don't want to be taken seriously it's the way to go.
DeleteSorry, realised after I'd pushed publish button, Connolly was 47, not 49.
ReplyDeleteCaoimhin O'Muraile