On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 17:35:55 +0000 Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
writes:
>Below is an important survey of voting patterns among strata in
>Britain.
>Although the term "middle class" is highly unscientific it reflects a
>subjective division within layers of the working population.
>
>The question now arises whether the Labour party can retain its lead
>among
>the privileged more bourgeoisified workers. Whether it needs to make
>further New Labour type changes. Whether it requires further
>constitutional
>reform to enable a coalition of social-democrats and current
>supporters of
>the Liberal Democratic Party to work together. Whether it needs a
>change of
>name, to mark the historic failure of the Labour Representation
>Committee.
>(There is no chance of a *consciously* working class and trade
>unionist
>party winning consistently in bourgeois elections under present
>conditions.)
>
>My prejudices are that in marxist terms it is better that a left wing
>bourgeois party tries to unite the great majority of the working class
>(including those who think they are middle class) rather than divide
>them
>by supporting the poorest at the expense of better off workers.
This simply shows that the political strategies of New Labour are remarkably similar to those being followed by Clinton's New Democrats.
> This
>provides the opportunity for better consensus about how to manage
>society
>reasonably fairly for the great majority of people, and in the long
>term
>puts the private ownership of the means of production and
>unaccountability
>of capital under pressure.
I find this statement rather confused. It is probably true that a Labour government, even Blair's, is more likely than a Tory government to impose some degree of social control over capital rather than blindly following laissez-faire policies. However, Chris seems to think that there is necessarily something progressive about this in terms of making society more democratic. I would submit that this is not necessarily the case. Historically in the US much of the impetus for government regulation of the economy came from capital itself which had come to recognize the destructive effects that cutthroat competition could have on its own interests. Thus in the US the so-called progressive of the beginning of this century were largely movements of the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie who were concerned with regulating capitalism for the sake of preserving the system from its own excesses. It seems to me that both Clinton's New Democrats and Blair's New Labour heark back to that kind of politics.
>
>It would be a considerable gain to break the ability of capital to
>manage
>politics through the two party bourgeois electoral system.
Why would that be. I would think just the opposite would be true.
An embourgeoified Labour Party that could hold onto its traditional
working class base while at the same time following policies
friendly to the interests of the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie
would greatly strengthen the control that capital has over the
electoral system. I take it that it is no accident that business
executives,
managers, and affluent professionals have suddenly developed a
fondness for Labour.
>
>But I do not think marxists, or would be marxists, should confine
>their
>perspectives to such a party or such a left-centre coalition of
>parties.
I would hope hope not. Yet Chris and many other British leftists in fact do seem to confine their perspectives to working within the Labour Party. Whether they intend to or not (and Chris I think does intend to) this has the effect of shoring up Tony Blair and his rightist brand of Labour politics. Similarly, in the US many left groups including the DSA, CPUSA, the Committees of Correspondence etc. are all avidly pro-Clinton despite the fact that he is the most right-wing Democratic president the US has seen in this century. With all these left groups taking such a pro-Clinton line this means that Clinton has had little opposition to fear from the left. (The most prominent left Democrat, Jesse Jackson has proved himself to be a loyal Clinton lieutenant). All this has made it easier for the Clinton Administration to drift further and further to the right in terms of actual policies (i.e. abolishing welfare, proposing to privatize social security, pushing through NAFTA and GATT).
Traditionally Democratic presidents usually had to be on the
watch for opposition from the left. Democratic presidents from
Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy and John all had to guard their
left flanks. Therefore, they were under some pressure to support
reforms that would benefit workers, the elderly, African-Americans,
women etc. The last two Democratic presidents that we have had,
Carter and Clinton, have not had to worry about this. Hence their
administrations in terms of substantive policy have differed little
from we might expect to see from a moderate Republican administration.
What Chris Burford seems to be proposing is that British leftists
follow the same route as their counterparts across the pond.
And the results I would expect to be much the same. A Labour
Party drifting further and further to the right. A rise in
disenchantment
among the party's traditional working class constituencies with
no readily available vehicle to express it. Therefore, like in the
US voter participation in elections will probably decrease as people
perceive correctly that there is little difference between Labour
and the Tories.
>
>I realise these views are controversial and would appreciate reasoned
>criticisms.
Well, if Chris wants to come to the US I am sure there will be a place for him in Al Gore's Y2K presidential campaign.
Jim Farmelant
>
>Chris Burford
>
>London.
>
___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]