Labor Party is in a
state of permanent crisis
(From Vanguard
December 1966)
The Labor Party in
Australia is in a state of permanent crisis.
More than any other party of capitalism it exhibits the signs of
crisis. Its crisis actually arises from
the conditions of capitalism. We should
like to discuss some aspects of the present Labor Party crisis.
Our starting point is that the Labor Party is indeed a party
of capitalism. It is not a working class
party at all. Much of the
misunderstanding about the Labor Party has arisen through departing from the
correct analysis that it is a party of capitalism.
The fact that we characterise it as a party of capitalism
does not in any way meant that Communists cannot and should not have good
relations with workers and even some leaders who follow the Labor Party. On the contrary it is critical for the
Communists (as Lenin put it) “in a certain degree to merge if you will with the
masses”. Certainly the Communists must
work in this way precisely to share in the experience in life which will show
all workers that the road of advance is through revolutionary struggle. Their sharing is not passive: it is active:
it leads to conclusions: to action. This occurs as adverse experience of
capitalism unfolds. It is not a simple
process. It proceeds unevenly and at different speeds for different
people. The Communists will patiently
step by step try to demonstrate the correct way ahead. They must be with the masses at every stage
of development, advanced, backward, not to backward, not so advanced.
Today, however, many
honest people are saying what is wrong with the Labor Party? What can be done
to rectify the position? It is said it
is a tragedy to see the disintegration of a great party. This represents the genuine desire of many
workers. It is a desire to reform the
Labor Party. Then on the other hand the
capitalist press is full of advice to the Labor Party.
It is to be noted that the whole of this debate goes on
within the context of the parliamentary politics. The question that is posed is how can the
Labor Party correct either its policy or organisation or both to do better in
parliamentary elections? In itself this directly shows that the suggested
reform is a reform to make capitalism function better. Parliament is a capitalist institution. It serves capitalism. Thus this debate
clearly proceeds on a capitalist basis.
However many do not understand this and do not understand the nature of
parliament itself.
Merely to write an article about it like this will not solve
the problem. It is a question of
experience, struggle, experience even repeated many times. The Communists must be clear on the principle
involved. Then infinite flexibility in
mass work, infinite patience, to a certain degree merging if you will with the
masses, learning from experience, will achieve over a period of time mass
understanding.
The first essential
of working class politics is the independence of the working class from the
capitalist class. The interests of the
workers are diametrically opposite to those of the capitalists. There can be no
reconciliation between them. Therefore to subordinate working class politics to
the capitalist institution of parliament is desertion of working class
politics.
It never occurs to many participants in this debate that
really they are being deluded. The
illusion developed by the capitalist class about the parliamentary institution
is so strong that it is almost taken as read that the debate will proceed on
the basis of parliamentarism.
It is essential then to understand this.
Parliament and the parties that serve it are alike the
instruments of capitalism. This is clear
to us but not yet to many of the people.
The Labor Party, however, is a party of capitalism that
takes a special form. It takes the form
of a workers’ party. It calls itself a
LABOR party. It is very close to the
workers’ trade unions. It has a large
following among the workers. It has
special features which are designed to deceive workers into believing it is a
workers’ party.
Nonetheless as countless experiences prove the Labor Party
in Australia has always served capitalism. It has been the government in all
states and federally. It is pledged to
socialism[1].
Nevertheless under Labor governments capitalism has developed. For example, the
Labor Party created the secret police, government ballots in the trade unions,
has gaoled and shot workers and so on.
Within it there is a left wing. There is a right wing. There is a centre.
Each plays a part in appealing to different sections of the people. Then the sections who support the left are
told to wait till the right is defeated. The right “struggles” against the
left.
The central feature
of the crisis of the Labor Party is the conflict between its form as a workers’
party and its content as a capitalist party.
The fact that Australian capitalism is tied to US
imperialism leaves little room for the Australian capitalists to
manoeuvre. The US imperialists have such
a grip that they control the situation.
Hence all the capitalist parties, Labor included, support the US
alliance. This is in complete conflict
with the interests of the workers. Yet
what are they to do? So long as they are tied to parliamentarism they too have
no room to struggle.
The Labor Party opposed conscription for Vietnam. That is good.
It does not matter that such a proposition does not step beyond
capitalism. It is an important aspect of
struggle against the Vietnamese war. And of course it is permissible for
Communists to agree with sections even of the capitalists so long as no
principle is sacrificed. Yet the Labor
Party is tied to the US alliance from which conscription flows. This dictates
an inevitable inconsistency. Fundamental is the US alliance supported by the
Labor Party: opposition to conscription by the Labor Party is consistent even
with capitalist policy.
Certainly we welcome
such a policy. But it is easy to
understand a lack of confidence among the workers in the Labor Party, a
cynicism about it when it is so firmly tied to the US alliance.
Conscription is really used by the ALP for deception, i.e.
to maintain the illusion of militancy. Moreover, sections of the capitalists
are opposed to conscription. It disrupts
production: it deprives Australia itself of soldiers, etc. Yes, it has a positive side. That is important. It helps people to organise and think.
It has the negative side that opposition to it, unless as a
matter of principle, can be used to delude them further.
The capitalist class is reaching an impasse on the method of
its rule. It has relied on the Labor Party as the alternative government party.
To do that it has presented the Labor Party as a radical party. True, it has
placed definite limits on this radicalism but still it was there. In days gone
by that was all right. But in today’s explosive world, any form of radicalism
is dangerous. Therefore the ruling class must narrow the limits of the
radicalism of the ALP. In its turn that
destroys the appearance of choice in parliamentary elections. The Labor Party therefore loses its apparent
position as an alternative.
Then the capitalists
or sections of them say we must make the ALP more conservative. However, that
intensifies the contradictions between the ALP and the workers who have
illusions in it.
Thus whatever way they turn they are in a dilemma. This dilemma reflects itself in the internal
position in the ALP.
Then again there are divisions among the capitalists. Some
say it is better for the ALP to appear to be left; some say it is better for it
to appear to be right. This reflects tactical differences.
Still more the capitalists themselves have interests that
conflict with each other. This group promotes one line; that group another.
This, too, promotes division.
Being a capitalist
party in which the competition of capitalism is reflected, there is an
important rivalry amongst the Labor Party leaders. There is a struggle for
power. This, too, reflects the competitive struggle of capitalism.
Vanguard has more than once pointed out that a clear line of
demarcation must be drawn between parliamentary politics on the one hand and
genuine scientific politics on the other.
Parliamentary politics are the illusion of politics. The
capitalist class wants politics confined to parliament. Understanding this is
an essential part of genuine politics. If you understand it you can handle it.
If you debate it on the ground of parliamentary politics you are at the mercy
of the capitalists.
Reality then is that the Labor Party cannot be reformed into
a genuine workers’ party. It can be
reformed as a capitalist party. Such a reform may take it to the left or it may
take it to the right. But whichever way it goes, it will not solve the problem.
If to the left, the right will revolt; if to the right, the left will revolt.
Compromise will occur. But all that is in the realm of parliamentary politics,
i.e., of capitalist politics.
As yet there is not a mass understanding that the Labor
Party is a capitalist party. Only a
small minority understands this. There is a sea of illusion that the Labor
Party is a workers’ party. With the workers who have this illusion we have no
quarrel. We know that sooner or later
they will realise the illusion. This is a contradiction among the people. It
will be resolved above all by experience in struggle with correct Communist
mass work and by discussion. It won’t be resolved by an attitude of contempt
for these workers or trying to ram down their throats these views. Mass work is
the critical thing.
Lenin, in speaking of party spirit of the Communist Party,
spoke of three conditions. All of them
are relevant to this discussion. But for
emphasis here we reproduce the second and third with Lenin’s own emphasis.
“Secondly, by its ability to link itself with, to keep in
close touch with, and, to a certain degree if you will, merge itself with the
broad masses of the toilers – primarily with the proletarian, but also with the non-proletarian
toiling masses. Thirdly, by the
correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard and by the
correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided that the broadest
masses become convinced of this correctness by their own experience”.
[1] In
1913, Lenin wrote: “The Australian Labor Party does not even claim to be a
Socialist Party. As a matter of fact, it is a liberal bourgeois party and the
so-called Liberals in Australia are really Conservatives ...” However, with the growth of socialist
sentiment in Australia following the Russian revolution in 1917, the 1921 All-Australian Trades Union Congress
adopted a resolution calling for "the socialisation of industry, production,
distribution and exchange." As a result, Labor's Federal Conference in
1922 adopted a similarly worded "socialist objective". The only attempt at socialisation was the
failed attempt at bank nationalisation by Chifley in 1947. The “pledge to socialism”
referred to by Vanguard was officially dropped by Labor in 1975.
No comments:
Post a Comment