The differing moods at this year's various party conferences are a reflection of the result of the recent general election. For the Conservatives in Blackpool it is a time for self-congratulation. For the third time in a row they were able to convince a large number of people that they were best suited to running a system based on the exploitation of the many by the few. This is very similar to being able to trick the inmates of an extermination camp into believing that it can be run in their interests. This was achieved by promoting the illusory concept of "people's capitalism". An increase in home ownership and the fact that more people own a few shares in what were formerly state owned enterprises is supposed to support the view that we live in a “property owning democracy". The reality is somewhat different, home ownership for the vast majority means that they have a financial burden called a mortgage tied round their necks. As for state ownership, should any of those who happen to own a few shares in British Gas. British Telecom or any other of the formerly nationalised industries attempt to pack up work and live off unearned income it will soon become apparent which class they belong to.
At the Labour Party conference in Brighton there was a more solemn atmosphere for once again they failed to convince enough people that they are a party fit to manage capitalism. It seems that still not enough time has passed for people to forget what a shambles things were under the Labour administration of 1974-9. The dispute over how to select and re-select parliamentary candidates was resolved by a compromise suitable to Kinnock and the trade union leadership in the form of an electoral college. Forget all the arguments about the need to find a more democratic system; the truth is that a change was needed so that the successful candidates fit the new image of moderation and responsibility that the party is attempting to present. This leads on to the other vital debate for the party this year, that of reviewing policy. This means adopting a combination of caring capitalism — presenting a caring attitude for the less well off whilst making sure they remain in that position — whilst incorporating aspects of "people's capitalism". On the latter policy opportunists like Bryan Gould want the party to incorporate aspects of Thatcher's policies such as share ownership by giving workers the right to buy shares in the company which exploits them. Such a policy will be attacked by the left as a betrayal of "socialism". By this they mean a betrayal of the party's commitment to state capitalism. In response the right will argue that a radical extension of share ownership is equal to a new type of "socialism". The truth is that under the policies advocated by the right and left a system based on a relationship between robbers and robbed and production for profit will remain. But then the Labour Party has never had a clear understanding of capitalism.
Meanwhile the SDP and Liberal Party conferences were dominated by the debate, to merge or not to merge. Those in favour of merger see this as the best way of replacing the Labour Party as the main opposition. Thus principle and policy disagreements must be quietly forgotten. There are of course a few, mostly in the SDP, whose political ambitions would not be furthered by merger. Principal amongst these is David Owen. In a merged party, dominated by the Liberals in terms of numbers of members and MPs, Owen is unlikely to gain a dominant position let alone become the leader. So for him it is better to wait and see how things develop.
Democratic Principles vs Actual Practice
All the above parties claim that they are based on democratic principles and are organised on democratic lines. By taking a closer look at each of them we can see how far this claim is matched by actual practice.
The Conservative Party has always talked a great deal about democracy but a brief look at its organisation shows a gap between rhetoric and reality.
The National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations was formed in 1867 with the aim of popularising Conservative principles. The National Union convenes an annual conference of constituency associations which acts as a sounding board for Conservative opinion in the country. Proceedings at conference are usually non-controversial and resolutions are often passed without a formal vote. The party leader, elected by the MPs only, is normally responsible for appointing the central body including the chairperson and in consultation with her/his top colleagues decides on party policy and strategy. Year after year at Conservative Party conference we hear people protected from the harsh realities of capitalism making long winded speeches about the need to bring back capital punishment — never mind the cause, just deal with effects. Others will preach about moral standards and the sanctity of the family whist supporting a system in which millions starve while food rots and whilst even in their own back yards thousands of people live in slums, building materials are stockpiled and building workers on the dole queue. After the leadership speech a standing ovation is guaranteed no matter what garbage flows from Thatcher's mouth. At Blackpool the concept of democracy was confined to rhetoric whilst from every corner support for the dictatorship of the boardroom was absolute. All good entertainment if you like hypocrisy.
Meanwhile events at Brighton showed once again that the Labour Party is dominated both in its administration and in its policy making functions by the leadership of the large trade unions. They provide the party with around two-thirds of its income and five sixths of its membership. Votes are allocated to unions in proportion to the annual sum which they pay as an affiliation fee. At conference these votes are cast as block votes. Whilst the delegates from the constituency parties outnumber union delegates, the combined votes of a few large unions is generally enough to secure a majority. Many Labour supporters including those on the left whose policies are generally defeated at the hands of the block vote, claim that this structure shows that the party is the political wing of the trade unions. There are several reasons why this claim is false. Firstly the block votes are being cast not on behalf of conscious Labour Party members but on behalf of union members who in many cases are affiliated to the party because they have failed to opt out of paying the political levy. Indeed it is certainly the case that many of these same people voted for parties other than Labour last June. Secondly, not only does the block vote system fail to take into account any difference of opinion amongst those eligible to be consulted, but in most cases little or no consultation actually takes place. Even with consultation there is often confusion. Take for example, the case of the TGWU on the occasion of the contest for the deputy leadership of the party between Healey and Benn in 1981. The union consulted its members through its regional organisation who in turn adopted a variety of methods. A majority of regions voted for Healey. However the executive committee decided to recommend its delegation to vote for Benn as a majority of the largest regions had done so. At that conference the union's block vote was. in the first ballot cast in favour of the third candidate. John Silkin, after another consultation amongst themselves the vote was transferred to Benn in the second ballot.
The unions also have substantial influence on the party's ruling body, the National Executive Committee (NEC). Twelve of its twenty-seven members are elected in the trade union section. The NEC plays a vital role in managing the affairs of the party between conferences, recommends acceptance or rejection of motions put to conference and will in the next year play a vital role in reviewing the party's policies. This year Kinnock gained a tighter grip over this body thanks mainly to the unions' block vote. As the Financial Times (30 September) put it:
The centre right now dominates the sections of the executive which are determined by the votes of the unions. This produced a defeat of the two hard left candidates in the women's section.
Changes in the method of selecting parliamentary candidates and a commitment to review policy were, the FT reported, "the result of the exercise of the trade union block vote".
The Labour Party, then, is controlled not by its members or by trade union members who are affiliated to it but by a small number of trade union leaders who can usually be relied upon to support the party leadership.
Democracy is also sadly lacking in both the SDP and Liberal parties. The leadership of both constantly talk about one member one vote but once again rhetoric is not supported by practice. At two Liberal conferences in recent years majority votes have been cast in favour of a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament and on both occasions that arch democrat, David Steel, indicated that the assembly could vote for what it liked but he had the final say over policy. Only recently, with regard to the ballot in the SDP on merger with the Liberals. David Owen was at the centre of a dispute regarding the question posed on that ballot paper. The Electoral Reform Society had described it as being unfairly loaded. Owen was in fact always unprepared to accept any vote which went in favour of merger. The SDP, far from being a party with no vested interests, as it claimed to be, was, from its early stages, a party which attracted support from several leading big business figures. Articles in the Observer and the Sunday Times as long ago as 1981 revealed that the SDP's finance committee was to be chaired by David Sainsbury, the finance director of the grocery chain and Clive Lindley, millionaire owner of the LCI group, was one of its trustees. Amongst its other supporters were Lord Sainsbury, Sir Claus Moser of Rothschilds and Cob Stenham, the financial director of Unilever.
Of course it is of little surprise that parties which exist to administer capitalism, as all these parties do, have little to do with democracy, for this system has as much to do with that concept as Dallas or Dynasty has to do with providing intellectual stimulus. How can a system where the most vital function in society, the production and distribution of the means of life. food, clothing and shelter included, are owned and controlled by and in the interests of a small minority have anything to do with democracy? There is little point in members of any political party which exists to run capitalism trying to exercise control over their leaders so a certain set of desired policies can be carried out. Experience should have taught such people that even those who hold positions of power, be they politicians, or even members of the capitalist class, have no control over the system. Certain economic laws have to be obeyed. Production is governed by the need to make a profit. Its primary function is not to satisfy needs.
All capitalist political parties are based on a relationship between leaders and followers. This leadership role should not be confused with administration for that function is normally carried out by others. What we are talking about here is a political leadership whose function it is to impose on their members what is possible within the confines of the present organisation of society. Leadership is not something which is inevitable but is confined to societies where a minority rule in their own interests over the majority. This situation can only exist when that majority are not conscious of where their real interests lie.
The socialist view
In contrast to the above parties the socialist movement does not exist to run capitalism and it recognises that workers cannot be led to socialism. It exists to propagate socialist ideas and to create an organisation which can be used by workers conscious of the need for socialism. Socialists reject the concept of leadership because the nature of the society we wish to bring about cannot be established by an organisation based on a relationship between leaders and followers. Socialism means a society where the resources of the earth are owned and consciously controlled by its inhabitants. All will stand in equal relation to the means of production. meaning that each member of society will have the opportunity to use them, to have access to all goods and services on the basis of self determined need, and be involved in administering and making decisions about short and long term collective goals. Private or state capitalist minority control over the productive process and the concept of any form of exchange will be redundant in a society based on common ownership as will be states or governments which are incompatible with a classless society. With this definition of socialism it becomes clear why workers cannot be led to it. A society based on conscious democratic control by the majority can only be brought about by a majority who understand the need for it and organise themselves consciously, politically and democratically to bring it about.
Experience should have shown us all that the parties which have been in conference in the last few weeks have no answers to the worldwide problems we face. They have no answers because they stand for an outdated social system. Are you content to let that system continue on its destructive path or will you join us to bring about a sane world?
Ray Carr
No comments:
Post a Comment