This short statement cannot deal with all aspects of perspectives for Britain, but aims to draw out the central points needed to orientate the party in the tumultuous events ahead. It should be read in conjunction with the World Perspectives document agreed at the International Executive Committee in November 2018.
Capitalist commentators are wringing their hands in despair at the incompetence of both the US and Britain’s governments. In reality, however, the highly dysfunctional character of both governments is not simply an accident of leadership, but reflects the increased inability of the capitalist class to rule in the old way and increasingly in any way, which is at root, part of the legacy of the 2007/2008 economic crisis and its aftermath.
Globally, last year saw the end of the ‘synchronised’ world growth that the capitalist class had hailed in 2017. In reality this growth was weak and uneven, with Britain largely excluded from it. Now, however, that weak recovery appears to be reaching its limits. Nouriel Roubini, one of the very few capitalist economists to foresee the 2007 financial crisis, predicts that 2019 will be, “a year of synchronised global deceleration”. He then lists seven risk factors, topped by the slowdown in China and the possibility of growing trade war, which are likely to lead to the world economy entering a major new crisis in the next period.
Against a background of growing world economic storm clouds, British capitalism is facing its own localised hurricane. The Bank of England has predicted 2019 will see the weakest UK growth since 2009. The economic and political instability caused by the uncertainty of Brexit is highlighting all the weaknesses of British capitalism. The announcements of multinational corporations that they now intend to relocate to other countries are, in some cases, an opportunity to blame Brexit for planned job cuts. Nonetheless, the panic of big business about the consequences of a disorderly Brexit is real. The underlying weakness of British capitalism is being revealed by the current crisis. This weakness is shown by countless indicators. Productivity per hour in Britain has still not returned to its pre-crisis peak, and lags far behind the other major economies. In 2008 nine of the world’s biggest 100 corporations were UK owned, now the figure is only five. Britain’s economy remains dominated by the service sector, particularly finance. It is driven by consumer spending, which relies on an enormous burden of personal debt. Average household debt is now over £15,000, the highest ever level in Britain.
A new economic crisis
A new economic crisis will have a profound effect on the outlook of the working class in Britain. The last years
the supposed ‘recovery’ – have seen never-ending wage restraint and increasing poverty. Finally, in the second half of 2018 there was a small increase in average wage growth, but this still left average pay lower, in real terms, than before the economic crisis. The growing housing catastrophe, and the savage cuts to benefits – most recently with the horror of universal credit are unwinding history, sending the poorest sections of the working class back to the hunger, misery and homelessness of the pre-1945 era. Enormous social explosions are being prepared, which will put even the magnificent, if leaderless, Gilet Jaunes movement in France into the shade. They will take place against the background of a deeply divided capitalist class, who cannot see how to effectively defend their rotten system.
We have long described the inglorious decline of the Tory Party to its current pathetic state. At the time of writing it is on the verge of shattering, with May straining every nerve to hold it intact. Rather than being recorded by history as the woman who destroyed the Tory party she is risking a disorderly ‘no deal’ Brexit, with all the problems that would mean for the capitalist class. Despite her efforts it is clear that whether now or later – Brexit will be a trigger for the death of the Tory Party in its current form.
Given the crisis in the Tory Party, in other circumstances, the majority of the capitalist class would by now have turned to the parliamentary Labour Party as the best means to defend their interests. Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, however, makes them extremely reluctant to take this path. They do not trust Corbyn to reliably act in the interests of capitalism and, above all, they fear the enthusiasm of big sections of the working class for a Corbyn-led government, which might push him to take more radical socialist measures than he currently intends, particularly against the background of a new stage of economic crisis.
Right now, with the fog of Brexit hanging over everything, combined with a substantial ebbing of the enthusiasm for Corbyn that was generated in the 2017 snap election, the relationship is not clear between the crisis of capitalist politics on the one hand and on the other the alienation and bitter anger of the majority of the working class and sections of the middle class. We have to keep hammering home that the latter is the root cause of the former. The Brexit vote, which was a serious blow to the capitalist class and dramatically escalated the crisis in the Tory Party, was at root a working-class revolt against the existing order.
Since then the capitalist class has worked to ‘step back’ the Brexit vote, hoping that if they couldn’t reverse it they could at least get a BINO or Brexit in Name Only. This is still possible but they are hampered at each stage by the ingrained mistrust of the capitalist establishment among the majority of the working class. This means that, despite the endless horror stories about the future after a ‘hard’ Brexit the shift in the opinion polls is too small for there to be any certainty about the result in the event of a second referendum, other than the certainty that holding one would be seen as a betrayal by many Brexit-voting workers, and would dramatically further undermine the authority of the institutions of capitalism. At the same time Corbyn’s election and re-election as Labour leader, and then the increase in Labour’s vote in the snap election, are an indication of the potential popularity of a left alternative to the capitalist politicians.
Events have spiralled out of the control
Events have spiralled out of the control of the capitalist class, leaving them groping at each stage to find a way to defend their interests. Between this document being circulated to Socialist Party branches and our national congress there are likely to be further attempts to extend Article 50 in order to prevent a disorderly Brexit. However, it cannot be guaranteed that even this will pass through parliament.
Inherent in the situation is for both Labour and the Tories to split, with a new ‘centre’ party formed which would more reliably represent the interests of capitalism. However, we have to guard against imagining that this is an easy or risk-free process for the capitalist class. Objectively reality will inevitably force events in this direction but it could be a protracted process, with shifting components. For the capitalists the break up of the existing political framework is highly risky and it is ruled out that it will give them any long-term political stability. As the deep-seated unpopularity of the Macron government, once the great hope of the Blairites, shows so clearly, such a ‘centre’ party would have a very shallow social base.
At the same time it would create the basis for new parties – a right populist ‘Trumpite’ party based on the right of the Tory Party, and a ‘Corbynite’ party shorn of part of its pro-capitalist wing. Both, and particularly the latter, would be destabilising for British capitalism. It is possible that steps will be taken in that direction in the short term, in effect an informal government with Blairites voting to keep May in power, but it is also possible that there will be no Labour split or only a small one – prior to a general election as the majority of Blairites stay where they are in order to be best placed to sabotage a future Corbyn-led government.
The root cause of the capitalist class’s disarray is not widely understood in society because of the failure of the workers’ movement to give a clear lead. Despite the enormous accumulated anger at continued undermining of workers’ living standards the level of strike action remains at a historic low. Official strike days lost in 2017 were the lowest since records began in 1893, and continued at a similar level in 2018. As we explained in last year’s document the majority of trade union leaders are using trade unionists’ hopes in a potential Corbyn-led government as a means to avoid action to defend living conditions now. This gives a glimpse of the role they would attempt to play to hold back the demands of the working class under a Corbyn-led government.
At the same time Labour leader Corbyn has put forward policies which, while limited, have the potential to enthuse and mobilise large sections of the working and middle class. However, at every stage he has failed to attempt to use his position to mobilise a working-class movement, instead seeing his role strictly within the confines of parliament and the existing framework of capitalist society.
Corbyn
Any better policy statements by Corbyn are consistently muffled to the point of being inaudible by the continued dominance of the pro-capitalist wing of the Labour Party, both in parliament and at local authority level. At every stage Corbyn and McDonnell have avoided breaking with the open representatives of capitalism within the Labour Party under the banner of ‘party unity’, rather than to act to transform Labour into a party of the working class. The latest example of this is the seemingly successful attempt to pressurise Liverpool Wavertree constituency Labour Party into dropping their plans for a no confidence vote in the Blairite MP Luciana Berger, despite her being one of those who is openly discussing the possibility of splitting and forming a new ‘centre party’.
Nonetheless, Corbyn has not – at the time of writing completely capitulated to the pro-capitalist remainer wing of Labour and started to call for a second referendum as an alternative to proceeding with Brexit. Nor has he – as yet made the mistake of giving support to May’s Tory Brexit deal. He has managed, albeit often hesitantly and unclearly, to focus instead on calling for a general election and a Brexit in the interests of the working class. In maintaining this position he has had no support from the supposed left leaders of Momentum, and has relied particularly on the support of Len McCluskey, general secretary of UNITE – Labour’s biggest affiliate. As a result of a motion moved by a Socialist Party member, UNITE supports mandatory reselection of MPs.
The leadership of the union, however, has not fought for the implementation of this policy. Nonetheless, partly as a result of our influence but also the pressure from below, McCluskey has put a clearer position on the role of the Blairites and on Brexit than other figures. In the period after Corbyn’s election as Labour leader many on the left pointed to the approach of Momentum, and the supposedly ‘horizontal’ approach of Podemos, as the best means to democratise Labour and to push it to the left. The unions, it was argued, were a bulwark of the right. In countering this we fight for the voice of the unions within Labour to be brought under the democratic control of union members. Nonetheless, we have consistently argued that, far from further undermining the unions’ power within Labour, it is necessary to fight for it to be restored and extended, as an essential part of transforming Labour into a workers’ party.
The responsibility of the Labour leaders and the majority of trade union leaders for the current – ‘foggy’ – situation is difficult to overstate. If, at the time of the referendum campaign, Corbyn had stood by his historical position of opposing the EU as a neo-liberal capitalist club, he could have led the Brexit working-class revolt in an entirely different direction to that which it took. Instead, of course, a space was left for the pro-capitalist right-wing Brexiteers to step into. One consequence of this is the growth in confidence of far-right, racist forces. They are still small, and do not have a cohesive party, but there is a danger they could make gains in the next period, which the workers’ movement needs to mobilise to prevent. We have an essential role to play in fighting for the workers’ movement to combat racism (for example Windrush, the refugee crisis and racist attacks) with a class approach that seeks to unite all sections of the working class in a fight for jobs and homes for all.
Working class
The process taking place in Britain is not unique. Globally, the first response of the working class to the crisis of capitalism was to look towards the left and the workers’ movement. It is their weakness and failure of their leadership that has left space for right and far-right populist forces. After thirty years marked by an absence of mass workers’ parties, and a low level of socialist consciousness, the first mass political expressions of a search for a left alternative are characterised by their limited programme and unstable character. This is true of new formations like Podemos, and also of Corbynism. While the last Labour manifesto was a break with the neo-liberal programme of Blairism, it falls far short of the left-reformism of the past, including that put forward by Corbyn himself. Today, although Corbyn calls himself a socialist, and is broadly seen as one, he does not raise his programme in terms of the need for the necessary steps to end capitalism and build a new socialist order. Objectively speaking the 2017 election manifesto was not to the left of the right-wing manifestos of Neil Kinnock and others in the past.
At the same time, as we have described previously, the layers who have become active in the Labour Party, and particularly the minority of them who have stayed active, have tended to be middle class. This is partly reflected by the approach of the majority of them to Brexit. This was not preordained but reflected the instinct of many workers that Corbyn does not have ‘what it takes’ to fight for their interests against the capitalist class. Had Corbyn been prepared to demonstrate otherwise – both in his programme and a determination to transform Labour into a workers’ party – hundreds of thousands of workers would have been enthused to become active. Such a workers’ party would still be unstable, with its leaders faced with a choice of taking decisive measures to overturn capitalism or capitulate to its demands, but would nonetheless, as a result of its base among the working class, tend to be both more radical and more stable than the ephemeral character of Corbynism.
Nonetheless, despite the growing lack of confidence in Corbyn at the moment, it would be wrong to conclude that this could not be reversed in the event of a snap election. The sudden upsurge of enthusiasm that took place in 2017 could be repeated again, provided he once again puts forward a manifesto that seems to be in the interests of the working class. It would be vital, however, that he ‘come out fighting’ for such a programme as, even more than last time, he would be likely to be facing a Tory campaign based overwhelmingly on a nationalist appeal that ‘only they could deliver Brexit’ which could only be cut across by a combative programme in the interests of the working class. The election of a Corbyn-led government remains implicit in the situation and, while not guaranteed, could take place very rapidly. If the deadlock in the Tory party continues, the capitalist class, much as they fear a Corbyn-led government, may have no choice but to ‘put the working class through the experience of Corbynism’.
Inevitably, in the early stages of a Corbyn-led government there would be enormous hopes that the lives of the majority would improve. At the same time the capitalist class would be determined to force the government to do its bidding. It is possible, of course, that they would be aided in that by Labour leading a minority government. Even a majority government, however, would in reality be a minority for Corbynism, given the predominance of pro-capitalist MPs in the parliamentary Labour Party. Such a government would therefore be unstable and crisis-ridden from the start, particularly as is likely – it comes to power against the background of economic turmoil and crisis.
A certain comparison could be drawn with the experience of the short-lived January to November 1924 Labour minority government. It also came to power following crisis in the Tory Party. Within days there was a strike of 110,000 dock workers. In the event the strike was settled after succeeding in winning a pay rise, but determined to prove itself to the capitalist class as ‘fit to govern’ the Labour government immediately put in place plans to use troops to break the strike, which was a warning of the role the right wing Labour MPs and their echoes in the trade union leaderships would go on to play in the 1926 general strike. The government was crisis-ridden from day one, and the big majority of Labour’s programme was not carried out. Nonetheless, under pressure from below, the government did introduce some reforms in the interests of the working class, particularly the Wheatley Housing Act which resulted in the building of over half a million council homes by 1933. The misery that capitalism meant for the working class remained unaltered, however, and the 1924 government was an essential part of the preparation for the mighty 1926 general strike. The working class, thwarted on the political front, turned to extra-parliamentary measures.
Corbyn, and McDonnell in particular, are following the same road as the 1924 Labour leaders in bending over backwards to show capitalism that they are not dangerous – with visits to the City, promises not to introduce capital controls and so on. Continuation on this path would inevitably mean betrayal of the working class. We have to warn against this at every stage, but not by abstract denunciations, but rather by putting forward a positive programme to explain in a transitional way – what would be necessary for a Corbyn government to act in the interests of the working class.
New phase of struggle
It is not possible to precisely predict what events are ahead, but it is clear that the current conjuncture, mired in the ‘fog of Brexit’, is coming to an end and we have to be ready for a new phase of struggle. The Gilet Jaunes movement in France gives a glimpse of how the enormous accumulated anger of the working class will explode in new struggles once it finds an outlet, which will not necessarily initially be through the existing structures of the trade unions. This is in no way to lessen the importance of the vital work we do in the trade union movement today, which is essential preparation for what is to come. Imagine what the power of the Gilet Jaunes would have been had the French trade union movement put itself decisively at the head of the movement from the beginning and called general strike action. There is no doubt that the TUC leaders in Britain would resist taking such action with even more determination than their French equivalents. However, the vital positions and authority we have won in the trade union movement would be an important factor in forcing action from below.
The tenacity with which we have fought to defend our ideas and programme in the PCS, against an attempted witch-hunt by a ‘left’ trade union leader is an enormous credit to our party and vital preparation for the struggles that would take place under a Corbyn-led government, and the inevitable pressure to hold back in fighting for workers’ interests.
At this stage the right-wing trade union leaders are using the prospects of a Corbyn government and the very draconian anti-trade union laws as a justification for inaction. Nonetheless, where a lead has been given there have been some important sectional and local strikes. The magnificent strike for equal pay in Glasgow, in which our sister section in Scotland played a key role and the Homecare strike in Birmingham are two examples. So are the long running determined rail strikes to keep the guard on the train. There have also been some significant strikes of workers in previously unorganised sectors – notably McDonalds and TFI Friday.
Nonetheless, overall union density has now fallen to 23.5%, and is lower still in the private sector. The big majority of workers have no direct experience at all of trade unions as tools for collective struggle in defence of their interests. It would be a serious error, however, to conclude from this that we should downgrade the importance of our trade union work. As workers search for a means to fight back against the bosses where they come up directly against them – in the workplaces – it is inevitable that they will look to trade unions. In some cases this could mean founding new unions, but the dominant trend in Britain is likely to be first testing out the existing unions, and only moving to found new ones if they meet an immovable obstacle in the existing structures. And even when orientating towards new trade union formations our base in the existing unions is an invaluable asset, as has been shown by our work in the NSSN.
Whenever strikes take place workers tend to join the trade unions in big numbers. However, while bigger sections of the working class will become involved in trade union battles in the coming period, this does not mean that overall union density will return to the levels of the post-war upswing, which were exceptional. We could see elements of the points raised by Trotsky in the 1930s, where he put forward factory or workplace committees to draw in all layers of workers involved in a struggle beyond those active in the union structures. Such bodies are generally only posed in periods of mass struggle, but may be relevant to some extent in the coming period, although it is perhaps more likely in Britain that will workers will join the existing unions in the course of a struggle, even if they do not remain involved once it is over.
We are continuing to do very important work among university students, and are also striving to improve our work among college and school students. As the 2017 election demonstrated, big layers of young people are looking towards socialistic ideas. At this stage this is not reflected in mass struggle, but that will change. Socialist Students is now the only organisation on campuses that is fighting on the broad social and economic issues facing students. We have to build on this. Movements of students are likely not only on their own living conditions, and the enormous debt burden they face, but also on social issues such as the environment, women’s oppression, and anti-racism. We should be prepared to respond and take initiatives on these issues. At the same time, it remains vital that we orientate our young student members towards the working class and that we increase our efforts to build among young workers. The position we have won in the retail union, USDAW, is a big asset to building among this predominantly young, low paid, sector.
Alongside our trade union work, the electoral work of the party is also preparation for the period that is coming. TUSC has been of huge importance to our party since its foundation in 2010, above all because it is a united front with a militant trade union, the RMT. It is an indication of the level of understanding and class instincts of the activists in the union that, notwithstanding their support for Corbyn, at their Special General Meeting a majority correctly opposed affiliation to the Labour Party on the basis of its current undemocratic structure. Nonetheless, at this stage the left in the RMT has not been able to win support for continuing to contest elections against Blairite Labour candidates. If there has been no general election by then, we are therefore planning to contest the local elections next May under the banner of the party. There are advantages to this, as it will allow us to more clearly link our electoral work to building the party. Politically, it is vital that we fight for the idea of no cuts budgets, at a time when local authority spending is suffering devastating cuts that would have been unimaginable ten years ago. Among the most serious, working-class Corbynites, our programme on this issue gets a real echo, reflected in two constituency Labour Parties adopting a no-cuts position. That there are not more is also a reflection of the petit-bourgeois dominated character of most ‘left’ constituency Labour Parties.
To conclude, the explosive economic and social situation means that perspectives, particularly for the short term, are hard to predict. We have to keep our finger on the pulse, however. It is the responsibility of the elected leadership and of all comrades to accurately reflect the mood among different sections of the working class, in order to be able to draw out the main trends. And the different factors which are impelling perspectives are very clear: the crisis of British capitalism and all its institutions; the search by the working class for an alternative to the misery that capitalism offers them; combined with the weak and amorphous character, in Corbynism, of the first attempts in this era to build a mass political alternative. We have a vital and urgent job to do in reaching out to the workers and youth who are searching for a socialist alternative to the existing order, fighting alongside them and explaining what is necessary for the socialist transformation of society. Key to that is the existence of a mass party capable of leading the working class in that struggle. We aim to be the nucleus of such a party. We need to fight to win as many as possible to our ranks today, to educate them in our programme and methods, in order to prepare for the mighty events ahead.
