Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 02:10:28 -0700
From: knightrose <knightrose-AT-geocities.com>
Subject: M-I: re: Labour and Politics - let's consider class.


I’ve been lurking on this list for a few weeks now and have been
following the thread about the Labour Party et al with interest and with
some disquiet.  So, if folk will permit, I’ll put in my bit on the
subject.
What I see as lacking in this discussion is the differentiation between
the class-in-itself and the class-for itself.    As I see it, we can
only understand the position of the Labour Party in Britain if we take
this as our starting point.  
The fundamental difference between the two is that the class-in-itself
is a creation of capital.  The class exists as a category, defined by
its position as the conglomeration of wage labourers, but essentially
made up of at worst atomised individuals and at best interest groups,
competing with other workers for the crumbs from capital’s table.  It
was from sections of this class that the British Trade Unions
originated, indeed they were created by a particularly small, skilled
and relatively well off section of the class in itself.  These unions
quickly became established and institutionalised.  Their members tended
to support the Liberal Party, rather than the  various socialist
alternatives that were around in the late 19th century.  They also made
sure that the new unions formed from the 1880s onwards fitted within
their mold and adhered to their ideals.  Basically, what they wanted was
to be the sellers of labour power to the bosses.  The whole structure
and politics of British trade unionism reflects this origin.  It  was
only when the legal and financial position of the unions were threatened
at the end of the 19th century that they developed any interest in
getting labour MPs elected, and then only to change the law to protect
their position.  Unlike parties in other countries, the British Labour
Party was not formed by a working class struggling for reforms, rather
it was formed by a union bureaucracy keen to defend its (privileged) in
society and to gain a position as broker of labour.  

It was on this basis that they entered the coalition to win World War
One, and at the same time condemned themselves to being on the side of
the state and capital against the working class.  Now, in 1997, the
unions are firmly established as junior partners in the exploitation of
labour and are hoping with the return of Labour to be able to regain
their position as junior partners in the state itself.

The class-for-itself, on the other hand, is the product of the class
involved in struggle.  And every time we have witnessed the class
struggling for itself we have seen the creation of alternative organs of
struggle and power.  These manifested themselves as first soviets in
Russia then as factory committees, workers councils in Germany and have
been repeated every time the class has arisen against its  masters. 
They stand as the antithesis of trade unions.  They have united workers
across sectors, rather than dividing them.  They have been organs of
struggle against capital and the state - and as such have been
ruthlessly smashed by the ruling class in every instance.  Workers
active in these councils in Germany were perhaps the clearest in their
understanding as to what they were doing, for they saw the SPD and the
unions as part of the enemy, to be smashed by the class, not supported.

When the class-for-itself comes into being again we can be quite sure
that inclusive organs of power will be created.   Quite what form they
will take has yet to be seen.

I would also like to posit a third category.  The class-in-the
process-of-becoming-for-itself.  This has manifested itself repeatedly
over the years, in labour disputes, riots, militant action against
capital’s encroachment on our daily life.  In these cases the actions
have also been outside the control of the unions and against the various
parties of capital calling themselves Labour of socialist.
Given all this, it is quite unacceptable to go round telling our fellow
workers to vote labour or whatever.  Labour is simply a party of
capital, nothing more.  It just happens to have some members who happen
to be working class.  It can hardly even claim to be a reformist party
any more (inasmuch as reformism was initially proposed as an
alternative, peaceful and piecemeal road to socialism).  If you are in
doubt, just have a look at what they’ve done in their few weeks in
power!  Made a lot of libertarian sounding noises and freed the Bank of
England to regulate interest rates - in a country where 70% of the
population have mortgages - which means a hell of a lot of workers are
in for a real wage cut as a result!

At any rate, most workers know labour isn’t their party.  The vote in
the ‘safe’ labour constituencies was laughably low.  Those that did vote
did so because they hate the Tories and wanted to see the smiles wiped
off their faces.

Harry Roberts



-----------------------------------------------------------
Subversion Home Page (including Labouring in Vain, Why Labour is Not a
Socialist Party) and texts on the German Revolution 1918-1923.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8195
-------------------------------------------------------------------------



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---