From: "Marcus Strom" <MSTROM-AT-nswtf.org.au>
Date:          Wed, 6 Mar 1996 16:28:13 GMT+10
Subject:       Labo(u)r Parties in Aust & UK (was Conservatives win Australian 


Following a question from Carlos.

There are structural differences between the ALP and the BLP. 
However, in contrast to the development of other social democratic 
parties in the world, they had very similar origins.

In countries such as Germany, the social democratic parties were 
formed as explicit political parties of the working class. They went 
on to form the trade unions.

In the UK and Australia, it was the trade unions which formed the 
Labor Parties. The ALP was formed in 1891 as an electoral league as 
did the BLP in 1906 (?). They arose out of the defeats the working 
class suffered in the 1890s - the limitations of economism 'pure and 
simple'.

In the US, the American Federation of Labor, under Sam Gompers, was 
relatively more successful in what Gompers called 'pure and simple' 
unionism. Gompers rejected any political activity for workers and 
instead wanted to rely on the 'pure' economic strength of the working 
class through economic organisation.

The defeats of the shearers in Australia and the dockers and others 
led to the formation of the ALP.  From the beginning, the Labour 
parties in Britain and Australia allowed affiliation of the trade 
unions. The communist parties used attempts at affiliation to the LPs 
in the 1920s as tactic. In the 1940s in the Australian state of New 
South Wales (which Sydney is capital of), the CPA actually took over 
the NSW branch of the ALP.

To my knowledge, the national conference structures of the two Labour 
parties remained quite similar until BLP John Smith's omov (one man one 
vote) which was finished by Blair. This has moved out the unions 
influence in the BLP.

So, here is the irony. Carlos seems to have picked up a difference 
between british comrades and australian comrades on this list. I 
think he sees that some of the british comrades see voting labour as 
more of an act of class consciousness than some of us australians.

However, there is a more *formal* link between the ALP and the 
working class than the BLP. Why this seeming paradox?

Well, partly, I believe it is because we have had 13 years of labour 
government in Australia - in britain there has been 17 years of 
conservative government. There is some expectation that the BLP 
'couldn't be as bad as the tories'.

In Australia, the working class has been under similar attacks that 
the rest of our class has been under in other OECD countries, 
including Britain. The form may differ from country to country, but 
the essence is very similar.

The other difference is that there is a much stronger tailing of 
labourism in britain than in Australia. If we compare the programs of 
the Communist Parties of Australia and Great Britain in the 1950s, we 
can see that the British Road to Socialism sees the election of a 
'socialist' BLP is the linch pin of socialism in Britain. The CPA had 
more of a left centrist program - and in the late 40s was openly 
moving to a revolutionary position.

The history of trotskyism in Britain is far, far stronger than in 
Australia. There has been no real trotskyist presence in Australia 
apart from a few isolated pockets here and there. The trotskyists 
overwhelmingly had entrist tactics toward the BLP in britain.

So, in short, there is an irony and a paradox in all this. Whereas 
the formal structures of the BLP and ALP have been similar from 
similar roots, in this period, the ALP has closer ties to the labour 
movement than the BLP. Yet it seems that the revolutionary left in 
Britain has a tendency to to tail labour more, to see a vote for 
labour as a class conscious vote.

I think that this is due to three factors. 

1) In australia, we have had 13 years of very right wing labour. In 
Britain, 17 years of tories make anything *seem* better.

2) The old CPGB was more right centrist than the CPA. The election of 
a 'socialist' BLP was central to the old CPGBs program (which sounds 
exactly like Militant's program).

3) Britain has had a much stronger trotskyist history in the 
revolutionary left. Trotskyists *tend* to see class consciousness in 
quite spontaneous terms (read Lukacs - toward a methodology on the 
problem of organisation).

So for me, it is a question of program. I just think that most of the 
British comrades who have commented on this (from SWP and Militant) 
have an erronous program on the role of labourism. The irony is that 
the ALP has more ties to the labour movement now than the BLP.

Marcus



> 
>     Different people in this thread got me confused.  When they
>     talk about voting Labour as an act of class conscioussness
>     sounds to me they are two different interpretations: whether
>     who speaks about this is British or Australian.
> 
>     I understand that there are structural differences between
>     the british LP and the Australian LP.  Is this true? and if it
>     is true, what are the differences?
> 
>     Comradely,
>     cARLOS
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 


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

     ------------------