Monday, October 31, 2011

You, Me and the ILP

Independent Labour Publications (ILP) is an educational trust, publishing house and pressure group committed to democratic socialism and the success of a democratic socialist Labour Party. The ILP was formed in 1893 as the Independent Labour Party (by Keir Hardie and others - his portrait appears above), which then became a co-founder of the Labour Party at the beginning of the 20th century.

Today it remains committed to Labour's aim of creating 'a society for the many, not the few' and seeks to engage with others in discussing how this vision can be turned into reality.

The statement below was drafted by the ILP’s National Administrative Council and received broad endorsement from ILP members and Friends at the ILP Weekend School in Scarborough on 7/8 May 2011. I was one of those present at Scarborough and the statement expresses an approach to politics which I share.

You can contact the ILP at welcome contributions to their website as well as comments on the articles they post. If you’d like to contribute please send submissions or ideas for articles to

The ILP: Our Politics

The ILP comes from a long tradition of organisations on the left of the political spectrum that have sought collective solutions to the inequalities and destructiveness caused by capitalism. We seek to continue that tradition today, to extend cooperative solutions to human problems by democratic means.

In seeking social justice and equality, a broader and deeper democracy, and more co-operative and mutually supportive ways of living, we set our sights high. We believe it is possible to improve the quality of life for many, not just the few; that a humane society is possible. We want to widen the recognition that human society is based upon our interdependence. We are not isolated individuals, communities or states but mutually dependent on each other for our futures.

But in aiming to create a good society, the left faces challenges as formidable today as at any time in its history. We recognise that we are embarking on a lengthy journey.

Ours is a damaged society where political disenchantment is tangible – and quite understandable. Both at home and globally, too many lives are governed and wasted by poverty, inequality and deprivation, or by fear and insecurity, or bigotry. While many are governed by the mindless pursuit of materialism, others turn to religious or nationalistic zealotry. None of this is simply due to fate. Instead it is the outcome of how our world is organised, a product, ultimately, of political choices.

We cannot embark on this journey too soon. Humanity is approaching a crossroads. The actions taken and the choices made in the coming years are likely to be of great significance not only to us but to future generations. To create a sustainable society will, of necessity, demand curbing and controlling those forces that propel us towards environmental catastrophe. It will be vital to overcome the sense of powerlessness that so many people feel, both in their own lives and about the wider world, not least because it can lead to desperate and destructive reactions, political and personal.

Broad political and moral movements for change are key elements in this process. But we also need a progressive political party or parties to enact wide-ranging reforms, and progress will depend on alliances and sometimes tensions between these two. Incremental gains along the way can highlight both what is possible and how people can become part of a process of change.

The context

Writing about contemporary western society, the historian Tony Judt sums up his view this way: “Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue of the pursuit of material self-interest; indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes what remains of our collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea of what they are worth…”

“Much of what seems ‘natural’ today,” he says, “dates from the 1980s: the obsession with wealth creation, the cult of privatization and the private sector, the growing disparities of rich and poor. And above all, the rhetoric which accompanies these: uncritical admiration for unfettered markets, disdain for the public sector, the delusion of endless growth.”

His comments are particularly applicable to Britain today. We face a Conservative-led coalition government which, in flagrant disregard for its election pledges, is hell bent on a brutal programme of public sector cuts. It combines this with promises to build the ‘big society’ and to ‘free’ people from the state. It doesn’t promise freedom from the market. Indeed, the government hopes the private sector will be able to mop up the large numbers made unemployed by the cuts. The poor, women in particular, public sector workers and students form the new front line in the coming conflicts over cuts.

But this programme of attacks on public, collective provision has not come out of the blue. Rather, it continues more than three decades in which the free market has been promoted over state intervention. After 1979, the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher embarked on a programme of radical change, restructuring the post-war welfare state, diminishing the power of working people, and expanding free enterprise, in particular by loosening controls over banking and finance.

The new Labour project was the product of successive election defeats and the deep desire of many to get the Tories out of office, regardless of the political cost to traditional left politics. To win power in 1997, Labour largely accommodated itself to this neo-liberal framework. While committed to some redistribution of wealth, it relied on taxes from a deregulated and rampant financial service sector to fund the expansion of state expenditure. Labour often devalued the public sector even while it further centralised state power. It continued down the path of privatisation, creating markets within public services on an unprecedented scale. Yet, after promising ‘no return to boom or bust’, the Labour government used the state to bale out the banking and financial sectors when economic meltdown was imminent.

Despite the use of taxpayers’ money and despite the crisis, the Labour government, and the left more generally, failed to present a credible narrative for progressive change. Instead, new Labour paved the way for many of the Tory policies that are now unfolding – in the economy, in the NHS and in education. The result is a Tory-led government intent on the wholesale subordination of public provision to the market and private sector.

Capitalism, markets and democracy

This Tory programme reinforces the natural tendencies within capitalism. For ours is a capitalist society and the logic of capitalism is to turn everything into commodities to be bought and sold in the market. It is a system that violates our humanity and the environment; it devalues and debases human beings and social life. Unregulated, it destroys all in the pursuit of material gain, whether families or forests. While we recognise the historic advances in human development brought, to some, by capitalist development, in terms of life expectancy and material well-being, we also recognise that these come at a colossal price, paid in inequality, social upheaval, political oppression and environmental destruction.

More recently, we have seen the ruin that modern banking and finance leave in their wake, leaving others who can ill-afford it to pay a huge price for decades to come. This should not come as a surprise. By their very nature, unfettered market forces lead to excess, encouraging greed and selfishness at the expense of others, putting possessive individualism before collective endeavour. Capitalism corrodes and corrupts, eating away at our social fabric.

The basic character of capitalism cannot change. It is defined by the pursuit of profit at the expense of collective social needs. Its agents will always balk at ‘red tape’ and attempts to restrict their freedom of action. They will always complain of ruination when they do not get their way, as the employers did in the 19th century when the long working day was restricted. They will always threaten to up sticks and find places where their actions can go unchecked. They will always seek to exploit cheap labour across the globe, and to divide and rule, and use their vast resources to cut corners and bypass democracy. They will always seek to avoid paying taxes.

Markets can be very creative but they have a destructive, dark side. Markets in the capitalist economy are capable of doing great damage because, put simply, people are subordinated to the pursuit of profit.

Moreover, there is a fundamental conflict between capitalism and democratic society. Never has this been more obvious than in the wake of the financial crisis. Despite colossal bale-outs by democratic governments and the enormous human costs of the crisis, our political options are still subordinated to the interests of the bankers. As Doreen Massey wrote: “The judgement of ‘the markets’ hangs over everything, setting the parameters within which political debate can operate.”

Having said this, we do accept that markets in some shape or form are necessary to how a democratic society operates – the evidence of Communist societies in the 20th century suggests as much. But a more democratic society would subordinate markets to the collective, democratic interests of the country; in our society, it is democracy that is subordinated.

The conditions in which markets are allowed to operate should always be closely monitored and carefully regulated. In some social democratic systems – in Scandinavian countries and some other western European countries at various times – restrictions on markets have delivered real benefits such as reduced inequality, greater social provision and fairer distributions of wealth and opportunity. They show some of the direction in which we want to move, not a utopian end point. But these gains are always fragile and are easily undermined, especially at times of economic crisis. They require more active support and defence than top-down social democratic systems have typically encouraged.

Some areas of life should be removed from the influences of private profit entirely – health, education and public transport, for example. In part, this means defending the role of the state in regulating the market, redistributing resources, coordinating public services and ensuring the needs of all members of a community are met.

The Tories characterise the state as overbearing, all-powerful and interfering – and at times parts of the public sector have been too inflexible and unresponsive to people’s needs. But the state in a democratic society is the means by which we collectively provide for our needs, and those of each other, out of our common wealth. It is our protection against the free market.

Yet the Tories’ goal is to marketise the public sector and shrink the state. We need vigilance and a democratic culture to counter their destructive aims and the destructive tendencies of free markets. This will have to be undertaken at several levels – locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. It will also involve more democratic, co-operative ways of organising business and production.

In fact, while capitalism exists, a struggle has to continue. The battle may ebb and flow in different directions. This is why it is vital movements and progressive parties counter capitalist values with social values based on human relationships and a respect for the natural world. Of course this is not to deny that we also need vigilance and a democratic culture to prevent excesses by the state.

Our recent history has seen us move in the wrong direction, creating in the words of Paul Mason, BBC economics editor, an “abrasive, selfish, unequal society”. Indeed, as the academic Edward Skidelsky wrote, “…economics and its jargon have penetrated every corner of social life… Doctors, priests and scientists are lumped together as ‘service providers’ … school teachers are urged to ‘add value’ to their pupils’…” And as the centre-left group Compass pointed out, even childhood has become commodified. The current attacks on public provision will, according to academic John Gray, “leave people more exposed to the turbulence of world markets than they have been for generations. Inevitably they will seek protection.” We agree and believe it is time to change direction.

Political parties and Labour’s role

The ILP started life as a political party in 1893 as a reaction to harsh working conditions and the widespread poverty that unregulated capitalism brought to Britain. The perspective of the ILP has inevitably changed and developed as the world about us has changed and developed, but our essential humanitarian concerns have remained. We hold fast to the ethics and principles relating to care and compassion, fellowship and fraternity, mutuality and cooperation, social, political and economic equity, and democracy, which constitute the foundation of our politics.

We believe there is a need for a plurality of political movements, experiments in alternative ways of organising society, and for cooperative and democratic businesses. Indeed, it is to be hoped that protests against the current cuts will galvanise into a broad movement. But we also recognise that there is a continuing need for political parties.

Sooner or later any campaign or movement for change in society has to deal with the process of government, how collective decisions, whether national or local, are made and upheld. Actions by national governments have a vital and potentially crucial role in addressing many of the problems we face, whether nationally or, by acting collectively, internationally.

In Britain, that means we have to engage with the Labour Party. While many on the left wish to avoid the Labour Party, to denounce or live outside it, we think this is a cul-de-sac. Any attempt to progress radical change will have to go through a social democratic agency.

However, we have no illusions about the current political and organisational state of the party, about the corrosive effects of new Labour’s dominance over 16 years. Now is a time for the Labour Party to reflect upon its record in office, to see whether it can present a credible narrative for progressive change. It has a long distance to travel to win back public trust. There is much debate in and around the party, by the left and centre-left, which is showing clear signs of creative thinking about how the party and its politics might be transformed for the better.

We see ourselves as part of that process. We want to encourage Labour to reinvent itself as a more radical party, to democratise itself and to make party membership matter in ways that it has not done for decades. However, unlike many on the centre-left, we are sceptical of the notion that there is a ready-made progressive majority in the country waiting to be led. Unfortunately, we have further to go than that – the foundations of a progressive majority still have to be built.

The extent to which Labour’s politics can become imaginatively social democratic will therefore depend on the forces and movements that align with it, with the political space that they can create for Labour to become more radical and yet electable. It also means that Labour has to do its part – defending, supporting and encouraging those involved in campaigns up and down the country, and leading them too. The challenge this presents should not be underestimated, but it has to be faced.

The future left

It should be said that the left bears much of the responsibility for its failure to offer a credible politics for our times. True, it has faced a barrage of opposition from various vested interests, not least in the media. But it is also true that while it has fought many a good fight, it has not been at its best when offering pathways to a better society.

Many have abandoned any hope of a changed world and surrendered to the the politics of the present and the next election. Others promise a glorious dawn in some unimaginable future with no sense of how to get there. Between them, we need to find ways to be both practical and visionary at the same time.

Our political actions must also uphold the principles by which we stand. We believe that the character, actions and morality of political movements prefigure the change they will create. Social movements are a vital component of securing change but they have an obligation to act with morality, honesty and self-criticism.

The weakness of the left, and the dominance of market values today, means any progressive change in the short term will be hard won. But in lessening social inequalities, we may see a range of social improvements in society, in health, social solidarity, and general well-being. It will never be perfect, however. There will always be arguments and conflicts and, in a society based on democracy, that is absolutely necessary. The imposition of harmony from above is the road to dictatorship and not one we should ever contemplate. While people deserve respect, no-one and no organisation is above criticism.

Living democracy is a lively business; controlling capital is a constant process. One thing is certain, if we look at the world as it is then we can surely do better than this. We should certainly try to. And, along the way, perhaps we can rebuild the kind of movement which, as well as fighting for a better world, conveys the collective joy, humour and warmth which helped sustain earlier generations of socialists.


Robert said...

Tell me about it being disabled and I'm sick and tired of being asked oh yea your disabled how, you then tell them actually I'm paraplegic and they say, so you say.

The country never mind the world has changed hence I walked away from labour, this week I had my political levy changed to a charity, and it's no good labour asking me to be an associated member, and my Union stated i was not the only one, seems labour has annoyed Union members as well.

Harry Barnes said...

Robert : I am sorry to read about your difficulties and your disillusionment with the Labour Party. You will see from this blog and from my contributions on "Dronfield Blather" that I have also been highly critical of its activities for some time. In particular, you may have seen my criticism of Peter Hain. It is one reason why I like the ILP's perspective which appears on this thread. It does not talk of blind support for Labour, but of engaging with it in an attempt to shift its stance in a democratic socialist direction. That has always been my approach.

Harry Barnes said...

The following is from JON WILLIAMS

"Harry this is a very insightful article that will hopefully add to discussions ongoing at local / regional levels in the Labour Party and perhaps also at a national level.

You mention a society “for the many, not the few” perhaps these few words sum up where the ILP and other Labour affiliated parties, such as Cooperative Party, have policies based around these words, whereas the Labour Party has drifted away from this position. It was in Government in an effort to keep the financial industry supportive of its policies they moved “from the many to the few”. A laissez faire attitude to market regulation led to unsustainable money leading and mountains of debt which couldn’t be repaid.

The Capitalist mindset is “still” pre 2008 Credit Crunch. They have an overriding belief in making a profit while neglecting the wider community it operates in. All other collective democratic forms of wealth creation are neglected by Labour for fear of media / establishment attacks. The present Government is now under the cover of cuts privatising what’s left of the public sector.

There are many principles and words that have been used by the Labour movement to introduce numerous improvements in the UK e.g. health, education, transport, workers rights and reductions in social inequalities. How ideas are turned into actions starts by selecting the correct language for our current economic and cultural circumstances. History tells us what happens when the political classes stop listening. The electorate have long memories, but don’t remember specific details of why certain activities happened. One that still today produces negative reactions from the general public today is the “winter of discontent” in 1979. Trade union language and action forever will be thought of being overly mighty and answerable only to themselves. Even if the unions aims rightly were to gain support and fight for workers rights and a better family life. The general public were an afterthought. Unfortunately their actions lead to Thatcher’s individual / selfish society, privatisation and market de-regulation. Labour’s language has to reflect, be perceived and be understood by voters to offer more than just a return to past successful times. Language matters.

Capitalism needs more input / cooperation from all participants in the process of wealth generation, including workers at the lowest level of a business, if it is to continue as our economic system. It will need more transparency, be more accountable and be open to scrutiny. The Labour party needs to build a consensus to create the “Good Society” and in doing so creates a good working atmosphere during this process.

Jon Williams"

Harry Barnes said...

Jon, you make a very telling contribution. The phrase "for the many, not the few" is taken from Clause 4 of the Labour Party Constitution as amended shortly after Tony Blair became Leader. In itself it is a fine idea and is well used by the ILP. Unfortunately, the amended Clause 4 then went on to undermine and contradict this principle by advocating a "Dynamic Economy" based on "the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition". The ILP's position and my own run counter to that provision. So we are being highly selective about the Clause.

Harry Barnes said...

The comment below is from DEREK EASTHAM.

We are at a political cross-roads in this country and maybe the World. I believe that those "left of centre" in Britain are in a majority but with no "tent" to gather under. There have been futile attempts to unite the left, but existing organisations are too fragmented and inward looking. The Labour Party is clearly not the vehicle through which the socialist alternative can be channelled and articulated. My reading of the history of the Independent Labour Party is one of an organisation whose reason for existence eventually became obsolete at a particular point in history. The current ILP is the inheritor of that fine tradition. Without a standard to rally to (forgive the military connotation) do you consider that there is any possibility that Independent Labour Publications could return to its roots and become once again the Independent Labour Party? Then we "Old Labour", can once again find a home, along with the new generation of radical thinkers and activists. The young need to be the vanguard of the change in society which clearly needs to come. Many radical young people have only a sketchy concept of the rights they enjoy and how they were won by the Trade Union movement and grass roots Labour organisations. Keir Hardie and others started this process in Bradford in 1893 and it may be back there that we can find fraternity and a new identity. "We cannot know where we are if we do not know where we have come from".

Harry Barnes said...


The ILP made a huge mistake in disaffiliating from the Labour Party in 1932. It then went into rapid decline, except for a period in Glasgow. The last ILP MP to be elected was in a Glasgow By-Election in 1946 - 67 years ago. No-one was elected afterwards and in the last five general elections before they turned themselves into a publications organisation, they could only muster the following number of candidates - 1964 - Zero, 1966 - 1, 1970 -1, Feb 1974 -1, Oct 1974 - Zero. They became a publications organisation in 1975 and I then became involved with them. There seems to me to be a serious warning from their experiences from 1932 to 1974, about not trying to act as a Political Party.

They seemed to me to have talked a great deal of sense in 1975 and have continued to do so since then. Their above statement seems to fit this bill. It in no way falls in line with the general stance and operations of today's Labour Party. It does, however, call for a need to "engage" with the Labour Party and to avoid the cul-de-sac of setting up party political opposition to it.

I believe in working inside, upon and outside of Labour Party to help build a "left of centre" majority. But given the nature of the media, the general lack of political education, the dominance of individualistic values, divisions in society over differing group identities and the mind controls of capitalism; I think that we have a long way to go to achieve a majority that is sympathetic to democratic socialist values. Far from this meaning that we should fall in line with the current dominent Labour mindset, I believe that we have to work to change it.

Harry Barnes said...

The following is from BARRY WINTER of the ILP -

"My thanks to Harry for publicising the ILP’s statement, Our Politics, and to those who have responded.

What is interesting in these turbulent times is the constructive way that many are critically reassessing the movement’s history and, not least, the role of the ILP. Jon Cruddas MP is one example, as his recent work on George Lansbury and Clem Attlee indicate. Following the era of New Labour, when our histories were consigned to the rubbish bin, this is good news. David Miliband apparently disagrees having said recently that there is too much focus upon our history.

I hope he reconsiders. We really do need to reconnect with past struggles and to the men and women who contributed to them, not out of nostalgia but to learn. This should always be about debating our history rather than about accepting holy texts. One thing is for sure, we do need to reinvigorate left politics with both a sense of fraternity and, dare I say, fun.

One of the lessons that I would suggest is that the Labour Party can only advance when wider movements create the political space for change. The 1945 Labour government was responding to a movement that rejected any idea of returning to the 1930s. Today, we can see the emergence of a splendid variety of movements – Occupy, 38 Degrees, UKUncut – whose pioneering initiatives and criticisms of finance capitalism are gaining wider resonance. It is good to see that the party leadership is responding positively. Of course, it is too soon to see how this will progress but it is a useful development.

Anyone interested in these ideas might like to look at the ILP website:

Here you can also read the material by Jon Cruddas. In addition, we are reviewing our history online and would invite your comments.

Barry Winter