ISO: 'sheepdog for the ALP'

Why is Labor so rightwing?
By David Glanz
A Socialist Worker pamphlet
Published by Bookmarks Australia, 34pp $3
Reviewed by Ray Fulcher With the federal and some state elections drawing nearer, it is important to clarify the question of what sort of support socialist and progressive should give to the ALP. The attitude of some on the left towards the ALP — and what that means in action — has often been based more on schemas than a Marxist analysis. Why is Labor so rightwing? continues in that tradition. None the less it will be a useful contribution if it helps the socialist and progressive movements clarify their orientation to the ALP. Glanz serves up the ISO's tired, old "dual nature" thesis that the ALP is both a bosses' and workers' party — a "bourgeois workers' party". Yet, it is clear from the brief history of the ALP that it is, and always has been, a capitalist party. These include James Scullin's attempts to help the bosses through the Great Depression, Ben Chifley's use of troops against coal miners in 1949, Gough Whitlam's betrayal of East Timor and the current federal ALP government's smothering of workers' aspirations under the Accord. But Glanz pardons the sins of the ALP with the incantation that the party is "based on mass working class support". It's unclear exactly what Glanz means by this, but he points to two indices: working class voting patterns and the ALP's union connections. Glanz is careful not to argue that great majority of workers actually belong to the ALP. As he observes of ALP membership: "In both absolute numbers, and in proportional involvement, Labor has lost much of its working class base". What then of Glanz's two indicators? Glanz provides some interesting data which, he says, shows that "by and large" workers continue to vote ALP. He says that "working class Sydney areas" have voted at, or above, 60% Labor on five occasions over 1949-90. He avoids mentioning other federal electoral results, but notes that electoral support for Labor has fallen over the Hawke/Keating years. This is supported by a recent Bulletin poll which showed that lower income earners supported the Coalition (52%) ahead of Labor (48%). According to Glanz, the 1993 federal elections showed that workers see voting "as a way of defending their class interests", and do so by voting Labor. That's partly true, but workers in Victoria also sought to protect themselves from the ALP by voting for Kennett in 1992. And, as Glanz points out, 70% of state public sector union members in Queensland sought to defend their "class interests" against the Goss Labor government by voting for the Coalition last year. The same Bulletin poll showed that 60% of low income earners intending to vote Coalition at the next election would do so as a protest against Labor, citing among their reasons the ALP's broken promises and lack of help to workers. This is what happens when workers are forced to choose between two capitalist parties; they alternate between whichever party they believe to be the lesser evil at the time. The other pillar of working class support for the ALP is, according to Glanz, trade union affiliation. His thesis is that as the unions control 60% of votes at ALP conferences and are vital to ALP funding, the ALP is therefore based on "mass working class support". There is no doubt that socialists need to take account of union involvement in the ALP when deciding their orientation to the party. The 60% of votes at conference are almost entirely held by trade union officials, the overwhelming majority of which are bureaucrats who police the ALP's class collaborationist Accord. At best, this is a very indirect road to the rank and file. It would be more accurate to say that the ALP is "based on" the trade union bureaucracy. But in the final analysis the question of whether the ALP does or does not have significant "support" amongst workers is not crucial in determining its class character. For Marxists, a political party cannot have a "dual nature", that is be a party representing more than one class. A party's nature is determined by which class the party's program, policy and actions supports, rather than by which class supports the party at any particular time. By this criteria the ALP is a bourgeois party due to its unstinting support for the interests of the capitalist class above those of the workers. That still leaves the question of what to do about workers who still have illusions in the ALP. Glanz looks to Lenin to solve this problem, and quotes a passage from the early 1920s: "British Communists very often find it hard even to approach the masses, and even to get a hearing from them. If I come out as a Communist and call upon them to vote for Henderson (Labour) and against Lloyd George (Liberal), they will certainly give me a hearing. And I shall be able to explain ... why the Soviets (workers' councils) are better than Parliament." But quoting Lenin isn't enough, you also have to understand him. Glanz interprets Lenin's tactical injunction to get a hearing from workers as a requirement that socialists, for all time, must support Labor and urge workers to do likewise. It's not enough to recognise that workers have illusions in Labor. Socialists must assess the depth and breadth of those illusions at any particular time, and find the best tactical approach and language to get a hearing for socialism from workers. This is the essence of Lenin's method. While Glanz points to the massive disillusionment in, and abandonment of, Labor since 1983 he would have us approach workers in the 1990s as though they had the same consciousness as workers did in the 1920s. Where does this schematism lead to? In a section headed "The Green-Independent trap", Glanz opposes any break with Labor in the electoral sphere. He even goes as far as to say, "The vast majority of workers rightly look to Labor as the electoral alternative to the Liberals" (emphasis added). Glanz contends that the electoral field of struggle, a time he acknowledges when "people take an extra interest in political questions", should be surrendered to the parties of capital. While he is making a specific point about elections here, this schematism extends to the extra-parliamentary arena where the ISO is opposed to the unions and mass social movements making a left break from Labor. Following the logic of his ALP schema, Glanz castigates the various Green parties and Independents for adapting to parliamentarism. One glaring omission from Why is Labor so rightwing? is its failure to canvass what attitude socialists and progressives should take to an election campaign which aims to popularise socialist ideas and win workers away from Labor to a "socialist alternative based on militant struggle" such the one currently being run by the Democratic Socialists'. Why is Labor so rightwing? fails as a useful critique of the ALP, and therefore as a guide to action for class conscious workers. The only role this pamphlet will play is as a sheepdog for the ALP — rounding up the strays and herding them back to the flock.