Re: "Third way is dead"

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09/01/02 20:20 -0500, you wrote:
> Chris Burford wrote:
>
> > Rather rambling article from a political commentator, Polly Toynbee,
> > who  usually has her ear very much to the ground of New Labour and is
> > probably correct about this too:
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,629668,00.html
> >
> > The central content of the article is that New Labour's electoral
> > successes have indeed shifted the centre of gravity of politics in Britain.
> >
> > Best evidence of this is that yesterday, amazingly, the Conservative
> > Party came out in favour of "the neighbourly society" - poor Margaret
> > Thatcher, who thought there was no such thing as society.
>
> Yeah, but Blair still wants to privatize the London Underground, no? Seems
> to me that Sir Alan Walters was right, when he said that Mrs T's most
> lasting achievement was the transformation of the Labour Party.
>
> Doug



In one sense that it true. Thatcher inflicted such a crippling defeat on
Labour that Labour had to shift position or die.

New Labour has now done this to the Conservatives who face a very real
possibility of becoming a little England party, populist in a reactive way
with snobbish people but with no credibility in the eyes of finance
capital. Although Thatcher's preferred candidate Ian Duncan-Smith won the
election for leader, he has quietly been reducing the focus on hostility to
the euro. His shadow ministers have announced tectonic shifts in British
politics: they are not against tax increases for state welfare, and they
are in favour of society.

As far as New Labour is concerned it continues to grate against the very
strong tradition of ethical socialism in Britain, based on the
non-conformist churches. I think New Labour remains dedicated in its
conscientious opportunism to be guided always by what will help it remain
dominant in public opinion.

Nevertheless within those severe constraints, and although New Labour will
do nothing to offend finance capital, it thinks in terms of managing the
whole society, consumers, market, capital, and therefore has a certain
willingness to introduce subtle reformist reforms which may slightly
promote social production guided by social foresight. New Labour ministers
were probably significantly influenced by Marxism Today, eurocommunist
publication of the 80's, which was systematically opportunist in its
efforts to think how to capture a Gramscian ideological hegemony. New
Labour has succeeded in that however distastefully, which now allows it a
small degree of space to make some shifts.

On the specific issue you raise of privatisation of the London Underground
they appear to have waited for public opinion to be disillusioned with
privatisation of overland trains, and the rail disasters, and are seeking
some sort of renationalisation of Railtrack into a not-for-profit-company.
So typically they are probably trying to move the debate on by reframing
the questions to blur any conflict between the longer terms interests of
finance capital and those of social foresight.

But yes, no ethical socialist has any prospect of voting New Labour with a
clear conscience, and should not begin to attempt to do so.

Nevertheless Polly Toynbee, scourge of the idealist left, is probably
correct that a shift has occurred. And as a scourge of the idealist left,
she is an interest source for such a view.

Chris Burford

London