Labour, the left, and capitalism: an interview with Harry Barnes

Harry Barnes was the Labour Party MP for  North East Derbyshire from 1987 to 2005. Since his 70th birthday he has been blogging at Three Score Years And Ten. Harry has kindly taken the time to answer our questions via email. Questions and answers below.

________________________________________________

ILW: I believe during your early years in the Labour Party you counted yourself among the Bevanites. What was it about Nye Bevan that influenced you, and could you tell us a little about how your political outlook has developed since those times?

Harry Barnes: Although I was only a schoolboy at the time, I had some awareness of the achievements of the post-war Labour Government in establishing a welfare state with a National Health Service, full employment and  a mixed economy that was replacing a pre-war exploitive free enterprise system by introducing elements of public ownership – although during the second world war forms of what was called “war socialism” had operated. This post-war legislation was particularly important for the coal mining community in which I lived. Nye Bevan played a key role in these developments in his position as Minister of Health. An argument then developed in the Labour Party between those who wished to consolidate what had been achieved and those who wished to move forward believing that unless this was done then capitalism would just find its way around what had then been done. It was the latter view as expressed by Bevan which appealed to me. I saw him as being both a democrat and a socialist; a combination which has always seemed to me to be essential.

I came, however, to feel that Bevan’s democratic views needed to be expanded upon. He essentially argued that the vote gave people democracy, so if parliament nationalised industries then that gave the people ultimate control. Each stage of the argument increasingly seemed to me to have weaknesses. Yet it needs to be appreciated that enfranchisement was a considerable development and a full franchise had only been established in the United Kingdom in 1928. But without ever becoming a syndicalist, by the time I joined the Labour Party in 1957 I felt that publicly owned industries should be subject to elements of both worker control and greater parliamentary surveillance. For I was also influenced by the ideas of writers such as GDH Cole, who had started out by seeking to marry together syndicalist and parliamentary ideas in his concept of Guild Socialism.

Massive changes have, of course, occurred since the late 1950s, including the influences of consumerism, the increasing speed of technological change, privatisation, globalisation and the break-up of closely knit communities. These changes make Bevanism dated in many ways. But what I draw from Bevan is that he did not favour dogmatic blueprints, yet   looked to further democracy, social equality and the public control of the commanding heights of the economy. So although the description is dated, I prefer to be seen as being in the Bevanite tradition rather than being designated as someone in the Bennite tradition. Some of my reasons for being critical of aspects of Bennism are expressed here.

 

ILW: In more general terms, do you feel that  there are intrinsic contradictions between social-democratic goals and capitalist forms of socio-economic organisation?

Harry Barnes: New Labour attempted  to combine moves towards social justice with the freedoms of a dynamic capitalist system. I never believed that this could function in any feasible way for long. Social equality, co-operation and participatory democracy require very different socio-economic arrangements. Unfortunately when Blair became leader, the Tribunite  “soft-left” which had come out of a more solid Bevanite tradition mainly sold out to New Labour. So I was driven into the small enclave of activism in the Socialist Campaign Group, although I often had disagreements with aspects of their generally perceived public stance. This was especially the case on Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Gerry Adams’ articles were published in “Campaign Group News” as if they were the Group’s policy, yet my perspective seeking to get the Catholic and Protestant working class to advance their common interests were relegated to a “Points of View” column as if I was the outsider.

The dilemma democratic socialists face in the modern world was well expressed by the late Royden Harrison. He said that the objective circumstances in the world for the establishment of socialism have never been better, but the subjective circumstances have never been worse. These helpful objective circumstances include rapid communications, the easy collating of data, the spread of technological skills, high level productive techniques and the ability of ranges of people to mix and intermingle. The harmful subjective circumstances are the interests and values which dominate too many people’s minds; including racism, sexism, acquisitiveness, extreme and competing value systems, plus feelings of group superiority. This does not make the move to democratic socialism an impossibility, but it does mean that there is no simple formula for its advance.

  

ILW: Ideological and tactical differences are well known between the so called ‘revolutionary’ and ‘social-democratic’ left – what is your view on these divides and how can people on the left best work towards left unity?

Harry Barnes: The revolutionary left seem to me to exhibit two main flaws. First, they believe we will  follow them if only they can get the chance to be heard, thereby allowing the scales to fall from our eyes. Secondly, real revolutions have to contend with the ghosts of Robespierre and Stalin. This is even a problem for the followers of Trotsky.

The revolutionary left criticize democratic socialists for comprise and sell-outs to capitalist forces. But as Lenin pointed out (but did not always practice) there is a clear distinction between a compromise forced upon socialists by objective circumstances and a sell-out. There is, however, a persistent need to check that the former isn’t leading to the latter.

However, It seems to me that the socialist revolutionary has the edge in clandestine struggles to overturn totalitarian dictatorships. Whilst the democratic socialist has the edge in regimes with established democratic institutions. What is needed after a revolutionary   turnover of an oppressive regime, is for socialists to be involved with those seeking to establish civil liberties and democracy; whilst in democratic systems (which all still have serious democratic failings) forms of revolutionary back-bone are needed by those mainstream groups who see themselves as being, at least, labourite.

As there is a need to tac and manoeuvre between revolutionary and reformist methods in changing circumstances it would be helpful if the people in both camps could engage in a civilised dialogue. The problem in joining together to do this is that one side will tend to seek to take over the running of any body they establish. But this does not rule out meeting for purposes of mutual political education. It is finding people from both sides who have a belief in the value of such an approach. From 1989, for instance, I developed a civilised relationship with the Workers’ Party, although I came to argue for the setting up of a Northern Ireland section of the Labour Party to which I belong.

 I, therefore, act as Political Education Officer for a Discussion group run by my local Labour Party. These are open not just for Labour Party members to attend and we attract numbers of ex-members and left-wingers who have never been in the Labour Party. This  practice also relates to the speakers we invite. Details can be found on our blog here.

 

ILW: Tony Benn makes much of the “power of industrialists and bankers to get their way” in the political realm, translating pure economic power into political success. What is your view on government/business relations and how do you think this relationship should be dealt with by society?

Harry Barnes: As long as industrialists and financial interests exercise economic power, Governments willneed to have dealings with them as part of the means of restraining their excesses and cutting back their areas of influence. Yet there was too great a readiness in Britain for New Labour Governments to become clients of such interests and to cut themselves off from countervailing forces such as the Trade Union Movement. This development was added to by the fact that Labour came to be dominated by career politicians who had entered politics as if it was only an alternative career avenue to the law, the city, the media, universities, banking and industry. There has been a major decline of representatives with a record of previous Labour Movement involvement. This does not mean that there were no shortcomings in these areas in the past. Many who emerged via the Trade Union Movement had at best what Marx called a “trade union consciousness” rather than a “socialist consciousness”. But the change has been far from an improvement. Labour needs representatives, at all levels, who see their role as serving their constituents and having the opportunity to further democratic socialist values.

 

ILW: It seems clear that in terms of austerity and bank bailouts, there is an ideological clash centred around the question, ‘who pays for the crisis?’. How can left-wing parties in power avoid implementing devastating austerity measures upon the masses, while simultaneously relying upon business to provide growth and investment? Can and should the costs of the crisis be primarily borne by business and finance?

Harry Barnes: The problem with left-wing parties trying to avoid austerity measures by getting business and financial institutions to carry the burden for the very problems they have created is two-fold. It can lead to a flight of capital and/or capital will claw back its new payments from the mass of the people via higher costs or cuts. The main advantage in pursuing this avenue, however, is that business and finance may come to be seen to share the blame for the further problems placed on people’s shoulders. This could impact on people’s views in the long term, but might have little impact on their immediate well-being.

To reduce the burden on the bulk of the people, cuts programmes could be slowed down in the hope that production and consumption does not collapse and there will be some feed back from the taxation revenues that are still raised.

A  wider, but time-consuming, improvement in conditions could result from getting international and multi-national institutions to act to restrain the freedoms of capitalist markets. Socialists and social democrats need to press for international regulations to be placed on the operations of financial institutions, businesses and banking.This isn’t a    socialist programme, but it is a modern day and co-ordinated version of Keynesianism. Proposals can be added to his pattern, such an the introduction of an international taxation system to draw down massive revenues arising from currency (and perhaps other) transactions. This revenue could then be used to tackle third world poverty in particular. This was initially known as the Tobin Tax, but has been re-christened “The Robin Hood Tax”. Gordon Brown now presses such proposals, following the international economic collapse he experienced as Prime Minister. This was a death bed conversion as  during his long role as Chancellor of the Exchequer he presided over the collapse of much of Britain’s manufacturing industry, gave freedoms for both finance capital and banking and then opposed the Tobin Tax – an issue I pressed upon him persistently. His new stance is, however, more helpful,and is now pursued by Ed Balls, Labour Shadow Chancellor.

If democratic socialists are honest about the reasons for the crisis, and go for the Keynesian type programme which is needed to pick us off the ground, but then seek to build a consensus to go beyond this limited approach, then on an international scale we could re-establish something of the Bevanite vision of the 1950s.

Climate change and a developing energy crisis are also problems which capitalism can not tackle and can only worsen. Democratic Socialist solutions for collective action needing to replace acquisitive individualism.

 

ILW: The Irish Labour Party have entered coalition government with the conservative Fine Gael party at a time of unprecedented economic crisis. Do you think this was the correct decision and can Labour play a progressive role in government given its position as junior coalition partner and the constraints placed upon our state by the EU and IMF?

 Harry Barnes: I feel that the Irish Labour Party should act in line with the position I have outlined above. It should seek to do the best it can to protect the well-being of the Irish people whilst pressing for international action which would prevent a flight of capital or further cuts by capital. Only if a clear deal had been struck with Fine Gael to do this would a coalition agreement begin to be acceptable. Even then major cuts still arise via the terms enforced by the EU and the IMF. Aspects of this could only begin to be considered if international arrangements were in hand to blame, restrain and firmly regulate the actions of international finance. But as no such deals have been done, Irish Labour should have remained in opposition pursuing the line I argued above. It could have then voted with Fine Gael when it nudged in Labour’s direction and (depending on the political consequences) have decided when to abstain on issues or vote against Fine Gael. Again honesty about the nature of the crisis and Irish Labour’s limited (but real) scope for action is important for the Irish people.

In “Towards Recovery – Programme for a national government 2011-2016”, the Irish Labour Party talks in grand terms of “a democratic revolution” having taken place at the General Election and it lists a wide range of measures it feels it can pursue. Although support for Credit Unions and a Jobs Fund are worthwhile, it is difficult to work out any vision of the future which the party is seeking to move towards. And presumably each item that doesn’t emerge or fails, will finally be blamed upon Fine Gael.

ILW: You have been an opponent of the privatisation of public utilities in Britain. Many state assets are set to be sold off here in Ireland in the coming years and regressive taxes like domestic water charges are set to in introduced. What are the most effective actions people can take in opposition to such measures?

Harry Barnes: Democratic Socialists should oppose moves towards both regressive taxation and the privatisation of public services. In current circumstances a particular defect in such moves is that it is extremely difficult to reverse them at a later stage, when alternative forms of progressive taxation will be argued against in the media as if they are general forms of tax increases and compensation is expected to be paid to take services back under public provisions. The needs in running existing public provisions is for greater worker and consumer controls, along with the development of a public service ethos which is even more fully lost under privatisation. Ideally Irish Labour and the Trade Union Movement need to mobilise to press this line. But being implicated in regressive coalition policies undermines the possibility of united action against these. The main sources that then remain for protests are likely to be trade unions and other voluntary bodies who show discontent. Also unrest amongst young people (as in Britain and across the Arab World) should also be mobilised. A cohort of current youth support can also have an impact on future politics as they move into middle and old age.

ILW: Here in Ireland, women are woefully underrepresented in both parliament and the cabinet. What do you think can be done to improve the situation?

 Harry Barnes: The task of gaining equality of esteem in society for women seems to me to be part of the task of moving in a democratic socialist direction with advances in co-operation, democratic participation and social equality shaping our actions. We need to work to see that this becomes the norm in the Labour Movement.

Apart from anti-discrimination legislation in areas such as access to employment, promotion, treatment and pay; I don’t see easy legislative means of establishing equality of esteem and behaviour between races, religious groups (alongside agnostics and atheists), tribes, classes, nationalities, the sexes and those with differing sexual orientations. I am not a strong advocate of measures of positive discrimination; although I recognise that it has been of value in creating a needed balance between Catholics and Protestants in the police force in Northern Ireland. I am worried, however, that when women reach parliamentary or cabinet positions and seem to have been assisted to do this via measures of positive discrimination, some may view this as not having been achieved on grounds of merit. It may, however, be that in certain cultural settings, positive discrimination for women will initially be needed to break a logjam. Perhaps this is particularly needed in nations where Catholicism is strong. But once such a measure has  served its initial purpose it should be abandoned, for in principle positive discrimination is still discrimination.  But I will watch current developments in Ireland to see if I should be less cautious.

 

 ILW: You completed your national service in Iraq in the 1950s and have had links with that country ever since. Iraq has a strong history of trade unionism. What’s your assessment of the present workers’ movement in Iraq in these hugely challenging times?    

Harry Barnes: It isn’t correct to say that I have had links with Iraq ever since I did my National Service there in 1955-56, but I certainly have taken an interest in its development since then. Yet I refused an invitation to visit Iraq during the period of Saddam Hussein’s regime as I felt I might be used by his people.

I was, however, impressed by the mass demonstration which took place on May Day in Baghdad in 1959 when almost 10% of the entire population of Iraq marched in favour of the establishment of democracy. Which unfortunately was never achieved. The Trade Union Movement which led the demonstration was later taken under State control by Saddam Hussein and those former activists who survived were obliged to operate in a clandestine way or flee into exile. Although these genuine trade unionists opposed the 2003 invasion, immediately it occurred they set up the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) of which I became on honorary member. The IFTU’s successor organisation are still hampered by the continuing operation of Saddam Hussein’s anti-Trade Union legislation. But they have strong international backing from the Trade Union Movement and especially from the British TUC. The anti-Trade Union legislation was, however, repealed in Iraqi Kurdistan, which I have visited to meet Trade Unionists from across the whole country . There is firm support from the Kurdistan Region for Trade Union activity in the rest of Iraq. Yet Trade Unions in areas such as Baghdad and Basra operate in difficult circumstances and are worthy of our support. But this has not prevented them recently from demonstrating against the lack of public services and for civil rights, with the Government of Iraq taking reprisals against them.

Given moves to free trade unionism in nations such as Egypt, genuine Arab Trade Unionism provides considerable hope for the future.

 

ILW: You have supported the recent military intervention in Libya. Can you clarify your reasons for this, as it is a divisive question on the left? Do you believe that Western forces are undertaking this mission for humanitarian reasons or strategic interests?

Harry Barnes: There has been no easy response to the situation in Libya. Either support or opposition to the United Nations resolution had its dangers. But I can’t see how anyone could take a neutral position.

The dangers of bombing is that it leads inevitably to civilian casualties, puts military power essentially in the hands of Western Nations who can have other then humanitarian agendas. Then if things go wrong they can veto a changed mandate from the United Nations.

But not to have acted to protect those involved in a revolution against Gaddafi would clearly have been to sit back and watch a blood bath. Furthermore, failure to act would have given the go-ahead for North African and Middle East dictators to use the most extreme methods against their own protestors. I recognise that some of this is happening in any case. But the logic of the situation is for the world community to seek to pressurise  and not to back the regimes in countries such as Bahrain and the Yemen. If Western Governments then talk with forked tongues on these matters, the Labour Movement should not.

As events for significant reforms sweep the Arab world, we can not absent ourselves from the struggle for fundamental human rights. Why I feel that the situation in Libya in 2011 differs fundamentally from the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (which I strongly opposed) is explained here.

_________________________________________________________

Many thanks for taking our questions, Harry, and best wishes.

Advertisement