Having been well understood as the centre left socially liberal party and the core opposition society had to their more neo-liberal anti-internationalist socially right-wing counterparts within the Conservative Party for much of the 20th century, the UK Labour Party has continually experienced significant evolution and dramatic changes in political stance over recent decades. It is through a greater understanding and reflection on the historic founding of the party and the principles it was founded upon, as well as the shifting of narrative in response to evident societal change that had taken place throughout this period that one can further recognise and understand the ways in which centrism has been redefined, and draw conclusions as to whether it is the centre that has been shifted to account for the rising support of more extremist far right ideals, or whether this change has merely come down to a period of rising fear and desperation under a situation of crisis having been observed in the late 1990s, the late 2000s and as is currently taking place in today's society.
The foundations of the Fabian movement and mobilisation in class struggle amongst UK trade unions and the working classes had a significant role in the redefining of politics and building a socially conscious left-wing society led by the interests of the working class majority within the first half of the last century and before, observations which stray far from how today's Labour Party can be perceived. This revolutionary advancement began through huge anger at the rise of capitalism and the significant struggles and day to day pressures faced by the working class population of the time as a result. The Fabian movement was set about as a well defined protest led by these individuals in a call for reform to society through improved legislation to be put in place regarding the conditions and wages of these workers, as had then eventually taken place during the period between 1945-1951 by the newly reformed Labour Party. These were facilitated and the protests that the working classes engaged with initiated by the Fabian society which were a group of middle class left wing intellectuals who proposed model societies run through state-led socialism. These proposals then continued to be highly accepted and experiencing a dramatic increase in popularity globally, thus paving the way for future international movements promoting socially left wing forms of the state. This significant rise in popularity for these ideals was likely down to them having being founded specifically by English intellectuals, considering England was the founding and leading nation involved in facilitating the industrial revolution across Europe (Yalem, 1963).
However, it must be said that these were not developed as revolutionary ideas or ideas set about to facilitate the dismantling of capitalist systems and the restructuring of a new alternative utopian communist society. They were merely socially orientated reforms to society to support the workers' basic interests. In fact, one could even argue that those involved with the Fabian movement could arguably have been capitalist sympathisers and advocates for many classist principles to remain. This is observed when linking back to the backgrounds of many of these intellectuals involved in the movement, in that they were likely aristocrats who may have advocated certain assets of capitalism for supporting their private interests, and become successful and wealthy as a result of these, yet still supported socialist reforms to support the greater good of society in general. This argument is clearly in line with Yalem's depiction of the Fabians as being very much like Robert Owens with regard to their position and presence within society, Robert Owens being described as "a prosperous capitalist who revolted against capitalism". This can also be recognised with his view that, in spite of the Fabian movement and alternative movements led by Bentham seeming to be somewhat counterintuitive in nature to each other, they shared some clear similarities. These were in regard to reliance on the state and maintaining democracy (this being led and overseen in a society ruled by the landed aristocracy- something that both groups abhorred), this being shown through his quote that socialism was supposedly regarded by them "not as a revolutionary movement of the workers, but as a goal to be achieved through democratic processes" (Yalem, 1963). This, as well as presenting socialist change as not inherently against the establishment and existing capitalist systems, also appeared to somewhat foreshadow the future of the Labour Party, with it having continually strayed increasingly far from true socialist policies throughout its first century as a party within parliament.
Furthermore, when linking back on the key role of unionisation and mobilisation of the proletariat within the workplaces in fostering a Fabian society, it could potentially be argued that some form of mediation amongst those on the left and the right demonstrating concern about working conditions would be necessary in encouraging adequate reforms within the workplace to support society. This appears to clearly counter other perceptions of unionisation through means closer to vanguardism and authoritative anarcho-syndicalism, although it must be said that there are definite components which both have in common such as the clearly apparent sectarianism and division established amongst different unionised groups of workers, as well as that both emphasise and thrive off of an effectively defined hierarchical system being in place to facilitate these processes.
It is also important to note the significant transition to a collectivist society that occurred during this period, in which the presence and social influence of specific demographics, hierarchical structures, and socially and culturally defined groups within society is valued as an important facet to society that is worth preserving, at the expense of valuing the preservation of collective liberty over individual liberty. This thus also proves to act as evidence for continual support for a hugely classist and socially conservative basis to a supposedly socialist society. This will thus be effective in substantiating previous claims that there appeared to be very limited revolutionary intent and aim to counter rising capitalist sentiment, in that these systems being in power could arguably have functioned as the means by which a stable democratic society could remain, with the state being seen to maintain unity between clearly factions of a clearly defined hierarchy, these being envisaged to function co-dependently and mutually exclusively to one another, creating a vision of dependency. It is because of this that the potential for a classless and stateless society would be disproven, this being considered hugely undesirable and not viable for these reasons. Equally, attempts at communitarianism as form the basis of many revolutionary movements could also appear to be sabotaged, these being hugely emphasised by many as a means of promoting individual liberty within one's community. Grassroots and locally motivated social development appears to be very much absent from a lot of Fabian dialect as is to be predicted considering the principles discussed previously. It is through taking note of this that one can observe some strikingly clear parallels between the workings of the Labour Party of the present day and what was advocated within the Fabian movement.
When assessing the modern Labour Party's success and importance within parliament today, it is thus a question not of can they win back against concerning populist right wing and authoritarian fascistic principles that are experiencing a rapid increase in popularity, but whether they function as a truly effective sustainable institution that can properly support, advocate and assist the development of grassroots and community led initiatives so as to act as a force for change from the bottom up. With this discussion and historic understanding taken into account, the answer would likely be a resounding no, and a prediction for far-reaching knock on effects such as greater classism, elitism, economic corruption, and the maintaining of archaic systems in power that remain, therefore rendering them counter-revolutionary and very strong representations of the positives gained by the elite through the presence of the assets of capitalism they advocate for. While being important in developing and understanding as to the strong presence of the popular centrist views (considering their role in leading to the rise in parties supporting these lines of thinking and the increased number of seats they have gained in parliament over the years) the party advocates for, it can rarely be seen as purely that, and unable to perpetuate any more extreme political ideas than this.
No comments:
Post a Comment