Let Us Face the Future: the Labour Party 1945 Manifesto

The soundbite criticisms of capitalism are legion, yet it’s harder to offer alternatives, aside from the vague notion of 'something else'. Despite the carnage of trying to socially engineer equality in the 20th century, nevertheless the myth persists that capitalist wealth creation is superfluous and money is readily available to a small number of elitists called a government under common ownership, who distribute, or simply print more paper. Ironically, the ones shouting the loudest against capitalism are often those dependent on the profits of capitalism to provide the welfare payments needed to keep them alive.

After WW2, Britain’s domestic life was in upheaval and most people wanted peace and to return to normal, the war also brought on an urge to broaden Britain’s wealth. This meant the new Conservative government was expected to

‘The main reason for conservative dominance in the years 1951 to 1964 was labour disunity’ Assess the validity of this view. (June 2011)

Before 1906, when the Liberals were in power, Britain was not a welfare state. This meant that if you were in poverty you had you help yourself, ask family/neighbours/friends/charities to help instead of the government. The Governments attitude to poverty was ‘Laissez Faire’ – Leaving things alone. They said that if you were poor, it was your own fault and it was up to you to get yourself out of poverty. The Liberals wanted to fix this by introducing acts to help worker, the old and young, the unemployed and sick. The Liberal Government of 1906-1914 introduced social reform due to the survey of Booth and Rowntree to a certain extent. However factors such as National Security, National Efficiency, Political Self-interest, New Liberalism and Municipal Socialism were also all important.

Disraeli believed in an organic society held together by duty and responsibility, and was responsible for the Second Reform Act which gave the working class the vote and also improved housing conditions and hygiene. This is often seen as a form of Tory welfarism. One nationism reached its peak in the 1950s and 1960s when conservative governments in the UK promoted social welfare, in stark contrast to later, New Right conservative governments such as the Thatcher Government (1979-90). In the 50s one-nation conservatism was seen as a ‘middle way’ between ‘laissez-faire’ liberalism and socialist state planning. Therefore, paternalistic conservatism could be seen as the way of moderation.

This period of Labour rule is often marked down as a poor performance on behalf of the labour party, critically looked upon by many historians. There were many failings under the rule of this government however the circumstances they were placed in caused severe restraints in their options.

Except for the British Labor Party, the vehicles of the new postwar policies were not, as might have been expected, the democratic socialist parties.

Whether or not there truly was a ‘post war consensus’ in British politics from 1951 to 1964 is a highly debatable topic of which historians can often appear to be in two minds about; on one hand, Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson infamously described the period as ‘Thirteen years wasted’, whereas historian Robert Blake (a supporter of the Conservatives’, regards it as a ‘Golden age of growth’. The likes of Kevin Jeffrey’s even argue that consensus had even started before the war. Overall, the central issue was the idea of a mixed economy.

This model is not only remarkable for its different approach but as well for the fact that it reduces the size of the working class to one third of the entire labour force (34 percent) compared to roughly 50 percent in the BMRS model. Evidently, a shrunken size of the social base for the class party, Labour, must have some bearing on its electoral performance. Even if the whole of the working class were voting for their ‘natural’ party, it would be highly unlikely to lead to a parliamentary majority based on these votes. (Labour’s reaction to this development will be looked at more closely later on in this essay.)

Capitalism is an unnatural perversion of society in Marx and Engel’s The Communist Manifesto. It is constantly consumptive, unable to exist without further expansion. It warps society through its exploitation of labor and the class that provides it. The Communist Manifesto goes beyond just a sociopolitical critique of capitalism, and adds otherworldly, almost Gothic elements. Repeated supernatural, fantastical language reinforces the idea that capitalism is an illegitimate twist of the natural state of human affairs.

During her term of office she reshaped almost every aspect of British politics, reviving the economy, reforming outdated institutions, and reinvigorating the nation's foreign policy. She challenged and did much to overturn the psychology of decline, which had become rooted in Britain since the Second World War, pursuing national recovery with striking energy and determination. In the process, Margaret

In Tony Blair’s Socialist Manifesto (1994), he reinvents the idea of “social-ism” in order to “fit the ideology to the world” since the economic and social interests of people are constantly evolving. After World War II, the economy became a lot more global, the service industry grew and there has been an increase in human rights movements as the public have been less progressive. Aligned with the ideas of “socialism”, Blair supports a concept called the “Third Way” which is based on the idea of combining center-right economics and center-left social policies (“The Third Way”, n.d).The idea was developed by Anthony Giddens, the sociologist and director of the London School of Economics, he argued that the reformist governments could no longer rely only on the ideas of complete social and economic state control in the face of the forces and finances of globalization. Therefore, Giddens proposed an idea that would support center policies, but also remain committed to radical measures. Blair refers to the third way as his version of “socialism” which is in favor of economic growth and entrepreneurship as well greater state intervention to improve social justice and equality among civilians (“UK Politics: What is the Third Way,” n.d.). Using the ideas of the third way, Blair reformed the Labour Party and their ideas. Under his leadership, the Labour Party became the New Labour Party with a

Rather than eradicate capitalism, socialism exists within it. Moreover, democratic socialism is characterised through the balance and compromise between free market capitalism and the Governmental state (Bernstein 1993: 142, Heywood 2012:128, Anderson 1985: 10). Marx considered socialism as a class movement, which is what subsequently played out in the political realm, once universal suffrage had been achieved. For previously powerless people it was the only peaceful way to be heard: “Electoral politics constitutes the mechanism through which anyone can as a citizen express claims to goods and services.” (Przeworski 1985:11).

The terms ‘socialism’ and liberalism’ are used a lot nowadays, and many people often mistake one for the other. In order to differentiate between these two terms, one must keep in mind the clear-cut differences by defining the prevailing ideology of each term. The tenets of socialism assert that the state should wield total economic power by manipulating prices of goods and wages of workers.

For years, nationalisation has been a prohibited subject within British economies and politics. However, Jeremy Corbyn’s economic project has been concentrated around nationalisation. One of Corbyn’s arguments has been that, national ownership of particular businesses can, promote long-term development of the economy, help to acquire a renovating infrastructure and also provide a quality health and social care system. Furthermore, with the use of examples from around the world, Corbyn attempts to illustrate that the state is an ineffective manager, and also indicate the positive contributions of national ownership. Furthermore, in the UK, national state ownership has previously been too centralised, with authority in the hands of a private and commercial elite, which promotes Adam Smith’s ideology. This is portrayed when he said, “Avarice overrates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station…”, demonstrating that entrepreneurs drive economies and that their profits are a reward for their own risk, with this being the ‘Just World’ theory. In addition, the ideology of Freidrich A. Hayek is also supported by this, and is illustrated when he said, “The more the state ‘plans’ the more difficult planning is for the individual”, indicating that the state is exploiting and alienating the population of the UK. Therefore, to improve national ownership in the UK, measures have to be taken in order to increase the democratic