[PART TWO of a discussion article in which…]

Scan page 10

PART TWO of a discussion article in which JOHN O'MAHONY replies to the falsifications of Marxism by the right wing and by Labour's 'soft Left' , and exposes the hollowness of these leaders' own IS THE Thatcher government a democratic government? A strong case can be made out that it is the opposite of a democratic government - according to the conception of democr. acy it claims to base itself on.

One could, as we shail see, Justify even armed insurręction against this government according to the principles of classic bourgeois democracy!

But Michael Foot, who should be leading the fight to drive it from office before its time is due, doesn't think so. This Tory government, which acts towards the majority of its own people almost like an alien and hostile occupying power, not scrupling to devastate the society and inflict poverty, unemployment; want and deprivation this government, in Michael Foot's view, has impeccable democratic credentials.

He hauled Peter Tatchell up by his heels before the grinning ranks of Tories, SDPers, and the Parliamentary Labour Party, and proceeded symbolically to butcher him on the altar of Parliamentary Democracy for advocating mild extraparliamentary action against the Thatcher government.

Foot thereby also signalled to the entire working class - and to Thatcher -his acceptance that the Thatcher government has a perfect democratic right to devastate working class communities, slash the social services, and drive down wages.

After he had finished his summary public political execution of Peter Tatchell - to whom he had given neither a trial, nor a hearing, nor the right to defend himself - super-democrat Foot might as well have shouted across the floor of the Commons to Mrs Thatcher, "I disagree with everything you are doing, but I'll defend to the death your democratic right to do it"

Mask

In the Observer of Sunday 10th Foot published the first part of his reply to Peter Tatchell and: the entire current of opinion among the rank and file of the Labour Party and trade ünions which supports views for a mild version of which Tatchell was victimised. He addresses those who reject, downgrade, or are impatient with legalism and parliamentarism.

The mask of Torquemada raised like a visor above his face, Michael Foot mounts the rostrum of the Observer to preach a sermon on democracy to his loyal supporters and to the heretics. It is more civilised than witch-burning: but we will have to see whether it is instead of bonfires, or part of the pre paration for them.

Enough is said in part 1 to establish Foot's basic concepts and basic alternative to what he defines as Marxism: He deserves a reply.

Shut out

Foot invokes the saints of British radicalism (even the suffragettes • - who were, technically, small-scale terrorists and mostly not at all radical except on votes for women. He justifies their extra-parliamentary actions and claims their tradition for himself.

But today it is different, he says - because then, either Parliament was not available to the people at all, or the radicals were fighting for a sectional interest shut out from its alltransforming portals.

Wat Tyler (who led the Peasants' Revolt 600 years ago) "had no representative to whom he could put his case". Did Oliver Cromwell knock Parliament about a bit? By Cromwell Parliament was 'first sav.... and then shut down when it proved .. obstreperous. Foot considers that there were good democratic grounds' for the action because 'the men of Cromwell's armies... did represent a much larger total of the British people of their century than the Parliament' which Cromwell shat down..

So Foot can set it all to democratic rights in his head by an arithmetical compilation three and a quarter centuries later, and Cromwel was good democrat even against Parliament.

As to the first mass workers' party, the Chartists: Their declared aim was to establish a Parliament which they could trust, not one they wished to bypass. Extra-parliamentary action was important since they had no voice inside. actually to win the voice inside was the aim So Foot, summary executioner of Peter Tatchell, approves. of their extraparliamentary action.

In fact the Chartists wanted a lot more than a voice. They wanted power to subordinate society to their own interests. Then the vote was power, which is why the ruling class would have had civil war rather than working-class suffrage. Even if the Chartists' formal demands now seem moderate, in their time the Chartists were like the 'moderates' in James Connolly's song - 'We only want the earth' Foot is wrong too to imply that the Chartists won even the formal goals for which 'they were right' to fight outside Parliament. They demanded annual parliaments. Where would Mrs Thatcher be now if that elementary precondition of a healthy democracy had in fact been won? Logically, if he: thinks the Chartists were right to fight for annual parliaments, Foot should favour struggle now to bring down the Tory government.

The suffragettes wrecked property, attacked Parliament, raised fires and planted small bombs. But Foot argues that they were justified, too, "precisely because they too were denied the right to speak "democratic" credentials. and act inside Parliament' 'It is an irony', says Foot, that they should now be paraded as the opponents of Parliamentary methods' But surely nut as big an irony as that they should be presented - because their aim was to get the Parlamentary vote - as exponents. of Parliamentary methods!

In fact they were characterised above all by rejection of Parliamentary methods: they hived off from the mere suffragists who favoured Parliamentary methods, and from a large lobby of MPs which fought on the issue year in and year.. out around Private Members' Bills (like the almost perennial abortion lobby private members' bills now).

Far from 'lacking a voice' in Parliament, in fact they actually got a majority in the House of Commons at least once, only to be frustrated by the House of Lords veto. That veto had been curbed by the time of the wildest sutfragette activities.

Destroying

So it was permissible to the suffragettes to act as they did from impatience with Parliament, and, before 1911, from frustration with the House of Lords' entrenched power? Or was it their own exclusion as women from direct participation that justified them?

And. what about the working class now? Thatcher and Co. are destroying jobs and communities that will not be restored quickly, if ever. Why do we not have the same right of impatience with Parliament and the Parliamentary processes? Why in addition do we not have the right of extra-parliamentary activity for self-defence?

Danger After the ruling against London Transport, do we not have as good grounds for impatience with the House of Lords as the suffragettes did? If and when the undemocratic legal reserve powers of the British state (see last article are used, why should we not treat legality as the suffragettes (with Foot's approval) did?

There is no reason why we shouldn't. Foot's invocation of the now safe because past] causes celebres of his radical tradition implies, justifies, and recommends not his politics but ours!

Of all his historical examples, Foot says, in effect: 'Of course, to achieve such results la voice in Parliament] it was necessary to take action outside Parliament, and with every justice' • The message is necessarily that those were bad days, and now we have a perfect democratic machine leven if not quite what the Chartists fought for).

Rhetorically Michael Foot even offers the following advice to 'those self-styled revolutionaries who speak today too readily of the resort to illegal methods or to street battles' -"Those who think socialism is to be won there should at least train to become soldiers or policemen - to face the storm troopers' And what if the coming of the storm troopers does not depend on us on the streets, but on us on the ballot? What if the storm troopers are likely to be the result of an electoral victory by a radical government? Perhaps the same conclusion would follow, and not only rhetorically.

Jack Jones, Michael Foot's trade union alter ego during the last Labour government, has publicly explained the right iurn of the trade union leaders and the government in July 1975 in terms of the terrible dangers facing Britain -including the danger of a military coup.

The danger of the ruling class using its reserve powers or the armed forces, or both; ; against a properly elected democratic government, is a central problemof the 1980s - what Benn calls the Allende question' Foot believes that democracy is secure when the ruling class and its storm troopers are armed to the teeth and the labour move-. ment is disarmed. A serious working class leader, faced with the facts of history and with the personal experience of the British armed forces' reaction to labour militango and the election of a Labour government in 1974, would reach Foot's conclusion above not rhetorically but in deadly ernest. He or she would campaign for the disbandment of the armed forces and the creation of a workers' militia.

In fact Foot is mesmerised by the democratic forms and facades of parliamentary democracy. He forgets that democracy is democracy if it allows the people to actually govern themselves in their own interests.

Like all the Right and the soft Left," Foot lies to himself and to the labour movement about the present condition of parliamentary democracy (see last article. best form of parliam democracy.

On the contrary: th em we have falls sh the six-point program Parliamentary around which the w lass first organiser 150 years ago - at Parliamentary syster since developed functions, and relatio! undreamed of 150 ago.

Foot and his frien about the historic r of the mass of the | and their concerns struggles to Partie When Michael Foot last year of raising a of protest agains! Government, and great march through pool, he was rather carrying on the rea itions of those stri Tatchell he is bet when . cants them. ancient and 1 invokes able radical causes, better to attack thor actually stand now living continuity of causes, and to prete we have in today's ment a perfect den machine.

Thatcher holds th ocratic mandate -! a big majority in ment, won in an ‹ that was as fair and cratic as any elec Britain.

Yet she does not mandate - and Foot should not si she has - to do w has done to the yo whole industries communities. Nobo ed for that: Thatche • to go by the polis elections have dismissed within a election if the el had any mechani which to dismiss I mechanism exists.

Is this then a der government? Yes, ing to the standa norms of democi Britain (which is ty bourgeois demo No, if by democ meant the best approximation to self-rule, or a syst minimally responsi interests of the el land we are here remember, about t vital interests o1 communities and of ire generation people.

The system is I supple enough to majority the chanc the youth, the ities of South Wa the unemployer thumbs-up or own sign. The p ister is a monar ictator for five y The point is the iamentary democr

Scan page 11

Socialist Organiser no.68 January 14, 1982 Page I1