Index
Contents: This Issue
Search CHNN
CHNN Home
The Communist Party
of Great Britain and the
Thatcher Governments:
A Historical and Political Study
This PhD thesis was succesfully completed at the University of Nancy, France in 2000. A copy of the thesis, in its original French [1], is to be deposited at the National Museum of Labour History in Manchester.
During most of the existence of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CP), the historiography of the party tended to be dominated by a pro/anti- communist dichotomy. Although in the 1980s this basic division became less important, the real change came when the CP ceased to exist in 1991. As Eric Hobsbawm has remarked, 'the affairs of the CP are no longer discussed on what was as essentially a political and ideological battlefield' [2]. Despite the consequent renewed interest in the history of the party, little work has been carried out into its final years. The 1970s and 1980s belong to the recent past and were a period of decline and loosened ties with the Soviet Union. The lack of historical perspective and of obvious points of interest have no doubt deterred researchers. The period is also particularly controversial as it coincided with two splits and the decision to transform the party. The political stakes may not be as high as in the past, but Democratic Left / New Politics Network and the Communist Party of Britain owe their legitimacy to certain interpretations of the 1980s. For political and personal considerations, former members and others may have preferred to concentrate on other decades.
The only published pieces of work dealing with the 1970s and 1980s are short chapters, such as those by Willie Thompson [3] and Nina Fishman [4]. They deal mainly with the divisions in the CP and the decline of the party, but only touch on its actual strategy and activities at the time. My work is an attempt to fill this gap by looking at the final years of the party through its reactions to the Thatcher governments. These reactions include its analyses of the Conservative governments, the strategies it elaborated to fight against them and the activities that it became involved in. My work does not ignore such issues as the divergences within the party and its falling membership, but sees them mainly in the context of its opposition to the Thatcher governments.
Given the small amount of work on this aspect of the CP’s history, my research is based mainly on primary sources, that is the communist press (Morning Star, Comment, Focus, 7 Days, Changes and Marxism Today), the archives at the National Museum of Labour History (Political Committee, Executive Committee, Yorkshire and London District Committee), and interviews with former members based in Yorkshire and London. I adopt neither a ‘top down’ nor a ‘bottom up’ approach, but develop a tripartite model of the party composed of the national level (the Executive and Political Committees), the regional level (the District Committees) and the local level (branches). By studying the interaction between these levels, it is possible to have a detailed vision of the functioning of the party which sheds new light on its final years.
I situate the CP’s reactions to the Thatcher governments within a context composed of three elements: the history of the CP, the Conservatives’ domination of British politics in the 1980s, and the difficulties of the opposition. I briefly present the main points of the CP’s development and particularly the adoption of the 1977 version of the British Road to Socialism (BRS) the policies of the Thatcher governments; and the direction of the Labour Party and the trade unions as well as the divisions within the opposition.
Certain elements of continuity can be found in the CP’s attitude to the Thatcher governments. For example, it considered the Conservatives to be linked to sections of the ruling class and to be deliberately trying to divide the working class in order to weaken it [5]. It believed that the governments’ opponents should not simply wait for the next general elections to try to defeat the Conservatives, but combine extra-parliamentary and parliamentary activities. The CP allotted itself the task of building a broad movement, including the trade unions, capable of preventing the Conservatives from implementing their policies [6]. It also hoped to develop a positive alternative programme which would cement the movement together. Consequently, the party organised activities such as the People’s March for Jobs in 1981, actively supported the striking miners in 1984/5 and participated in movements against the poll tax in the late 1980s. It also stood candidates in the national elections of 1979, 1983 and 1987, as well as in local elections. At the same time, it launched debates within the Labour Movement about the Alternative Economic Strategy and used documents such as The Central Issue to stimulate discussion.
Nevertheless, significant changes also occurred between 1979 and 1990. Rejecting its previous view of the Thatcher governments as being the same as other capitalist governments, it began to stress their specificities. It declared that they did not simply represent the ruling class, but they were reconstructing it and including sections of the working class in a new bloc of support for change [7]. It noted the importance given by Mrs Thatcher to ideological struggle and her espousal of a distinct vision of society and set of ideas. Using the term ‘Thatcherism’ to denote her singularity, the CP argued that she had reinforced a long-term crisis of the left [8]. Consequently, the Thatcher governments were no longer seen as opportunity for the left to strengthen its position, but as an exceptional danger. The Alternative Economic Strategy, composed mainly of relatively radical economic and social measures, was seen as being inappropriate and was abandoned in favour of a less ambitious ‘democratic alternative’. The ‘democratic alternative’, which also proposed constitutional reform, was seen as the basis for a dialogue between the main opposition parties and for an electoral pact [9]. At local level, such as in Kensington, contacts were made with other parties. The CP’s own electoral considerations declined in importance, as did the place of the unions in its overall strategy. At the same it reached out to new organisations such as Charter 88.
Some of these changes began to occur in 1983, but the most far-reaching ones occurred from 1985. A comparison with the work of Stuart Hall and Eric Hobsbawm published in Marxism Today from 1978 onwards shows that the new analyses were clearly based on them and integrated their main points. The previous analyses were still expressed in the Morning Star from 1983 and developed further in the 1985 pamphlet Class Politics: An Answer to its Critics. The year 1985 thus saw the clash of two distinct sets of positions. The existence of two analyses resulted partly from the use of different theoretical concepts. The positions expressed in the Morning Star were based on orthodox Marxism-Leninism and their authors concentrated on the economic policies and objectives of the Thatcher governments, while Stuart Hall drew on and developed the work of Antonio Gramsci, Nicos Poulantzas and Ernesto Laclau. Most of his work concerned the political and ideological aspects of the Thatcher governments. Furthermore, the two analyses were based on different definitions of the left. For the authors of Class Politics, the left was the left-wing of the labour movement, whereas Stuart Hall and Eric Hobsbawm tended to define it as being the whole of the labour movement. Consequently, although the two analyses of the situation were quite different, they were not entirely contradictory in some respects.
However, it was impossible for the CP to produce a synthesis of them. The divergences over the Thatcher governments crystallised broader differences that had been present for a number of years and were clearly visible from the debates about the BRS. in 1977. Although supporters of both positions claimed that they corresponded to the overall strategy of the party, their interpretations of the BRS were only partial. Those who defended the Thatcherism analysis were able to point to the new Gramscian aspects of the 1977 BRS, such as the Broad Democratic Alliance of all those facing exploitation and oppression or the role of ruling class ideas in its domination. The others ignored these aspects and developed an interpretation of the programme which made it little different from the 1968 version. Thus, the differences over the Thatcher governments reveal the tensions within the 1977 BRS and the problems of its implementation. They can thus be seen as the continuation of the debates over the BRS in another form.
The chances of a compromise were reduced further by the fact that the two analyses were associated with particular groups within the party. Tensions had existed within the dominant centrist grouping for several years concerning the Morning Star and the extent to which reformers and their ideas should be integrated. The split within the centrist grouping in 1982 led to a realignment of forces within the party. Some centrists, symbolised by Tony Chater the editor of the Morning Star, continued to espouse the official positions of the late 1970s and early 1980s, moving closer to traditionalists who were critical of the evolution of the party since the 1950s. A new alliance also appeared uniting other centrists, such as Gordon McLennan and Ian McKay, and reformers like Martin Jacques. Consequently, the reformers found themselves in a position of strength within the national leadership and were able to impose the adoption of their positions, particularly at the National Congress of 1985.
However, the reformers only made up a minority of the membership and the majority, particularly at local level, opposed significant aspects of the new positions. Many had supported the new leadership alliance out of loyalty or opposition to others sections of the party. Moreover, the reformers themselves were not a homogeneous group. Although they broadly agreed on the nature of the Thatcher governments and the difficulties facing their opponents, they were unable to develop a coherent strategy and role for the party.
This situation had major consequences for the implementation of the new analyses. The party hesitated for several years between standing the largest number of candidates possible in elections and not standing any so as to limit the divisions in the opposition. It did not find a coherent solution to the problem, calling for an electoral pact from 1989 and continuing to have a small presence in local elections. In trade unions such as NATFHE (National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education). Some Communists refused to put in practice decisions taken at National Congresses, believing that they impinged on the traditional autonomy of Communist trade unionists and went against the party’s traditional strategy and practices, in other words what Nina Fishman has called ‘revolutionary pragmatism’. Consequently, Broad Lefts tended to fragment, but no other solid grouping appeared in their place. In spite of the leadership’s support for Charter 88, few Communists joined it or participated its activities. Thus, the absence of a clear line from the leadership and the passive resistance of many at local level led to a decline in activity and an atmosphere of confusion within and around the party. Ironically, thus situation was compounded by the increasingly open attitude of the leadership which did not try to hide the divisions.
The partial implementation of the new positions inevitably had an impact on the influence of the CP The party’s direct influence within the unions and extra-parliamentary organisations had been on the wane for several years mainly due to its falling membership. It had to a certain extent been hidden in the unions as a result of the Broad Left alliances which had allowed Communists to reach positions of influence [10]. The economic situation of the 1980s, and particularly the decline of heavy industry and manufacturing, reinforced the decline of the party’s direct influence, as did the adoption of new positions in 1985. It alienated some former allies in the Broad Lefts who had already showed their hostility to the ideas of Hobsbawm and Hall when they were first published in Marxism Today. It had the same effect on some former allies on the left of the Labour Party. However, the party’s indirect, that is intellectual, influence rose dramatically during the 1980s. From the late 1970s onwards articles published in Marxism Today by Hobsbawm and Hall received approval from different sections of the labour movement and beyond [11]. Statements made at the time and since by leading figures suggest that ideas expressed in Marxism Today contributed significantly to the new direction of the labour movement from 1983. Nevertheless, the articles did not reflect the party’s official views until 1985, so it is problematic to see this influence simply as that of the CP [12]. Moreover, the very nature of this intellectual influence and the parallel decline in its direct influence meant that the party had no impact on how others implemented its ideas. Despite playing a role in the emergence of new thinking in the labour movement, it was unable to have any impact on how it was put into practice.
The changing attitude of the CP to the Thatcher governments also had an impact on the transformation of the party into Democratic Left. Once the defeat of the Thatcher governments became its overriding aim, the CP concentrated increasingly on short-term projects which became separated from its long-term objective of socialism as set out in the British Road to Socialism. Seen from this perspective, the adoption of the Manifesto for New Times merely confirmed this trend. The importance of the present also corresponded to the philosophical stance of many reformers. At its heart lay a belief in pre-figurative forms, that is the need to organise activities and create structures that embodied the values of a future radically transformed society. The predominance given to short-term thinking was also reinforced by the uncertainty surrounding the party’s vision of socialism. Given the importance of the present in the party’s thinking and strategy, its failure to make a significant contribution to the fight against the Conservative governments was a major factor in the crisis over its role in British politics. Some reformers concluded that the party had to radically change if it wished to play the role it attributed itself.
In addition, the CP’s changing position concerning the Thatcher governments was closely linked to attempts to renovate the party. The new positions adopted in 1985 were not only a response to the political situation, but also part of an attempt to reform the CP largely based on a particular interpretation of the 1977 British Road to Socialism. Consequently, the party’s incapacity to develop and implement a coherent strategy against the Conservatives showed its inability to reform itself. Some reformers concluded that it was impossible to reform a communist party and that the only solution was to go beyond that form of party. The doubts over the party’s future coincided with the collapse of the Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe which strengthened the convictions of many reformers and persuaded some centrists at all levels of the need to put an end to the party.
The 1980s were a crucial decade in the history of the party and deserve greater attention. By looking at the CP’s reactions to the Thatcher governments, it is possible to go beyond the usual portrayals of decay and division and examine the important debates over theory, strategy and activities as well as their consequences. This approach shows that the CP was no longer able to translate theory into practice and that the ideas that allowed Marxism Today to be an intellectual catalyst within the labour movement contributed to hastening its transformation into Democratic Left.
