Fourthwrite.........
For a socialist republic
Fourthwrite 
.............................Issue No. 3
Tony Benn talks in an interview with Mark Hayes
MH: Can you identify what you believe to be the core values of socialism?
TB: Partly of course it is about fairness and justice. Take for example a strike. You start off thinking about why the managing director has the right to cut wages or lay people off and then you begin examining the power structures. Remember it was only when trade unionism came along that the ‘mob’ became ‘the movement’. For hundreds of years the working classes were referred to as the mob, but demands became expressed through the movement, the right to vote, representation through a political party and so on. So it is about justice, and it leads to a very basic question: are we a jungle or are we a community? Until you get that straight you can’t make sense of anything. Socialism corresponds to peoples’ real interests and has an international appeal. Socialism has a moral basis, an analytical base and a practical contribution to make. It is about bringing private capital under democratic control.
MH: Given the fact that the New Right has dominated the political agenda for the last two decades, taking into account the context of global capitalist development, the collapse of Communism in the east and so on, do you not think that this has invalidated socialist ideas?
TB: No. There have been two experiments in socialism if you look at the twentieth century. The Soviet Union, because of historical circumstances, never had a democratic base, no basis of consent. On the other hand the Social Democrats have abandoned socialism and have adopted capitalism. But look at the NHS for instance, it is the most socialist and most popular policy that Labour ever introduced, to take health care away from market forces and provide on the basis of need and not wealth. People love it. You can’t just wash socialism away, and you cannot repress an idea.
MH: There has been a tendency to conflate Marxism with Soviet style Communism, but do you believe that Marxism still has anything to offer in terms of analysis?
TB: Of course. Marx identified a conflict of economic interest between those who slog their guts out creating the wealth, and those who own it. Like Galileo or Freud or Darwin, Marx was one of the great teachers. And interestingly, because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is now becoming fashionable for some academics to discuss Marxism.
MH: Do you think there was anything of value in the Soviet experience?
TB: Yes but I feel the collapse of Stalinism liberated socialist ideas, it separated socialism from the gulag and the KGB. However, although I never supported Joe Stalin, the existence of an anti-capitalist super-power changed history. Without it the western states would never have given up their colonies, and the Establishment would never have conceded the welfare state. The fear of precipitating Communism was a powerful factor here, and the Communist experience developed a range of ideas of permanent value. Now the Soviet Union has gone, capitalism and imperialism are back again.
MH: You mentioned Social Democracy earlier, can I ask you what you make of the New Labour project?
TB: In 1997 the people wanted change but the Establishment didn’t want change so they saw in Blair the continuation of the Thatcher project. Major was weak and the Tories were divided, but Blair could carry forward the dismantling of the welfare state. Blair wanted to eliminate Clause IV in order to get the support of the City of London and it was of immense symbolic significance. Blair is the most passionate advocate of global capitalism, and the project is to administer capitalism under American supervision. Blair would like to break the link with the unions and eliminate the socialist tradition.
MH: What about the ideas which apparently animate New Labour, Anthony Giddens, the ‘Third Way’, market socialism and so on?
TB: Well Giddens is like the Millenium Dome, a vast space covering nothing! The ‘Third Way’ is just a phrase to cover a vacuum. There is nothing there to argue with. As far as ‘market socialism’ is concerned, well no-one is in favour of nationalising every corner shop but the so-called ‘commanding heights’ of the economy should be publicly owned. The democratic process should control the vast companies, bankers and speculators. What’s wrong with securing for workers the full fruits of their industry? And common ownership is not necessarily about top-down nationalisation, it’s about municipal co-operatives, trade union veto on the excesses of the free market and so on.
MH: But if the New Labour has rejected socialism and introduced an ideological change which may well prove to be irreversible, why stay?
TB: Yes, but look at Scargill. I love him dearly, and he is one of the very finest trade unionists. But he is absolutely on his own, in a tiny party. The trouble is that there are too many socialist parties and not enough socialists! It’s like religious sectarianism, engaging in disputes over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That is not the way forward, and I am in the Labour movement – I am not New Labour. New Labour took over after an entryist coup.
MH: There is no doubt that New Labour has disappointed its core constituency, and may well not be able to sustain its electoral success. In this context there is always the threat from the extreme right posing as the ‘radical’ alternative. How do you see this situation developing?
TB: That is the real danger if people get despondent, despairing and cynical. That’s when the Hitler, Mussolini or Haider come
along and offer to solve the problems. I can remember Mosely and the Fascists marching through East London and it was very frightening. I read Mein Kampf again recently and you can see the appeal of blaming it all on the Jews, and how attractive it was to unemployed German workers. At the back of my mind I can’t help thinking that this ‘Third Way’ spin-doctor politics might pave the way for something like that. Were that to happen, of course, the only force able to stop it would be the labour and trade union movement, which is itself being dismantled. That worries me. New Labour could be the mid-wife of a sort of hard-right government by destroying the very movement that could prevent it happening.MH: One of the key principles of your political perspective has always been your internationalism. Can you comment on how that corresponds to your persistent opposition to the European Union?
TB: I am a European, and I am not a nationalist, but I’m not going to be governed by bureaucrats and bankers. I’m not a Euro-sceptic in the same sense as Hague, who believes that money should run the world and sees the Commission as an interference. Mine is a democratic argument. There should be no over-riding political power by unelected bureaucrats.
MH: Your arguments might be very powerful, and may even resonate amongst large sections of the working class, but in the absence of any political vehicle to articulate your objectives, you are facing an uphill struggle.
TB: Yes, but I am not a pessimist. We have to start at the bottom again and build things up from below. Underneath things are moving, and the audience for common sense socialist ideas is enormous. Political parties make all sorts of promises but we should make demands. Trade Union rights, decent wages, full employment and so on. We need to give electoral politics some substance. Nothing is inevitable, but look at apartheid fifty years ago, the whole thing crumbled. When the demand is strong enough Parliament will come into line. So we need to be optimistic, if I wasn’t I would jump off the top of Big Ben, if I had the energy to climb it.
In the second part of the interview by Mark Hayes, Tony Benn considers the politics of Northern Ireland
MH: As I understand it, you have always maintained a principled commitment to a united Ireland. Am I right?
TB: Yes, well the right of the Irish people to determine their own future. The problem is not an ‘Irish problem’ in the United Kingdom, but a British problem in Ireland. Once you get that straight you can see it quite differently. I’m not a nationalist, but I support the right of people to control their own affairs, and to that extent I am really strongly in favour of getting the British out of Northern Ireland.
MH: In light of your position, can I ask you what your attitude was to the armed campaign waged by Republicans to achieve that objective?
TB: It’s a difficult one that. My instinct is towards Gandhian non-violence, because violence destroys both sides in an argument. On the other hand we fought a war against Hitler, and Mandela was denounced as a terrorist because he was engaged in armed struggle. Armed struggles occur when there is no political solution, but I am a supporter of the peace movement. Yet in some cases without pressure, without violence you cannot make progress – that’s not endorsing it, it is just a historical fact, that is what happens. Anyway armed violence can lead to dictatorship.
MH: What about the idea that in order to achieve peace Sinn Fein has accepted a deal which falls far short of traditional Republican objectives?
TB: I have known Gerry Adams for many years now, in fact I met him through Ken Livingstone, and I have kept in touch. Now that there is some political progress Gerry Adams is obviously very much against the continuation of the armed struggle, and I think that’s right. You will always get those who will continue to fight, but without the popular support it won’t work. Beforehand many Nationalist homes were ‘safe houses’, but now that won’t be the case….
MH: But hasn’t Adams, in effect, accepted that there will not be a united Ireland in the immediate future? Bernadette McAliskey has made some very insightful comments about the diminution of Republican expectations….
TB: There will be a united Ireland, demographic changes will ensure that. But I think Adams’ line at the moment, which is to be the advocate of the peace process against the ‘rejectionists’, is absolutely right. When there is another election they will do very well. Bernadette, I think, didn’t want to be associated with ‘green Tories’ and I can understand what she means because nationalism without an ideological analysis can become very crude, like the ‘tartan Tories’ in Scotland. You have to be a democrat and an internationalist. There is nothing shameful about being practical in politics, I had to do it all the time when I was a minister, dealing with peoples immediate needs and problems.
MH: Yes, but some Republicans will argue that the Good Friday Agreement isn’t anywhere near enough, that itdoesn’t justify the years of struggle.
TB: They didn’t do too badly did they? Northern Ireland is now governed as part of a condominium between Dublin and London. That’s a huge change. Sinn Fein is representing Nationalists in government. You have to take a moving picture of the political changes, you cannot take a snap-shot, and the momentum is very strong towards a united Ireland. There needs to be a basis upon which the two communities in the North can live in peace, and then you can get the British out. It seems to me that this process is well underway. What we have is an interim transitional stage prior to the withdrawal of the British. I think it will happen and I have been advocating it.
MH: What about de-commissioning? Do you think that it could be the issue that might allow the ‘rejectionists’ to destroy the Agreement?
TB: Mandelson suspending the structures over de-commissioning was ridiculous and did a lot of damage to the credibility of the Agreement. The real issue is de-militarisation. Of course the ban on hand-guns never applied to Northern Ireland, there are thousands of licensed weapons, and on top of that you have the RUC, the Army, paramilitaries and so on. They are not killing each other at the moment so we need to build on the culture of peace to keep the political process going.
MH: What did you make of the Patten Report?
TB: Well they have tried to by-pass that of course. They are making concessions and many people are unhappy, but I don’t know what the result will be. At least Patten addressed the problem, which was that the RUC was seen as a Unionist force. Obviously something has got to be done.
MH: Can you comment upon British strategy with regard to Ireland, and particularly Labour Party policy? Why have the British stayed?
TB: Well it is no longer profitable of course, and there is no interest in funding the war. At the same time the Republic is getting richer, with subsidies from Europe and so on. For its part the Labour Party effectively abandoned Ireland. But one of the things that interested me was the strategic dimension and the position of the USA in all this. Kennedy and Reagan, who both claimed Irish ancestry, endorsed British strategy because they were fearful of an independent neutral Ireland during the Cold War. When the Cold War ended the Americans completely lost interest in endorsing the British line, and Clinton has put pressure on the British government to bring about a settlement. This is, as far as I can see, the only positive thing he has done.
MH: Is there any scope for progressive elements within the Loyalist/Unionist community to develop now in the new political context?
TB: Yes. The Republic is changing and the Catholic Church is weaker, so Pope-bashing does not have quite the same effect, although Paisley is the authentic voice of some elements in Unionism. Of course it is interesting that on issues like homosexuality and abortion he adopts the same position as the Pope! A point which I have made to him a number of times in the House of Commons. The Protestant working class needs to liberate itself from Unionism, which has manipulated them for its own purposes. There is certainly no future for Ireland on the basis of religion, whether you are Protestant or Catholic. If Ian Paisley and the Pope issued a joint manifesto it wouldn’t solve anything. There needs to be a class analysis and a socialist agenda.
FOURTHWRITE, PO BOX 31, Belfast BT127EE
