DEMOCRATIC Socialist Aims and Values should not only be rejected for its content, which is most important, but because it is also almost an act of political insanity to press ahead with it. As 1 wrote in Tribune: "The first half of the document was largely uncontentious. But. the represented a shift in policy as dramatic as Gaitskell's campaign in 1960 to remove Clause Hour from the party constitution. To press ahead with this document means to open up a political argument in the party that will run for years. The document will finally be thrown out by the party rank and file whatever block vote might be turned out for a loyalty vote at this year's The widespread public criticism of the document has largely centred on its attempt to irrevocably commit Labour damental economic mechanism. In a tamous purase wilch may well disappear from the revised version, it argues: the operation of demand and supply and the price mechanism is a generally satisfactory means of determining provision and consumption.
Market On that I agree with Robin Cook in the New Statesman: 'If you are serious about liberating market forces, you must also truss up the victims who will otherwise upset the grand design by protesting The real product of the market is private monopoly and Those who support "markets' as the basis of socialism confuse their role in distributing goods, which is necessary and inevitable in a wadie series fields, with their quite different role in investment and labour. Here, again, I agree with Robin Cook: to criticise the market mechanism for its inefficiencies in allocating investment, and its inequities in allocating rewards, is not to deny inal -ll can be satisfactory distributing goods!
But simply to concentrate on the aspect of markets in the document is superficial after all the extent, or limitation, of markets is a legitimate subiect for aiscussion in a socialist society. The issues raised Democratic Socialist Aims and Values far further the socialism. Democratic Socialist Aims and Values breaks up the fundamental democratic, and therefore socialist, character of the Labour party.
First it ignores oppression.
by Nati core of present Values, Labour's i years. Al A joint meeting of Labour's al Executive Committee and Shadow Cabinet on 5 February Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley John le a document, Statement of Democratic Socialist Aims and basis for over the next badly received.
Tribune attacked le in an editorial this unworthy prodeced a strong criticism of it in the New be based, and their inseparable connecnaton of democracy, market not the market, which is the essential the last three This frequently, indeed with the capitalist market. That market first imposed private property on a subservient Whigsand Hunters, anthen was used reminded us te impose the 'market, private properThe real progress in the last three hundred years has been the extension of Statesman: Ken Livingstone Tribune noted that at NEC/shadow cabinet meeting even Smith and John Cunningham..moved in to demolish it'.
But despite this it seems clear that the party leadership is going to push ahead with the document. Nigel Williamson, editor of Labour Party News, wrote defending it in the 19 February issue of Tribunesimply saying that the document tatorial — Hitler's Germany or Chile to take two examples. But there are no societies in which there are no free trade unions, or no democracy, but where there is freedom.
Labour should not hesitate to state that under any conditions where the democracy conflict stand for democracy. Labour should be Pe may leave beang the party of leave the party capitalism, with its inherently antidemocratic structure, to the Tories in needed 'fine tuning. In an the troduction to a pamphlet by the leader of the Labour group in the European parliament, David Martin, Neil Kinnock simultaneously strongly reaffirmed British support of the Common Market and attempted some Socialist Action asked KEN LIV. INGSTONE to explain his position on the document. We think it is an important statement and will reply to it in our next issue was extended to the majority of society, to women.
Democracy was extended through the creation government, More substantially it was expanded by the extension of collective trade unon meets to wmit the aroirar we power of capital. In a more limited way it has been developed by health anc safety and other rights at work.
con . VUI It is Colony WaCs socialism.
State nullified • The constrained creasingly Secrecy, excellent book commissioners.
incil...
*fine tuning so, since it was clusion of a network of local prospects Here rising Liberal revival of the 1950s and 1960s was based on exploiting the failure of Labour to defend democratic rights We still see it with issues such as the initial response on Clause 28 or on Zir But, beyond these issues, Labour has not been the party of democracy because it has talled to extend it into the two most anti-democratic bulwarks of society Slatt the capitalist control of the economy. In these spheres socialism and democracy control of the state capital demands. In these spheres no democracy whatever is practiced. inev are the essential instru ment by which capitalism maintains privilege and arbitrary power — al other spheres of democratic rights are subordinate to these. It is extending democracy into these spheres, and by this means safeguarding and extending democratic rights in general, that the chucial becomes dissolubly linked to the success of The first of these areas is the state. Democracy remains limited to simply of because of this limitation democratic control is limited and frequently only sphere in which democratic principle is applied in our present state is parliament and local - the former, in reality, by non-elective state which surrounds it and the latter in.
hamstrung by arbitrary patronage, and lack of democracy dominate the current state — the British state is archaic even by international standards.
Colin Leys has rightly put it in an Politics There were and are, no elections fo the Upper House of parliament, or fo No popular voice is heard in the election of the board of any nationalised industry, the board of governors or the BBC or the Indepen dent Television Authority, or of any regional or district health authority, the Arts Council, University Grants Com mission or the Science Research Coun•Parliament remained the apparent focus of political life, and necessarily apart from local - the only democratic ele ment in the state? The state remains an arena of bureaucracy secrecy. Labour must open up, and break down, that anti-democratic character of the stat The second decisive issue is the exof the While apparently enjoying sovereignty through parliament all the decisions most deeply affecting the lives of people in reality are excluded from •democratic control - they can be sacked, crippled at work, their jobs and overturned democratic rights whatever the fundamentally antidemocratic character of capital show. itself. It is a 'dictatorship of capital. There is no democracy when it comes to profits versus mass That the democratic rights of laboss of take precedence over those of capital That bose sic sn TrET