Weekly Worker 368 Thursday January 25 2001

2. Capitalism in Britain

[Social and political consequences of Britain's imperialist development]

Due to a combination of social, political, economic and other factors, Britain was the first country to be dominated by fully developed, real, capitalism.

With its origins in agricultural capitalism, by the first half of the 19th century the mass of the population had already been expropriated from the land. Denied any possibility of an independent existence, to survive they had to sell the only commodity they possessed - the ability to work. They were herded into factories, mines and mills and subjected to ruthless exploitation. Aristocratic and mercantile wealth accumulated through piracy, colonial plunder and the trade in black slaves became capital used to suck the life energy from wage workers. Vast fortunes were amassed.

Initially unchallenged, British capital was able to secure a hitherto unprecedented position in the world market. Britain truly was the workshop of the world.

Inevitably Britain was chased and then, in the 1890s, overtaken by its most dynamic rivals - Germany and the United States. Britain was no longer the world hegemon. From then on it was simply one of a number of big capitalist powers, but one suffering relative decline.

Increasingly Britain experienced difficulties in accumulating capital. To delay socialism, the ruling bloc turned to the restriction of competition by way of monopoly and a greatly expanded overseas empire. As part of this process the export of commodities tended to be eclipsed in importance by the export of capital itself. Finance capital evolved.

Britain was first into the field of imperialist colonial expansion. Consequently it experienced little initial resistance, apart from the native peoples themselves. A gigantic empire was built that at its peak covered one quarter of the earth’s land surface and included one quarter of its population.

The empire was a source of cheap raw materials and army recruits. It was a safe market that could be administratively closed. It spawned a huge bureaucratic-military superstructure staffed by the aristocratic products of Britain’s public schools. Furthermore the super, or extra, profits gained from robbing the colonies and returns from the export of capital provided the wherewithal needed to ameliorate class antagonisms at home.

Inexorably Britain’s rivals began to experience similar problems and seek out their own expansionist solutions. By the dawn of the 20th century the world was effectively divided. Inter-imperialist contradictions came to a bloody climax. In two devastating world wars tens of millions were butchered in the interests of capital. Barbarism took on its capitalist form.

Britain saw off the two challenges from Germany in 1914-18 and 1939-45. But eventually it succumbed to the USA and the might of the greenback.

After Europe had exhausted itself, so strong was US imperialism that it had no need for an empire and could relatively peacefully go about the redivision of the whole capitalist world. The conditions for the post-World War II long boom were created.

2.1. Social and political consequences of Britain’s imperialist development

From the second half of the 19th century onwards Britain’s industrial monopoly and then its empire enabled the governing elite to tame the spontaneous working class movement. Being able to bribe directly and indirectly a wide section of the working class, it could keep expectations within the parameters of the existing system. The revolutionary tradition of Chartism gave way to the reformist tradition of trade unionism. The consolidation of a trade union bureaucracy - merchants in wage labour - only served to reinforce retrogression.

The revolutionary, communist, militant trend on occasion posed a threat to the stability of capitalism. Despite that, throughout the 20th century Labourism and the Labour Party dominated the workers’ movement. Labourism has often deployed socialistic rhetoric. It is, however, a thoroughly reactionary and pro-capitalist ideology. In war and peace, in government and in opposition, the Labour leadership has loyally served the interests of British imperialism. What legislation for reform it introduced was designed to dampen, not fire, the class struggle.

Britain managed decolonisation in the midst of an unprecedented boom. There was no crisis of empire. It was, moreover, able to achieve high rates of economic growth and put in place a social democratic settlement. In a negative and perverted way capitalism anticipated and carried out some of the measures of socialism - cheap housing, healthcare on the basis of need, free comprehensive education, etc.

Nevertheless British capitalism fared less well than its main rivals, and its dependence on banking, insurance and general parasitism was further exacerbated. Hence relative decline continued apace.

When the post-World War II boom came to an end, Britain no longer enjoyed the option it had in the 1930s of cushioning itself through the system of empire preferences. British capitalism had to realign geo-politically and renew the class struggle at home.

A whole swathe of Britain’s old industrial base was sacrificed in the attempt to become competitive. The resulting closures and unemployment were used as means to undermine trade union bargaining power. Integration into Europe was, despite that, undertaken from a position of weakness, not strength. Britain cannot dominate the European Union, neither economically nor politically. Greater Germany can.

Though it was most spectacularly carried through using the carrot of home ownership and share buying, the erosion of the social democratic settlement, beginning in the 1970s, likewise illustrated the weakness, not the strength, of British capitalism. Transient and individualised crumbs do not guarantee social peace. Hence to enforce the reversal of the social democratic settlement all manner of authoritarian measures were enacted - laws against trade union activity, laws outlawing squatting, laws curbing demonstrations. The reversal of the social democratic settlement proves yet again that reforms which workers gain under capitalism are by their very nature liable to be lost, given new conditions.