Debate with Labour Party (1949)

Party News from the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The debate with Mr. A. Blenkinsop, M.P., at Kensington Town Hall on March 21st attracted another large audience. The subject was, “Which Party should the Working Class support, the Labour Party or the Socialist Party of Great Britain?” The debate was opened by Mr. Blenkinsop, for the Labour Party, who claimed that a more appropriate title would have been "Why does the Working Class support the Labour Party?” He said that there are people who live in a rarified atmosphere who think that their own interpretation of Socialism should be accepted by all. He preferred to get down to the practical job of getting it started and not to wait. He was from the North and he knew of the horrors and shocking conditions that once prevailed in the distressed areas, where those who do the most useful work get the least pay. But the workers on the Clydeside were pulling themselves out of those conditions. For the maximum production of wealth it is necessary to change the ownership, and the Labour Party had done that. Workers in London and its suburbs had a comfortable time in comparison with the iron and steelworker of the North country, and they were removed from them. They did not understand how the miner and the iron worker felt about these things. It is to the credit of the Government that there is less unemployment now than there has ever been before during peace time. That is better than any intellectual exercise by a small clique. The wealth of this country lies in the degree to which, in the future, we can get the most from our productive efforts. First essentials must be first. We must take primary industries and ensure greater production in order to improve our standards of living.

The position of the Agricultural worker is higher than ever before. New elements of Democratic Freedom are springing up in our countryside. These are factors that make it certain that the Labour Government is worthy of support. The S.P.G.B. has theory but it has not put forward any practicable proposition. The Labour Government not only desires more production but sees that distribution is on a better basis. This is accomplished partly by controls and rationing and partly by financial policy. Those who can afford to bear the burden should bear it; those who have the largest incomes must make the maximum contribution to the welfare of the country as a whole. We are proud of our social services, we have the best health service in the world. It stands as a beacon to workers in all lands showing what a Labour Government can do. It is true that today, this country offers a new hope to people all over the world.

Our representative Harry Young commenced by claiming that the subject matter of this debate was the most important that can be discussed. It was a matter of life and death for many workers. No one, he said, denies Mr. Blenkinsop's statement that the workers now support the Labour Party, but that did not mean that the Labour Party was functioning in the workers' interests. His opponent had given a good statement of the orthodox Labour Party outlook, but it had nothing to do with Socialism. Industry is still owned by the Capitalist class whilst the vast majority of people are non-owners. Being non-owners means that they are wage workers, dependent upon and conscribed by the owners. The wages that the workers received were the price of the labour-power that they sold. They must work part of their time for the owners of industry in order that there may be a surplus of wealth for these owners. All increases in production mean a relative increase in the share appropriated by the owners. The poverty of the workers grows, not in relation to the wages of fifty years ago, but in relation to the wealth produced today. The cause of this poverty was private ownership and the removal of private ownership was the only solution. Reforms such as Nationalisation and social services are futile. Easing poverty does not remove it. After three and a half years of Labour Government there are now wage claims from millions of workers, claims which the Labour Government must refuse. When workers come out on strike, the Labour Government issues notices, “Go back to work or be sacked.” A socialist party must refuse admission to reformers into its ranks or the reformers would swamp the socialist objective. Socialism is common ownership and organisation for the benefit of all. Not state or public ownership. Socialism must be international, democratic and equalitarian. It means no government, no state, no shops, no market, no wages, no privileges or titles. Money, in the words of William Morris, “will become items of curiosity.” All people will work amicably for all. If it was agreed that capitalism was the cause of the workers' ills, then its abolition must be the cure. The views expressed by each party to this debate were as far apart as the poles. The social services that the Labour Party lauded were a backhand way of reducing wages, they are a means of ensuring that the efficiency of the workers is not impaired. Mr. Blenkinsop had told the audience how well the workers were getting on under a Labour Government, it was also interesting to see how the privileged few were faring after three and a half years. Young then quoted from the Daily Telegraph and from ‘‘Economic Survey for 1949 ” to show that the gross profits of companies in 1948 are estimated to have increased by over £300 million and gross dividends distributed to have increased by an estimate of £25 million. He quoted from other sources to show that firms like the Hawker Siddeley Group through Philip Hill and Partners invited subscriptions for £3,000,000 in four per cent. debentures at a price of £101 per cent. and that the issue attracted some £28,000,000, or more than nine times over subscribed. He also instanced the Decca Company and others.

Mr. Blenkinsop opened his second address by confessing that he had been of the impression that the S.P.G.B. was going to wait till the workers in this country were prepared for Socialism, but he now was informed that we must wait till workers all over the world were ready for it. There must be some alternative for working men and women to support. We need practical measures for the relief of working people. The enthusiasm of this meeting reminded him of a Jehovah’s Witness meeting. It was very good and interesting to have cloudy ideals like those of the S.P.G.B. but not if you are expected to live by them. They were nice dreams but we could not rely on them for our bread and butter. It is a good job that there is a party prepared to tackle the task of practical government. The Labour Party had never pretended that it was establishing Socialism. Nationalisation is a step to that end. It extends opportunities to the people of this country. In regard to his opponent's remarks about the wage demands of the railway workers, it was good that they should make such demands. Workers will always press for increased standards. We, in this country depend, in part, on the work of people in other parts of the world. The Labour Government is freeing subjects who have, in the past, been forced to work for certain sections of our community. This means that we must pay more for our tea, etc., but the people of India will move, in years to come, to a wider form of government and their own form of Socialism. Today, the people of this country must live by their own exertions and not, as before, by the tribute from colonies. Mr. Blenkinsop said that he preferred to represent a movement that stands for high ideals that are practical. Social services are not just palliatives but a means of transferring wealth to the people as a whole. His opponent had given some gross figures but not the nett ones alter the deduction of taxes. Nationalisation takes from the private owners the determination over production and places the management in the hands of the people as a whole. The Labour Government has achieved a higher standard for the people.

Comrade Young categorically denied that nationalisation will lead to Socialism. The Labour Party had embarked on a tortuous route but had got stuck in the swing doors of the House of Lords. It was fallacious to think that you can deny the capitalist control over industry whilst leaving him the ownership. Young quoted Mr. Attlee: "Socialism means the common ownership of land and capital . . ." You cannot commonly own capital. Capital, by definition, is wealth used for the production of more wealth with a view to profit. Socialism does not own capital, it abolishes it by taking it out of the hands of the owners. When commonly owned it ceases to be capital. It becomes wealth. Nationalisation does not do that. Tories will not repeal the nationalisation laws. His opponent had said that the workers should demand increased wages, then why not grant them? The social services reminded him of the ants which used the aphis and extracted a milk from them and then put the aphis back on to a juicy leaf or stalk for it to recuperate in preparation for a further milking. The idea that the workers benefit from the tribute wrung from colonials arises from a lack of knowledge of what makes Capitalism tick. In the days of Ramsay MacDonald the Labour Party said that Socialism was just round the comer. Now they say a lot of steps have to be taken. All these steps are building up capitalism. If this debate was just a matter of slow idealists versus careful, practical politicians we might as well all have gone to the pictures. But this was going on in a world with an international situation, in a competitive system. In times of slump the capitalists herd together as do wolves when they are hungry. The one-time conscientious objectors and pacifists of the Labour Party are now saying "get back into uniform." They call it defence. In all parts of the world they call it defence. Comrade Young quoted from a daily paper:

"A machine for producing invisible mists loaded with germs of pneumonic plague has been designed at the Government’s Germ Warfare research station at Porton, on Salisbury Plain. The disease is more terrible than bubonic plague." 

We are hurtling at a breakneck speed to a "practical" massacre. All this results from a mistaken idea of achieving Socialism one step at a time. Young produced two election addresses, one Tory, one Labour. They were both alike in most respects. We of the S.P.G.B. do not want merely attempts at the relief of poverty we want to abolish the system of poverty. He concluded with a quotation from the New Statesman and Nation:

“A very substantial employer of labour was discussing the political situation the other day. 'Of course,’ he said, 'we had difficulty in settling down after the war, but the men are working well now. Everything is going smoothly now. You understand that I am a staunch Conservative. I always have been one. But 1 don’t like to think what would happen if the Conservatives got into power now. I really don’t think that we dare swop horses in the middle of the stream.’ ’’

Mr. Blenkinsop accused his opponent of being a rhetorical speaker. He asked, "If the S.P.G.B. is going to offer itself to the electorate to usher in the new society, what are the practical steps it proposes?" It wants some mythical form of representatives to gather together to usher in a new society. It wants to continue as a little group preaching to itself. If the Labour Party has produced nothing in 45 years, what has the S.P.G.B. produced in 48? It is the working class itself that is moving inside the Labour Party. It is not true that there is no sign of improvement That is an isolated view. His opponent would not dare to express it to the miners. The miners know the advantages of a new and better system of living which the S.P.G.B. has not dared to attempt to achieve.

Comrade Young concluded. The fact that millions believe something does not make it correct. The S.P.G.B. claims that the establishment of Socialism requires the conscious organisation of the working class. The Labour Party denies this, it is a reformist party. Capitalism is rotten ripe for the change, the only hindrance and stumbling block is the political ignorance and the mists of confusion created by the Labour Party. If there had been no Labour Party to do the job, the Capitalists would have created one.

W. Waters.