The Conservatives
Since they came back to power twelve years ago, the Conservative Party have managed to popularise the idea that they are the party of prosperity. They also claim, like the other parties, to stand for the interest of the nation as a whole.
But can we sensibly talk of “The nation as a whole”? The economic editor of one well known Sunday newspaper recently wrote about “ the fantastically unequal distribution of wealth” and estimated that nearly one half of the total personal wealth in this country is owned by two per cent. of the adult population. This inequality is at the heart of the capitalist system—the system which the Conservative Party openly supports.
The Conservatives also claim to be the party of the small man, they talk of property owning and share owning democracies. In fact, however, their policy has been well described by Enoch Powell, one time Tory Minister of Health:
Does it pay? is the question which, quite unashamedly, we have to ask today of all our economic and commercial doings. Does this railway line pay—that coal mine, this shipping route? Does that industry in that place pay? (The Observer, 13/5/62).
This ruthless standard also applies to the small man; if his business does not pay, the Conservatives are prepared to see him go under.
It is difficult to understand how so many of those who suffer most from capitalism can find reasons to support the Conservative Party, which openly proclaims the basic capitalist doctrine that profit must come before human welfare.
Production for profit, which Mr. Powell and all Conservatives think is the most efficient and praiseworthy method, does not lead to one prosperous nation but rather to one prosperous capitalist class and to degradation and insecurity for the working class.
The workers have nothing more to expect from the Tories than what they get; unemployment, bad housing, pay restraint, insecurity. Tory ministers may describe these problems as personal, family difficulties, but in fact they are the inevitable results.of the class divided, privilege ridden social system which Conservatives so proudly support.
Labour Party
Both the Labour and Conservative Parties tell you, in this election and at other times, that the Labour Party stands for Socialism. Both parties have different reasons for saying this but these need not concern us. What we are concerned about is to ask whether it is true that the Labour Party is a Socialist Party.
Socialism means a new social system, based upon the common ownership of the means of wealth production and distribution. All wealth under Socialism will be produced to satisfy human needs and not to make a profit. There will, in other words, be no such thing as investment under Socialism. Yet the 1953 Labour manifesto Challenge to Britain states clearly that:
The crucial problem facing the next Labour Government will be to stimulate a big increase in investment.
Socialism will have no national barriers, no separate countries each with their own mistakenly patriotic workers. Compare this with what Mr. Harold Wilson said recently:
Desire to restore Britain’s standing in the world is a noble one, and one which we have been pressing for years. We have been saying that Britain must lead (The Guardian, 2/12/63).
There will be no international trading rivalries under Socialism. These rivalries, which often lead directly to war, spring from the basis of capitalist society. But Mr. Wilson wants:
. . . a specific preference in awarding (Commonwealth) contracts to Britain. . . In return, Britain should undertake to provide guaranteed markets for Commonwealth primary produce (Daily Telegraph, 5/5/63.)
These statements are taken at random from a mass of evidence which proves that the Labour Party stands for capitalism and, as a British political party, represents the interests of the British capitalist class.
That is why, when they were last in power, they used troops to break strikes, developed the British H. Bomb, continued conscription into peace-time, put this country into the Korean war, and so on.
There is no point in pretending that millions of workers will not once more vote Labour in this election. But they should be aware that in doing so they are voting for capitalism—for war, for poverty, for unrest and insecurity.
The Liberals
Struggling to increase its political fortunes at this election will be the Liberal Party. Out in the wilderness for well over forty years, they have previous little chance still of forming a government. But this is not for want of trying; in recent years, their language has been that much more flowery than their Labour and Tory opponents, their promises that much wilder. For they are trying hard to raise an image of the “new” Liberalism from the ashes of the old, and to convince workers that theirs is the best way of running British capitalism.
“Cut the past. Assess the present and prepare for the future," was the cry of Liberal leader Jo Grimond only about two years ago, and bearing in mind the Liberal record, this was certainly not surprising to hear. Here we have the party of peace lovers who supported both world wars; defenders of individual liberties who agreed with conscription; friends of the workers who smashed their strikes with troops; protectors of the little man, who built up their party funds by selling peerages to their big business backers. All this and more can be laid at the door of the Liberal Party of yesterday, when it was well and truly a powerful force.
No comments:
Post a Comment