Quick-change Artist
The history of the Labour Party is full of examples of rebels who have, after attaining power and eminence, become just as “Right-wing” as the leaders they displaced. Yet, each time a new ginger group or rabble rouser appears in the political firmament large numbers of people think that it is different. It is always the last lot that were no good, and it is always this lot that will be better. The recent Labour Party conference has resulted in a great victory for the group known as the “Bevanites.” They are going to put more Socialism into the Labour Party. We confidently predict that they will fail, not because we are prophets, but because we know that Bevan and his henchmen are no more socialists and no more backed by socialists, than Attlee, Morrison or R. A. Butler for that matter. We predict that should these rebels gain the leadership of the Labour Party they will prove themselves to be just as “right-wing” as the fallen leaders and just as ready to lend themselves to the conduct of Capitalism, war, or whatever situation arises out of this system. And never will the fundamental interests of the working-class be served. Thus it was with the late Sir Stafford Cripps; thus it will be with Bevan. The transformation from left-wing rebel to right-wing leader is invariably gradual. The process takes a few years so that by the time leadership is attained the indiscretions of the rebellious past are buried and almost forgotten. With the present rebels in the ascendant, however, the cat has been let well and truly out of the bag, even before leadership has been reached.
Mr. R. H. Crossman, reputed “expert” on foreign affairs and destined to be Foreign Secretary if ever Bevan gets the call to the premiership, well and truly, yet inadvertently, gave the whole show away. Called to speak to a resolution on foreign policy, a day or so after being elected to the Party Executive, he admitted that the speech he was originally going to make, which would have been “lively and fiery,” was to be scrapped in favour of one “less controversial.” The transformation in his case seems to have taken place overnight. The responsibilities of office affected him more quickly than most other “poachers turned gamekeepers.” To the credit of the delegates of the Labour Party Conference this example of political opportunism was solidly booed, and we can only hope that the incident will leave the delegates with some doubts as to the value of leadership, whether “right- wing,” “left-wing,” or “centre.”
What do they do?
Francis Bacon, alleged by some to be the real author of Shakespeare’s plays, wrote in his essay on Justice: "a much talking judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal.” If he were alive to-day he would have no cause to revise his opinions. Magistrates and Judges are fond of hearing themselves talk, and often betray the most abysmal ignorance of things outside their legal experience. Thus we have a magistrate roundly condemning a working-class woman who had the temerity to spend some of her children’s allowance on going to the pictures once a week. Another legal luminary on being told that a Czech refugee charged with theft could not be deported because his life would be in danger, retorted “So our lives must be endangered.” An apt comment, for to the capitalist and his henchmen property is life.
The magistrate of an East-end Court recently had before him a sixteen year old boy who was earning £8 10s. per week. So astounded was the magistrate that he pondered aloud over this phenomenon and produced the remark, “What on earth can he do to deserve such pay?” The answer, of course, is obvious. Work! It appears from this consternation which fills the breast of the magistrate, that boys of sixteen should not have £8 10s. per week given to them as wages. But this opens up a wide field of investigation. If the Magistrate is perturbed at this state of affairs, he should broaden his horizon and enquire what, for instance, anybody does which is worth, say, £30,000 per annum. He could enquire into the fact that people are getting far more than £8 10s. for doing nothing except clipping dividend coupons off Share Certificates, or paying somebody else to clip the coupons for them. This aspect would not of course perturb the learned Magistrate. What he really objects to is not the sum involved. He would certainly not have said it concerning an Eton schoolboy brought before him for some college “ rag.” He is perturbed by the fact that a working-class boy should get more money than he thinks is proper. It is commonplace to hear of people receiving enormous incomes, complaining that miners or dockers are earning “too much.” They feel that they are the only ones entitled to be affluent, safe, and secure. Socialists who object to the system which produces such inequalities are dubbed "selfish” and "jealous.” So of the magistrate and those who think with him we ask this question: “ If it is wrong for a boy to receive £8 10s. per week for his work, is it not wrong for people to get infinitely more for not working? ” We feel sure that the question will remain unanswered by those who have set themselves up as arbiters of what workers should have.
Misdirected efforts
The explosion of the new British Atomic Bomb off the coast of Australia has been hailed with rapture by every section of the press—the Daily Worker, of course, excepted. The Daily Mirror informs us that this bomb puts the word “Great” in front of Britain, and expects us all to rejoice that Britain has attained at least parity with Russia and America in the development of atomic weapons. It enables "us” to defend ourselves and others. It would be amusing, if the occasion were not so melancholy, to observe that each and every country always has weapons for defence, never for attack. Indeed, the cry of "Defence” which rings out all over the world, makes us wonder why wars ever occur.
The Daily Worker, reporting a statement of an organisation known as "Science for Peace” (a crypto- communist outfit) tells us that the spending of £200,000,000 on this atomic experiment is "anti-social and wholly destructive,” and a "misdirection of scientific effort.” It finds it particularly so at a time when "Britain's economic difficulties are unprecedented and unsolved.” Is then, the expenditure of such a sum on such a project in order if Britain’s economic difficulties were not unprecedented? Do we assume that if Britain did not have a “dollar gap,” and shortage of raw materials (with which the Daily Worker is concerned) the Daily Worker would not frown on Atomic development? Of course we do not. The only time the Daily Worker or the Science for Peace Organisation would approve would be when Britain and Russia were allies. Not one word has ever been published in the Daily Worker condemning the “misdirection of scientific effort ” in the Soviet Union. For remember the Soviet Union also has its Atom bomb. Not only do they not condemn Russia for this but they offered no word of protest at the use of the bomb on Hiroshima when thousands of men, women and children were destroyed in one night, and those who were left alive remain living monuments of the ruthless, predatory nature of that Capitalism which both the Daily Mirror and the Daily Worker support.
The development of Atomic weapons is just one more reason why Capitalism should be swept away and Socialism instituted. But protests at their development in England and America and acquiescence in their production in the Soviet Union is “misdirection of scientific effor ” indeed.
To quote Longfellow:—
“Were half the power that fills the world with tenor.Were half the wealth bestowed on camps and courts,Given to redeem the human mind from error.There were no need for arsenals and forts.”
S.A.
No comments:
Post a Comment