A Debate organised by West Ham Branch was held at Stratford Town Hall on Sunday, November 27th, 1932, between the Socialist Party of Great Britain and the Conservative Party.
Comrade E. Hardy—for Socialist Party of Great Britain.
Mrs. E. Tennant—for the Conservative Party.
Comrade E. Hardy commenced his case for Socialism by stating two points on which the two parties would probably be in agreement—firstly, the imperative need for a solution to the problems of poverty, unemployment, preventive illness and death, war, and industrial strife; and secondly, that individual action was inadequate, the needs of the present situation requiring that the working class shall take organised political action by means of the vote to secure their emancipation from these evils.
He pointed out that the Socialist case is based on the principle that human beings are dependent on the material conditions which surround them, and that the programmes of other political parties proved that they also recognised that favourable economic conditions are necessary to a happy and satisfactory life.
He then defined the two classes which make up capitalist society: —
The working class, which comprises all those who, not having property incomes, have to sell their services—their mental and physical energies—their labour power, in order to live, the alternative being charity, robbery or dependence on the State; emphasising at the same "time that these are the wealth producers; and
The capitalist class, made up of those who live on property incomes—rent, interest and profit—who own the means of production and to whom the wealth produced by the workers belongs.
He showed that, arising out of these conditions, the capitalist is able to get a return over and above the sum of money he invests for the simple reason that out of the wealth that the working class produce but do not own they only receive in the shape of salaries or wages a fraction. And further, that this fraction, speaking generally, is based on the cost of living of the worker according to the particular trade, industry and country, and under the conditions prevailing at any given time.
The speaker then proceeded to lay stress on the need for the establishment of Socialism. He said that a Socialist understood the evolution of society and the necessary place that capitalism occupies in that evolution. In its early days it had enabled society to develop to an enormous extent its productive powers. It had broken down national barriers and exclusiveness, it had modernised the backward nations, it had destroyed the isolation of rural life and freed the subject class from being tied to land and locality. It had developed the money system of exchange, and facilitated the division of labour. Now, however, capitalism prevents the workers from gaining the benefit of the development of the productive forces.
The Socialist’s solution to present-day problems was not therefore utopian, nor based on class hatred, but on the need to solve the social problem by instituting common ownership of the means of production and distribution. It was on these grounds alone that the Socialist Party of Great Britain invited the support of the working class.
Mrs. Tennant (a Conservative Parliamentary candidate), speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party, made it clear during her first remarks that she was under the impression that she was opposing a party which supports the Labour Party, and therefore made little serious attempt to state a case against Socialism and the S.P.G.B.
After saying that it was always easy to legislate and make a perfect plan on paper, Mrs. Tennant stated that the Conservative Party were the first people to become alive to the industrial horrors of the 18th and 19th Centuries, and went on to mention in detail the various reforms for which the Conservative Party were responsible, for example:—
The placing of the first Factory Act on the Statute Book in 1802; the Combination Law in 1824, giving rise to the Trade Union Movement; the Ten Hours Act, 1847; the first Act for Compulsory Education, 1876.; Workmen’s Compensation Acts; Pensions Acts, etc.
She also gave the Conservative Party credit for having reduced unemployment during the years 1924-1929, for improving this country’s trade balance by £63,000,000, and for having built a record number of new houses.
And just when “things were looking a little brighter" the country returned a Labour Government, because, she stated, they promised a new heaven and a new earth. They promised to clear the slums and cure unemployment (then about one million) in three weeks. But they did none of these things. The “Socialist" M.P.s agreed to nine-tenths of the cuts adopted by the National Government, and unemployment increased. She was now afraid that the “Socialists'" new programme of nationalisation for the banks, industry, agriculture and transit would be dangerous to the workers because it would stampede capital and order. It would cause increased unemployment, higher food prices and greater taxation.
She said that Karl Marx had inaugurated the Class Struggle, and cited Russia as an example of the low standard of life to which this country would sink if the “Socialists” had their way.
Comrade Hardy, replying, regretted in the first place that his opponent had mistaken the Socialist Party of Great Britain for a party supporting the Labour Party. He pointed out the consistent opposition of the Socialist Party to the Labour Party ever since that party’s formation in 1906 (two years later than the formation of the Socialist Party of Great Britain), and denied emphatically that the Socialist Party gave the slightest support to nationalisation.
He pointed out that it is absurd to say that the Conservative Party were the first people to realise the horrors of industrial capitalism. The working class had, of course, been well aware of them for years, and the Conservative Party's factory legislation, for what it was worth, was generations late. He pointed out that some of the reforms claimed by the Tories were also claimed by the Liberal Party. He was prepared, however, for the sake of argument to give the Tories credit for them all. The very need for reforms was the condemnation of capitalism. The Tories have to “protect the workers”—against capitalism. The only remedy was the abolition of the wages system.
It is not true that Karl Marx had “initiated the 'Class Struggle.” He had merely pointed out that it existed, and that it arose out of the basic contradictions of capitalist society.
Speaking of housing, Comrade Hardy said this problem, after having been “solved” in turn by Tories, Liberals and the Labour Party, was still with us. According to Sir E. Simon, in a letter to The Times, February 12th, 1931, “ the position of the slum dwellers is worse than it was ten years ago.” There was, properly speaking, no housing problem for the working class. What did exist was a poverty problem which could not be solved within capitalism. The Tories said they gave the workers the vote in 1867. Why 1867? Fifty years earlier, in 1819, the workers demonstrated peacefully at Peterloo to ask for the vote. A Tory Government killed and wounded numbers of them.
Proceeding to deal with the historical case against capitalism, he pointed out in some detail that capitalism after first developing the power of production was now making frantic efforts to restrict it again, and having brought the rural population to the towns, capitalist reformers talked of solving unemployment by sending them back again to the country. There was even an attempt to return to barter in a large number of countries at the present time.
Capitalism was unable to use its resources to the full, and had outlived its usefulness to mankind.
Mrs. Tennant’s final remarks were to the effect that it was easy for the Socialist Party of Great Britain to sneer at 95 years of Government experience, and she submitted that when the Socialist Party of Great Britain was in power there would be many disillusionments. Karl Marx had never governed so much as a puppy-dog, “so it was all paper legislation.” She again referred to Russia as an example of Socialism. Russia had failed to feed her people, which was a very serious accusation to bring against a country. She was afraid this beautiful system of Socialism would not materialise until human beings were perfect.
In reply, Comrade Hardy stated that Russia was not a Socialist country, but one in which industry was run through the medium of private and State Capitalism. It was still a backward country, suffering from the legacy of inefficient Czarism. Why not look at the spectacle of poverty in rich U.S.A. The Daily Telegraph had recently quoted the American Federation of Labor that 60 millions, one-half the population, will be on the verge of starvation this coming winter. America, he pointed out, was not a backward country, but one of the most highly developed capitalist countries in the world.
He said his opponent had put the only case possible for the Conservative Party, that of social reforms. These had been tried and found wanting. He reiterated that there was only one solution to the problems confronting the working class, and that was to establish the common ownership of the means of production and distribution by the method advocated by the Socialist Party of Great Britain.
The debate was well attended. There were about 800 present and many were turned away owing to lack of room. A collection was taken of £5 10s. and about 27s. worth of literature was sold.
Blogger's Note:
In all probability the Conservative Party representative, Mrs E. Tennant, was Eleonora Tennant.
Eleonora Tennant was a Tory parliamentary candidate in the East End of London (Silvertown) at the 1931 and 1935 General Elections and, let's be honest, women being so under-represented in politics in the 1930s, what are the chances of there being two Mrs E. Tennants' in the Tory Party active in the East End of London at this time? If you click on her wiki page you'll go down a rabbit hole of far right and anti-semitic politics which covers both Britain and Australia.
No comments:
Post a Comment