Is it a New I.L.P. ? (1940)

From the May 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

The I.L.P. was formed in the closing years of the nineteenth century, in the years when the need began to be felt for independent parliamentary representation among the more independent-minded worker in the trade union movement. The I.L.P. was not sponsored by the trade unions, but its formation was in conformity with the mood among many for independence. Before the formation of the I.L.P. and the Labour Party, workers who entered Parliament did so as members of and with the support of the Liberal Party.

From the beginning the “independence” of the I.L.P. was very circumscribed. In the early days when some of its members stood as candidates for Parliament its “independence” did not preclude the electioneering methods of the older capitalist parties. When, in the early ‘nineties, Keir Hardie stood for S.W. Ham, he angled for Liberal votes and received the official support of the local Liberals to the extent that the official Liberal candidate stood down in his favour. The political objects of the I.L.P. were vague. Though it used the term “Socialism,” it had no clear conception of its meaning, nor did it attempt at any time to define it. From its early literature and the speeches of its members it meant all sorts of things or anything according to the taste of the individual. Consequently, it attracted to its ranks a varied collection of intellectual odds and ends, reformers, social uplifters, teetotal and other cranks, and the political opportunist—the latter, usually men, who, because of lack of wealth or other backing could not find political careers in the older political parties. In a letter to Keir Hardie from Mr. J. R. MacDonald, for example, it was clear that the latter gentleman was applying to the I.L.P. for membership because the Liberals had refused to give the backing necessary for him to enter Parliament.

After many trade union reverses on the industrial field the Labour Party was formed with the backing of the trade union movement a decade or so after the formation of the I.L.P. From this time the Labour Party grew rapidly and the I.L.P. became an affiliated body. It should need very little argument to show that, whatever minor differences were presumed to exist between the two parties, there could be no real differences on fundamental questions between affiliated organisations. The Labour Party fulfilled the purpose of giving independent parliamentary representation for the interests of the trade union movement. It assumed this function with powerful financial and numerical backing. Whatever hopes the I.L.P. ever had of becoming this instrument they disappeared with the birth of the Labour Party.

The Labour Party was reformist—so was the I.L.P. When candidates of the I.L.P. fought elections they did so as members of the Labour Party, with the latter’s backing and on its programme. Even those few I.L.P. representatives who to-day sit in Parliament owe their seats to the fact that they originally represented their constituencies as Labour M.P.s. Some of them have not had the opposition of the official Labour Party since the two organisations separated. Neither the Labour Party nor the LL.P. has ever advocated Socialism, that is to say, the abolition of capitalism, which would involve the end of the wages system and all that goes with it. In fact, the most “daring” proposals of the I.L.P. which have appeared in the Party’s programme from time to time have always assumed the continuance of the wages system. Family Allowances and the Living Wage policy are pertinent examples. Like the Labour Party, the I.L.P. has never shown signs that it regards Socialism as meaning anything more than Nationalisation or State Ownership. Thus it has recently referred to Russia’s policy in Finland as being a betrayal of Socialism . . . which, of course, is nonsense. A few years ago the LL.P. had in circulation two pamphlets, typical of many, which . illustrated the Party’s conception of “Socialism.” The pamphlets were “Socialism at Work in Queensland” and “Chunks of Socialism.” In the former the reader was asked to be impressed by the efficiency of the State butchers’ shops in that country and the fact that these shops were able to sell meat at a fraction of a penny less a pound than the capitalist “private” retailer. In the latter pamphlet the simple worker was provided with a very simple explanation of the meaning and working of Socialism. He was invited to observe “Socialism” at work during his everyday life. The roads that he walked on, the trams that he rode in, the post office where he bought his stamps and received his old-age pension, were all, he was told, “chunks of Socialism.” Further, he was informed, Socialism merely meant an extension of these things to other activities and the addition of more “chunks.”

The I.L.P. To-day

But what of the I.L.P. as it exists to-day . . ? Can the mistakes and the misconceptions of the past be laid at the door of the present I.L.P. ? Has the breakaway from the Labour Party really resulted in an “independent” party? Does the I.L.P. now stand for the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism as we understand it?

I.L.P. propaganda to-day is largely concerned with the war. It takes a line which, in appearance, seems to be fairly sound and in conformity with the Socialist position. It is an imperialist war, it is argued, fought over the question of trade routes, colonies, and for political dominance. This attitude, upon which the I.L.P. appears to be united, is in contrast to the policy of squaring the circle which it exhibited during the last war. Should we, therefore, relax our opposition to the I.L.P. because of their stand on this particular social problem ? The truth is that, with a major war on the doorstep, affecting closely the lives and the interests of the British working class, it would have been surprising had even the I.L.P. taken any other line. The test of a sound approach, however, is when it is a question, not of a major war on the doorstep, but a minor war, which appears to be more remote from British working-class interests and not so obviously an imperialist war. When Italy attacked Abyssinia a few years ago the I.L.P. were not so certain about the nature of the struggle. Dr. C. A. Smith openly supported the slave-owning potentate, the Emperor of Abyssinia, against Italy. Dr. Smith, now chairman of the I.L.P., then stated :

“I now repeat that, had I been in Abyssinia, only conflicting duties or sheer cowardice would have prevented my fighting against the Fascist invaders.”

McGovern, in a letter to the New Leader (May 29th, 1936), said that Smith was supported in this attitude by Fenner Brockway and C. L. R. James. McGovern, with others on the Inner Executive of the I.L.P., took an opposite point of view. The Executive passed a resolution which said :

“In our estimation the difference between the two rival dictators and the interests behind them are not worth the loss of a single British life.”

The similarity of phraseology to the 1914 War Manifesto of the S.P.G.B. will not escape those who are familiar with it. But what happened as a result of this reasonably sound attitude from these leaders of the I.L.P.? At a later conference delegates of the party moved a vote of censure on the supporters of the resolution on the grounds that this line was in opposition to the official I.L.P. policy! The resolution of censure was carried by 70 votes to 57. A rap over the knuckles for the leaders by the led ! Another example was the Spanish Civil War. In this, as in the case of Abyssinia, the I.L.P. overlooked the over-riding capitalist interests which were involved and which could, quite conceivably, have driven the war into an international conflict.

I.L.P. Peace Terms

The I.L.P. appears to have learned sufficient to enable them to appreciate that the war is basically a struggle between the capitalists of Europe. But its understanding seems to go little deeper than that. Let us quote the “Socialist Peace Terms” which feature as the I.L.P.’s chief propaganda at present. The following is from the New Leader (October 3rd, 1939): —

“The I.L.P. has written to Socialist and Labour Parties of all countries urging- a world agitation for peace based on the following principles :—

1. The liberation of peoples in Europe from German Imperialist domination and equally the liberation of the subject peoples of the British and French Empires from alien domination.

2. The recognition that, whilst peoples should enjoy autonomy in social and cultural life, the world has become so closely knit that national sovereignty must be subordinated to international unity.

3. The removal of the economic causes of war by whole-hearted recognition that the abundant resources of the earth make the struggle for markets and raw materials unnecessary, and the establishment of an international economic organisation for the distribution of the world’s resources according to the needs of all peoples.”

There are just one or two essentials in that statement that are amazing for their omission. It talks of the “peoples” as though the fact that the world is divided into an owning class and a dispossessed class, the capitalist class and the working class, just does not exist. It is the jargon of the deliberately vague and opportunist politician. And look at point three: “… the abundant resources of the earth make the struggle for markets and raw materials unnecessary.” Quite. But the strangest omission is a recognition of the fact that whilst the earth’s abundant resources are owned and controlled by the capitalist class different sections of that class will struggle for possession of it. We repeat, a strange omission from a “Socialist” statement on war. And how the I.L.P. proposes that the liberation of the peoples in Europe from German imperialist domination should be effected it leaves to be guessed. The truth is that the problem of peace and war is one for the capitalist class. Socialists cannot even remotely affect the issue. It is sheer moonshine to talk of a “Socialist peace” in a world where there is a non-Socialist working class. More, it is fantastic delusion. In whatever way peace will come it will certainly not be a Socialist peace. Socialists can only continue to express their opposition to war.

The Old Reforms Again

War is only one of the social problems thrown up by capitalism and though the I.L.P. appears to have learned a little of that problem it is still the old I.L.P. where other social problems are concerned, and no nearer an understanding of them than they were forty years ago. Some points from the election address of the I.L.P. candidate in the Stretford bye-election indicate this. They are : —

“(1) Introduce a national living wage, with family allowances, to be paid as a minimum to workers in industry and the armed forces alike.

(2) Conscript wealth by transferring industry, transport, land and banking to public ownership.

(3) Suppress all profiteering by fixing a price for raw material and goods in all stages of production.

I am pledged to fight for these demands. The National Government could—

(4) Immediately increase old-age pensions to 20s. per week and increase unemployment benefit and sickness allowances, widows’ and blind pensions in accordance with every increase in the cost of living.

(5) Stabilise working-class rents within the reach of working-class incomes.

(6) Requisition the mansions of the rich, whether in town or country, for evacuation centres, homes for the aged and infirm.”

Note that family allowances occupies first place. The danger of this proposal to the workers’ standard of living by reducing the income of unmarried workers completely escapes the attention of the I.L.P. Or perhaps it is regarded as just good electioneering. Observe also the old-time favourite vote-catching expedient—minimum wages and increased old-age pensions. Votes given for the candidate were claimed to be anti-war votes by the I.L.P. A little exaggerated in view of the bait. And about that minimum pay to “workers in industry and the armed forces alike.” (Italics ours.)

Does this mean that the I.L.P. is now voting for war credits in Parliament? If they are voting against the annual financial appropriation granted by a vote in the House of Commons, without which the Army could not continue, then it cannot logically ask for increased pay for soldiers. The Army can only get its increased pay if the Army gets its appropriation. Logically, to give increased pay for soldiers, the I.L.P. should support war credits in opposition to its “anti-war policy.”

Take another example of muddled thinking from the New Leader (November 10th, 1939) : —

“On Wednesday the Labour Party demanded in Parliament juster and earlier rationing of food.

The principle of the equal distribution of necessities is sound.

The best way to secure it. however, is not rationing of what money can buy, but rationing the money itself.

The I.L.P. demands the equalisation of all incomes so that there is neither luxury nor want.

It proposes that a national minimum on a living scale should be established and that no worker or soldier should be paid less than this scale.

At the same time there should be a maximum beyond which no income or salary should go.”

Ordinary, simple folk who do not know much about economics would incline to believe that a minimum and a maximum income cancels equalisation. They would, of course, be quite right. But wishy-washy politicians have standards of their own. “Demands” should sound “bold” and be calculated to provoke approval among the unthinking. It is the sort of nonsense that came very easily from the Labour Party in the days when the possibilities of becoming a government were remote. In short it is political peddling.

Time to Define Socialism

The I.L.P. is still the same old party; muddled, reformist and with no real idea of what Socialism really means. Two recent issues of the New Leader show this. In a long article on January 19th the following appeared: “The time has come for us to stress the positive side of our policy. Not just against the war . . . but for Socialism. This will require careful discussion of the meaning of Socialism, of the political and economic structure of the society we want, and of the steps and methods by which to achieve it.” On March 14th, Dr. C. A. Smith, chairman of the I.L.P., said: “Clearly it is high time for Socialists to get down to the job of definition, and make quite clear to themselves what they mean by the term.” After nearly fifty years of existence they are going to start doing something which an organisation claiming to be Socialist should have known from the start! At the recent I.L.P. conference Dr. Smith illustrated his complete inability to do this. He said: “Socialists who value democracy have therefore to consider what they can learn from libertarian doctrines, such as those of the Anarcho-Syndicalists, to study the reason for the success and the destruction of the Soviets in Russia.” What could more illustrate intellectual bankruptcy than this pathetic grasping at the discredited doctrines of the Syndicalists. After the I.L.P. broke away from the Labour Party they began to play with the doctrines of Bolshevism in a similar way. The Party has no real understanding of the problem of capitalism. I.L.P. conference also carried a motion permitting its members to join the Co-operative political party.

Another back door into the Labour Party, a party with whom it would have recently re-affiliated if a sufficiently face-saving formula could have been found, a party with whom it has no fundamental differences, but merely tactical differences on questions of policy.

The I.L.P. has attempted to foster the illusion that its breakaway from the Labour Party eight years ago produced a party of revolutionary Socialism. It has only succeeded in showing that mere discontent with the Labour Party cannot make revolutionaries or Socialists Understanding of the nature of capitalism is required for that. And is what the I.L.P. lacks.

The S.P.G.B. is still the only political party in this country able to apply a revolutionary approach to the problems of capitalism, because it is the Socialist Party.

Harry Waite