The Labour Party and Socialism - Part 2 (1942)

From the July 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1

It is by means of these catch phrases, which pay lip-service to Socialism, and its variety of importunate reforms, that the Labour Party was able to draw under its wing all sorts and shades of political opinion. The strength of a Party lies in the rank and file. An eclectic statement of policy gains a very versatile support, and when the Party endeavours to implement its policy it finds there are wide divergences in the rank and file as to how and when it should be done. We might say in the case of the Labour Party that it has gained support for everything but the abolition of capitalism, and as a consequence has achieved nothing except the retention of capitalism.

The means shape the ends : means are ends.

A policy based on the idea that the position of servitude of the working class can be gradually abolished by reforming the relation of wage-labour and capital cannot produce the abolition of wage labour and capital. A policy which allows for co-operation with avowed anti-Socialist parties cannot lead to the establishment of Socialism.

With the above points in mind it is easy to understand the reason for the splits inside, and the secessions from, the Labour Party just prior to, and following, its “betrayal” by MacDonald.

It must be remembered that the Labour Party was in power as a Capitalist Government, not as a Socialist Government. Supporters of the Labour Party may differ from this statement, but it is an undeniable fact. The nature of a government is not determined by the name which it takes or which it may be given. In so far as we are discussing the question of Capitalism and Socialism the nature of the government is determined by the mode of production and distribution in being during its time of administration. The Labour Party attempted to continue to run the country’s affairs on the basis of capitalism.

It is in this fact that the explanation lies of the failure and collapse of the Labour Party in 1931. The economic crisis of the time arose, as usual, from the mode of capitalist production and distribution, not through the mismanagement of political affairs. It was common to the whole world : it was not particular to Britain. Try as they might the Labour Party could not combat the laws of the capitalist system, which over-rode its reformist theories and forced its actions to conform with them.

The causes of the splits in, and secessions from, the Labour Party are not to be found in mere ideological variations but in the differing theories of its supporters, leaders and rank and file, as to what should be done in the face of changing economic conditions.

Although Attlee accuses MacDonald of “betraying” the Labour movement by uniting with the Conservatives and Liberals in the National Government, was this action to be unexpected in view of the resolution of the Labour Representation Committee in 1900, of which MacDonald was the secretary ? Since the retention of capitalism is implicit in Labour Party policy, when things got in a mess to whom was it best to turn for advice ? The avowedly capitalist politicians and economic theorists, of course ! It is the sole purpose of the capitalist class to maintain the present economic system. It has a century and a half of theory and practice behind it. It has the knowledge and the control of the organs of propaganda by means of which it can seduce the working class to come to heel in times of emergency. When MacDonald turned to them for advice it was a case of walking into the spider’s parlour. Homo sapiens works differently from the insect world, however, and instead of being gobbled up he changed his fly’s wings for spider’s legs and his new brothers invited him to assist in the nefarious work of spinning the deceptive web !

Thus it was that during 1929-31 we saw the paradoxical phenomenon of a party arising from a workers’ ideology, built and paid for by the working class, founded on an eclectic policy of reforms and co-operation, achieve considerable power; and when in power we saw that it could take no other course than to continue to run the capitalist system. It would be a contradiction in terms to say that this can be done in the interests of the working class. The nature of the mode of production and distribution absolutely precludes this course of events. We saw, therefore, an alleged working class party controlling the political machine and the economic affairs of the country on behalf of the master class and against the interests of the class it purported to represent.

It is now eleven years since MacDonald and some others “betrayed” the Labour movement and entered the National Government in coalition with the Tories and Liberals. Where do the Labour leaders stand to-day ? We find Attlee, Greenwood, Morrison, Bevin, Cripps, etc., in the present National Government actively assisting the master-class. What is it that has led them to coalesce with the capitalists? Mr. Attlee, addressing the Annual Conference of the T.U.C., reported in the Daily Telegraph, October 9th, 1940, 

“emphasised the reasons why Labour is taking a part in the Government. The reasons were three : "To secure the defeat of the enemy,

"To maintain the unity of the nation,

"To preserve the freedom of the people‘.

"It was a difficult matter, he said, to maintain the principles of freedom at a time when the country had to be organised to keep the right balance between authority and liberty. . . . The Government was composed of different parties with different outlook, but there was enough measure of agreement for them all to work together.” (italics ours.)

This statement may sound very sweet to Labour supporters to-day, but what did Attlee have to say regarding Fascism, coalition with avowedly capitalist parties and national unity in 1937.

Turn to the pages of The Labour Party in Perspective. After discussing the divergent trends of opinions within the Party on foreign policy, he says (p. 219) : —

“The alternative policy is not the support by Labour of a Capitalist Government, but constitutional opposition.” (italics ours.)

He discusses the trend this opposition should take, and then says (p. 220) : —

“There is yet one other tendency among Labour supporters. There are those who, realising the danger of menace of the Fascist Powers, tend to take up an attitude of supporting a Capitalist Government at home as the least of two evils. They tend to under-estimate the reality of the struggle between Capitalism and Socialism and to magnify the differences between democratic Capitalist States and Fascist States. The danger of this attitude is that in fighting foreign Fascism they may encourage the subtle introduction of Fascism at home. The Fascist danger in this country does not come from the crude activities of Sir Oswald Mosley, but from the clever propaganda which has been actively disseminated ever since the formation of the National Government in favour of what is called national unity. There has been a deliberate attempt made to suggest that after all there are no real political differences in this country, and that everybody is in reality in agreement. The increasing danger of the international situation affords an opportunity for pressing this point. The speeches of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald are full of Fascist ideas and even Fascist phraseology. The essentials of the Corporate State without any coloured shirts might be introduced in this country in a period of international tension.”

We have read in Mr. Attlee’s own words that the policy of co-operation with capitalist parties and governments is anti-Socialist and anti-working class. Yet it is explicit in Labour Party policy, and Mr. Attlee and other Labour leaders follow it out when their turn comes round.

After thirty-six years of political life where has this sort of thing led the Labour Party, and with it the Trade Union movement, in its struggle for the improvement of working class conditions ?

All the Labour movement can now offer the workers is “blood and tears, toil and sweat,” and as has been pointed out often in these columns, the statements of post-war prospects point to nothing but the elimination of the first item.

After this sad tale of thirty-six years of misplaced thought and action by a large proportion of the British working class let us finish up on a note of hope for the future.

That hope lies in Socialism. The S.P.G.B. has had two years of life longer than the Labour Party, and although we cannot show the same spectacular electoral success we can claim one thing, at least. That is, that in thirty-eight years, because of its insistence on the fundamental Socialist objective, the S.P.G.B. has done more for progress towards Socialism than any other party or combination of parties.

The only solution to working class troubles is to be found in the establishment of a Socialist system of society.

N. S.