The Labour Party in Perspective by M. Blum. (1950)

From the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Leon Blum, whose death was announced recently, was a Social Democrat—that is, a reformist of the Labour type who, while using the name “Socialist,” took part in the administration of capitalism whenever allowed to, holding ministerial posts at times. However, he seems to have understood the position of such reformists far more clearly than the British Labour Party; for in a fraternal “Letter to British Socialists” published in Tribune during the election (17/2/50) he made the following observations, which must have perturbed even readers of Tribune (who are accustomed to regard themselves as the lonely conscience of the Labour Party): —

“ My comrades of the British Labour Party . . .

“[In France] the Socialists have maintained all the essential economic and social reforms which have been introduced since the liberation, despite a counterattack by capitalist reaction.” (Our italics.)

He sympathises with the British Labour Party in office:—

“There is perhaps no more difficult task than that of a government working within the framework of a capitalist society and having neither the power nor the mandate to transform it completely at one blow." “ It must defend at the same time both the special interests of the workers and the general interest of the nation —which are not always identical.” This surely is only possible if the interest of the nation is equated to that of a minority, for those same workers are also the overwhelming majority of the nation.

“The Labour Government has . . . achieved a number of economic and social reforms . . . without changing the existing class structure . .. [The Conservatives] will interfere with scarcely any of its striking achievements.”

This certainly makes clear the considerable common ground the Labour Party shares with its opponents, and this worries Tribune quite enough as it is. But before his British comrades have risen from their gloom he goes on:—

“European capitalism . . . no longer maintains free competition, but moves towards monopoly capitalism, which is concerned above all with securing legal protection for its profits. It is incapable of offering a solution which will conform to its principles for to-day’s weighty problems.”

Ah, this is more what we are used to—general attacks on the idea of profit. One simply does not attack the Labour Party, old man. Recognise the difficulties, and all that. But Blum is not yet done with his unwitting wounding of his British friends—he deals a blow at the Labour Party’s belief that State control and/or ownership can be equated to Socialism in the following paragraph.

“The history of Soviet Russia proves another truth which no Marxist could have predicted fifty years ago and which I myself should have rejected outright in my youth. It is evident now that even a complete and revolutionary transformation of all property rights does not automatically lead to the true emancipation of the worker. In Soviet Russia the capitalist system of property has been completely destroyed. Yet a régime of wage labour persists, the material conditions of the workers remain miserable, and elementary liberties are pitilessly crushed.” (In point of fact of course only the private capitalist system of property has been abolished.)

The attitude of the Socialist Party of Great Britain has from its foundation been quite clear about the feasibility or otherwise of Socialism either “in one country” or in any society in which production and education are not at a high level and which has not developed the habit of democracy. Articles from The Socialist Standard on the Bolshevik regime from its inception are collected in our pamphlet, “Russia Since 1917,” and will be seen to be perfectly consistent about its oppressive and non-Socialist character. There is nothing particularly clever or clairvoyant in this, merely an absence of the self-delusion afflicting the Communist Party. In any case, it is regrettable M. Blum never picked up a Socialist Standard, if not fifty then forty-six years ago, for he would not have had to confess such disappointment.

In his closing remarks M. Blum says: “ [In] Britain under the influence of the Labour Government . . . the capitalist system of property has not yet been abolished,” thus nailing the Labour lie “Five years of Socialism have brought us, etc.” And having completely undermined the morale of the Labour Party, who thought they were after something different, he finally wishes them luck at the hands of the fickle workers, who as events have turned out cannot be relied upon to know when they are well off, and awaits the poll “ with great excitement.”

Before the war Mr. Attlee wrote a pot-boiler called “The Labour Party in Perspective.” Now the Labour Party really has been put in perspective, but by Mr. Attlee’s Gallic counterpart. Whether M. Blum was actually trying to educate his British comrades (he would keep calling them that, and it must have upset them), or whether he took it for granted that any party with pretensions to being Socialist would at least have read “all that Marx stuff, you know,” we can only guess. If an attempt at education, it seems doomed to failure when it is remembered that the Labour Party thinks of Tribune as its black sheep, edited by people who don't go into division as they are told and have nothing better to do than to spill inconvenient beans about Seretse and the (Unilever) East Africa Co. monopoly. In the issue of 31/3/50 Ian Mikardo opines that Harold Laski died heartbroken by the last five years of Labour government. It will be interesting to watch the fate of the Tribune group in the mighty democratic party which (also says Mikardo) expelled Zilliacus unheard. Yes, the Labour Party is indeed coming into perspective at last

OPIFEX.

More election reflections (1950)

From the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

In February the workers of Britain voted. Whether Labour, Conservative, Liberal or Communist, by and large they all voted for the continuance of Capitalism. Whether they know it or not—and for the most part they do not—they once again acquiesced in the continuance of the system which condemns them to servitude for life in the interests of the beneficiaries of that system, the capitalist class. Wittingly or otherwise, the toiling millions gave their masters another vote of confidence.

The issue, of course, was never in doubt—that is, to the Socialist. It was never in doubt for the simple reason that, generally speaking, from Land's End to John O’Groats there was, in that General Election, no possible alternative to capitalist exploitation for which the worker could vote. This lack of alternative to the capitalist candidates (avowed or disguised) was itself a reflection and measure, judged by socialist standards, of the workers’ political immaturity.

Transport House (and King St) “Reds” would doubtless find this very difficult to swallow. To so-called “Socialists” and “Communists,” the limit of whose political horizon is Nationalisation, who dupe the workers with this obnoxious form of Capitalism by calling it Socialism, who dupe themselves by thinking State Capitalism can operate in the interests of the workers—to these fake “ Socialists ” the political maturity of the working class is not an important factor. It just doesn’t arise as the crux of the matter because, for these pseudo-socialists, the working class cannot be its own agent of emancipation.

These self-proclaimed “progressives,” “leading elements” and “vanguard” of the working class, these “down-to-earth, bread-and-butter ” merchants and pedlars of “working class politics” actually separate themselves from the workers, representing themselves as the agents of working class emancipation—being, no doubt, naturally or supernaturally endowed to administer just that right percentage of Nationalisation which shall deliver the workers from their chains.

“You support us” was the burden of the candidates’ appeals, “and we will give you . . .” And what they would give “you” differed according to how much they considered themselves “Right” or “Left” —in fact, they differed as much as this:

The Tories, Liberals and other avowedly capitalist agents would give us No More Nationalisation (unless absolutely necessary, of course, for the smooth running of Capitalism); on the other hand the Labourites, the Communists, some independent “Socialists” and other cross-breeds promised us More Nationalisation, varying among themselves only as to the size of the dose.

So under the Tories “we” would have what amount of Nationalisation we’ve already got. That, at least, is some. Under Labour we would have more. The Communists would have given us the fatal dose. We could take our pick: Some, More or Most —the positive, comparative and superlative of Nationalised Capitalism!

Thus the workers went to the polls not even to make the momentous choice between (true) Blue Capitalism and Red (State) Capitalism i.e., between private monopoly and state monopoly, but merely to decide their favourite combination of the two—their favourite shade of purple!

This farce was played out only because of working class ignorance of the real causes of present social problems. It will be played out again and again for as long as the workers look to others to do their political thinking for them. Socialists know this as surely as they know the world is round; and, just as surely, they know the simple facts which, when the workers of the world once get on the track of them and decide to become their own political agents will enable those workers to act consciously together for the complete overthrow of all class exploitation, oppression and privilege.

They will uproot the private property institution from the very foundations of society and the whole rotten superstructure will fall and crumble to dust.

They will perform this self-liberating act knowing full well that it is the key to their own emancipation and that of all mankind. Having painfully and slowly won their way through many grinding years of mistakes and errors to full political maturity, having exhausted all other apparent means of solving their problems and found themselves betrayed time and again by capitalist reforms which still left them in the same old position, they will at last begin to challenge the very basis of the system itself. They will be brought face to face with the very fact of class exploitation itself.

They will know that this fact, and all its attendant social evils, rests upon one foundation: the private ownership by the capitalist class—either directly or through the medium of state control—of all the means of producing and distributing the man-made things required to live.

They will know that the complete abolition of this foundation means at the same time the abolition of the whole capitalist fabric to which it gives rise. Everything specifically capitalist goes—lock, stock and barrel.

They will know that it means the end of poverty and riches, of economic classes, the end of exploitation of man by man for good and all; they will know it will put an end to the State, and therefore, of state “ownership” and control; that it will end profits and selling and the wages system; that capital and money, banking and buying will be no more; that unemployment and employers and employees and, yes. “employment” will no longer exist; that racialism, nationalism, wars, treaties, alliances and power-politics and armies will become nightmares of the past; that morality based on private property will disappear, as likewise, will its necessary concomitants immorality and crime, prostitu-tion, etc., they-will know that all these things (and many more besides) will be swept away for ever.

In short, they will understand that the whole complicated, neurotic and burdensome pattern of capitalist life will give way to a freer mode of living based on the democratic control and ownership of the means of life by all humanity.

Only the workers have a primary and vital interest in acquiring this knowledge. And because of this vital interest no impediment will prevent them eventually from learning the facts.

Knowledge confers power. Once the workers, the vast majority of society, are in possession of this knowledge they will organise and constitute the most powerful political combination in human history. Against this mighty host of determined workers, understanding their position and knowing full well what is at stake, thinking and acting for themselves and electing their own agents—against this organisation no combination of charlatans, pseudo-socialists, agents and hirelings of capitalism can prevail.

Capitalism will be brought to its end because the overwhelming majority of mankind will have decided, irrevocably and finally, that it shall go. The huge decrepit structure will be brought crashing to the ground.

When the social air is clear again and the mortar and muck of centuries of exploitation have been swept away, the recent General Election will have faded into the limbo of forgotten things.

For the workers it will then be their own triumph not, as now, that of spurious agents. The day of self-deliverance may be far away; we do not know. But this we do know: Nothing is eternal—not even Capitalism.

Until the workers think and act for themselves there is no permanent solution to the problem of Capitalism. To rephrase an old text (often used, in its original form, to dope working people) “ No Salvation without the Workers—No deliverance without Self-Deliverance.” There is no other way.

Hydrogen bombs and capitalist propaganda notwithstanding, so long as there be human beings, that day will surely come.

H. W. S. Bee.