After the collapse of the Labour Government in the crisis of 1931 the Labour leaders lost their heads and their control of many of their followers and for a time the traditional social reform policy of the Labour Party gave place to a variety of wildcat ideas and schemes. Among them was the idea that capitalism had collapsed finally and could never again afford reforms. At the same time many workers who had not until then questioned the theory of gradually improving capitalism until it was improved out of existence, began to see that perhaps Socialists are right, and there is no way of escaping the evils of capitalism except by its complete abolition. Six years in the political wilderness and the spectacle of capitalism making its inevitable temporary recovery from the depression has restored the nerve of the Labour leaders, and they are back now to where they started, seeking power on what they consider to be a sound plan for improving the State pension scheme. In brief, the plan (“Labour’s Pension Plan,” price 2d.) proposes that the pension at age 65 should be increased from 10s. to £1 a week per person (35s. for married couples) on condition of retirement from wage-earning employment, except such subsidiary employment as is permitted under the Unemployment Insurance Acts (i.e., up to about £1 a week). A number of other proposals are included in the scheme, including the increase of orphans' allowances to 10s. a week.
It is claimed that the plan would remove 300,000 persons from industry, and thus make way for young people now unemployed.
The estimated cost is £85 million a year, and this is to be met by contributions from workers, employers and the State. The workers' contribution will be not more than 1s. a week, probably only 9d. This contribution will be in addition to existing contributions.
Is it a good plan? No doubt many workers will be glad of an opportunity of getting some additional security in old age, moderate though the amount is, and even though they have to pay heavily for it—9d. or 1s. a week out of wages already insufficient to raise millions above the level of undernourishment. Ought the workers to support the Labour Party on the strength of this plan? Here the Socialist case and the reformist case come to grips.
The Labour Party asks the workers to resign themselves to capitalism for a further period—“we shall not be living under Socialism during the period of office of the next Labour Government" (page 29)—sacrifice some of their present consumption in order to pay extra pension contributions; and then in old age enjoy a modest improvement on the existing miserable pensions.
Obviously—and the pamphlet confesses as much—nobody who has begun to see through capitalism would look at such a pettifogging scheme except for the claim that it is merely the first step in a series which will lead to Socialism. The pamphlet promises that the Labour Party’s ”immediate programme will lay the foundations of a planned economy, on the basis of sound and ordered finance.” Capitalism makes nonsense of this.
If the Labour Party succeeds after a few years' propaganda in making the scheme popular the Tories will appropriate it in some form or other and claim any credit there may be attached to it. On the other hand, it will always be unpopular with large sections of the workers on account of the heavy contribution.
As for the ideas of planned economy and sound finance, the next crisis—as certain as the rising of the sun so long as capitalism remains—will blow plans and financial estimates sky high, and if the Labour Government is in office at that time it will go up in the general explosion. That would matter little to the workers or to Socialism but for the fact that the Labour Party claims that this plan and the rest of its immediate programme is part of the advance towards Socialism.
Against this uninspiring and unprogressive policy masquerading as practical politics the Socialist asks some simple questions, the self-evident answers to which expose the emptiness of Labourism. Are poverty, unemployment, insecurity, the danger of war and the certainty of crises inseparable from capitalism? Are the powers of production great enough if socially controlled to provide comfort and security for all? Is there anything holding back Socialism except the dearth of Socialists among the working class? Is it not obvious that the preaching of social reforms befogs the workers’ minds to the urgent necessity of Socialism ?
The human race needs Socialism now. The Labour Party, lacking faith in the intelligence and capacity of the working class, thinks to lead them slowly on the road by dangling the carrot of £1 a week at 65, largely paid for in advance by weekly sacrifice of necessities. In the meantime, capitalism goes on its callous way, mocking the puny efforts of the social reformers.
No comments:
Post a Comment