On Leadership (1938)

From the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is often argued that the traitorous conduct of leaders in the working-class movement makes the ultimate achievement of Socialism difficult, and, some almost say, impossible.

To many sincere workers this question presents itself as one of great and vital importance. They argue that leaders will betray their followers once the leader, by virtue of his leadership, is lifted out of his class. And it must be admitted that a superficial glance at modern political history would appear to lend colour to the view. Let us consider, for example, certain relatively-recent events in the Labour and Trade Union movements.

For many years past, organised workers have aspired to solve their economic and social problems by giving their support to the Labour Party. Until the first Labour Government in 1924, few of them seriously believed that the experience of that Government would have resulted in disappointment and disillusionment.

Thousands of workers believed that a Labour Government would at once have taken effective steps to remove any working-class burdens: that a Labour Government was the first real move forward to the establishment of Socialism. What happened ? During the first Labour Government, members of the Cabinet openly condemned and aided the defeat of the locomotive men on strike for higher wages. A demand by the miners for higher wages was met with the plea: ‘‘Do not embarrass the Government.” The dockers’ strike was met with naval ratings unloading mails and mobilised ready to unload foodstuffs, etc., had the strike continued. The unemployed were told by MacDonald that industrial capital was not going to be touched to provide relief, the Government wanted the confidence of financial groups. Well-known opponents of the working class were appointed to the Admiralty and Air Ministry.

It was this Labour Government that was fully prepared to use the Emergency Powers Act in the event of the tramway strike spreading to the ‘‘Underground” workers. In the outposts of “our” Empire, it bombed tribesmen in Mesopotamia and murdered strikers in India.

In brief, once taking on the rôle of the administrators of capitalism, the Labour Government was compelled to run the system in the interests of those who own the means of production : the only way it can be run. The threats (via strikes) to ‘‘public order,” “embarrassing” demands of starving unemployed, at home and within the Empire, were met with evasions, excuses and, where necessary, bloody suppression.

However, to put the question into correct perspective, did the Labour Government of 1924 (or, for that matter, of 1929) betray Socialism? The answer, quite simply, is that it did not. It did not for the very reason that that Government was not Socialist. That is to say, that it was not a Government supported and elected by class-conscious Socialist votes for the purpose of establishing Socialism. It was a Government devoid of any understanding of Socialism, elected by workers lacking Socialist knowledge. But this does not answer the contention of many workers who would describe themselves as Socialist and who argue that, even if Socialists were elected to Parliament and were supported by class-conscious workers, the question of the traitorous leader would in no way be altered: in short, that Socialists will go the way of the Labour leader. As one worker put it to the present writer : ‘‘There are traitors in every party.” This, of course, within limits, is quite true; or, should we say, could quite easily be true. But the admission of this possibility does not affect the logic of the Socialist Party’s case.

The question should be asked: What is it that a working-class political leader betrays—and why? Would Socialist delegates in Parliament, elected by class-conscious workers, act in a similar way?

Ramsay MacDonald (and others) were accused of betraying the Labour Government when they deserted it for the National Government in 1931. Let us, for the sake of argument, accept the accusation of “betrayal” as being a description of the facts.

How did it come about that the renegade leaders were able to betray their Party and sell millions of Labour votes to the National Government? The answer again is quite simple, though it may be unpalatable to Labour Party supporters. The fact is that workers who transferred their allegiance to the National Government in 1931 did so because they were not in a position to understand the issues involved. They were led to believe that the continuance of a Labour Government meant the loss of their paltry savings, etc. (It is reasonably possible that Ramsay MacDonald and his colleagues understood the issues even less than the voters who followed them like sheep.) The real position was that Ramsay MacDonald and Company were able to transfer working-class votes to an openly capitalist party because they were the votes of the politically uninformed. Those votes were the votes of people who had placed their faith in leaders to solve their problems. The leaders failed, as was inevitable, and the conditions were favourable for stampeding millions of workers behind the banners of new leaders—the National Government. The inability to decide for themselves the merits of the issues then involved, plus MacDonald’s prestige among large numbers of confused Labourites, resulted in millions of additional votes for the National Government. Those votes measured MacDonald’s value to the Government.

The lesson does not need great powers of observation to appreciate. The value to the capitalist of a traitorous working-class leader depends upon the extent of his uninformed flock. The greater following a leader has, the more value that leader has to the capitalist; the more ignorant that following, greater are the chances of its betrayal. In short, when a leader “sells out” he is able to do so because of his influence over them.

But what would be the position in the event of Socialist workers returning Socialist delegates to Parliament ? The position would be entirely reversed. Socialist workers would not be betrayed, not because Socialists are immune to temptation or are to be trusted the more for being Socialists, but because the Socialist members would never be in a position of leadership. They would not be able to transfer the allegiance of Socialist voters to a capitalist political party. The reason being that Socialist workers know what they want and how to get it. A Socialist electorate would understand as clearly as the delegates in Parliament the essentials of the mandate the delegates were sent there to represent. A Socialist delegate in Parliament would not be able to sell his influence over his electorate for the simple reason that that influence would be of no value to the capitalist political parties. The position of the Socialist delegate in Parliament, therefore, would be quite different to that of a Labour leader. The first would have no influence over his electorate, and this would make him not worth tuppence to the enemies of Socialism. He would merely be in the position of fulfilling the wishes and instructions of class-conscious Socialists. The second is always in the position of trying to carry out promises made to workers who have not reached the point where they understand that only the abolition of private ownership in the means and instruments of production provides the solution of their problems. Hence their dependence on leaders.

The difference between leaders and delegates is the difference between political ignorance and enlightenment.

A. G.