Here and There: A Labour Party Trumpeter (1936)

The Here and There column from the July 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Labour Party Trumpeter

Mr. Herbert Morrison has been on a lecture tour in the United States of America. His object was to interest American audiences in the League of Nations and the policy of the British Labour Party. According to a report in the Chicago Daily News for April 24th, he said: —

I think there is misunderstanding about the British Labour Party, because you haven’t had many visitors who represent average official opinion of this Party; more of your visitors have represented the extreme Left Wing of the Party or else the Independent Labour Party, which fights us. A British Labour Government would be well fitted to co-operate with your country whether it has a Republican or Democratic Government.

In effect, Mr. Morrison is saying that the Labour Party is “well fitted" to administer the capitalist system. As Socialists we do not need to be assured of this. We have said so for thirty years and more. Members and supporters of the Labour Party who have denied it, might, however, ponder the point again.

 

I.L.P Confusion and Hysteria

The above quotation from the Chicago Daily News was reproduced and unfavourably commented upon in the New Leader for May 29th, in a column headed "This is Capitalism." The I.L.P. boasted for many years that the Labour Party was its child. And a proud parent it was, too. But after thirty years of telling the workers that the Labour Party was “Socialist," the I.L.P. discovered that it was not. After taking so long to discover that the Labour Party is not a Socialist party, it could reasonably be assumed that it would not easily be forgotten. Let us see. The New Leader for May 22nd discusses the various proposals for a "United Front." It dismissed the idea of a "People's Front," such as exists in France and Spain, and which includes Liberals, as unsupportable because of its capital character. The I.L.P. argues for a "Workers' Front."

It is a united Working Class Front without any alliance or compromise with the Liberal and League capitalists.

It is a united Working Class Front between the Labour Party, the Co-operative Party, the I.L.P., and the Communist Party on a maximum agreed programme, with liberty of criticism and action beyond this programme.

It is common action between them on a Federal basis—an alliance of partners, not a rigid and unreal unity such as affiliation to the Labour Party would involve—in order to join forces against our common enemy the capitalist class and its political parties, and to realise common aims.

It will be noticed that the I.L.P. refuses to enter an “alliance or compromise with the Liberal and League capitalists," but will enter a “United Front" with the Labour Party (which it denounces as a capitalist party) "in order to join forces against our common enemy, the capitalist class and its political parties, and to realise common aims." Join with capitalist parties to fight the capitalist class “to realise our common aims." Phew!

Again, in the New Leader, May 29th, Mr. John McGovern, M.P., in a letter to the Editor, complains that the Editor of the I.L.P. inter-party journal, Controversy, deleted a statement from an article by him (McGovern) that C. A. Smith, Fenner Brockway and C. L. R. James had stated that they “would bear arms and join the army if they were in Abyssinia . . .  on behalf of the Emperor."

In his reply, C. A. Smith rises to noble heights: ". . .  I now repeat that had I been in Abyssinia only conflicting duties or sheer cowardice would have prevented my fighting against the Fascist invaders." Twenty years ago the capitalist class persuaded millions of workers to fight in war for capitalist interests with the cry of “Defend poor little Belgium." To-day, Mr. C. A. Smith, a leader in the self-styled revolutionary I.L.P., has let himself into a similar trap. Poor Abyssinia! Drive out the Fascist invaders! For whom and for what end?

Communists and the Labour Party

The Communist Party has applied to the Labour Party for affiliation. The correspondence relating to the application has been published in a penny pamphlet by the Communist Party. In one letter to the Secretary of the Labour Party, Mr. Pollitt says: “The Communist Party, if affiliated to the Labour Party, would certainly work, as many of your most energetic and sincere members are now working, to strengthen the policy and principles of the Labour Party for the achievement of Socialism, in accordance with the democratic principles provided in the Labour Party constitution, and would at the same time in the daily struggle loyally carry out all agreed upon decisions and mobilise all upon whom it has influence to take part."

Mr. Pollitt goes on to speak approvingly of the “People's Front" as it exists in France. He asks of the Secretary of the Labour Party: “Is it not a fact that the United Front has saved France from Fascism ? Is it not a fact that so profound has this experience been that the United Front has broadened out into the People's Front, embracing large sections of the middle class and all who fear Fascism and war."

Notice "embracing large sections of the middle classes." Even Mr. Pollitt, accustomed as he is to right-about-face changes in Communist Party policy, hesitates to point out that a People's Front on the French model means an alliance with the Liberals. Workers whose memories are not so conveniently short as Mr. Pollitt's will remember that not so long ago the Labour Party was referred to in communist journals as "traitorous," “Social-Fascist" and "war-mongering." The Labour Party has not forgotten, and there seems no prospect of a " United Front " just yet! It is an amusing thought, though, that we may yet see the erstwhile advocates of the violent overthrow of capitalism reproaching the Labour Party for being “too extreme." It is really very confusing.

Poverty, Health and Housing

In a review of a book called Poverty and Public Health, by G. C. M'Gonigle and J. Kirby (Gollancz, 6s.), the News Chronicle (June 8th, 1936) gives some interesting figures on malnutrition and housing.

The close connection between wages and health can be seen from the following table: —

Wages 25s. to 35s., death rate 25.96 per 1,000.

"          35s   "  45s.      "      "    19.34  "       "

"          45s   "  55s.      "      "    19.23  "       "

"          55s   "  65s.      "      "    15.13  "       "

"          65s   "  75s.      "      "    13.51  "       "

"          75s   and up,.    "      "    11.52  "       "

The death rate among workers whose wages are less than two pounds a week is therefore nearly twice as high as among workers whose wages are between three and four pounds a week.

Other interesting facts are mentioned. Far example, an investigation carried out in Stockton revealed that a slum population, after being moved to a new housing estate, was showing a death rate of 33.55 per thousand instead of the expected rate of 8.12 per thousand. That is to say, four times as many deaths as should have occurred were occurring among these ex-slum dwellers now living under “ ideal ** conditions. The plight of unemployed workers on new housing estates is particularly appalling. On one such estate it was found that the amount of money available for four was 2s. 10½d. a week per man. Contrast this with the cost of the British Medical Association's minimum diet, which in 1932 was 4s. 10½d., and which to-day. Dr. M'Gonigle says, is 7s. Our reformers, if they face these awkward facts at all, will doubtless advocate more reforms; reforms catch votes anyway.

Wage-Slaves and Health

Labour Management for February has an interesting article called “ One-Day Absenteeism,*' by Dr. Garland, the medical officer at a large factory which employs thousands of women workers. The doctor argues for greater tolerance for the worker who takes an occasional day off from work. The occasional day off would have a “tonic" and “stimulating" effect on return to work. Workers at the factory where Dr. Garland is employed are shut out for the day, and lose the day's wages, if they are not within the factory gates when the hooter blows. On the other hand, if the worker is away on account of sickness for one day or more, she (or he) does not lose her wages. The result is, according to Dr. Garland, that many workers who are absent because of being shut out in the morning, produce medical certificates to explain their absence for the day. Some of these certificates are for complaints that would lay the average person low for several weeks. The panel doctor in working-class districts apparently cannot afford to risk unpopularity by refusing certificates. His income from medical certificates, at one shilling each, even on a small panel of only 1,000 patients, means an addition to his income, according to Dr. Garland, of probably one hundred pounds a year. On the other hand, says the doctor, “The average worker is rarely feeling so fit and sound that he or she hasn’t an odd pain or ache somewhere that can be magnified into gastritis, enteritis, tonsilitis, or some other ‘ itis ' . . . ."

A curious mix-up which reveals how dependent is the position of the medical practitioner and how near many workers are to working no longer in this life.

Changes in Russia

The U.S.S.R. is introducing a parliamentary regime, or at least some of it. The much-vaunted Soviet system of “pure proletarian democracy" is to be replaced by a parliamentary form of government, which, until recently, was looked upon with withering and pitying contempt by the fervent communist. There are to be two chambers, direct voting, the abolition of plural votes (the town workers, under the Soviet constitution, had proportionately more votes than the peasants), the secret ballot, and much of the paraphernalia of western parliamentary government. Any organised group of citizens, we are told, will be able to include names in the list of candidates for parliamentary seats. Louis Fischer tells us in Reynolds News (May 31st, 1936), “The new Constitution contains numerous provisions sensational in their significance. For instance, an interesting declaration will be made about private property."

That declaration should be interesting.

Something else is interesting too. The Russian Government is seeking pacts and alliances with the western parliamentary countries. Shall we yet see another "War to Save Democracy" ?

The Passing of the Crisis

The Ministry of Labour returns issued at the end of May make interesting reading. The number of people at work reached the figure of 10,831,000, which is the highest in the history of unemployed insurance, and excludes the recent inclusion of agricultural workers in unemployment insurance. The number of unemployed was 1,703,941, as against nearly three million, three or four years ago. The facts are significant. Capitalism, once having reached the lowest pitch in the slump, recovered, and is now, once again, going through a period of expansion. There is nothing new in this; it has been the course in every industrial crisis for the past one hundred and fifty years. The pendulum in capitalist production having swung back must, by its very nature, swing forward again. But where are the shoddy economists, capitalist and self-styled Socialist alike, who only yesterday were telling the world that the end of the capitalist system was at hand? Have they relegated the end to an uncertain future date, as the Christians have the second coming of Christ ? The chances are that if the workers allow capitalism to continue long enough to have another crisis they will be prophesying as wrongly, dismally and noisily as ever.

It is curious how events can upset flimsy minds. The New Leader published articles about eight years ago eulogising American mass production methods. Henry Ford, we were told, had shown Marx to be wrong. The New Leader has since discovered many new “lines.” Others talked glibly of the crisis which had lasted since the last war—the mere fact of there being unemployment continuously since then was evidence enough, for them, of a continuous crisis. A little knowledge would show how capitalism really works. The recurring periods of depression and expansion, with the consequent increase and decrease in unemployment, are the very essence of capitalism. These in themselves will not bring it to an end. This will only be done when the.workers understand that the appalling poverty and insecurity which exist side by side with immense wealth in periods of depression and expansion alike, can be abolished by the social ownership of the means of life.

 

The Passing of a Labour Leader

Bruce Clavering has an article in the Sunday Referee (May 24th, 1936), about the life of J. H. Thomas. Certain facts stand out and emphasise how useful he has been to the capitalist class. In 1911, the article says, "the railwaymen wanted to strike. Thomas saw Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer. He launched an impassioned appeal, but Lloyd George was unmoved.  "I, too, am a Welshman/ said L.G.”

“Then the Chancellor made his own appeal. He pointed out that the Kaiser had issued a virtual ultimatum over Morocco, banking on the trouble in England keeping Britain’s hands tied. Thomas responded to the appeal and called off the strike.” 

"During the war he swelled the army with more recruits than almost any other single man. As an Englishman he was a patriot . . . . he achieved the best for his country and for himself.” 

Trotsky’s verdict on Thomas was, “This incredible lackey.”

Whether J. H. Thomas was sincere, insincere, rogue or fool does not interest us. He served the master-class faithfully and well, and in doing so was supported enthusiastically by the railway workers. His usefulness to the master-class and, to some extent, his popularity with them, was because he could command an enormous working-class following.

His life aptly illustrates the perils for the working-class in “leadership” and the need for the working-class to have knowledge of Socialist principles.

Harry Waite

Editorial: The Spectre at the Labour Party Conference (1946)

Editorial from the July 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the Labour Party is not the Government, Labour Party conferences can happily agree to denounce whatever government is in power. When the Labour Party is itself in power the tune changes; delegates are then brought face to face with the fact—surprising to them, though not to Socialists —that capitalism is just as much the enemy of the workers, even though the Prime Minister is a MacDonald or an Attlee instead of a Baldwin or a Churchill. Out of office the Labour leaders shout “forward.” In office they exhort their followers to rest on their oars or at least to refrain from rocking the boat. In this respect history repeats itself. Just as, in 1924, Labour's official organ hoped that the miners ‘‘will not embarrass the first Labour Government by pressing untimely demands ” (‘‘Labour Magazine,” January, 1924), so at the Labour Party Conference at Bournemouth in June, 1946, Mr. Shinwell and other Government spokesmen found themselves at variance with miners' delegates who were pressing for the five-day forty-hour week and other demands that have long been in the Labour programme. This time the Labour leaders had a new plea with which to fob off the workers, the plea that as nationalisation has been achieved, the miners are now working for themselves, not for the capitalists, and must subordinate their demands to the paramount need of making nationalisation a success. Mr. Shinwell laid down the principle, "Nationalisation must pay. Nationalisation schemes taken by and large must not be subsidised by the Exchequer” (Daily Express, 12/6/46). Mr. Morrison, speaking on the Government's general policy for wages, amplified with the trite remark, “We have to remember as a nation that we cannot spend what we do not earn” (Daily Telegraph, 14/6/46.). The thing is a transparent fraud. Making nationalisation pay means making it pay the millions that the Government is handing out to the former owners. The exploiters are still living on the backs of the workers, with the difference that the Labour Party, as the Government, undertakes official responsibility for maintaining the exploitation.

Mr. Morrison spoke to the Conference about the Government’s policy for unemployment. Listening to his statement that ‘‘full employment has never yet been attempted as a policy in peacetime Britain. It has never been attempted by any country in the world with our form of democratic government .  . . ” (Telegraph, 14/6/46), delegates must have wondered what the two previous Labour Governments were attempting to do when they said they had a policy to cure unemployment. This Government will fail like other Labour Governments. Mr. Morrison, unlike some of his less cautious colleagues, does not pretend that world depression will not happen again and would only commit himself to the promise that, if it does, ‘‘the Government was preparing to do what was possible to avoid repercussions on the economic life of this country.” Delegates who cheered this were no doubt reading into "what was possible” much more than Mr. Morrison believes. In the meantime unemployment grows, and dole queues are back in Jarrow, the town that Labourites so often quote in their denunciation of the Tories. On the day of Mr. Morrison’s speech an event occurred that showed the gulf separating Labour Government planners from the workers who suffer from their plans. The Government are transferring Short Brothers' seaplane works from Rochester to Belfast. Even if the thousands of workers wanted to be uprooted, only a few hundred of them are to be allowed to transfer. Instead they are offered the project that other industries will eventually be set up in Rochester. Dissatisfied with this, the men walked out and held a protest demonstration, at which local Labour M.P.s came in for denunciation. "During a stormy meeting complaints were made that local Socialist M.P.s had acted as buffers between the Government and the workers’ representatives instead of putting the workers’ case forward : (Telegraph, 14/6/ 46). The men at Rochester have discovered what Labour Government administration of capitalism really is and what, of course, it must be. Some capitalist spokesmen are aware of the function of Labour Government to act as buffers and are duly grateful. On May 27th the Manchester Guardian, in an editorial, contrasted the bitter and widespread strikes in U.S.A., with Truman threatening to call up strikers for the Army, with the comparatively easy and smooth transition from war to peace in this country. Mr. Morrison, at the Labour Party Conference, made a similar point by comparing the few strikes in the past 12 months under Labour Government with what happened under Lloyd George in 1920. Because the workers do not realise that Labour Government cannot serve their interests, the Labour Ministers are able to persuade them to accept quietly hardships that would stir up violent protest and resistance if a Tory Government were in power.

Conference not only overwhelmingly rejected the Communist plea for affiliation, but altered the constitution to rule out the affiliation of any political party not already affiliated. This is a formal recognition of the change that has taken place in the make-up of the Labour Party since 1918. In the early days, affiliated bodies, notably the I.L.P. and Fabians, provided many of the Executive Committee members and officials of the Party. Now the place of the affiliated outside political bodies has been taken by the local labour parties. In 1910 affiliated trade unions constituted 1,394,000 out of the total membership of 1,431,000. Now, with a Party membership of over 3,000,000, trade unions account for 2½  million and individual membership through local labour parties amounts to nearly 500,000. Although the trade unions still provide all but a relatively small part of the funds, they have lost their former predominating position on the Executive. In 1910 there were 11 elected trade union representatives on an executive committee of 15. Now the constitution provides for 12 trade union E.C. members out of a total of 27, the remaining 15 being nominees of local labour parties, except one who represents the outside affiliated parties. In none of the three Labour Governments have trade union officials held more than a minority of Cabinet posts, and it will be observed that when the trade unionist, Sir Ben Smith, resigned from the Ministry of Food his place was taken by Mr. Strachey, one of the Labour Party’s so-called intellectuals.

What has happened since 1918 is that the Labour Party has fully established itself as the heir of the Liberal Party, but in so doing has moved away from the old conception that it was first and foremost the party of the trade unions. It is safe to predict that the gulf between the Labour Government and the workers will widen. To the extent that the discontent of their members makes itself felt the trade unions will become more and more critical of the Labour Ministers and will voice their criticisms at Labour Party conferences. The Ministers will be lucky if they receive in succeeding years anything like the amount of approval shown at the Bournemouth Conference. The Communists will exploit the discontent and try to gain control of the trade unions here as they have already done with greater success on the Continent. In France, the reformist party, corresponding to the Labour Party, has, like the British Party, inherited the place once occupied by the Radicals, but it has not thereby become the governing party, because, in the meantime, it has lost control of the trade unions to the Communists. Léon Blum made a revealing statement on the French situation to the Bournemouth Conference.

“He said that on the Continent the Socialist principles for which they had always stood were now opposed by scarcely anyone. The action of the true Socialist parties had become most difficult because of two other parties claiming to be both Socialist and democratic, the Communists and the Christian Democrats.”

(Times, 14/6/46). 

Oscar Wilde once remarked “nothing succeeds like excess.” It might he said of Blum that nothing succeeds like moderation—but just at the moment of success, when ‘‘scarcely anyone” opposes what Blum all his life has preached, the success turns out to be a tragic and pathetic failure. If the French Party really preached Socialism they would he glorying in the fact that almost everyone had been won over to it. Instead they preached reformism and State capitalism, and now find that it turns bitter in their mouths. They taught the workers to believe in a fraudulent “Socialism” and now find that Catholics and Communists can do the same with even greater success in the way of vote-catching at elections. If events had not taken quite the same course in this country, at least not yet, no-one need doubt that the workers who have put their trust in Labourism will some day rue their error.

Blum, a visitor, appears from the published reports to have been the only speaker at the Conference who correctly described the position occupied by Labour Governments and the dangerous path they are treading. Like a spectre at the feast, he warned the revellers who had come to toast their victory that they have not destroyed capitalism.

“For 25 years I have studied how you can exercise governmental power within the framework of a capitalist society. I know how much its action must be limited by the continuance of the capitalist framework. I know that is true even when a party holds power, as you do, with an absolute majority. It may lead to confusion of thought on the exercise of power as a prelude to and a condition of social transformation. That confusion leads by iron logic to disappointment, and, indeed so long as the capitalist structure remains any Socialist government is condemned to disappoint some hopes.”

(Manchester Guardian, 14/6/46).

It is to he hoped that the delegates will remember Blum’s words when, a few years ahead, they are meeting to discover why the Labour Government failed.

Professor Laski’s Secret (1946)

Pamphlet Review from the June 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many of the trade union element in the Labour Party dislike Professor Laski’s ideas. To them he is a troublesome interloper, a sort of cuckoo in the nest trying to make them responsible for intellectual progeny that may some day grow up and push them out. Without delving further into the habits of real cuckoos, we do learn from Professor Laski’s Secret Battalion (Labour Party, 2d.) just what happens in the political world when cuckoo number one finds a second cuckoo trying to lay eggs in the same nest; cuckoo number one becomes very indignant and says that cuckoo number two is not playing the game.

In 30 pages of argument Professor Laski tries to convince members of the Labour Party that it would be fatal to their cause to let the Communists become affiliated. With a rich array of facts he shows, that the Communists, while swearing their acceptance of Labour Party methods, are hiding their true aim, which is to capture the Labour Party as a first step towards setting up a one-party dictatorship in this country.

As propaganda to help the Labour Party repel the latest attack of the Communist political paratroopers it may serve its purpose, but as a contribution to Socialist thought it is largely stale and unprofitable. It echoes the 25-year-old controversy between Kautsky on the one side and Lenin and Trotsky on the other, adding nothing of value and enlarging an element of confusion that was already present. The protagonists then, like Laski and Pollitt to-day, were debating whether the working class should soberly use democratic Parliamentary methods or go in for a hectic bout of forcible seizure of power and minority dictatorship. The S.P.G.B., while endorsing Kautsky’s principal arguments – they were those put forward by the S.P.G.B. at its formation nearly 20 years earlier – pointed out that Kautsky the Labour politician was at variance with Kautsky the theoretician, for the politician Kautsky cherished the illusion that Socialism could be achieved by Labour Governments elected on the votes of workers who want reforms of capitalism but do not understand and want Socialism. Our answer to both Kautsky and Lenin was that Socialism cannot be brought about either by Labour Governments or by a Communist Party dictatorship, since its achievement requires that there should first be a majority of convinced and understanding Socialists.

Professor Laski’s pamphlet is liberally sprinkled with Marxist phrases and references to Marx’s views, calculated to give the impression to those who do not know the facts, that the Labour Party is Marxist. He claims (p.16) that the Labour Party “does not deny either the reality of the class-war or the imperative need to change fundamentally the capitalist foundation of society.” This seemingly clear declaration is ambiguous. The Labour Party would certainly subscribe to it, meaning that they do not deny the hostility of workers towards employers and that they favour replacing private capitalism by State capitalism. To Marxists, however, recognition of the class struggle means recognising that the interest of the working class is incompatible with the interest of the class that owns the means of production and distribution and that, the class struggle can be abolished only by dispossessing the capitalist class and introducing a social system based on common ownership and democratic control, involving, of course, the abolition of the system of wage-labour and of the production of goods for sale.

Laski, who makes so much use of Marxist phrases, must know that the Labour Party does not accept the Marxist view. Like Kautsky he is a theoretician who in words propounds one theory, but belongs to a Party that works on a quite different one. If he believed his case to be sound he had a magnificent opportunity to floor the Communists by pointing out that Socialism has not been, and is not being, achieved in Russia after nearly 30 years of dictatorship; and then try to show how Labour government (here or in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere) had introduced or is introducing Socialism. He does neither. On Russian State capitalism masquerading as Socialism he says nothing —how could he without inviting the retort that Labour Government State capitalism is not Socialism either? Instead he gives away his case by trying to justify the Labour Government for its reforms and for its policy of State capitalism. He writes: “Socialism in Britain has …. already secured for the working class of this country great reforms, both in the economic and in the social realm. It has made it possible to place in power a Socialist Government which, also by constitutional methods, moves steadily forward to national ownership and control of the vital instruments of production” (p.17). He must know that Socialism as understood by Marx and other Socialists does, not mean a State capitalist programme of “national ownership and control.” For all their Marxist phraseology, he and the Communists are actually debating whether the workers should seek State capitalism by the Parliamentary road, or seek it by dictatorship. Rejecting both disputants, the S.P.G.B. holds that the working class should certainly use the Parliamentary road – but for Socialism.

One small point of interest. Professor Laski has exposed the secret battalions of Communists. Will he now yield up the secret of why he claims to be a Socialist but does not repudiate the reformism and State capitalist aim of his Party?

Edgar Hardcastle

By The Way: The Labour Government’s Communist Friends (1945)

The By The Way Column from the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Government’s Communist Friends

The Communist Party helped Labour M.P.s everywhere at the July elections, rejoiced in their success and is backing the Labour Government. Now read what choice epithets they applied to the last Labour Government.

“It shoots down the workers and peasants in India; it imprisons such gallant workers as the Meerut prisoners, who have fought for the economic and political freedom of the Indian workers and peasants; it sends warships to intimidate the Egyptians; warships and soldiers to China. The Labour Government is the most open and blatant tool of imperialism, both in its attacks on the workers at home and in its policy of bloodshed and violence abroad.”—(Mr. Harry Pollitt in “The Workers' Charter,” published in 1930, by the National Minority Movement).

#    #    #    #

Communists Denounced Nationalisation and Now Support it

The Communists now approve of the Labour Government's nationalisation schemes, but read what the Communists said about the schemes when they were drawn op.

“The Labour Party and the trade union leaders try to hide their policy of surrendering the workers’ daily interests to the capitalists, by using socialist phrases, so called Socialist schemes, such as were adopted at the Leicester and Newcastle Conferences.

“All their schemes for the 'control of banking system,’ 'public control of industry land trade,’ 'transport boards’ are schemes of capitalist reorganisation, designed to strengthen capitalist monopoly at the expense of the working class.” 

(From “Resolutions adopted by the 12th Congress of the Communist Party of Great Britain.”—Published by the C.P.G.B., 1932. Pago 6)

#    #    #    #

“A Third Labour Government Will be Even Worse than the Second ”

After the collapse of the second Labour Government, when MacDonald had joined the National Government and the 1931 Election was in progress the Communist Party published “The Workers’ Answer to the Crisis,” by R. P. Dutt.

Here are some extracts: —

“But the policy of the Labour Party was and remains the policy of maintaining capitalism, of attempting reforms within the framework of capitalism, of taking over the capitalist state, of administering capitalism, of denial of the class struggle, of unity with capitalism. . . . The outcome for the workers who trust the Labour Party is disaster. The talk of socialism and reforms becomes only deceiving the workers, because the practice is capitalism.

“This is the lesson of the two Labour Governments.” And again:—

“Will a Third Labour Government be any better than the second Labour Government? Will a Henderson Labour Government be any better than a MacDonald Labour Government?

No, a third Labour Government will be even worse than the second Labour Government, because of the greater intensity of the crisis of capitalism, will deal even heavier blows against the workers, will lead to worsening of the crisis and end in intensified capitalist dictatorship. . . .

What are the promises of the Labour Party worth ? Nothing, as experience has abundantly shown. The Labour Party speak of ’socialism,’ of ’Nationalisation of the banks/ of ' public ownership and control ’ of the key industries. This is a paper programme of promises to deceive the workers. . . . It is meaningless deception so long as the capitalist exploiters are in fact to be left secure.”

#    #    #    # 

Less Compensation for Coal owners

“After the discovery of atomic energy we are unlikely to want coal as a source of power 20 years hence. If the mines stayed in private ownership, their value would be small. When they are nationalised it would be ridiculous to compensate the shareholders at anything like the present Stock Exchange prices. The railways will probably be obsolete in another 30 years, so the same applies to them.” —Prof. J. B. S. Haldane in Daily Worker, 2.8.45.

Was it not Professor Blackett who said on the wireless in 1935 in discussion on Science with Julian Huxley that “scientists, if in the position of politicians, would act like politicians”? So a man of Haldane’s unquestionable scientific ability—because harnessed to the C.P.-Labour Party policy of compensation for poor capitalists—can see nothing more in the supercession of the old forms of production and transport by atomic energy than a haggling point to pay less compensation.

The Communist Party, which started by “taking the Labour Party by the throat,” now pleads for lest compensation.

#    #    #    #

Too Unreliable

Gangsters for Commandos.

Proposal Was Dropped.

“Among recruiting suggestions considered in the early days of the commandos was whether it would be better to use real toughs or gangsters either from the United States or British cities rather than soldiers. The view taken, it is revealed in 'Soldier,' the British Army magazine, by Brig. Dudley W. Clarke, who recruited the first commandos, was that the gangster was too unreliable. The idea was dropped.

“So, too, was a proposal from a convict who offered to form a commando of convicts And warders.”—Sunday Times, August 12, 1945.

#    #    #    #

Liberation

German charges that Moroccans attacked Girls. 

“Rumours arising out of German allegations that more than 1,000 women were raped by Moroccan troops during the first few days of the French occupation are still growing in the German city of Stuttgart. Hundreds of girls in the city were Poles or Russians brought there by the Germans as slave labour.

“The German police chief in the new administration working under U.S. occupation, Karl Weber, said most of the women were attacked in their own homes by the dark-skinned, turbaned Moroccan troops, who broke down doors in looting forays.

“The official German police report lists 1,198 rape cases involving women whose ages ranged from 14 to 74. Weber claims that each case has been verified and estimates that twice that number of women were attacked but were ashamed to report.—Sunday Express, August 12, 1945.

#    #    #    #

Reluctant “Comrades"

A correspondent of the Manchester Guardian reports the extremely difficult problems which repatriation of Russian “displaced persons” involves. First, he points out that by the Yalta agreement the Soviet authorities do not recognise “ non-repatriables” like the other powers—i.e., they insist on the handing over of all Russian citizens. 

Secondly, and more importantly,

“Apart, however, from certain questions of principle involved, there are practical difficulties about doing this, as some are prepared to fight rather than be arrested. Individuals or groups may well have arms, and there is an obvious reluctance to risk the lives of British or American soldiers for what is essentially a matter of internal Russian policy.”—Manchester Guardian, August 31, 1945.

So what does emerge is that thousands of former Russian citizens, having escaped the “Socialist Fatherland” during the war, are prepared to risk their lives fighting to avoid repatriation to the Soviet Utopia.

We have a splendid solution! Let all those hysterical and vociferous Communists who haunt Socialist Party meetings volunteer to go back to Russia in place of the missing Russian nationals in Germany, who will remain where they prefer. A good time will then be had by all! We wonder!

#    #    #    #

Strikers Shout Down Officials!

The Telegraph for July 30th reports that officials were shouted down at a railway strikers’ meeting. Delegates called for nationalisation of the railways.

A Birkenhead representative declared: “If we continue our present (strike) action the new Government will be able to turn to the companies and tell them they cannot manage their business. It would then be an easy step towards nationalisation. ’'

He got his answer on July 31st, one day later, when “three hundred soldiers swept in through the Surrey Commercial Docks at 1 p.m. to-day in lorries to take over loading and unloading of ships which had been at a standstill because of the dockers 'go slow.’ ”—Evening News, July 31.)

Strike action of itself will never achieve nationalisation of the railways or any other industry—even if nationalisation were in the interests of the workers. Only political power can do that, because it involves the State. The Labour Government will “nationalise” certain industries because it has a mandate (power) from the electorate to do so. It has persuaded working-class electors that it does so in their interests—though it is actually the policy of some of the industrial capitalists. Strike action against the State-brings the Army in to do the job, and breaks the strike.

#    #    #    #

Bombs and Trade

“Post-war trade relations in the Far East are being rewritten by B.29 Super Fortresses and India’s Industrial future—particularly in textiles—looks extremely rosy in the glow of firebombs on Japan, 'Every time the Superforts hit Osaka’ said a leading Indian textile operator, ' I say to myself: There’s another year free of Jap competition in the Indian textile market.’ ”—(New York Herald Tribune, June 13th, 1945. Quoted in Plebs, September, 1945).

#    #    #    #

That Odd Bird the Labour Party

Mr. Laski is reported to have said: “The bright bird of Socialism needs two wings—it can’t fly on a right wing only, or a left wing only.”—(Daily Mail, September 4th).

If Mr. Laski had stopped to consider the kind of progress made by a bird with oddly assorted wings, one pushing forward and the other pulling back, he would have realised that his analogy is very apt though not in the sense he intended.

Horatio.

Greasy Pole: Postman’s knock? (2006)

The Greasy Pole column from the November 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Devotees of conspiracy theories could be excused for descrying some determined backroom manoeuvring to ensure so swift a climb up the Greasy Pole”

The next time a flood of junk mail and red-printed bills comes through the front door do not, as it were, wish you could kill the messenger. Be aware that the friendly local postie may one day be Prime Minister of Great Britain or, even more distressingly, Leader of the Labour Party. Such an event may be heartening to anyone who is sustained by a conviction that this is a great land of opportunity and that capitalism is the finest arrangement of affairs as it allows anyone, no matter how humble their origins, to rise by their own abilities up to the highest  points in society where they can look down on those whose mail they once delivered.

For example there is Alan Johnson, whose mother died when he was 12, four years after his father had abandoned the family. It looked as if he would be placed in a children’s home but his sister, although only 15, persuaded their social worker that she could care for both of them. Living where the Westway flyover now belches noise and fumes, Johnson went to a local grammar school where he did not get his name onto the varnished honours board; in fact he says the school were “glad to see the back” of him. He took a job as a shelf-filler at Tescos but a problem about his lunch break put an end to that; he already had a child so he moved to Slough, to work as a postman. That led to him being elected as a local trade union official.

A long time after life in a council house under the Westway and then in John Betjeman’s favourite Buckinghamshire town he won a seat in the House of Commons. A few minor ministerial jobs developed into a place in the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Education. At this year’s Labour Party conference, among the pushing and shoving, the arm twisting and back stabbing, Johnson was spoken of as a challenger for the Leadership but he seemed to lose his appetite for the job – in spite of setting up websites with names like Johnson4leader.com.

Conspiracy?

Devotees of conspiracy theories could be excused for descrying some determined backroom manoeuvring to ensure so swift a climb up the Greasy Pole. Johnson’s constituency – Hull East and Hessle – was previously held by Stuart Randall, who had started out as an apprentice electrician before blossoming into a computer expert – which did not prevent a parliamentary journalist describing him as “nondescript”. Randall resigned from the Commons in 1997, allowing Johnson to take over a rock solid  Labour majority and Randall to be shuffled off to the House of Lords.

Then there was the matter of Johnson’s promotion in September 2004 to his first Cabinet job, as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (where he could start work on harassing Incapacity Benefit claimants back to work). The previous occupant of this job was Andrew Smith, who obligingly decided that he needed to spend more time with his family and with his constituency of Oxford East.

Perhaps he was alarmed by the slashing of his 2001 majority of over 10,000 votes down to 963 in 2005. And perhaps Johnson’s promotion in Smith’s place was not unconnected with the fact that, before he got into Parliament, he had been the only member of Labour’s NEC to support the new Leader Blair in his determination to get rid of Clause Four.

Tuition Fees

Like many New Labour leaders, Johnson shows some embarrassment about his past, about those carefree days in opposition when a budding politician could say almost anything, join almost any organisation, provided it seemed radical and exciting. Interviewed in the Observer Magazine (17 September), he insisted that “the first thing about me is I was never a Trot, or a semi-Trot. I was never, ever a Trot.” But he did not then go on to admit that he was once a branch official in the Communist Party.

Of course he has put all that nonsense behind him now that he is in the serious business of  government. His record of support for Blair is unblemished – so pure that when he was the Minister of State for Further and Higher Education under Charles Clarke he played what Tony Blair later described as “a vital role in the successful introduction of variable tuition fees during the last parliament”.

This mannered praise refers to the fierce battle the government had to endure before they were able to bludgeon the measure through Parliament. In that conflict Johnson’s smooth negotiating talents were crucial alongside Clarke’s belligerence. It was, Johnson said, “. . . a charm offensive. I was the charm and Clarke was offensive”.

This joke may not have gone down well with students and their families who struggle through the time at university and then emerge with the right to wear an academic gown and to pay off a substantial debt. Johnson offers this as justification for his attitude: “If I thought it was going to damage working-class kids, I wouldn’t have backed it”.

Another way of putting this feebly circular case would be to argue that the very fact he had backed the tuition fees must mean that they did not damage anyone; it is a style often used by Tony Blair to justify indefensible actions such as the war in Iraq. In any case Johnson’s attitude is rather at variance with his account of how his daughter was treated by the education system. In an area which still had grammar schools she failed her 11 Plus and was placed in a comprehensive school: “She was very bright but, well, probably life chances were lost then…So am I bitter about selection? Yes. I’ve seen what it does to kids”. But he does not seem to be “bitter” about his support for the proposals to set up “trust” schools which, however words are twisted and whatever promises are made, are intended to operate selection policies which can cost the pupils “life chances”.

Claptrap

On other issues Johnson has solidly supported the government – on ID cards, the war in Iraq, foundation hospitals, the “anti-terrorism” laws. And there will be many more examples, as he strives to promote his career through expressed loyalty to the government.

When he was appointed Secretary of State for Education, the postie who delivers the mail to his office brought a long letter from Blair which set out the tasks ahead of him: “…build on our unprecedented record of economic achievement…ensure the long term security and prosperity of our country and its people…deliver real improvements for ordinary hard working families and to underline our Government’s commitment to social justice through policies to expand opportunity and tackle the most deep seated causes of social exclusion”. At the very end of the letter Blair slips a bit of reality into the clap trap: “Your plans will, of course, need to be set against the background of lower growth in funding than in recent  years”.

One symptom of that reality is that there are 60,000 children in care in this country who are, according to Johnson, treated “appallingly”. This is after nine years of a Labour government presiding over the crises and failures of capitalism.

How does the ex-postie, with all his talents for smoothing over uncomfortable facts, explain that away?

Ivan

The Communists and the Labour Party. How Moscow Helped MacDonald. (1931)

From the October 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Young workers attracted to the Communist Party by its denunciation of the recent Labour Government and of the Labour leaders in the National Government, are often unaware that the Communist Party for years supported the Labour Party and urged the workers to place power in their hands. The Communists now wish many of their past activities forgotten. They do not want the workers to remember that the Communist Party willingly associated with the MacDonalds and Hendersons in the anti-working-class policy of preaching that the way to Socialism was through “Labour” Governments and capitalist reforms. But it is important that these activities should not be forgotten, nor their lessons overlooked. The hold that MacDonald and Henderson, Thomas and Clynes, and the other Labour Party defenders of capitalism have over the minds ot the workers has been strengthened by the work of the Communist Party and the Communist International in the past ten years. Below is a brief record which will show that this serious charge against the Communists is founded on indisputable evidence taken from their own official publications.

1921—Opposition to the Labour Party.

In March, 1921, the Communists opposed Mr. J. R. MacDonald, then standing as Labour candidate at Woolwich East in a by-election, and in August of the same year they ran a candidate, Mr. R. Stewart, against the Labour candidate, Mr. Morgan Jones, at Caerphilly, Glamorgan. On both occasions the Communists denounced the Labour candidates and the Labour Party in the most downright manner. Mr. R. Stewart made the accusation that leading members of the Labour Party were “responsible for the . . defeat of the miners” in the lock-out which occurred that year. He justified the Communist Party’s opposition to the Labour Party in quite simple and straightforward terms. In an article in the Communist (August 20th, 1921) he wrote :—

“But, it may be asked, why do the Communists oppose the Labour Party at Parliamentary elections? We oppose the Labour Party for the simple reason that it is not a Labour Party at all.” (Italics his.)

He faced up honestly to the charge of “splitting the vote,” and gave a direct answer :—

“The answer to all that is that the Communist Party is splitting not the “Labour Vote”—whatever that may mean !—but the voters in two important divisions—those who understand the need for the overthrow of capitalism and those who do not. We leave these latter to the Labour Party.” (Ibid.)

1922—Trying to join the "Labour" Circus.

In 1922 the Communists completely reversed their policy. They were applying for affiliation with the Labour Party. The Executive Committee of the Labour Party asked whether the Communist Party “proposes and intends to become a loyal constituent of the Labour Party, conforming at all points with its constitution and working for the promotion of its objects.”

The answer given by the Chairman of the Communist Party on their behalf contained the following :—

“The answer to this question is that the Communist Party in the event of affiliation intends to conform to the constitution of the Labour Party, without prejudice to its right of criticism on policy or tactics in common with all affiliated bodies.” (Communist, June 10th, 1922.)

In other words, they were now seeking to join a party which they declared was “not a Labour Party at all.” The application was rejected.

There was a General Election in November, 1922. The Communist Election Manifesto (Communist, October 28th, 1922) urged the workers to give “conditional” support to Labour Party candidates; that is to say, support only if they pledged themselves against any alliance or understanding with any “Capitalist Party,” and if they pledged themselves to vote against all war credits, etc.

In practice this demanding of pledges was disregarded, and the Communists voted for even the most reactionary of the Labour Party candidates. Thus at Gorton the Communists put forward Mr. Harry Pollitt as Communist candidate in opposition to Mr. John Hodge. Then they withdrew him and asked Mr. Hodge for “pledges.” Mr. Hodge did not pledge himself to vote against war credits, and even on unemployment he declined to satisfy his Communist questioners. The Communist Daily (November 13th, 1922) said : “It is not clear from the Labour candidate’s reply whether he agrees this point in the Communist Party’s programme or not.” Nevertheless Pollitt withdrew his candidature and supported Mr. John Hodge.

Mr. R. Palme Dutt, a prominent Communist, writing on the Labour Party’s election address, said :—

“There is not a single working-class issue in this international policy of the Labour Party Executive.”

With regard to that part of the Labour Party Manifesto dealing with home affairs Mr. Dutt said :—

“Their programme is a programme of Reconstruction, but it is the Reconstruction of Capitalism.” (Communist, November 4th, 1922.)

Among the Labour Party candidates, whom the Communists supported at the 1922 General Election, were Mr. Morgan Jones at Caerphilly and Mr. MacDonald at Aberavon.

1923—Helping “Ramsay Mac.”

At the 1923 General Election all pretence about “conditional support” was dropped. Now the Communists were not only willing supporters, but were almost lyrical in their enthusiasm for the leaders of the party which they said “is not a Labour Party at all.”

MacDonald they had formerly described as a “lackey of the Bourgeoisie” ; now they felt so friendly that the Workers’ Weekly (December 7th, 1923) affectionately called him “Ramsay Mac.” Their local branch secretary reported on their activities :—

“We Communists here are doing our best to help Ramsay MacDonald to beat the capitalist candidate.”

The Workers’ Weekly described the election campaign as follows :—

“ …. local organisations of the Communist Party are working for Ramsay MacDonald in Aberavon, Bromley in Barrow, Ernest Hunter of the I.L.P. in Hackney, J. R. Clynes in Manchester, and in hundreds of other constituencies.” (Workers Weekly, December 7th, 1923.)

In Barrow they were helping J. Bromley, the Labour Candidate. Their Secretary wrote :—

“All our illusions and theoretical deductions have been hung out on the clothes line to dry.”

The Workers’ Weekly article continued :—

“Working-class unity is being forged in the fight. The Labour Party has officially endorsed as its candidates both Comrade Paul in Rusholme and Comrade Vaughan in Bethnal Green. There are now four Communist candidates officially supported by the National Labour Party. . . .”

Mr. W. Paul’s trump card at the election was a letter from Mr. MacDonald assuring the workers that Mr. Paul was a fit and proper person to be a Labour M.P. !

So the “revolutionary” Communists were united with a party which “is not a Labour Party at all” just for the sake of trying to get four candidates into Parliament.

1924—Relying on Maxton.

After the 1923 General Election the Labour Party entered office for the first time as the Government. (They had, of course, been in the war-time Liberal-Labour-Conservative Coalition). Promptly the Communist Party issued a “Call to All Workers” (February, 1924), in which they complained because the Labour Government did not include “tried and trusty fighters like Lansbury and Smillie” ; and Mr. Tom Bell, in the Communist Review (January, 1924), was assuring us that working-class interests were going to be looked after by Wheatley, Maxton, Johnston and Kirkwood !

Supporting the English Kerensky.

Soon afterwards the affection of the Communists for their friend, “Ramsay Mac,” turned again to hatred. Yet, in spite of that, the General Election in October, 1924 (i.e., after the Labour Government), found the Communist Party again supporting all the Labour Party candidates.

The Workers’ Weekly (October 17th, 1924) said :—

“The Communist Party declares that the task of the moment is return a Labour majority in the present election, in reply to the challenge of the capitalist class.”

They did this in spite of their own admission that the 1924 Labour Government—

“have behaved just like Kerensky in 1917. Instead of using their position to help the workers, they used it to help the capitalists.” (Workers’ Weekly, November 7th, 1924.)

Among the candidates they supported were their old friends, Mr. MacDonald at Aberavon and Mr. Morgan Jones at Caerphilly !

1926—Helping the betrayers of the General Strike.

In 1926 occurred the General Strike, It was claimed by the Communists that that strike failed simply because of the failure of and betrayal by the Labour leaders. (See Labour Monthly, July, 1926.)

Yet, in face of this belief, the Communist Party continued its own betrayal of the interests of the workers by urging them to vote for these same Labour leaders. A Communist Party pamphlet, “Communism is Commonsense,” published in July, 1926, i.e., two months after the failure of the General Strike, contains the following- :—

“. . . Communists urge the workers to support Communist and Labour candidates, even if the latter are Right Wingers, in the hope that they may reflect at any rate to some extent the needs of the masses, and that they will, when the present Labour leaders have got sufficient support in Parliament, form another Labour Government and by its futility prove the uselessness of relying on Parliamentary reform for the achievement of Socialism.” (Page 18.) (Italics ours.)

At the Hull By-election in November, 1926, the Communists issued a leaflet telling the workers to vote for Commander Kenworthy, a recent recruit to the Labour Party. An amusing feature of this was that Kenworthy declared that he had not dropped his Liberalism, but was joining the Labour Party because that Party had taken over the mantle of Liberalism.

1928—Communists still support MacDonald

In February, 1928 (see Communist Review of that date), the Communist Party published a thesis giving its reasons for continuing to support the Labour Party. In the course of the article we are told :—

“Even in the case of MacDonald, Thomas, Henderson and Co., the party cannot (1) advise the workers to vote Liberal or Tory, (2) advise mere abstention, (3) put up a candidate who would let in the Liberal or Tory.”

It will be noticed that the Communists had now deserted their 1921 attitude of defying the charge of splitting the Labour vote.

Finding it hard to fight for their own programme, they had given up the fight. In 1921 they were optimistic and thought that they would receive the support of great numbers of workers. As soon as they found that the number of workers prepared to support them was very small, too small to give them Trade Union and Parliamentary positions, the Communist would-be leaders turned over to the policy of supporting Labour Party candidates so that they themselves could get the votes of workers still intent on voting for capitalism. The Communists were no longer of Mr. Stewart’s early opinion that it was desirable to “leave these latter to the Labour Party.”

Moscow gives its orders.

But at this point Moscow stepped in and ordered the British Party to reverse its policy. They were instructed to run candidates in opposition to some of Labour Party candidates, but to support others. (See Workers’ Weekly, February 24th, 1928.)

In the 1929 General Election the Commmunists ran 25 candidates of their own—all of them unsuccessful. By opposing Mr. Morgan Jones at Caerphilly and Mr. MacDonald at Seaham, Durham, the Communists had, after a long and costly detour, “progressed” almost back to their attitude of 1921. But whereas 1921 their candidate at Caerphilly polled 2,592, in 1929 the Communist polled only 809. Counting only the election expenditure officially returnable, and including the lost deposits, the Communists threw away over £9,000 at that election.

1929—Still prepared to support Labour Party candidates.

Their attitude in 1929 was still not one of straight opposition to the party “which is not a Labour Party at all,” for they were prepared again to stage that piece of deception which they called asking Labour candidates for “pledges.”

In a statement issued to the Press on April 13th, 1929, by the Political Bureau of the Communist Party, this crooked policy was explained :—

“A Labour Government at the present day would be a Government of capitalist rationalisation, only differing from the Tory and Liberal Parties as to the best methods whereby rationalisation could be brought about at the expense of the workers.

It is, therefore, no longer possible for Communist Party to advise the workers to give unconditional support to Labour candidates, even in constituencies not being contested by the Communists.

The Communist Party is advising workers only to vote for such Labour candidates as are prepared to accept a policy of minimum working class demands, involving the repudiation of Mondism, of imperialism, and of the policy of trade union disruption now being actively operated in the trade union movement.

Unless these demands are accepted the Communist Party will advise the workers to refrain from voting,” (See Sunday Worker, April 14th, 1929.)

Yet they admitted in their 1929 election pamphlet, “Class against Class,” that :he Labour Party “is the third capitalist party. It … has nothing to do with Socialism” (page 8).

Explaining away the past.

They also tried to explain away their “changed attitude to the Labour Party.” “Class against Class” contains this tortuous explanation :—

“Prior to the formation of the Labour Government in 1924, the Communist Party, although the leaders of the Labour Party were as treacherous then as now, advised the working class to push the Labour Party into power whilst sharply criticising and exposing the leaders of the Labour Party. To-day this policy is no longer possible for the following reasons.

The situation of 1929 is entirely different from that of the years prior to the General Strike and the Labour Government of 1924. In the years immediately after the war the Labour Party . . . was a federation of trade unions and parties offering facilities for criticism from within and a means of struggle for our Party to battle against the middle-class leadership and to strengthen the working class forces within it.

The Labour Government exposed the Labour Party leadership completely. It proved the Communist Party criticism to be correct. The “Minority” Labour Government was nothing more than a coalition with the Tories and Liberals. The Labour leaders “led” the General Strike only to betray it in the face of the challenge of the State.” (p. 9.)

But, by going back over the statements and actions of the Communists during the past ten years, we can see how utterly dishonest this so-called “explanation” is.

The Communists, it will be noticed, justify their support of the Labour Party up to 1924 on the ground that “immediately after the war” the Labour Party was different. Yet, as we have seen above, they opposed it in 1921 for precisely the same reason as that which they give now. When Mr. Stewart declared in 1921 that it was “not a Labour Party at all,” he was speaking truly.

They claim that the situation was different after the 1924 Labour Government. But, as we have also shown, they continued to support the Labour Party after the 1924 Labour Government. And was not the war-time Coalition alone a sufficient reason for opposing the Labour Party before 1924 ?

They claim, too, that the General Strike altered the situation and that the Strike was betrayed by the Labour leaders. Yet we have seen that after the General Strike they were still supporting these Labour leaders, “even if the latter are Right Wingers,” including a professing Liberal like Commander Kenworthy. And they would have continued to support all the Labour leaders, “even in the case of MacDonald, Thomas, Henderson and Co.,” if Moscow had not ordered otherwise.

This is the record of political tricksters who claim in “Class against Class” that “No Party can serve the robbers and the robbed at the same time,” and that the Communist Party is “the only Party of the workers.” They have known all the corrupt arts of the political job-hunters except one ; they have not known how to capture the glittering prizes. They should learn that some show of consistency and sincerity is required even in the most opportunist politician if he is to be successful.

Edgar Hardcastle

John Strachey's What Are We to Do? (1938)

Book Review from the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

“What Are We To Do ? ” by J. L. Strachey. Gollancz, 10s. 6d., and Left Book Club.

In this book we have a considered statement of the present policy of the Communist Party, the policy of the People’s Front. And as such it serves to demonstrate, if demonstration were needed, the complete political bankruptcy, poverty of thought, and dishonesty of purpose of the Communist Party. Above all, it is an awful warning of the fate that can overtake an “ intellectual ” who embraces a party instead of a principle.

The first part of the book is devoted to an examination of the growth and development of the British Labour movement, while, at the same time, seeking to analyse its failure to accomplish anything in the permanent interests of the working class. The second part is devoted to what Mr. Strachey considers to be the remedy, and the working out of a programme suitable for a People’s Front.

Capitalist societies, remarks Mr. Strachey, spontaneously generate Labour movements, which, in the end, are driven to aim at a new form of society, which they call Socialism. The fate of any particular Labour movement will depend on the kind (!) of “ Socialism ” it adopts, then, you see, the Labour movement has the choice of different kinds of “Socialism,” some better than others, no doubt, but, nevertheless, all Socialism. All we have to do, then, is to see that the existing Labour movement—and by that Strachey means the Labour Party—adopts the right kind of Socialism. Preferably the variety propounded by Mr. Strachey himself.

“ Of any comprehensive Socialist philosophy,” we are told, ”. . , the pre-War Parliamentary Labour Party was destitute,” page 43 (our italics), “ but that, on the whole . . . we may say that the post-War British Labour Party was Socialist; but that its Socialism was of a peculiar Fabian or British variety” (page 118). Notice the precision of language, the clarity of thought! The entire book is characterised by such equivocal and ambiguous language, and this, as we shall presently show, is not an accident, but a necessity imposed on Strachey by the task he has set himself.

What are the facts? The Labour Party is not, and never was, a Socialist Party. Its main function, the sole justification for its existence, is that it serves as the political expression of a working class seeking reforms within the capitalist system. But, unfortunately for the trade union and Labour Party bureaucracy, the capitalist class demands its quid pro quo. In return for the privilege of holding, as Mr. Strachey has said elsewhere, “ he umbrella of social reforms over the heads of the workers," capitalism requires that when capitalist expediency demands it the influence and control over the workers which accrues from this privilege should be used in making a worsening of conditions acceptable to the working class.

For this reason it is necessary that a fairly close understanding exists between the capitalist State and the Labour Party and trade union bureaucracy. Mr. Strachey once knew this full well. Indeed, he went so far as to claim in his “Coming Struggle for Power,” page 293, that ” These organisations ” (i.e., Labour or Social Democratic Parties) “ have now become . . . the principal and essential bulwarks of capitalism . . . the machinery of the trade unions and Labour Parties has become an apparatus, not used by the workers to control the capitalists, but by the capitalists to control the workers. ...” Now, on page 25 of “What Are We to Do?” he says that the modern capitalist class exercises pressure against the existence of trade unions, and that they will make “. . . resolute efforts to suppress all forms of working-class combination.”

Mr. Strachey used to hold the view that “All the more moder employers realise, however, the inevitability of trade union organisation. Accordingly, they do all in their power to strengthen the hands of the existing unions ” (“Coming Struggle for Power,” page 336).

But the Labour Party, and this applies to all reformist organisations masquerading as Socialist Parties, fulfils another very valuable function on behalf of the capitalist class. It serves to canalise, to render harmless and ineffective the anti-capitalist sentiments of the masses. And this also Mr. Strachey once knew quite well. Then, did he not tell us—he is speaking of the Labour Party— “That a very extensive political machine has been created. Hundreds of competent orators tour the country with unexampled frequency, expressing, liberating, and thus very largely dispersing, the anti-capitalist impulses of the workers n (”Coming Struggle for Power,” page 299). And the fact that the Labour Party and trade unions are largely working class in their composition and support does not make these bodies any the less anti-working class in their politics. To quote Mr. Strachey once more: ”. . . unless the whole social democratic machine was in quite a real sense working class, it would be unable, any better than an ordinary Liberal Party, to cater for the increasingly anti-capitalist mood of the workers” (”Coming Struggle for Power,” page 300).

Why, then, does Mr. Strachey, against his better knowledge, seek to prove that the Labour Party is a Socialist Party, but that all that is wrong with it is that its brand of Socialism is the wrong one? Because he seeks to justify the affiliation of the Communist Party to the Labour Party as something which would be in the interests of the working class. (And so perhaps it would be, but not quite in the sense Mr. Strachey would have us believe.) Then, if all that is wrong with the Labour Party is that its choice in “Socialism ” was unfortunate, who can better put the matter right than that body of “social scientists,” the “New Model Party" . . .  the Communist Party?

It is curious to note that Mr. Strachey is at great pains to establish that which the Socialist Party of Great Britain has been asserting ever since its inception, namely, that it is lack of Socialist knowledge that prevents the workers from achieving their emancipation. Thus we read (page 60): “ In the real world a working-class movement can only come to a comprehension of Socialism by means of an active process of freeing itself from the domination of capitalist ideas." Again: “Nothing was lacking to the organised British workers except knowledge and the will, faith, self-confidence and power that knowledge alone can give ” (page 144). And we can heartily agree that “Until they equip themselves with a political knowledge; with, above all, an adequate, comprehensive, Socialist science, the men and women who do the hard daily work of the British working-class movement will always have to accept any policy which a small group of leaders at the top chooses to put before them.” And that, Mr. Strachey, applies not only to the Labour Party and trade union movement, but every word to the Communist Party as well.

It is also interesting to note that unlike most Communist Party members, Mr. Strachey does not subscribe to the idea that it is impossible for the majority of the working class to reach an understanding of Socialism. “For the relative blindness of the workers," we are told, “. . . to the full implications of the struggle in which they find themselves engaged is curable. It is the prime duty of those who take on the heavy responsibility of leadership in a working-class movement to take off the bandage with which capitalism blinds the eyes of the workers. But, instead, the existence of that bandage is made the excuse for every inadequacy, for every inaction, and for every surrender." “ What Are We to Do?" (page 285). Apart from the question of “leadership," this would make an admirable text for all those "revolutionaries” who are more concerned to prove that the working class can never understand Socialism than to put the matter to the test.

In spite of this, needless to say, unacknowledged agreement with the Socialist Party of Great Britain, that does not prevent him indulging in the usual cheap sneers. On page 309 he invites “anyone who wishes to see how far sectarianism can go, (to) study these societies." Our record, Mr. Strachey, is open for inspection, WE have nothing of which to be ashamed, to conceal from the working class. But what about YOU, Mr. Strachey, and the Communist Party in whose name you speak ?

The programme Mr. Strachey formulates for the People’s Front is based on the defence of peace, democracy, and the national standards of living. Peace is to be saved by “rebuilding the system of collective security, and in no other way"; the national standard of living is to be defended and, presumably, improved on, by the adoption of a string of reformist nostrums, the majority of which, indeed if not all, would meet with the whole-hearted approval of no less a person that Herr Hitler. As a matter of fact, Nazi Germany has adopted most of the measures outlined on page 339. And this advocacy of reforms is justified on the specious plea that such reforms are incompatible with the further existence of a “declining" capitalist system. “ For events will show fast enough that even those reforms and ameliorations to-day involve a large measure of Socialism! " As Mr. Strachey remarks (page 331): “ Men who are by no means Socialists will support a Socialistic measure—as, say, the nationalisation of the mines, or the compulsory acquisition of slum property for giant rehousing schemes” (our italics). Agreed, Mr. Strachey, non-Socialists will support such measures, precisely because they are not Socialist and have nothing in common with Socialism.

Although Strachey has serious doubts as to the possibility of maintaining peace and capitalism at the same time, this does not prevent him from urging all those with anti-war tendencies to organise for the purpose of achieving that which, even in his view, is impossible. He exhorts us to put the matter to the test of experience, but unfortunately he does not indicate at what point experience will show the futility of endeavouring to eliminate effects (war), while leaving untouched the cause (capitalism). It simply doesn’t occur to this political genius to pursue the only worth-while policy, that of telling the working class that wars are the outcome of the struggle between hostile capitalist States, or groups of States, and that this struggle has its origin in the greed for raw-materials, spheres of investment and exploitation, and for markets where the surplus-value wrung from the working class may be realised. The only honest way is to make dear to the workers that so long as capitalism exists so will war or the possibility of war—and that not all the “peace alliances," not all the “collective security,” will alter this indisputable fact.

Mr. Strachey is not in the least dismayed that his much-vaunted collective security might conceivably lead to war. In discussing sanctions and their likely effect, he says, page 196: “It was perfectly clear that the fear of war did not in 1935 restrain the leaders of the British Labour movement from opposing Fascist aggression.” And then goes on to say: “In this our leaders were perfectly right” (our italics). Yes, Mr. Strachey, the task of converting the workers into cannon fodder for the purpose of defending the interests of their own capitalist class is a task in which our “leaders" will never fail. How long will’ it be, Mr. Strachey, before you, together with the Pollits, the Gallaghers, the Bevins, Daltons and Citrines, are urging the workers to sacrifice their lives in defence of one form of capitalist administration (democracy) against another form of capitalist administration, namely, Fascism?

Our standpoint on these matters is quite dear. A social system which can only exist by ruthlessly exploiting and condemning to poverty and insecurity vast masses of the people in the interests of a minority, a system which uses the most refined scientific methods for fashioning instruments for accomplishing death and destruction on a colossal scale, which condemns women to the production of human cannon fodder, or makes them cannon fodder themselves, such a system, no matter under what political guise it may be administered, is clearly in irreconcilable conflict with even the most elementary interests of the majority of the people. Fascism or Socialism, Peace or War? When all is said and done, the final answer to these and similar questions rests with the working class, and with the working class alone. The Socialist Party of Great Britain has dedicated itself to the task of seeing that the working class gives the right answer, and it is the duty, and should be the privilege, of all who understand the Socialist position, to give us their whole-hearted support in this work.

For Mr. Strachey, “ Socialism is an abstraction." And no doubt it is—for him. But in the task indicated above there is nothing abstract—it involves the fearless recognition of social realities; it means hard work and a grim determination to reach our goal. But this is something the Stracheys are not prepared to face.

This does not constitute an exhaustive review of the book in question. To deal with all the evasions, half-truths, and dishonest ambiguities would demand a volume. Mr. Strachey has travelled far since he wrote the “Coming Struggle for Power," and he has not improved in the travelling. But perhaps we can best conclude by saying of Mr: John Strachey what Mr. John Strachey once said of the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald : “ One would not . . . like to say . . . that he had abandoned Socialism. It is rather that he has emptied the concept of every shred of meaning."

Arthur Mertons

Emancipation or Palliation? (1931)

Pamphlet Review from the July 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

About five years ago the Socialist Party published a pamphlet entitled “Socialism,” which examined the position of the working class and indicated the only way to effect a change in that position. The Communist Party has recently issued a pamphlet, professing to cover similar ground, entitled “Capitalism or Socialism in Britain.”

An old tag has it that comparisons are odious. Let us be odious.

Our pamphlet contains forty-eight pages. Mr. Palme Dutt’s effort consists of only thirty-two similar pages. The Socialist Party’s pamphlet is sold for 2d. The Communist Party charge 3d. In spite of their superior financial resources, they want half as much again for two-thirds of the material. So much for quantity, Now for quality.

The Communist pamphlet contains no actual information that has not been given by the S.P.G.B., but it does contain statements which are false. Mr. Dutt repeats the long-ago exploded legend that Socialism has been established in Russia. We are told that the workers there own and control the means of production, in spite of the fact that the Soviet Government, like other capitalist Governments, has a large and growing national debt upon which it pays high rates of interest to the investors. It has just announced its intention of floating another £160,000,000 loan, upon which it will pay 10 per cent. (Manchester Guardian Weekly, June 12th). Although it is common knowledge that agricultural production in Russia is still largely in the hands of independent peasant concerns, and that the so-called collective and State farms are run on capitalist lines, Mr. Dutt glibly informs us that all production is organised according to a single plan (p. 16). “All production,” he goes on, “is directed solely to supplying the workers’ needs. It is for use, not profit.” Yet a few paragraphs further on he speaks of “the mighty Socialist productive machine flooding the world with cheap goods with which they (the capitalists) cannot compete.” Perhaps next time Mr. Dutt deals with this matter he will be kind enough to explain why British, American and German capitalists in particular are supplying Russia with the machinery upon which the success of its economic plans depends. Is it because they have conceived a laudable desire to assist in the “building-up of Socialism “?

The Labour Party, of course, comes in for a good deal of Mr. Dutt’s criticism, but he keeps judiciously quiet concerning the electoral support which the Communist Party gave to the Labour Party for years. We have yet to hear what the working-class (or even the Communist Party) have gained by this activity. In passing, it is interesting to note that where, as at Pontypridd and St. Rollox, by-elections are fought minus a Communist candidate, the Communist Party have taken to recommending the workers to write “Communist” across their ballot papers. Communist champions have, in the past, been remarkably fond of sneering at this form of action when advocated by the S.P.G.B. Now that their support has been ruthlessly spurned by the Labour Party, they have no choice but “to add” (in their own words) “to the gaiety of returning officers.”

While the Communist Party was busily engaged in 1923 and 1924 in securing the return to Parliament of ex-Coalition. Government office-holders, such as Clynes and Henderson (thus proving false to the Third International’s slogan, “Remember the Imperialist War”), the Socialist Party was consistently opposing the Labour Party. Our withers are unwrung, therefore, by Mr. Dutt’s diatribe against “Socialist Imperialism.” Unlike his party, we have never had truck nor lot with any such monstrous hybrid. We can, therefore, criticise his support of Indian Nationalism with a clean record so far as working-class interests are concerned. The maintenance of the British Empire is no concern of ours, but neither is “the national liberation of the colonial peoples,” which Mr. Dutt describes as “the first duty of free workers of Britain.” Experience of Nationalist movements from Ireland to China convinces us that the workers in these respective countries have nothing to gain by giving them support. Mr. Dutt attempts to deny that national liberation “means the strengthening of the native exploiters against the masses.” “On the contrary,” he says, “it is just British imperialism that maintains, buttresses and builds its power on alliance with the most reactionary blood-sucking native elements in each country—the decaying Indian

princes, the priestly powers, the landlords (often created ariilicially by British rule), the middlemen traders, the moneylenders. Remove the sword of British Imperialism which maintains and protects these, and the working masses will soon deal with them and advance to Socialism” (p. 30). It is necessary to note that he leaves unmentioned the newer industrial capitalist element who are the strongest supporters of the Nationalists and have probably the most to gain from some form of independence in India, and confines himself to attacking the “reactionary,” i.e., the feudal and semi-feudal survivals among the Indian ruling class, and the actual agents of the British Government. He ignores, in other words, the fact that a more modern mode of exploitation is developing in India and giving rise to a demand for political changes in accordance therewith. The Indian capitalists want a place in the sun on an equality with the capitalists of the rest of the world. Mr. Dutt’s pretence that the “working masses of India” are ready to “advance to Socialism,” once the British are out of the way, is the most pitiful childishness.

Those of his readers who are inclined to fall for that sort of thing would do well to ponder upon the fate of the followers of the Chinese Communists in 1927. Having helped the Nationalist Kuo-Min-Tang Party in its struggle with the “reactionary elements,” thousands of workers were butchered in the streets of Shanghai and Canton when the Kuo-Min-Tang was in the saddle. Whether the Indian Nationalists will succeed in acquiring a similar measure of power remains to be seen. One thing, however, is certain : their power will not be that of the workers and peasants.

The rest of Mr. Dutt’s pamphlet betrays a similar conflict between his revolutionary pretensions and reformist proposals. Although he tells us in his preface “that no policy of patching up capitalism can avail,” he cannot resist the temptation to suggest a few patches. Hence (on p. 28) we get the usual “Communist” demands for “minimum wages, seven-hour day, fortnight’s holiday with pay, workers’ control in the factories.” All this, mind, as an immediate result of “workers’ rule,” the capitalists having been “expropriated” on page 24 !

These demands, of course, do not present anything essentially different from the programme of the I.L.P. or the Liberal Yellow Book. Scientific exploitation is quite consistent with minimum rates, shorter hours, regular holidays, and factory committees. In Russia and Germany, where the works councils have statutory rights, they have long ago been subordinated to the Trade Unions and used by the State in capitalist interests. Shop stewards prove as helpless against these interests as do Trade Union leaders. Yet Mr. Dutt, like the Communists generally, goes on chanting the stale old “industrialist” tags about building up the workers’ power in the factories. Ex-shop-stewards who had to join the Communist Party because, with the post-war slump, they lost their industrial jobs, talk with their tongue in their cheeks about “workers’ control” ; not forgetting to mention, however, the necessity for the “leadership” of the Communist Party. That leadership has cost the workers dear wherever it has been accepted. Instead of “the capitalist State” being smashed, it has been the workers” heads, if nothing worse. The way to power is through organisation based upon knowledge. The Socialist Party through its literature assists in supplying’ that knowledge free from the confusing mixture of obsolete and unscientific Radicalism. Emancipation, not palliation, is our watchword.

Eric Boden