The Labour Party Conference (1935)

From the November 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party Conference was held this year at Brighton. For many reasons it was outstanding. The imminence of a general election gave it a cautious tone. The memory of two Labour Governments served to remind delegates and leaders that economic and political problems do not vanish as before the wave of a magician's wand when a Labour Government is elected. This robbed them of some of the cocksureness of former years. Promises of what they would do if and when they were elected were not so lavish. Delegates seemed to sense their limitations. Mr. George Lansbury, for years, had talked of “classless society" and “the brotherhood of man” in a way which implied these things to be Labour Party objects. He still talked of “classless society" and the “brotherhood of man," but only as an “ultimate goal." The irrefutable fact has apparently penetrated his mind that whatever else these objects are they are not Labour Party policy, and that Labour Party policy does not go beyond the immediate one of administering capitalism.

Mr. Lansbury is perhaps typical of many thousands of members and followers of the Labour Party. It is to be hoped that events have had the effect of similarly dispelling their illusions. In seeking to get the votes of the workers the Labour Party resorts to the electioneering trickery of the other capitalist parties. Unemployment and other evils which are part and parcel of capitalism are attributed to the policy of the party in power, completely ignoring the fact that no remedy for these evils was produced when a Labour Government itself was in power. This, however, was forgotten when Conference made comparisons between Labour Governments and the present Government. The “National" Government was described as a fraud, but no mention was made that many present leaders of the Labour Party were alleged to have been prepared to join it when it was formed if the trade unions had not threatened to withdraw financial support from the Labour Party.

The Question of Sanctions Against Italy

There was one question—the Italian dispute with Abyssinia—which dominated Conference, took up most of its time and caused other matters to be treated as routine questions. A resolution demanding that sanctions be applied against Italy was carried by the enormous majority of twenty to one. No effort was made to conceal the fact that sanctions might lead to war. In winding up the debate on the resolution, Mr. Morrison said : “The economic and financial sanctions may well be effective. But do not let us delude ourselves with that belief. If they are not effective, I am not going to say that military sanctions are to be ruled out when it may weaken the power for peace" (Daily Herald, October 3rd).

Mr. Morrison, however, did not explain how military sanctions could strengthen peace. He did not, because he could not. To send British and other armies to Abyssinia to drive out the Italian army is not peace, but war. Nor did Mr. Morrison explain how war would serve working-class interests. He did not, because he could not. If war is the outcome of the present capitalist quarrel it will be because of the competitive basis of capitalist society. The Labour Party has apparently learned little since 1914. If there is any difference at all between their position in 1914 and now it is that their support of capitalist interests, and willingness to send workers to the shambles, is more shameless now than it was then.

It is not surprising in view of his demand for sanctions, including, if need be, military sanctions or war, that Mr. Morrison obtained the withdrawal of the resolution which came next on the agenda. It ran: —

  This conference declares its hostility to the proposals for instituting civilian air-raid drill, and considers these proposals not only futile as a means of protection against aerial attack, but a definite attempt to arouse public feeling in favour of the Government’s arms policy.
   This conference therefore instructs the National Council of Labour to draw up plans immediately for organising public resistance to compulsory air-raid drill, and recommends all Labour controlled authorities to refuse to operate the Government’s plans in any way.—(Daily Herald, October 4th.)

That piece of simple-mindedness, or electioneering tactics, was obviously on the agenda before the present crisis developed.

The open discussion in the Press of the sanctions being applied against Italy, together with the present dangerous international situation, has produced some strange results. Many who imagined that sanctions were a guarantee of peace, suddenly had brought home to them that they might lead to war. It may be crediting Mr. Lansbury with ingenuousness to say that he shared this illusion, but it appears that that was the case. Indeed, how else could his change of mind be explained. Sir Stafford Cripps, who was not under this illusion, and demanded that sanctions be applied to Japan when that country invaded China, changed his mind when the question was nearer home and when the possibility of the Labour Party, as the Government, having to apply them was less remote than then. Perhaps the most ardent sabre-rattlers were those who suggested that Fascism was the real enemy.

The present support by the Labour Party of the League of Nations is the logical result of its policy since the last war. To go back on this policy now would, they think, mean a loss of political prestige, and consequently of votes.

Harry Waite

Editorial: Tenth Betrayal of the Working Class 1904-1935 (1935)

Editorial from the November 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since 1904, when the S.P.G.B. started out on its task of pointing out to the workers that there is no solution of their problems except Socialism, and that there is no way of achieving Socialism except through independent organisation in a purely Socialist Party for the conquest of the powers of Government, there have been nine General Elections. This is the tenth. Nine times the politicians have sought and obtained a mandate for continuing capitalism, modified only in this or that small detail. Nine times—indeed continuously for 31 years—the S.P.G.B. has proclaimed that it makes no essential difference what is the label or programme of the political group which takes on the administration of capitalism. Nine times the workers have placed their trust in one or other of the non-Socialist parties, and nine times their trust has been repaid with poverty and distress instead of the promised prosperity, with the blood and tears of world-war instead of peace, with disillusion and despair instead of hope and progress.

Nine times the political leaders who were successful at the polls have solemnly pledged themselves to remedy those evils which now stare us in the face more menacingly than ever before.

In 1935 as in 1906: “Great Want in a Land of Plenty.”

In 1906 Mr. Lloyd George described the condition of the workers. It is a description which fits exactly the state of affairs to-day. He said that after “tinkering for generations with reform . . .  the end of it all is slums, pauperism, and great want in a land of plenty.” (Speech at Birmingham, October 22nd, 1906.)

Since 1906 we have had nearly 30 years more of reforms—reforms by Liberal Governments, reforms by Labour Governments, reforms by Conservative and Coalition Governments. The result is that we still have “slums, pauperism and great want in a land of plenty,” and still the working class have trust in politicians who solemnly pledge themselves to abolish these things by the vain method of reform.

In 1906 Mr. Lloyd George, on behalf of the great Liberal majority, promised a solution within three years. Five years after making the promise he confessed that “to-day you have greater poverty in the aggregate in the land than you | have ever had” (Cardiff, September 29th, 1911).

Another traditional promise of the Liberals was peace. After the struggle with the House of Lords, and the ensuing two elections which occurred in 1910, the Liberal Government kept their pledge of peace by landing us in the Great War!

A Land Fit for Heroes.

Re-elected in 1918 with promises to make this a land fit for heroes, Mr. Lloyd George’s Coalition Government collapsed in 1922 in an economic crisis which produced the then record number of 2½ million unemployed.

The pledges of 1906 were still wholly unfulfilled.

The Government which followed, with Mr. Bonar Law as premier, was the counterpart of the crisis Government of 1931-35. It came into office pledged to secure economy, to deal with the Budget and taxation questions, and to find a remedy for the unemployment arising out of the crisis. It went out of office having solved no problems of the working class.

At the next election, in 1923, the Conservatives, under Mr. Baldwin’s leadership, asked the electorate for a mandate to introduce tariffs. Failure to secure the desired mandate led to the formation of the first Labour Government in Great Britain. It ruled for a brief period during 1924 without solving any of the problems of the working class. The only change between 1906 and 1924 was that the pre-war Liberal Government, backed by Labour M.Ps., had given way to a Labour Government backed by Liberals. When that Liberal support was withdrawn, the short-lived Labour Government collapsed, leaving capitalism just as they found it.

Tory Social Reform, 1924-1929.

Then came five years of Tory Government, 1924-1929. The Tories were elected on a programme of promises of more and more social reforms—for the aged, the unemployed, and the sick. Their election address, under the heading “From the Cradle to the Grave" told how the capitalist State, with fatherly benevolence, watches over the welfare of the worker from, birth to death.

Throughout that period the workers remained poor, unemployment remained at about 1¼ millions, and pauperism at about double the level it had been when Mr. Lloyd George, in 1906, pledged his party to deal with it.

Labour Administration of Capitalism, 1929-31.

From 1929 to 1931 the second Labour Government was in power. The S.P.G.B. had predicted its inevitable failure, as it had the failure of every Government committed to the administration of capitalism. During those two years, every one of the Labour Party’s beliefs was discredited and its pledges broken. Wages fell, unemployment rose to a new high record, and Labour Party rule showed itself completely unable to prevent or mitigate the rising tide of capitalist economic crisis. When the Labour Government collapsed, and its leaders betrayed it to the National Government, it had earned the contempt of millions of workers who had voted for it with high hopes only two years earlier.

“National Government," 1931-1935

The “National Government" came into being pledged to deal with the crisis which Labour rule had been unable to prevent. It was supported mainly by Tories, but was aided by Liberal and Labour groups, and had the biggest majority known in modern times. In five years it has done nothing except carry out the traditional capitalist policy of economising during a crisis in order to allow capitalism to take its normal course of recovery from depression. The panacea offered on this occasion has been Tariffs. After a long period of poverty under “free trade" the workers have now experienced poverty under "protection." As a result, the working class are still poor; unemployment, after two years of trade expansion, is still 2,000,000; and the international situation is more threatening than at any time since 1914!

What of the Future?

Now once more, for the tenth time during the life of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, the workers are being asked to vote into power Liberal or Tory or Labour Parties, each of which will continue, with or without minor modifications, the capitalist system of society. Again, as on each previous occasion, the sole remedy that is being offered by those who wish to modify existing arrangements is a programme of still more social reforms to add to the fruitless accumulation of reforms of the past 100 years.

Only the S.P.G.B. stands simply for the abolition of capitalism and the institution of Socialism.

The S.P.G.B. makes no Pledges.

The history of General Elections is the history of new and ever more cunning methods of catching the votes of the worker by promises of reforms. It is a history of pledges made only to be broken.

The only Party which has never promised to solve the problems of the workers for them is the S.P.G.B. The S.P.G.B. does not promise to do something for you in return for your trust in us. The S.P.G.B. only assures you that your problems can be solved by you, and by you alone, just as soon as you have the knowledge, the will, and the political organisation to make your will effective. It is your task to understand Socialism, and then to join the S.P.G.B. to bring it about.

The Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, October 22nd, 1935.

Result of the Election (1935)

From the November 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

In order to avoid needless suspense we announce now what will be the result of the election. There will be “no change”—capitalism will continue after the election as before, whichever of the parties, or groups of parties, comes to power.

Educational Visits (1935)

Party News from the November 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

1st and 3rd Saturdays each month (3 p.m., sharp). 

Nov. 2nd          British Museum         - Gilmac
                          Real Relics

Nov. 16th  S. Kensington         - Lestor
                          From Stone to Steel

Educational Visits continue to be well attended. Comrade Lestor attracted a big party to hear history about Westminster Abbey not given by vergers and official guides. Two hours passed quickly at South Kensington when some features of Evolution bearing on Socialism were objectively-illustrated. At the Victoria and Albert Museum, Comrade Devereux interested a big party (including many non-members of the S.P.) by her brilliant illumination of odd corners of the M.C.H. from such apparently intractable objects as wooden chairs and the Great Bed of Ware.

The Organiser will be grateful for comments, criticisms, etc., from those attending Visits.

Reginald

General Election, November, 1935 (1935)

From the November 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once more the propertied class, through their instruments, the “National Parties” (Tory, Liberal and National Labour), are calling upon the workers of this country to return to power a Government pledged to maintain the private ownership and control of the means of life and the social system based thereon which is known as capitalism.

Once more the National Government is being challenged by the Labour Party, not upon the vital issue of Socialism and capitalism, but on a number of reforms and proposals which, even if applied in full, would leave unchanged the basis of the capitalist system from which springs poverty, unemployment, insecurity and war. The aim of the Labour Party programme is to improve the conditions of the workers without destroying the private ownership of the means of wealth production and distribution (land, factories, railways, etc.) and without transforming them into the common property of the whole community under democratic control.

The only solution for the problems of the working class is Socialism. This is the urgent question of the day. In this country only the Socialist Party of Great Britain is organised and carried on solely for the direct, unceasing fight for Socialism. Only the S.P.G.B. is deserving of the support of the working class.

Owing to the meagre support so far given by the workers to the party of Socialism and owing to the £150 deposit legally imposed in respect of each candidature (which operates in the interests of the wealthier parties), the S.P.G.B. is unable to put forward candidates at this Parliamentary election.

If the S.P.G.B. were willing to sacrifice its Socialist principles and independence by soliciting support and votes on a programme of reforms, it would at once be able to overcome the obstacle. It would be able, like the so-called “Labour” parties, to gain a large membership and apparent strength. That growth would not, however, help forward the Socialist movement, which can only progress to the extent that it gains the understanding and support of convinced Socialists. The S.P.G.B. therefore does not solicit the votes of non-Socialists, whatever the nature of the reform measures in which they may be interested. The S.P.G.B. receives the support of Socialists alone.

To prevent the enemies and false friends of Socialism from interpreting the failure to run candidates as evidence that Socialist propaganda is not making headway, Socialists can mark their ballot paper with the word “Socialism,” thus demonstrating the growing strength of the Socialist vote in this country.

The Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, October 22nd, 1935.

Where Mussolini Learned Brutality (1935)

From the November 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are told that public opinion all over the world is shocked at the brutality of the Italian air force in bombing defenceless native villages. It is necessary to remember that this charge is not one which can be levelled only at Mussolini. Many governments have shown themselves prepared to use methods of equal brutality— among them the British Government in its destructive bombing of hostile tribes on the frontiers of India. Although the justification put forward by the British authorities is that this bombing is required to defend Indian interests, the Indian members of the Legislative Assembly recently passed by 67 votes to 44 a motion of protest against “the bombing of innocent women and children in trans-frontier villages by the Royal Air Force.” (Manchester Guardian, October 17th.)

What such bombing means was disclosed by the late Lord Thomson, Secretary of State for Air in the Labour Government of 1924, speaking at a meeting of the Central Asian Society on November 21st, 1924 about bombing in Transjordan.

   After briefly tracing the route followed in his tour. Lord Thomson brought home to his audience the efficacy of bombing by describing the manner in which the recent Wahabi invasion of the Transjordan was crushed. The British forces consisted solely of aeroplanes sent out at the shortest possible notice, backed by armoured cars. The effect of our air attack was availing. Some 700 of the tribesmen were killed and the rest, seized with panic, fled into the desert, where hundreds more must have perished from thirst. Unless some such punishment as swift and terrible as this had been inflicted, the task of restoring order would have been long drawn-out, and in the end more costly in lives and money, while the results would not have been so lasting.
   Lord Thomson went on to say that it might be true that oil was the key of the Arabian riddle, though he considered that wheat-production, for some years at least, held greater possibilities. The primary necessity, however, was security. The country could best be opened up by making the process a gradual one. By using it as a link in the chain of Imperial communications, this would be achieved.

(Times, November 22nd. 1924.)

Labour's Way to Disaster (1935)

Book Review from the November 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Labour’s Way to Plan Prosperity," David Grenfell, M.P. (Methuen, 2s. 6d.)

The above is another of the series of superficial little books edited by the present leader of the Labour Party, which are, apparently, designed to show how little practical difference there is between the programme of that Party and that of the more “progressive" section of its opponents, i.e., the Liberals. Mr. Grenfell uses Socialist phrases in a loose way to criticise capitalism, but proposes nothing to which even a normally intelligent Conservative is liable to object, in principle.

“Under capitalism," we are told on page 18, “labour is hired to be exploited and to yield the maximum productive results at the minimum cost.

“The wealth of the nations is owned by a few. Ninety per cent. of the private wealth belongs to ten per cent. of the population. Only one in ten of adult Britishers has any substantial stake in the country."

In a phrase, capitalism spells poverty for the wealth producers, yet Mr. Grenfell spends the greater part of his book tilting, against the secondary features of the system, such as the wastefulness of competition. He preaches efficiency and organisation without appearing to realise that these will only tighten the workers' bonds unless the basic fact of ownership is changed. True, the author does profess to deal with this—as usual—in "Labour’s way." Let us see how he does it.

In chapter vii he describes the functions of a proposed National Planning Council, which is to have general control of special Boards to be set up for each of several industries of prime importance.

"Taking the coal industry as an example, it may be decided that coal owners should receive compensation at present market value for their holdings. Valuations are being made for death duties and are available as a guide to the transfer values. There are no insuperable difficulties in connexion with the transfer of mines, agricultural land, iron and steel concerns, transport, or similar terms. No new capital would be required. Present holders of shares would become bondholders of the unified enterprises under the new Management Boards and would be given an agreed rate of interest for the duration of the bonds" (p. 60). 

Thus the capitalists would continue to draw incomes for idleness through “national boards" instead of joint stock companies. What a difference a name makes to some people!

Need any capitalist seriously oppose such a measure? Let Mr. Grenfell answer. On page 65 he tells us, with delightful candour, that “The private owner has been relegated to a position of complete detachment from the industry, and as a free and independent citizen may or may not (italics mine) desire to be associated with the management as a salaried official." He may take it or leave it, being assured in any case of his comfortable and “independent" livelihood. Our author does not tell us if the workers are to enjoy similar freedom.

Are they to be equally assured, even of, say, £3 per week, irrespective of whether they do or do not desire to be associated with the “hands" as wage-receivers in the task of production? It seems a trifle neglectful on the part of Mr. Grenfell not to have anticipated our curiosity on this point.

He evidently has great confidence in the ability of this sort of economic camouflage to remove the conflict between capital and labour. On page 51, for instance, he tells us that “Experience has shown that the common ownership of municipal enterprises, for example, has led to happier personal relations and a greater appreciation of the claims of the workers without sacrifice of efficiency." Tramwaymen and 'busmen who have had occasion to be called on the carpet by the General Manager will no doubt understand this; while just how much the municipal enterprises are common property may be gauged by a further remark of the author's, on page 55. Speaking of the “derelict areas," so- called, he says: "Local rates absorb the income from property and destroy the capital value of houses, shops, and all other buildings."

It is common knowledge that the profit derived from municipal enterprises goes either in the payment of interest on the city's debts, or in relief of rates. In either case it is the property-owners who gain. The workers do not share in these profits, which are derived from the exploitation of those employed in the enterprises concerned. State-exploited slaves remain slaves, no matter with what honeyed phrases their ears may be enchanted.

Mr. Grenfell has entirely failed to show any reason whatsoever for which the workers should support the Labour Party. The workers may in this way learn many lessons by painful experience, but they will have to find another road to their emancipation.

Eric Boden