The Morecambe Labour Party Conference (1952)

From the November 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Morecambe was for the Labour Party less a ground for common political activity than a battleground of warring factions and rival political ambitions. There were a number of casualties.

Among the “casualties” were Mr. Morrison and Mr. Dalton. Both failed to get re-elected to the Labour Party executive. In the executive voting, that doughty working class warrior Mr. Bevan headed the “lists” to a fanfare of cheers and clapping. Others elected to executive posts were those horny handed sons of toil, Messrs. Driberg, Wilson, Mikardo and Crossman, who rode on the Bevan band-wagon.

The two great rival standard bearers were Bevan and Morrison. Bevan’s contribution was never more than a piece of conference tub thumping; Morrison's never less than the slick performance of the accomplished party hack.

Of Mr. Attlee it could hardly be said that the conference was his finest hour. He preferred the somewhat enigmatic role of a political Nero, content to doodle while Morecambe was alight In contrast to Bevan’s frothy utterances his contribution was as flat as last night’s beer.

A spectacle, now a commonplace at Labour Party conferences, was that of ex-ministers reverently touching their political rosaries and dedicating themselves to “socialist ideals.” Then followed the usual attempt to squeeze the quart of socialist ideals into the pint bottle of capitalism.

There was a demand from delegates for more nationalisation and “socialist” measures. Doubtless Mr. Morrison and other Labour leaders are ruefully realising that it is easier for people to learn political nostrums than to unlearn them. These leaders having misinformed workers in the past that nationalisation was the panacea for their problems, now blandly inform them that these problems cannot be automatically solved by the mere transference of industries from private to public ownership. What, according to Mr. Morrison is most important, is not so much that industries should be nationalised but that “they should be efficient.”

For generations Labourites have been reared on the mother’s milk of old time Fabian planning. Now the milk has turned sour. “Planning for planning’s sake” it seems is merely a pipe dream for political opium smokers.

Mr. Morrison and others have now discovered more “prior and urgent” problems than nationalisation. Problems such as trade balances, exports and the need for increased output in order to meet foreign competition successfully especially the German and Japanese variety. These “urgent and prior problems” were just as urgent and prior for Capitalism when Mr. Morrison and other Labour leaders were merely up and coming politicians.

Nevertheless the fact that Labour politicians have discovered some simple economic facts about Capitalism, has, according to sections of the press, elevated them to the status of statesmen.

From the tone of the speeches of ex-ministers in explaining to delegates these simple facts, one might imagine they were addressing children. Listening to the criticism levelled at them on occasions by delegates, they may have thought that there are times when children should be seen and not heard.

Although conference instructed the executive to compile a further list of industries to be nationalised, Mr. Robertson for the United Textile Factory Workers' Association opposed an amendment asking for the nationalisation of the cotton industry. He urged conference "not to embarrass a Labour Government in that way.”

Although Mr. Bevan himself was in favour of more nationalisation, etc., Bevanite Mr. Mikardo in submitting a resolution asking for the building trade to be nationalised, said, “They might find the industry better suited to competitive public enterprise than nationalisation outright." Mrs. Braddock, M.P., reminded conference that "the person who opposed most strongly the nationalisation of the building industry with his usual bad faith was Mr. Bevan, when he was Minister of Health.”

Mr. Morrison touched a new political low when he attempted to make working class political ignorance the whipping boy of the Labour Government’s failure to fulfil its promises. He said “We have got to change the minds and hearts and souls of men and women so that they think in terms of socialist ethics and the old capitalist outlook that millions have, has passed away.”

This is certainly the devil citing scripture for his own purposes with a vengeance. Mr. Morrison’s own contribution to working class understanding is gravely on the debit side of his political balance sheet. Mr. Morrison’s role in the ranks of the working class has been that of a fifth columnist. By plausibly presenting to workers a planned capitalist—as good as socialism —model, he and others like him have obscured and distorted basic working class issues. The work of teaching Socialism has thus been made infinitely harder.

The shadow-play of political rivalry thrown on the Morecambe screen is not a reflection of any basic differences within the Labour Party. Dr. Bevan with his finger on the pulse of working class discontent prescribes bigger doses of nationalisation, Mr. Morrison not to be outdone retorted that “the Labour Party would never rest until it had nationalised all the means of production, distribution and exchange.”

Mr. Bevan wants a smaller armament programme than that laid down by the last Labour Government, yet it was Mr. Bevan himself who piloted Labour's defence programme through the House of Commons. Then he begged people not to "jeer about the armament programme we are putting under way.” He added, “we shall carry it out; we shall fulfil our obligations to our friends and allies.”

Ironically enough, owing to the difficulties which have arisen over balance of payments since the Tories came in, they have been compelled to cut considerably the yearly expenditure on armaments. The “socialist” Bevan is not opposed to war preparation. He only wants to reduce the cost entailed. Incidentally his proposed peace-time expenditure on armaments involves greater sums of money than those spent in peace time by Tory or Liberal Governments.

Mr. Bevan’s militancy is not, as imagined by his supporters, a realistic step forward for the Labour Party but a retreat to its romantic pioneering past. Then, the Labour Party could indulge in pseudo socialist phraseology, with its promise of “changing things nearer to the heart's desire.” It is this vague working class sentiment that Mr. Bevan seeks to tap.

In the good old days of the Labour Party the “Labour Commonwealth” was a distant goal wrapped in mist and obscurity. Nevertheless Labour was on the march! There may have been differences, even dissidents, within the ranks, but the road was accommodatingly broad. Swings to the “left” or "right” made little difference. They were all bound for the same place.

Now they have arrived and the New Jerusalem is but old Babylon writ large. The Welfare State turns out to be the merest Utility Utopia.

“The New Social Era” has all the old working class problems—poverty, insecurity, low wages, high prices and the threat of war. The outward pressure of capitalism produces within the Labour Party its fissions and rifts.

In order to ease off working class political pressure the Labour Party would like to go further. But they have nowhere to go. Because one basic reason for their existence is their claim that they can go one better than the Tories, they have to simulate the semblance if not the reality of being in the vanguard of social progress. The Tories in turn pose as the great stabilising force of British political life. Their appeal to the working class is consequently pitched in a slightly lower key. Their political strategy merely consists of waiting for the inevitable disappointments that result from a term of Labour Government and then adroitly manipulating them for the purpose of winning the next election.

Bevan is merely a symptom of the failure of Labour Party reformism to make a world fit for ordinary men and women to live in. He is the price Labour leaders pay for their political sins. His role in the Labour Party is the old familiar one of today’s rebel being tomorrow’s leader.

The resentment and frustration felt by the Labour rank and file has placed high cards in his hand. Yet even if he succeeds in winning the game against the old leadership he in turn will become vulnerable.

Little wonder that many Labour Party members are acquiring a nostalgia for the past. Truly, for those who pin their hopes on reformism it is always the case —“That it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive.”

Ted Wilmott

5. Tactics for Socialists (1952)

The Common Questions Answered series from the November 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Q: Assuming that all you say about other parties is true, do you think you are going the right way about getting Socialism? At present all you seem to do is to talk at street corners and sell a few bits of literature.

A: Having reached the point where you see that our case against other parties is correct, you appear to think that our methods of advocating Socialism are not so correct. We are tempted to re-direct the question to you by asking what is the right way to go about getting Socialism if our’s is not? If there are ways open to us that we are not using then we should like to hear about them. The position is that the amount of our propaganda, which seems so puny in comparison to that of our opponents, is limited by the number of socialists there are. It is not our intention to speak only at street corners or to print our literature in thousands of copies instead of in millions. We try to make the best of every opportunity for propagating our ideas, although we stress that it can only do harm to the socialist cause to compromise them merely for the sake of getting a wider hearing.

Q: It seems to me that the S.P.G.B. must become a larger party before it will attract wide support. Why not do something that will make people sit up and take notice of you?

A: Behind your question is the assumption that the correctness of an idea is to be judged by the numbers who hold it. True, the pressing need is for more people to understand Socialism, but experience has taught us to be very suspicious of any suggestion that this may be achieved by any form of stunt or vote-catching. Our objections to this sort of campaigning is not a moral one, but consists in the fact that it hinders rather than helps the spread of socialist understanding. No useful purpose would be served by merely seeking to attract attention, unless it is for a purpose connected with socialist propaganda, and that is our policy at all times.

Q: Don't you think it would pay you to find out what most people really want, and to talk more about the things they are really interested in?

A: The implication here is that at present we are out of touch with these things. This is untrue. It may look to you as though other parties are concerned with giving you what you want, but this is only their tactics and window-dressing to gain your support for policies that fail to deliver the goods. Most people are interested in getting more money, and almost every reform of Capitalism is based upon some form of this desire—yet it remains unsatisfied for the vast majority. The fact is that what appears to be the “practical” solution to our problems is in reality no solution at all, and the seemingly out-of-touch programme of Socialism is nearest to the satisfaction of present human needs. Unfortunately, many workers are interested (consciously or unconsciously) in making Capitalism work a little better, but in doing so they are acting against their own interests.

Q: Your arguments always seem to be so negative. Why can't you put forward a positive programme that will convince people that you are really going somewhere?

A: If you think our arguments are negative then you can have listened to only a part of our case. It is necessary first to analyse Capitalism, and in the process to clear away the false ideas that are held about it. Then, arising out of this, comes the explanation of what is to take its place—Socialism. If you disagree with us about the “destructive” (but very necessary) first part of the argument then you will not appreciate the constructive second part, nor be able to work out with us the form that the new society will take. You want us to appear to be “going somewhere,” but this can only be in the direction of Socialism if our positive programme is for this object alone.

Q: The ideas you put forward are too futuristic. Can't you make them easier to understand by relating them more to the world as it is to-day?

A: You seem to intend “futuristic” to be a term of reproach, but there is no good reason why it should be—to plan for to-morrow is an integral part of human activity. However, what you probably believe is that too many to-morrows will have to be like to-day before we can hope to get Socialism. The problem of getting people who are living under Capitalism to see the practicability of another system is by no means an easy task, but it is not impossible—if it were there could be no socialists within capitalist society. Certain features and tendencies in the world at present can be used to show what Socialism will probably be like, but analogies such as "all goods will be produced and distributed as freely as water is now” have their limitations. It is important never to lose sight of the basic principles of majority understanding and action upon which Socialism must be built, otherwise the descriptions of the future, though easy to make, may be merely Utopian and a bar to progress.

Q: People are put off by your sectarian attitude. Why not encourage them to join, and be less strict in admitting members?

A: Let us make it quite clear that nobody is put off being a socialist because our Party contains only socialists. What you really mean is that we don’t try to enrol people who can be whipped up to do almost anything in a suitably emotional atmosphere. Even if such people were to join the S.P.G.B. they would only leave when they found out what it is all about. The idea of joining with non-socialists in order to achieve “immediate aims” has dogged the Party since its inception, but it has steadfastly refused to sink its socialist identity for the sake of what appear to be immediate advantages. We are as sincerely sorry as you that our organisation is not larger, but (if you will forgive the phrase) it is the quality, not the quantity, that counts. There is only one sort of tactics for socialists living in a capitalist world, and that is to help make more socialists.

Stan Parker

The New Tribune—but the same old story (1952)

From the November 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 26th September the new Tribune appeared, it is no longer a magazine but a weekly newspaper complete with photographs. Many of the articles are written with a lively style, but then so is the Daily Mirror. The new Tribune claims to be a socialist paper; well we are willing to believe anything that can be proved. Let's have a look at the claim.

On the front page we are told in red type that "Nye Bevan writes on page four," the maestro himself—more boosting of the leader. It's a bad start as socialists do not follow leaders, they don't have them.

The main article on the front page with big headlines "Declaration of Independence—We Don't Want Those Dollars" begins as follows: - "Our Country is in greater danger than at almost any time since 1940. But today the threat does not come from dive-bombers and blitzkrieg. The urgent peril is not one of military conquest. The danger is creeping social decay and a mortal surrender of British independence." Who are the patriots? It can't be the Tories or Attlee and Co, since they accepted the dollars, surely it must be Bevan and Co.—No socialism here so let's turn to page 2.

J. P. W. Mallalieu, who describes himself as a free-lance journalist occupies most of the page. He tells us the heart-rending story that he only receives £1,000 per year as an M.P. with no subs from the Co-op. and no subs from a Trade Union although he is a member of both. They do things better in America as the Nixon affair showed.

On page 3 we have Jennie Lee, she her article "what an extraordinary mixture our Labour movement is! On some issues it takes a robust Socialist line then on others it's as conservative as the Tory Party." We can certainly agree about the extraordinary mixture of the Labour movement although we have failed to see where it takes a robust Socialist line. Perhaps Jennie Lee will write another article and tell us.

On page 4, as we were advised on the front page, there is an article by Aneurin Bevan complete with a smiling photograph. He requests "Don't be misled by the smear campaigns.: The "great leader" hasn't been getting the support he expected. In his article he makes an attack on the Communist Party, he omits to mention that he was once expelled from the Labour Party because he formed a united front. His argument is for more nationalisation, no wonder he hasn't got the support he so badly wants. Nationalisation hasn't proved so popular with the workers.

On the same page there is an obituary on the late George Tomlinson. We are told: "On the platform he was a masterly performer. Audiences rocked with laughter and sometimes came near to tears. He held them in the hollow of his hand. He could do what he wished with them."—No he wasn't an actor, not on the legitimate stage at least, he was a Labour M.P. and Minister. 

On page 5, Ian Mikardo asks the question "Are you, too, a perpetual reformer?" On dealing with the Labour Party he states "What, then , is the real difference between the so-called Left and the so-called Right, between the Nationalisers and the so-called Consolidators? It is, put sharply, the difference between those who are thinking afresh in order to discover some new and better roads to our Socialist goal, and those who are thinking afresh in order to discover some new goal to replace the one they have abandoned."

Do you get it? The so-called Lefts are looking for new and better roads to Socialism—what happened to their old roads? The so-called Right are looking for a new goal. What a mess they are all in, what are the leaders going to do about it?

There are a number of adverts, even the brewers don't mind claiming "Beer is Best" in the Tribune. But still nothing about Socialism, in fact it's the same old Tribune but that's what we expected.

D. W. Lock

The "Picture Post" Revelations (1952)

From the November 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

A constant problem to small political parties is the finding of opportunities for nation-wide publicity. One organization which can have no complaints in this direction at the present time, however, is the Communist Party. Most popular newspapers and magazines have had in the past twelve months articles telling "the truth" about the Communist Party's activities, and "Picture Post" has lately weighed in with a series of articles in which the "inside story" is presented.

The author of these articles is Bob Darke, who left the Communist Party in 1951. In the course of eighteen years' membership, he held various positions in and on behalf of the Party, including that of a Borough Councillor; he has now joined the procession of apostates who have scarcely allowed the ink to dry on their resignations before bellowing their condemnation of the Party they so lately, and so long, embraced. One cannot, in fact, resist suspicion of the many whose "seeing the light" has coincided with the Communists becoming the villains of the contemporary political scene. It is worth considering also that Bob Darke admits having thought and behaved irrationally and deliberately misrepresent facts for eighteen years; on his own evidence, his story and his judgements should be treated with more than a little reserve.

In fact, there is little in Bob Darke's "inside story" that has not already been told in similar articles in other publications. Serious consideration of the Communist Party's aims or the theoretical suppositions on which its case rests is completely avoided. The articles deal principally with the Party itself. Bob Darke shows it is an organization with a relentless discipline, in which members are required to follow the "Party line" blindly and subjugate their individual ideas to those which are imposed on them by the Party. That this is true is well known. Its significance, however, is considerably deeper than is shown by Bob Darke.

The question of the organization and methods of the Communist Party is as old as its Russian parent body. The basic concept of a centralised, disciplined party was that which Lenin, after the revolution of 1917, tried to extend all over the world; it was the concept which led to the formation of the Bolshevik Party. It was first expounded by Lenin in 1902, in "What is to be Done?" and in 1903, at the second congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party, it was embodied in his draft for the Party's statute. The draft was rejected in favour of Martov's, which aimed at a broad party of sympathisers, but when the delegates of the Bund, the Jewish organisation, withdrew, Lenin's supporters were left with the balance of voting power and used it to carry out their own wishes over the Party's constitution. Thus originated the Bolshevik-Menshevik feud, with its root in the Bolsheviks' conception of themselves as the highly organized Party leading the masses.

Was, and is, this concept a socialist one? Lenin did not draw it from his study of Marx. In one of his early pamphlets, he extolled the organization which was his model for a political party: Narodnaya Volya, the 19th century terrorist group with which the fanatical Nichaev was associated. The adoption of the idea of leadership of the workers by such an organization was, in fact, a rejection of the basic contention of Marxism. Marx saw the working class, through the development of industrialization and the constant increase in exploitation, becoming revolutionary; indeed, without this there could be no working-class revolution. Lenin, on the other hand, contended that the workers would never become revolutionary, and thus saw a necessity for his Party to be designed only as a group of leaders. It is interesting to note that at the 1903 congress the opponents of Lenin's concept stigmatised it as the prelude to dictatorship; the events in Russia from 1917 onwards, with many of those leaders holding political power, have borne out the prophecy.

Thus, the Communist Party's conception of the nature of a working-class political party was formulated in contradistinction from that of Marx. The behaviour of the Bolsheviks, in the years before they came to power, in many respects resembles that of Britain's Communists to-day. The Bolshevik cause was promoted by any means that appeared useful, and changes of policy were justified by Lenin's insistence that marx must be interpreted "dialectically." Any kind of dissent was branded with the word "Menshevism," just as present-day opponents are labelled "Fascists" or "Trotskyites."

At its inception in 1920, the Communist Party of Great Britain was committed, by its affiliation to the Third International, to a type of organization and methods which both were dictatorial. The "Statutes and Conditions of Affiliation" of the International included armed struggle and secret organization as clearly stated aims. The assumption of Lenin that the working class would never become revolutionary, was accepted; indeed, so far from seeking to spread understanding of capitalism among the workers, the founders of the English Communist Party believed that the capitalist economic system had broken down. This was frankly admitted in an article in "The Communist" in 1921, and for the next decade the Party's leaders continued to believe at every moment that capitalism was collapsing. The policy and administration of the Party became concentrated in a few hands, following the Russian model, until the membership was deprived of any opportunity to participate in the running of the Party and became, as it is now, an obedient rank-and-file. "Theirs not to reason why" is no less true of the Communists than it was of the Light Brigade.

Bob Darke shows his former self and his fellow-members as such obedient and devoted workers for their cause, accepting the unreasoning and often malicious discipline imposed on them; he fails, however, to make any suggestion as to why this should be. The key-word is "understanding"—or the lack of it. In spite of its Marxian pretensions, the Communist Party has thrived on lack of understanding. The supposition that the working class is incapable of becoming consciously revolutionary has provided a convenient justification for this; in fact, it is extremely well illustrated by Bob Darke's description of the methods by which Communist factions gain control of trade union branches. Far from making any endeavour to stimulate class-consciousness in the unions, the Communist tactic is to exploit the lack of it. In Darke's own words" "Our greatest ally was the apathy and indifference of the ordinary Trade Unionists."

Other examples are given to show how the Party membership itself is instructed to act without knowing the reasons for its actions. Perhaps here the hoary myth may be exploded that Communists are people who are more knowledgeable about society than most other workers. In fact, there is no reason for considering them to be superior in this respect to the members of, for example, the Labour Party or the Church of England; they have often identified themselves with the former, and at least one prominent Communist is a member of the latter. The leaders of the Communist Party are dependent upon the political ignorance of the membership as much as upon the political ignorance of the working class as a whole.

It must not be imagined, however, that Bob Darke is concerned with this aspect of the Communist Party. As was noted at the beginning, his articles are devoid of any serious consideration of Communist theory. Much of his "criticism" consists of the painting of unfavourable personal pictures of well-known Communists and even of allegations against them—for instance, that one member misuses money entrusted to him by his workmates. That is political warfare on its abysmal lowest level, and the only thing which might be said in excuse for Bob Darke's using it is that he probably learned it in the Communist Party.

Taken all in all, the "Picture Post" articles can hardly be said live up to one's normal expectations from "revelations." The only really valuable revelation of the Communist Party is the exposure of its fallacies and misrepresentations; and should "Picture Post" ever decide to do that, it need not concern itself with finding the latest adherent to the lengthening procession of penitent ex-worshippers of "the god that failed." The Socialist Party of Great Britain has maintained an attitude of analytical opposition to the Communist Party from the day of that Party's foundation. It has pointed out that the system in Russia is the same capitalism which causes the degradation of the workers in this country and elsewhere; that the aims of the Communists, if they were realised, would bring nothing but the continuation of the same economic and social problems; that leaders—would-be revolutionaries as well as the rest—can offer nothing to the working class. A party which bases its policy on the workers' lack of political understanding is, by that very fact, an anti-working-class party.

At the present time, the Communist Party is this country's scapegoat in the precipitate rush towards war. Capitalism has always to find scapegoats because the workers must always be persuaded to accept war, crises and hard times. The Socialist Party's criticism of the Communists has remained the same, whether the Russians have been "gallant allies" and their supporters have basked in reflected glory, or whether they have been regarded as villains of the deepest dye. The socialist case is one of opposition to capitalism and the political organisations which support capitalism; that opposition extends no less to the Communists than to those who now attack them to further the ends of British capitalism.

Robert Barltrop