The Labour Party in Parliament. (1913)

From the October 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Chesterfield Bye Election has re-opened the question of the Labour Party's position as a political party. After the local T.U. official being adopted as the Liberal and Labour candidate, the prince of political independence, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, solemnly anathematises such an unholy alliance. As the Labour Party constitution definitely states that candidates must run as "Labour".candidates only, there was nothing else the leader of the party could do but disown him who broke the rules.

In spite, however, of the repudiation of the candidate by the chairman of the organisation, its members, who are also members of the candidate’s Trade Union, supported the aspirant. This offence was aggravated by the defiant speeches as well as actions against the Labour Party Executive for casting out Mr. Kenyon because he had received the official Liberal label.

Although the circumstances are tempting enough in all conscience, I am going to refrain from commenting on the Chesterfield bye election, and treat of the position of the party as a whole, a position upon which this election throws a flood of light and provides an excellent illustration.

The Labour Party in Parliament boasts 42 members. The candidates have to be run as "Labour" candidates only, and no connection with any other political party is allowed. The Labour Party is nominally as independent of the Liberal party as of the Tory party—or the Socialist Party. Yet in practice the Labour members are, for the purposes of the Government, the equivalent of Liberal members. The Liberal and Tory parties in the House exactly equilibrate with 272 members each, but the Liberals hold office with the Irish Nationalist and Labour votes.

When the Labour Party were first returned as a separate party in 1906, they sat on the cross benches, belonging to neither side, but now they sit on the Liberal side. Is this only due to the exigencies of the seating accommodation ?

The late Mr. Haslam, who sat for Chesterfield, was a fully-accredited Labour member. The seat was won in what the followers of the Labour Party euphemistically describe as "a straight fight with the Tory.” The value of the independence of such a position is admirably depicted by the subsequent happenings at Chesterfield and the walk-over of the Liberal candidate in spite of the official repudiation by the Labour Executive. The value of the independence of the Labour Party is also shown in the fact that not one of the 42 seats they occupy has been won in opposition to the Liberal party. Every one of their seats is held for the Liberal party, by the goodwill of the Liberal party, and it is not too much to say that the official Liberal party could claim almost any one of them in the same way as at Chesterfield. Liberal votes are behind every Labour member in the House, and his "independence" of Liberalism can be valued accordingly.

The same holds true particularly in those two-seated constituencies now held by one Liberal and one Labour member as at Leicester, Blackburn. Derby, Halifax, Newcastle, Stockport, Sunderland, Norwich, Merthyr, Dundee, and Bolton. In each of these cases one Liberal and one Labour candidate were opposed to two Unionist candidates, and the two seats are held practically with the same votes. At Preston the two unionists were successful, and the Liberal and Labour candidates, locked in each other’s embrace, sank into temporary political oblivion.

A list of the seats held by Labour men without opposition from the Liberals would exhaust the remainder of the party. In addition to those successful in fighting the Tories for the Liberals, the following, who were unsuccessful, adds to and completes the tale of Labour dependence on Liberalism. Kirkdale, Liverpool, Mr. McKerrell lost to the Unionists by 2,992 against 4,205; at St. Helen’s Mr. Glover was knocked out by 6,016 against 5,752; at Central Sheffield Mr. Bailey lost to the Tory by 3,455 against 3271; at Wigan Mr. Twist was defeated and lost his seat by 4,673 against 4,110; and at Newton, S.W. Lancashire, Mr. Seddon also lost his seat by 6,706 against. 6,562.

There have been cases, however, where the Labour Party have contested seats against both parties. These cases are rare, and tend to become rarer. Occasionally the local Labour organisation take the bit between their teeth and rush into a contest either against, or with the unwilling approval of, the Centre. The nervousness of the seat-holders is increased when such a rift in the lute results in losing the seat to the Tories. Such results occurred at Crewe, Chatham, Camlachie, and Midlothian, where the “split progressive vote let the Tory in.” In thirteen other constituencies the Labour Party put up a candidate against both Liberal and Tory parties, and the Liberal was returned at the top of the poll, in every case with the Labour man a bad third.

In addition to the Labour Party as the political expression of the trade unions, there is also the pseudo-Socialist parties. Of these the I.L.P. has sunk its identity in the Labour Party, whose absorption by the Liberals involves the Independent Labour Party. The Fabian Society does not run candidates on its own, its members being occasionally found among the Liberals. The British Socialist Party had a little flutter at the last General Election, but never, notwith standing the sweet reasonableness of the attitude they adopted, getting within reach of success. At Burnley, where the candidature of Hyndman has been pressed for many years, where the candidate was the best known among them, and when the programme was watered and coloured to popularise the candidature, the vote was barely more than half the successful Liberal’s. Irving at Rochdale, although he trimmed and revised himself almost out of a separate existence, did not come within a third of the number of votes necessary.

Some excuse can be made for candidatures of the hopelessly unsuccessful class when they are propagandist, but the desire to win necessitating such excessive trimming as is undoubtedly indulged in by the B.S.P., prevents excusing them on the ground of propaganda.

The Labour Party in Parliament, which the above facts show to be necessarily but an adjunct to the Liberal party, is officered and bossed by the men who are the self imposed leaders of ‘‘Socialist” thought in this country. Ramsay MacDonald, Keir Hardie, and Philip Snowden are the “brains” of the I.L.P. Ramsay Macdonald is the first of the scientific Socialists, for he himself has said so. He is popularly supposed to be the first example of a Socialist statesman this country has produced. Yet it seems to those of us who can dispassionately view the activities of our masters in the political as well as in other fields, that J. R. MacDonald has manifested no degree of mentality to make us wonder, nothing of faith or power to make us worship. There are many men in the ranks of our avowed opponents who could give him a start and a beating at any test of mentality, and his statesmanship is becoming nauseating even to quite loyal members of his party. So far as he is responsible for the present position of the Labour Party he has little enough to flatter himself with, except that the “new and leavening factor that was introduced into Parliament" in 1906 with such a flourish of trumpets has negotiated itself into the Liberal majority and is lost. Not a fragment remains as a memento of its work, if any, and now its power to do any thing for itself and the people it is supposed to represent has vanished with the last shred of its independence, the sooner it is decently buried the better for everyone concerned —except the members.

The sooner the working class of this country learn the lesson the dismal history of this phase of the working-class movement presents the quicker shall we have started on the road to our emancipation. That lesson, surely, is that the position of our representatives in Parliament must be one of absolute independence from any pro-capitalist party, and that such independence most be based upon their hostility to capitalist parties.

The working class, having learnt that capitalist exploitation is the source of their social evils and their enslavement, will seek to emancipate themselves and solve their social problems by the abolition of capitalism through the establishment of Socialism. Parliamentary action must always be guided by that object, and no compromise with the enemy is possible or desirable. The essential factor is the education of the workers in the principles of Socialism, for on the “rank and file” rests the responsibility of a “leader’s" shortcomings.

The failure of the Labour Party to “make good" is useful in showing how it can not be done, but is a useless waste of time to those of us who knew it could not be done that way.

If there are any who even think themselves Socialists left in the I.L.P., it is to be hoped that they will justify themselves by studying the position of the only Socialist party in Great Britain and so befit themselves to become soldiers in its ranks, there to work for Socialism and Socialism alone.

Dick Kent

Editorial: The Socialist Policy and the Strike. (1913)

Editorial from the October 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

What has been called the “labour unrest” continues to be as much in evidence as ever. Up and down the country there are strikes and lock-outs, and rumours of strikes and lock-outs. Askwith, the peacemaker, is kept pretty busy rushing hither and thither, tendering hie services at the moment when the men are exhausted in the struggle, in order to aid the pretence that the powers that with ride and baton have cleared the way for the blackleg and the strike smasher, really do take a detached view of the case, really do desire to “keep the ring" impartially, really do feel solicitous regarding the welfare of the worker. Here and there the workers have tasted the fruits of victory, and won perhaps a few pence advance in wages, to go with the increased cost of living, or have gained an hour or two more leisure, as a set-off against the increased speed of their labour, or have established the right to wear a button—an emblem of freedom, to give the lie to the police badge and other trappings of slavery. In more numerous instances the men have suffered defeat, and have had to return, where they have not been supplanted, to as bad conditions of toil as before—or oven worse. And in some cases the protracted struggle goes on, with terrible consequences in working-class “homes"—and not one whit less terrible because bravely endured.

No one in his senses will deny that, under the present social system, these battles and the suffering they involve are both necessary and inevitable. They are inevitable because in a competitive system, with labour-power possessing the commodity nature, the price of that labour-power can only be determined in the way that all other prices are determined, that is, through struggle.

But to say that the strike is a necessary weapon is by no means to say the last word about it. After all, the strike is but an attempt to withhold labour-power, an organised effort to prevent the masters from purchasing that human potential energy which they must have. And it is just because the strike to day almost invariably fails—not to win the strike: the significance of the situation does not lie therein — but to withhold labour-power, that it has become the object of the Socialist's criticism.

That the general policy of the trade unions in restricting admission to the organisations is one of the contributory causes of the failure of the strike weapon cannot be denied, but the fact is not of first importance. The inroads of machinery in the vast majority of trades is every day making it easier for the masters to replace strikers with blacklegs, partly because of the increasing number of unemployed, but still more because of the lower proportion of “skilled” workers required in industrial processes. One baker, for instance, can direct a score of labourers who have only to feed material into machines in order to produce bread.

It is this increasing supply and availability of blackleg labour that presents the problem to the striker. It is a growing power in the masters’ bands. It grows in spite of the workmen’s frenzied attempts at organisation and it undermines their position in the very hour of victory, and crushes them to the ground in helpless ruin even as they reach up for the meagre reward of their pain and suffering.

The unions at present have no other idea of combatting the terrible scourge of blackleg labour than the crude one of opposing it with bottles and brickbats. It is safe to say that all but an infinitesimal portion of the “rioting” which almost invariably accompanies strikes is directly due to the endeavour of the masters to introduce blacklegs into the positions vacated by the strikers. Of course the latter cannot afford to let this pass without putting forth every effort to prevent it. The result is collision with the armed forces, and maimed and murdered workers.

In such circumstances—with an ample reserve of men who are driven by hunger to the detestable crime of “scabbing,” and an armed force sufficient to ‘‘ preserve the peace," which means in this connection to enable the masters to smash the strike with their blackleg reserve— the strike weapon falls inert and innocuous, st least u far as the masters are concerned.

Nor is this all. Emboldened by the impunity with which it may be done, those in power show a marked tendency to resort to the murder of the workers upon progressively smaller “provocation” or excuse. The use of the military in the great railway fiasco—placed under arms before the strike had commenced; promised to the masters even before they dared to drive their miserable slaves to extremities—and the brutal smashing up of peaceful meetings at Liverpool, and more recently st Dublin and other places, proves this. The Law, which seems to be helplessly paralysed in the face of the Carsons and Smiths fulminating flagrant treason and wholesale sedition, can be strained to outlaw every movement of the workers, and even to shatter that imaginary, but firmly believed-in institution, free speech!

The reason for this growing contempt for the liberties the workers had got into the habit of thinking their fathers had won for them is not at all obscure. Time was when any Government thought twice before they antagonised the vast body of working class voters by open acts of brutality for which even the most plausible of them could find no passable excuse. But that political retaliation which the politicians feared has, as far as the Liberal party is concerned, been effectually scotched by the Labour Party. Bitterness against the open and avowed Liberals will express itself simply in more votes for the sneak Liberals masquerading in Labour’s robes.

Those workers who placed their faith in this precious party of traitors which dares to call itself the Labour Party, may now cast a dubious or even rueful eye upon their chicken when it comes home to roost. But at least it should have taught them one useful lesson. Is it conceivable that astute politicians, so eager for pelf that they cannot keep themselves clear of Marconi entanglements, would jeopardise the sweets of office by placing the armed forces at the disposal of every trumpery concern that chose to butcher its employees on the question of 6d. a week? In the face 42 true Labour men who could throw the politicians out of office at any time they would not dare to do it. In the face of ten, or five, or two men elected on the class struggle, who would get up in the name of their party and proclaim such acts of aggression what in fact they are —simple acts in the class war—they would certainly be more circumspect

For every such act then, instead of merely shifting the workers’ allegiance from Liberalism to Laboralism, would drive home to thousands the need for uncompromising hostility to all capitalist political parties—and it is just this that all capitalist politicians, from Asquith in the clouds to Macdonald in the gutter, hate and dread.

It is for this reason that, even for the immediate purpose of fighting the question of wages and conditions under capitalism, the political policy of the Socialist Party is superior to the trade union policy of political alliance with those to fight whom on the economic field they ostensibly exist.

But it would be prostituting our cause and our ideals to leave the argument there. It is not for the advantage of the moment that we Socialists strive. That the Socialist political policy is the best one for the worker engaged in the everyday struggle on the economic field, is so because the same facts environ every phase of the class struggle. The same armed forces face the striker endeavouring to obstruct the blackleg as faces the revolutionary aspiring to overthrow the system. The same police and military uphold the right of the masters to smash a strike as uphold and preserve the system of wage-slavery. For this very reason the course of trade unionist, seeking to restore to the strike weapon some of its old-time efficiency and power, and that of the revolutionary aspiring to the abolition of the master class as such, lie along identical lines. It is to get their hands on the instrument controlling the movements of all the armed forces.

This instrument, of course, is the political machine. So it amounts to this—the trade unions must adopt the political policy of the Socialist Party, even for their own purposes. They have tried the experiment of getting their “leaders” into the House of Commons with the aid of Liberal votes, only to find that they have been attached to the tail of the Liberal kite. They have allowed ambitious men to climb to place over their backs, assisted by the friendly hands of their masters, only to discover that when times hands are reeking with the blood of murdered workers, the “Labour” members, instead of repudiating them, but cling to them more tightly, because to let go is to fall.

It is clear, then, that the trade unions, even for the purpose of playing their part as a brake on the downward trend  of working class conditions, must aim at placing the greatest possible restriction upon the use of the armed forces for strike-smashing purposes. But to accomplish this they must rely upon the working class alone. They must take their stand upon the class struggle, because the only thing the masters are afraid of is that their acts of brutality may illumine the line of class cleavage. They must take control of their own political power, and so order things that it is they who command, that it is they who must be obeyed, that it is them, and not the masters, with whom their representatives dare not break faith.

To achieve this end it is clear that neither the workers nor their representatives may owe anything to the master class. All must be gained in the teeth of the enemy. Hence there must be no compromise. The masters fear only the growth of the recognition of the class struggle. It is through this fear alone that the workers, until such time as they have captured the entire machinery of government, can hope to exercise any restraining influence upon the brutal instincts of the masters fighting for their profits. They must stand, then, upon this class struggle, giving the utmost prominence to it, so that every aggressive act of the masters shall stand clearly out as class aggression, and, by increasing the class-consciousness of the workers, frighten the rulers into second thoughts before they serve out ball-cartridge to their minions.

Only the revolutionary candidate can fulfil the requirements of the trade union (or any other) worker, because it is only of revolution the masters are afraid. Only the properly so-credited candidates of a sound working-class political party can meet the needs of the worker because only through such an organisation can the workers’ representatives be guaranteed and controlled. Only the Socialist Party is a sound working-class political party, because it alone is based on the class struggle and is hostile to all other parties. The moral is obvious.

The Methods of the Professional Strike Smasher. (1913)

From the October 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

The recent death of James Farley, the notorious American strike breaker, calls to mind the function of the blackleg in capitalist society, and also one of the principle reasons strikes so frequently, instead of benefiting the workers, actually worsens their position.

In the first place it is, of course, understood that the efforts of workers in Trade Unions, fighting the masters with their only weapon, the strike, in order to sell their labour power to the best possible advantage, is only a necessary part of capitalism, and does not aim at emancipating the workers from wage-slavery.

When a strike occurs the only way the workmen can bring it to a successful issue is by completely or partially paralysing the particular industry concerned, or, for that matter, many industries, and so compelling the masters to capitulate. But the whole record of Trade Unionism has shown in this respect an almost complete failure. When we look for the reason of this failure we generally find it to be due to the fact that, although the Trade Unionists have all, in particular cases, come out on strike, the masters have been able to utilise other labour to keep the concern going until the strike had been tided over and the men forced to submit.

The weapon the masters beat the workers with is the most efficient weapon ever used by the dominators of human society—a weapon that could only be brought to perfection under capitalism. This weapon is starvation, which the masters can do wield through their control of the food supply. Workers with their wives and children must have food in order to live, and the only way to obtain food short of capturing the political machinery, is to work for a master.

As the capitalists are not out merely to injure the workers, but to make as much profit as possible, their first act is to weigh up the gains or losses likely to be incurred through their giving way or holding out. If the masters consider the demands of their employees to be hardly worth involving themselves in the trouble and inconvenience of a prolonged strike over, they will accede to their workers' demands. But if they think the inconvenience of a fight outweighed by what they will lose by departing from the old conditions, then they will not hesitate to fight.

When a strike is declared the first act of the masters is to try and obtain other workers in place of the strikers, because if this can be done the strike must automatically collapse after a very short time, as starvation will soon compel the workers to submit. To obtain blacklegs is usually fairly easy, because capitalism by producing an immense army of unemployed, has the material ready to hand. Men who are watching wives and children dying of slow starvation, who have tramped the streets for weeks in the hopeless quest for a job, make just the right material for a scab-hunter, although in the last resort the masters can frequently fall back upon the armed forces to act as blacklegs, as they showed at Liverpool and other places a year or two ago.

This was where Farley came as a boon and a blessing to the American capitalists. Having had some experience of strikes, and being a particularly unprincipled ruffian, he saw how he could make a fortune (which he soon did) by putting into the employers' hands the means of crushing the workers' industrial movements.

He provided the masters with a stock of professional strike breakers, specially picked men whom he sent to any part of the country at any moment, to undertake any work. By means of these any industry could be kept going until such time as the strikers were exhausted and wished to be taken back.

Where professional strike-breakers were not obtainable the blacklegs were generally imported from some other part of the country, and it was in this way that the strikers were so badly hit after the fight, for when the strike was settled the blacklegs were still kept on, and only a limited number of the strikers were taken back.

Very much the same thing occurs in England in similar circumstances, as witness the dock strike of a year ago. A representative of the "Daily News and Leader," after a visit to Dockland, made the following statement (26.6.13):

"The distress in Canning Town is acute and wide-spread, and it is largely because the strike enabled the P.L.A. and shipowners to increase their margin of surplus labour. Where already there were two men for each job in the docks, a thousand more have come to live, to compete for the same amount of work."

To sum the matter up, the chances of even a section of the workers improving their position under capitalism is therefore seen to be practically nil—the weapons of the masters are too powerful and too easily brought into operation. The condition of the working class gets steadily worse with each succeeding year, and Trade Union action at its best (as Karl Marx points out in "Value , Price and Profit") can only act as a brake on the downward movement of that condition. It therefore behoves the workers to give up these vain fancies and time-wasting views, and to organise with us in the Socialist Party to get control of the political machinery and the armed forces of the nation, for the purpose of abolishing the wages system, and then the blackleg, like Othello, will find his occupation gone.

Gilmac.