The I.L.P.—A study in political futility

The Independent Labour Party decided 12½ years ago, to leave the Labour Party. They were never happy about it and have discussed at various times the question of rejoining; Mr. F. Brockway has stated that probably the I.L.P. would have re-affiliated before, had it not been for the War. (“Forward” November 28th, 1942). Now the movement for rejoining is again in full swing and at the I.L.P. Conference at Easter, 1945, it was decided to seek affiliation provided that the I.L.P. is allowed the same kind of independent identity that they used to have as an affiliated body.

We may well ask the I.L.P. these questions: “Is it the record of the Labour Party during the last 12 years that encourages you to consider re-affiliation ?” and “Are you confident of the fitness of the Labour Party to take Socialist action in the future?” To both these questions a socialist would reply—No. The I.L.P., whatever may be their answers, are taking definite steps to rejoin. A glance at some of the arguments used in favour of re-affiliation reveals the fact, that although they have examined the Labour Party’s record and are critical of it, they are willing to take advantage of the possible growing working class support for the Labour Party when the war ends. They have discovered that the “Labour Party was the accepted medium of expression of the people.” It has popular support and so the I.L.P. in search of “numerical membership” is attempting to find a way back.

Mr. J. McGovern. M.P. (Shettleston). addressed the I.L.P. summer school, and in the course of his lecture said that the “intelligent thing for the Party is, upon the the breaking of the political truce, to return to the Labour Party, and with the ability and integrity of our present party membership, attempt to take effective leadership.” (“New Leader” August 19th. 1944). Following some discussion he went on to show that: “At the end of the war many of the leaders of the Labour Party will be discredited,” while the I.L.P.’s “prestige had grown considerably.” There it is. The purpose is “effective leadership” after the record of the Labour Party has discredited its leaders. When dealing with the I.L.P.’s past record he was equally frank. He said that one mistake was the association with the Communists. “especially at a time when there was tremendous antagonism in this country against the Communist Party.” He made no attempt to analyse past political action or to advise on future political action on the basis of Socialist principle. Not—”was this policy in line with working-class interest?” but, “was this policy popular?” is the question that he asks about their past policy. He explains away the plight and confusion that the workers are in to-day by dragging in the stale and rather shoddy gag about “the failure of Parliamentarianism.” His own Parliamentary activities are seemingly above criticism, including the way he gets in. We cannot forget that he never offends Catholics. Catholics have votes and Shettleston has Catholics.

Mr. F. Brockway has doubts of the Labour Party but hopes that they will “rise to the opportunity’’ and decide on a “real fight.” He says that there is a view that a decision has been reached in the Labour Party, “to fight on a full Socialist programme.” The irony of the situation is too subtle and deep for Brockway. Imagine a Socialist Party having to come to a decision to fight on a Socialist programme! What is the purpose of organising into n Socialist party but to struggle for Socialism? Although Brockway calls upon the Labour Party to decide on a real fight for Socialism, the I.L.P. has itself never fought a Parliamentary election on that basis. At the Bilston by election in September 1944 they had an opportunity. What did they do with it? Fought on the same paltry little reformist policy that is so familiar. A ten-point programme was issued that included the complete abolition of poverty together with 30s. per week for old age pensioners and maintenance grants for school children. The last three points talked of establishing a “Socialist order” where industry will “be run by councils representative of all grades of workers.” (New Leader, September 16, 1941.)

This is the party about which, five years ago, Mr. F. A. Ridley stated, “The I.L.P. has to day a unique opportunity to place itself at the head of the growing revolutionary forces in the country.” In this article he also wrote, “The S.P.G.B. has been completely taken in by the fraud of parliamentarianism.” Of course we had not been taken in by anything; certainly we did not imagine that the glib and wordy phrases of the I.L.P. indicated any fundamental change in that Party. We have simply recognised that Parliament is a weapon that can be used by a politically intelligent working class for the purpose of establishing Socialism. We have never attempted to gain easy support by criticising Labour Leaders and Parliament, from workers who are merely discontented. The I.L.P. have indulged in that but have never attempted to build their party on a revolutionary basis. Mr Ridley also stated, “Under such circumstances. Labour and reformism will disappear with incredible rapidity.” (New Leader, March 14th, 1940.)

Ridley is one of those appointed to interview the representatives of the Labour Party on the matter of re-affiliation. Perhaps he wants to see the rapid “disappearance” of the I.L.P. into the “rapidly disappearing” Labour Party.

This maze of confused talk and action arises from the fact that the membership has no understanding of Socialism. A party cannot have revolutionary content without excluding non-Socialists, and the I.L.P. has never done that. At its inaugural meeting it was said that “It would be a pity if they narrowed the party in the slightest degree by making it appear that they admitted only bona-fide Socialists.” (Jubilee Souvenir, page 28.)

To-day they can consider re-joining the Labour Party because their membership is non-Socialist; because their policy is to an overwhelming extent similar to that of the Labour Party. The policy of Socialists and the policy of the reformist Labour Party are opposed. We will finish on a biblical note. The Israelites wandered for 40 years in the Wilderness and, although glad to be free of the Egyptians, sometimes longed for the “fleshpots of Egypt.” They did, however, reach their objective. After 12 years in the political wilderness, the I.L.P. are turning to the Party they so roundly condemned in 1932. They are wandering, simply longing to return to the “fleshpots,” having achieved nothing and arrived nowhere.

L.J.