The Socialist Forum
A corespondent (A. J. G., Wimbledon) asks why we do not get inside the Labour Party and help to convert it to Socialism. He writes : —
“I am still a member of the Labour Party, because though differing widely from our present leaders, I think there is yet hope of getting the Party machine under the control of genuine socialists. (The same applies to the T.U.’s.)
As the break down of the Capitalist system becomes increasingly apparent, involving more poverty, unemployment and strikes, the position of some of our leaders of “sitting on the fence” will be more and more difficult and a choice have to be made by them on a clear issue.
I suggest that your influence (had you been inside the Party) in conjunction with the I.L.P. and many Communists who still remain in the Party, would have helped to bring about the above result.”
Our correspondent’s letter deserves close attention because it expresses the point of view of a considerable number of workers who have perceived the necessity for abolishing capitalism, but have not yet perceived that there is only one way in which that can be brought about. Each of the statements in the letter contains a partial truth, but in each case a deeper examination leads to a precisely opposite conclusion.
He says that he differs from the leaders of the Labour Party, but overlooks the very important fact that if this is a correct indication of his position, then he differs also from the overwhelming majority of the rank and file of the Labour Party, because the opinions and actions of those leaders are a very close reflection of the opinions of the members as a whole. We are aware that it is a constant slogan of the series of “Left Wing” movements, which follow each other like the days of the week, that the leaders do not represent the rank and file’s views ; but it is without any foundation. The same leaders with the same old tricks are elected and re-elected with monotonous regularity. When Maxton and Cook started their short-lived campaign which was going to carry a fiery cross through the Labour movement, they had to confess within a few short weeks that the working class wanted MacDonald and Thomas, with all their black record of betrayals of working-class interests.
Our correspondent says next that the leaders of the Labour Party and the Trade Unions will have to give up sitting on the fence and make a choice on a clear issue. Why must they do anything of the kind ? Was not the war in 1914 a clear issue? And the “greater production” campaign in 1919? And the series of “agreed” wage reductions in the past two years? And taking office on Liberal votes in the House of Commons? They have all been clear issues to the Socialist, but not clear to the members of the Labour Party. In consequence, the leaders have either sat on the fence or come down solidly and with the uproarious approval of their members on the capitalist side of it.
Lastly, we are told that we should have been inside the Labour Party, associating with the I.L.P. and the Communists, trying to oust the present leaders. Our correspondent disregards the facts. In the past four or five years I.L.P. members have been a clear majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party. So that every one of the leaders from whom our correspondent “differs widely” have been elected by the I.L.P. members with whom he wants us to associate for the purpose of opposing those leaders ! For a whole series of elections the Communists were in precisely the same boat. As we have pointed out in these columns year by year, the Communist Party has repeatedly told the workers to vote for MacDonald, Thomas, Frank Hodges, Clynes, Henderson, and the rest of the leaders. When Mr. Maxton was asked if he would try to get rid of MacDonald, he replied that he would not.
Lastly, our correspondent is silent upon one very important question. He gives us to understand that he is busy in the Labour Party trying to convert the members of the Labour Party and trying to get rid of the anti-working-class leaders. May we ask him a few questions? Does he tell the workers to vote at election times for these leaders? Or does he tell the workers that voting to return these men to Parliament is voting for the retention of capitalism? If he does the former, then he is not helping Socialism forward. Further, if he, or we, were inside the Labour Party, telling the workers to vote against Labour Party candidates, we would be confusing the minds of the workers. And, moreover, the Labour leaders would soon see to it that we were put outside, where we belong. Finally, the only way to obtain Socialism is to advocate it, and not to help the Labour Party by increasing the mental confusion already existing.
Mr. W. Latimer (Carlisle) objects to our policy, particularly our criticism of the I.L.P. The chief points in his letter are given below, together with our reply.
“(1) I accuse you of misrepresentation of the I.L.P. . . . You wrote that the I.L.P. is not a Socialist organisation or party. What is it then? Capitalist?
(2) What are you doing to nullify the attacks of the capitalist class?
(3) How are you capturing the various weapons (State and Municipal) for the workers?
(4) Have you a policy to put into practice when you acclaim power?
(5) What are you doing to Socialise the Labour Party and the Trades Unions?”
(1) The I.L.P. stands for nationalisation under which the capitalist class will continue in existence, but will draw their income on Government stocks instead of on company shares. “The Socialist Programme” (published by the I.L.P. in 1923) says :—
“The present shareholders in mines and railways could receive State mines or railway stock based on a valuation and bearing a fixed rate of interest.” (Page 24.)
That is capitalism. The partv which advocates it is a capitalist party.
(2) While pointing out the limitations of trade union action, we urge the workers to resist attempts by the employers to lower wages. This has been made more difficult by the actions of the Labour Government in reducing the pay of Civil Servants. A majority of the Labour M.P.s are members of the I.L.P., which therefore cannot escape responsibility.
(3) The I.L.P. members in Parliament were all elected on the Labour Party programme, described by Mr. Maxton as a capitalist programme. That is not capturing the political machinery for Socialism, but for something else.
(4) Socialists want power only for the purpose of introducing Socialism. That is our programme.
(5) By propagating Socialist principles among the workers we try to make Socialists of them, whether in the trade unions or in the Labour Party or any other non-Socialist party. Our work is made vastly more difficult by I.L.P. Propaganda, which misleads the workers into believing that nationalisation is Socialism and will benefit them. (See I.L.P. pamphlet, “Socialism in Queensland,” for an example of harmful I.L.P. Propaganda.)
Glasgow, January 16th, 1931.
To the Editor, THE SOCIALIST STANDARD.
Dear Comrade.
Re your question to non-members, I venture to put forward a few reasons as to the apparent apathy among sympathisers. I am certain there must be some thousands of Socialists in this so-called second city of the Empire who are unattached to any party. At the Sunday night meetings here at West Regent Street, your speaker, Comrade Shaw, can and does, hold large and attentive crowds, seldom or never are questions put forward. I am convinced that a fair percentage of these crowds is made up of individual who have, at one time or another, been members of a political organization, and are, as it were, sitting on the fence. The following are some of the reasons (in my opinion), why men hold aloof :—
(1) Many are convinced Socialists that grudge the time and energy that is expected of them when joined up in an organization—Laziness.
(2) Not a few would join up and take an active part in the movement, but for the fact that it would cause unpleasantness, if not unhappiness in the home. One real Socialist in the midst of anti-Socialists is always in hot water, and to one who takes an active part for Socialism the water is extra hot.
(3) No doubt a number are timid or funky Socialists, and are somewhat obsessed with the thought that to be seen or heard by gaffer or boss taking part in Socialist propaganda, means, if not the sack, becoming a set man.
(4) Again, I believe there are many who have made up their minds that Socialism won’t come in “their” time, have become disgruntled at the apathy of the masses, and are out to get as cushy a time possible out of the present system.
The above four reasons apply to Socialists only ; outside of these, of course, are a host of bewildered individuals who listen to the various speakers of different organizations—each and all slating each other ; these bewildered ones won’t read or think for themselves, hence their bewilderment. As to those who oppose the position of the S.P.G.B., I mention one view which I often hear advanced. Many Socialist politicians start off in all good faith and earnestness, but when they get mixed up in Westminster or Trade Union atmosphere, they are bought over, become corrupt, make a position or pension. They have arrived, lifted out of the gutter, as it were, on the backs of others. They are convinced that Socialism won’t come in “their” time; their bread and butter is secure. They become apathetic or hypocritical, and the cause is deserted.
There can be no guarantee for the integrity of any man, no man is infallible; human flesh and, too often, the spirit, is weak.
Would S.P.G.B. M.P.s have this integrity and soundness of spirit? Would they withstand the temptations by which many have failed ? Would they hold the bridge or sell the pass?
I know a reasoned answer can be given to above, but without doubt, this view sticks in the minds of many. Let us hope this letter will open up discussion on same.
Yours for Socialism,
F. J. DERRETT.
The above letter very well sums up the various reasons given by sympathisers for remaining outside the Socialist Party. We would suggest to our sympathisers that they should reconsider whether their reasons are really adequate.
A number of readers have pointed out that many Socialists are undoubtedly in the position that they dare not actively associate with the Socialist Party without certain loss of their employment. This applies particularly in small country and provincial towns, where any public activity is sure to come to the ears of employers.
The reference in the above letter to the untrustworthiness of political representatives is worth special comment.
Electors who want a certain end but are not prepared to support the only way of getting it are sure to be disappointed. Nothing can prevent it, not even the most incorruptible of political representatives. How, for example, can any M.P. keep his pledge to solve the problems of unemployment and poverty if the electorate are not prepared to have Capitalism replaced by Socialism? M.P.s being human, and being usually under the necessitv of earning their living by keeping their seat, have no choice but to go on doing those things that the electors are prepared to support.
The only remedy is a politically educated electorate which knows the problems and the solution. Nobody can “sell” an electorate which knows what it wants and how to get it. The Socialist Partv does not say, “Support us and all will be well.” Our message to the workers is, “Study Socialism yourselves ; organise in the Socialist Party to get it.” Only Socialist knowledge will protect the workers against lenders and misleaders.
The chief trouble now is not that workers’ leaders sell out and go over openly to the other side, but that they remain in the workers’ movement because the workers approve of Capitalist policies. Should a Socialist M.P. sell out, that would end his association with the Socialist movement.
Ed. COMM.