Notes by the Way
For years we pointed out that the late Keir Hardic never had an understanding of Socialism and was merely a Liberal. It is amusing to read that at a Conference of the Union of Univcrsity Liberal Societies at Cambridge, a Liberal proposed that Keir Hardic should be recognised as one of them. A resolution was passed welcoming the formation of a new Radical Party, and the mover, a Mr. E. G. Sollieu, said :
“The new Party should have a left-centre inclination, and should be founded on the teaching of Keir Hardie.” (“Daily Herald,” March 23rd, 1932.)
The I.L.P. and other “left-centre Liberals” will have to bestir themselves to prevent this body-snatching.
The “Clarion” makes entertaining reading for those who wish to study the Labour Party “intellectuals” at play. A quarrel has been going on as to whether state capitalism as it exists in the Post Office is more or less socialistic than State capitalism as it exists in public utility corporations. One group stands firmly by Nationalisation, while the other group denounces this as being a nineteenth century idea, now replaced by the “new Socialism” of public utility corporations. Belonging to the public utility group is Major Attlee, former P.M.G., and advocate of a public utility for the Post Office. He admits that the Post Office (so long praised by him and his Party as being an instance of Socialism) is “the outstanding example of collective capitalism” (“New Statesman,” November 7th, 1031). Mr. Herbert Morrison is also a public utility advocate. In the “Clarion” (February, 1932) he argues, with his.tongue in his cheek, that his London Passenger Transport Bill (which guaranteed their property rights to the shareholders), is Socialism, because the shareholders would no longer have the legal right of control that they now possess. Mr. Morrison knows quite well that Socialism involves social ownership of the means of life, and that the exchange of one kind of share for another kind does not deprive the capitalist of his ownership, and is not Socialism.
All the same he knows how to sling a pretty brick in controversy. Having been told by a defender of the Post Office that a man is a Socialist or not a Socialist and that nationalisation is Socialism, Mr. Morrison replies (“Clarion” March) by pointing out that the S.P.G.B. would laugh in the face of anyone who made such a statement, and would say that such a man “is not a Socialist at all, but a mere advocate of State capitalism.”
This is true enough. But Mr. Morrison did not add that the Socialist’s objections to public utilities are precisely the same as his objections to nationalisation.
What we would like to have from Mr. Morrison is his defence of public utility capitalism against the case for Socialism.
The theory on which the Labour Party and I.L.P. were built up is that the spectacle of a Labour Government at work so impresses and enthuses the workers that they go on to ask for more and more “Labour” reforms of capitalism. On February 27th the Labour Party M.P.’s and candidates held a meeting to inquire into the actions of the late Labour Government. Reynolds’s Illustrated News, the Co-cperative-Labour paper, reporting the meeting, says:—
“One or two speakers made a feeble and timid attempt to justify the record of the late Labour Government.” (Reynolds’s, 28th Feb.)
In other words, instead of celebrating the successful application of their theory, nobody could be found to put up a plausible defence of it.
In the six years since February 1926 the I.L.P. has lost 422 branches, almost 40 per cent. of the total. The Reports to Annual Conferences give the following total number of branches in February of the years mentioned :—
| 1926 | 1,075 |
| 1929 | 746 |
| 1930 | 748 |
| 1931 | 712 |
| 1932 | 653 |
It was in this situation that the I.L.P. at its Easter Conference had to decide for or against continuing affiliation with the Labour Party. Would the happy days of Parliamentary seats and Governmental
Office be brought back again by remaining inside, or had the time now come for the I.L.P. to exploit working-class discontent independently? The way of the reformist vote-catcher is sometimes hard.
The I.L.P. Conference delegates had before them three proposals, one for continued affiliation with the Labour Party, one for disaffiliation and a third for “conditional affiliation.” Disaffiliation was rejected by 183 votes to 144, affiliation was rejected by 214 votes to 98, and the third proposal—typical of the I.L.P. in dodging the issue—was adopted by 250 votes to 53. The resolution calls for a revision of the Standing Orders of the Labour Party and it may be assumed that the I.L.P. will remain inside. The position now is that the I.L.P. repudiates the Standing Orders, but several of its members who stood as Labour candidates at the election have accepted them, including David Kirkwood, M.P., and Mr. R. F. Wise. And what now becomes of the recent assertions by Maxton, Buchanan, and others that for reasons other than the Standing Orders it is impossible for Socialists to remain inside the Labour Party ? Doubtless they will not find it difficult to swallow their words—they have had much practice at this.
One piece of information given by the Chairman of the I.L.P., Mr. Fenner Brockway, deserves to be placed on record. The I.L.P. used to be satisfied with the Labour Party reform programme. Then a few years ago it announced that the old programme had been proved inadequate and that a new reform programme, miscalled “Socialism in Our Time,” was the only adequate programme. Now Mr. Brockway in his address from the Chair (see Daily Herald, March 28th) admits that the I.L.P. is a reformist party and that its “Socialism in Our Time” is useless. He said that, in view of the present depression,
“the gradualism of the Labour Party became pathetically inadequate; even the method of Socialism in our time became inadequate. It means that our policy must become revolutionary instead of reformist.”
And then the Conference, as if to show the hollowness of the pretence that the reformist policy is going to be dropped, voted for continued affiliation with the Labour Party, although Brockway, Maxton and others know full well that there is no place for revolutionary Labour Party Socialism inside the Labour Party.
It is one of the pet arguments of the journalists who serve the master class by attacking Socialism, that only capitalism can give the rewards necessary to encourage literary geniuses to do their best work. Mr. James Douglas momentarily forgot himself in an article in the Daily Express (March 5th), in which he admitted that the money incentive has had an opposite effect.
“Another book I long to write is a philosophy of literary avarice. It is a base passion which has not been thoroughly explored, even by Balzac or Bennett. The influence of avarice on literature has never been analysed.
Avarice has destroyed more men of genius than drink or indolence. Avarice corrupts the mind. Genius without avarice is as rare as beauty without vanity.”
Early in February there were rumours in Eastern Europe of various Governments massing troops for war. One of the rumours said that Poland was mobilising troops on the German frontier in Upper Silesia. This, to the newspapers was a “disturbing” rumour. But re-assurance soon came. The troops were not for the purpose of threatening the German capitalists, but for the purpose of dealing with a strike which was likely to break out. (News-Chronicle, February (5th.)
Needless to say the Polish Government was not sending troops to intimidate the employers, but to keep the workers in subjection.
In an interview given to the New York Times, and republished in The Militant (New York, March 12th), Trotsky stated his views on the Five-Year Plan and the future of the Socialist movement.
“Question: Do you believe that the development of the Five-Year Plan has strengthened or weakened the possibility of building socialism in Soviet Russia alone without co-operation along similar lines in the rest of Europe ?
Answer : This raises the question about socialism in a single country. The inevitability of socialism flows historically from the fact that the present productive forces of humanity have become incompatible not only with the private property in the means of production but also with present national boundaries, especially in Europe. Just as mediaeval particularism hindered the development of capitalism in its youth, so now at the peak of its development capitalism is strangling in the limits set by the national States. Socialism cannot confine productive forces in the Procrustean bed of national States. The Socialist econpomy will develop on the basis of an international division of labour, the mighty foundations of which have been laid down by capitalism. The Soviet industrial construction is, in my view, a part of a future European, Asiatic and worldwide Socialistic structure, and not an independent national whole.
Question : Will Soviet Russia be compelled to come to some sort of a compromise with Western capitalism, assuming that she may not be able to pursue a Socialist policy single-handed? What form would such a compromise assume?
Answer : The “compromise” between the Soviet and the capitalist systems is not a question of the future but of the present. It is already a fact to-day, although not a very stable one. How will the interrelations between the isolated Soviet Union and world capitalism develop? Here a concrete prophecy is not easy to make, but in general I should cast the following horoscope: European capitalism is far nearer to a Socialist revolution than the Soviet Union is to a national Socialist society.”
Trotsky’s recognition of the impossibility of Socialism in Russia in the near future is late but interesting. Mr. H. G. Wells has also discovered at last that the talk of Communism in Russia is “absurd,” and that the existing system there is “State Capitalism” (Daily Telegraph, February 24th).
H.