Socialists and the Labour Party
At least two members of the I.L.P., Mr. J. Maxton, M.P., and Mr. G. Buchanan, M.P., have said quite clearly that Socialists ought not to be inside the Labour Party; and that they intend to get out of it.
Mr. Maxton wrote an article, “Why Socialists should be outside the Labour Party,” published in the New Leader (February 12th, 1932). In it he took up and answered a point made by Mr. E. F. Wise in favour of remaining in the Labour Party. Referring to Wise, Mr. Maxton wrote :—
“He says, further : “Surely he (Maxton) agrees that the unprecedented opportunity of the present economic breakdown should be used in a strong effort for bringing about Socialism in Our Time, and not wasted in the barren bitterness of internecine warfare inside the Movement.” I do agree with that proposition. That is why I intend to be outside the Labour Party, where I can carry on my work for Socialism among the working people of this land without the harassing preoccupation of having to fight the leaders of the Labour Party for permission to do it.”
Mr. Wise had also used an argument that Maxton has himself used against the S.P.G.B., viz., that Socialists ought to be inside the Labour Party to influence it from within. Maxton gives this answer :—
“If pressure from within is the ideal method, then get within the body that contains the biggest battalions, and that at the present juncture is the National Government. I believe the reasoning to be profoundly wrong. Socialists should be inside a Socialist organisation, and their associations with other bodies should never be such as to limit or hamper their Socialist activities.”
Mr. G. Buchanan, M.P., spoke at the Scottish I.L.P. Conference (reported in Forward) in support of a motion to disaffiliate from the Labour Party :—
“Mr. George Buchanan, M.P. (Hutchesontown), supporting the motion, said that the Conference had two issues to face : the present position of the I.L.P., and the position of the Labour Party. If a working-class party was a party that defended the workers in time of need, then he could show that the Labour Party was not a working-class party. Not only had it failed to defend them, but it had actually attacked them. Their record was transparent. Johnston had attacked the defenceless servant lassies, Lansbury had come out in favour of the Means Test, and had endorsed the Indian policy of the Government. Disaffiliation might mean disaster for the I.L.P., but what would be the victory of the other side? They might get the millions, but their success would be a mockery and a sham. He had decided to take the other road. Decide as they might, he would be prepared to leave Parliament to-morrow. He had a greater love than the I.L.P. He was taking the choice of the rags and hovels of his native area.” (Forward, Jan. 30th, 1932.)
It now remains to be seen whether Messrs. Maxton and Buchanan will keep their word, or whether, for reasons which Mr. Maxton says are “profoundly wrong,” they will find it expedient to remain in the Party which is “not a working class party.”
Since the above was written we learn that the I.L.P. has asked the Labour Party to allow representatives of the two organisations to meet to settle their differences, with the object of the I.L.P. remaining inside the Labour Party. Our readers will perceive how difficult it is to keep up with the kaleidoscopic changes of policy of the I.L.P. and its leaders.
P.S.