Today, when Blairite pro-capitalist politicians still dominate the Parliamentary Labour Party, it's useful to look back in history and remember that, yes, while the Labour Party was always a "broad church", that breadth was across a range of generally socialist ideas.
Blair attempted to eradicate Labour's genuine socialist traditions and succeeded in removing the clearly socialist clause from the Labour Party constitution. This clause had remained in place since 1918 and set out a clear commitment to the "common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange". Such a commitment to public ownership was a key part of the 1945 Labour Party election manifesto which resulted in a landslide victory.
The Communist Party and Independent Labour Party also influenced those debates, including, I believe, those my mother was involved in as a student at King's College London (although still living in Fulham where she grew up). Some of her old books confirm that concealed history - history which needs to be rediscovered if we are to build the mass workers' party that is so needed today:
The Communist Manifesto - issued by the Labour Party in 1948
The "Foreword by the Labour Party" includes the following:
"In presenting this centenary volume of the Communist Manifesto, with the valuable Historical Introduction by Professor Laski, the Labour Party acknowledges its indebtedness to Marx and Engels as two of the men who have been the inspiration of the whole working-class movement.
The British Labour Party has its roots in the history of Britain. The Levellers, Chartists, Christian Socialists, the Fabians and many other bodies, all made their contributions, and the British Trade Unions made it possible to carry theory into practice. John Ball, Robert Owen, William Morris, Keir Hardie, John Burns, Sidney Webb, and many more British men and women have played outstanding parts in the development of socialist thought and organisation. But British socialists have never isolated themselves from their fellows on the continent of Europe. Our own ideas have been different from those of continental socialism which stemmed more directly from Marx, but we, too, have been influenced in a hundred ways by European thinkers and fighters, and. above all, by the authors of the Manifesto.
Britain played a large part in the lives and work of both Marx and Engels. Marx spent most of his adult life here and is buried in Highgate cemetery. Engels was a child of Manchester, the very symbol of capitalist industrialism. When they wrote of bourgeois exploitation they were drawing mainly on English experience.
The authors were the first to admit that principles must be applied in the light of existing conditions, but even the detailed programme they put forward is of great interest to us. Abolition of private property in land has long been a demand of the Labour movement. A heavy progressive income tax is being enforced by the present Labour Government as a means of achieving social justice. We have gone far towards abolition of the right of inheritance by our heavy death duties. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State is partially attained in the Bank of England Act and other measures. We have largely nationalised the means of communication while extending public ownership of the factories and instruments of production. We have declared the equal obligation of all to work. We are engaged in redressing the balance between town and country, between industry and agriculture. Finally, we have largely established free education for all children in publicly-owned schools. Who, remembering that these were demands of the Manifesto, can doubt our common inspiration?
"The British Labour Party won a notable electoral victory at the close of the second world war. It has thus embarked upon the tremendous task of beginning to build the foundations of a socialist society in Great Britain in a period when, a large part of Europe having been devastated by war and the resources of the victorious powers, like Great Britain itself, drained almost to breaking-point, its task, both as a Socialist Party, and as a Government, is to ask for the continuance of great sacrifices from a people fatigued by the immense effort of war. To keep its authority, as Mr. Attlee himself has said,' "the Labour programme must be carried out with the utmost vigour and resolution. To delay dealing with essentials would be fatal. To show irresolution or cowardice would be to invite defeat. A Labour Government should make it quite plain that it will suffer nothing to hinder it in carrying out the popular will. In all great enterprises it is the first steps that are difficult, and it is the way in which these are taken that makes the difference between success and failure."
It is not, I think, merely patriotic emotion that makes British socialists feel that here, as nowhere else, the truth of their principles will be tested. It was in Great Britain that capitalist society first came to full maturity in the generation subsequent to the Napoleonic Wars. It was largely from the observation and analysis of that maturity that Marxism became the outstanding philosophic expression of socialist principles and methods; and it was largely from British socialist writers, and the early British socialist movement, alike on its political and on its trade union side, that Marx and Engels moved to the understanding that men make their history by their power, through their grasp of the forces which make it move, to give a conscious direction to that movement.
Mr. Attlee has never been himself a Marxist: but there is not a word in the sentences of his that I have quoted which could not have been eagerly accepted by the authors of the Communist Manifesto; and they would, I think, have inferred from them that in the degree to which the first Labour Government with a majority puts the spirit of those phrases into operation, it would fulfil the great objectives for which it was formed. By unbreakable loyalty to its own principles it could lead its own people, even in the hour of crisis, to cast off its chains. A British working class that had achieved its own emancipation could build that working-class unity everywhere out of which the new world will finally be won."
Laski's introduction makes a whole number of other points but this section is interesting in its critical approach to the twists and turns of the Communist Party (unlike the SLF pamphlet below):
"Lenin himself had as early as 1921 to warn Communist parties outside Russia against what he called "the infantile malady of Left Wing Communism" - a malady which, in its essence, consisted of an effort on the part of nascent Communist Parties to repeat in their birth-pangs all the mistakes against which he himself had been fighting for almost a generation before 1917.
But the more unhappy results were deeper. The working-class movement was divided in most of the major countries between Communists and Social Democrats. Their hatred for one another became far more important to each than their antagonism to the common capitalist enemy. Communists formed separate political parties, even separate trade unions. They became so insistent that social democracy was a method of safeguarding capitalism against the workers that there was a period when they followed Moscow in proclaiming that social democrats were, in fact, social fascists.
Almost down to the very advent of Hitler to power, they were ready to believe that his government was the necessary prelude to victory; they would be the residuary legatees of his inevitably rapid overthrow. When the grave error of this policy was perceived, they at once became the ardent advocates of the united front and saw no reason in the world why men whom the day before, as it were, they had been denouncing as "lacqueys of capitalism," or "betrayers of the working class," should not at once agree to admit them to the ranks of a party they had consistently announced they intended to destroy. When the "United Front" did not succeed, and Hitler, who seemed to have considerable support among capitalists in all countries, grew ever more dangerous, above all as a crusader against Soviet Russia, they accepted from Moscow the idea of the "Popular Front," in which Communists would join with any party, no matter what its outlook, so long as it was hostile to Fascism in all its forms. When, roughly by the time of Munich, it was clear that the main capitalist powers had no objection to the expansion of Hitler and Mussolini, provided that their own "vital interests" were not touched - interests which they did not regard as including the integrity of Soviet Russia - the rulers of Russia, without knowledge of Communist parties abroad, proceeded to make a treaty of friendship with Hitlerite Germany which was actually signed by Ribbentrop in Moscow one week before the outbreak of the second World War.
What is nothing less than fantastic is the intellectual gyrations performed by Communist Parties in Western Europe in the period between the beginning of hostilities on September 1st, 1939, and the German attack on Soviet Russia on June 22nd, 1941. They had been so long instructed that Hitler was the enemy of the working class everywhere, the supreme expression of capitalist reaction, that, for the first month of the war, they drew the natural inference that, as the vanguard of the working-class forces, they must take the lead in crusading for his overthrow. Their leaders, therefore, urged on the Communist rank and file the folly, as one of them put it, of merely "mouthing revolutionary phrases"; the urgent thing was to fight with all their strength against the "noxious beast." But they had forgotten the Russo-German pact, and the anxiety of the Soviet leaders not to be involved in what would certainly be a destructive, and might possibly be a fatal conflict. From October 7th, 1939, therefore, their whole policy changed. What had been preached as an anti-fascist crusade became a typical "imperialist" war such as was characteristic of capitalist states. It must be ended as soon as possible; there was every reason to come to terms with Hitler.
For nearly two years in Great Britain, the Communist Party conducted an anti-war agitation, which included denunciation of the Labour Party as "war-mongers" for entering Mr. Churchill's cabinet, an insistence that the responsibility for the war lay on the shoulders of Great Britain which was guilty of aggression against HitIerite Germany, the encouragement of sabotage in the armament factories, and the use of the manifold disasters suffered by Great Britain after the fall of France, to insist that the prolongation of the war would destroy the working class. Then came the German attack on Russia; and, over-night, the war was transformed from an imperialist war into a crusade for freedom. There was no limit to the intensity of the national effort which the Churchill government was entitled to exact, and there could be no question of peace until Hitlerite Germany had been broken in pieces. No one has ever questioned the devotion and heroism of Communist parties everywhere, above all in the countries occupied by the Fascist enemy, once Russia had entered the war. What is startling is the contrast between this and their willingness to come to terms with Hitler before his attack on Russia".
Why Socialism - Student Labour Federation (1946)
My mother also kept a copy of a pamphlet called 'Why Socialism?" produced by the Student Labour Federation (SLF) in 1946. Until 1940, as the University Labour Federation, this had been a socialist society affiliated to the Labour Party, but which had also allowed CP members into membership as well. The SLF's President was at that time, I understand, DN Pritt, the MP for Hammersmith North, who had been overwhelmingly re-elected in 1945, despite standing as an independent labour candidate after being expelled from the Labour Party in 1940. He had been a member of the Socialist League within the Labour Party, alongside other MPs like Nye Bevan, Stafford Cripps, Ellen Wilkinson, Michael Foot and Harold Laski (see above). Pritt regrettably became an uncritical supporter of Stalinism.
While uncritical of the Soviet Union, the pamphlet is also interesting for making criticisms of the newly-elected Labour Government from the Left:
The Conservatives, in Parliament and in their papers, make a great song and dance about the Labour Government's measures of nationalisation and proclaim that the stranglehold of socialism is already destroying the values and advantages of undiluted freedom. We must, of course, take most of this talk with a pinch of salt. In the present world situation even a Tory government would have to retain many of the" controls" about which they grow so indignant. Few industrialists are honestly opposed, for instance, to the nationalisation of the mines, for an efficient mining industry is as much in their interest as anybody's. All the same, when we have cut the cant out of the Tory arguments, a real question remains: is the Labour Government's nationalisation policy socialism? Should a socialist support it? The answers are respectively No and Yes.
Nationalisation of a particular industry, even when carried through fully and consistently, is not socialism, though it may certainly be a step in the socialist direction. The essential point about a socialist society, as we have seen, is that it is a classless society. Power has been taken out of the hands of a ruling class and is held by the people as a whole. The means of production have been taken out of the hands of the capitalists and put into the hands of the workers. Now unless all (or at least a very great majority) of industry is under popular control, the owning class remains. It may be weakened but it is still there and in probability it still keeps its grip on some pretty important industries, notably the newspaper industry, which is one of its greatest weapons. Moreover "nationalisation " can have a good many meanings, and from the experience of the first year of the Labour Government it is clear that the Government's interpretation of it is not a radical one.
However admirable, this policy is not socialism, and socialists will judge it by whether more radical steps could or could not be applied to the industries and gain the people's support. Classes are not being abolished. The ruling class may, indeed, suffer a considerable loss of power and profit. In a nationalised industry the capitalist is no longer his own master. But, when one really comes to take stock, neither has he entirely forfeited his privileges. Quite apart from his compensation which is, from any moral standard, generous, he maintains a very considerable " say" in the industry; if he doesn't personally sit on one of the Boards, he at least has the consolation of knowing that one of his friends does and will continue to fight for his interests. Moreover, if only a few industries are to be nationalised, there is nothing to prevent the "nationalised" capitalist from transferring his unfettered activities to an unfettered industry, an industry in which the free virtues of profit and investment remain relatively untouched. And so the capitalist class remains, weakened it is true, yet nevertheless quite comfortable in its newly-adapted circumstances, in no serious immediate danger of having to work for its living.
This situation is unsatisfactory, not merely because it leaves the capitalist class in essential control of the country's economy, but also because it does not give the worker the great advantages of socialism. The nationalised industry may be more efficient than it had been under private ownership, but the worker has scarcely gained at all; in fact there is the real danger that he may have merely exchanged one boss for another. Socialism means workers' control. It doesn't mean that technicians and managers, experts and planning committees have no place; but it does mean that fundamentally it is the men and women who do the work who must benefit by the fruits of their labour ...
A socialist will therefore support nationalisation, but he will not be content until it has been developed and extended into a real socialist plan for the whole nation.
SOCIALISM AND THE GOVERNMENT
Socialists do not believe that socialism will be achieved out of the blue or through the honest conviction of a number of enlightened intellectuals. They believe that socialism can come only through the mass effort and organisation of the working- class. For although a number of individuals may consciously and heroically decide to devote their lives selflessly to a cause, the great majority of people will act in general according to their own interests as they conceive them; and the great point about socialism is that it is completely and uncompromisingly in the interests of the working class.
Socialists do not idealise the working class. They do not say that all capitalists are bad and all workers are good. But they do say very emphatically that the capitalist class, because it is a capitalist class - small, exclusive and in conflict with the interests of the majority of the people - is incapable of solving the world problems of today, whereas the working-class can solve them.
Workers are not saints; but they are the people who fight for socialism, and build their organisations for this purpose. In Britain the Labour Movement is the organised expression of the working-class. For a number of historical reasons the British Labour Movement is more closely knit and more united than almost any other working-class movement in the world. The" political wing" (that is to say, in the first place the Labour Party itself), the "industrial wing" (the Trade Unions) and the Co-operative Movement, are all closely associated and form a united movement which can have tremendous power and influence. It is through the Labour Movement that socialism will be built in Britain.
For many years socialism has been the declared aim of almost every section of the Labour Movement. The programme on which the Labour Government was elected says, "The Labour Party's ultimate aim at home is the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Britain-free, democratic, efficient, progressive, public-spirited, its material resources organised in the service of the British people."
Therefore one might assume that the Labour Government is a socialist government and that if it has not yet introduced a socialist society in England that is simply because there has not yet been time.
This, however, is not quite the whole story. No sensible person wants to attack or embarrass the Labour Government. Labour's victory in July, 1945, is one of the great landmarks in the history of the British people. Yet at the same time it must be observed that many of the leaders of the Labour Party in the Government are not carrying out the accepted policy of the Movement.
SOCIALISM IN FOREIGN POLICY
This is particularly true in regard to foreign policy. It is clear that a socialist has not the same conception of "national interests" as a Tory imperialist. A socialist sees as the root cause of international conflict the capitalist system with its unending trade rivalries, its exploitation of the backward peoples and its maintenance of oppressive social systems. A socialist foreign policy must quite consciously be directed in support of the popular anti-imperialist forces of the world and against the reactionary war-making forces. ...
Socialists therefore loyally support the Labour Government; but do not support it with their eyes closed. In these critical days no socialist dare hesitate to criticise the government or any of the Labour leaders, if their policy should not be directed in the interests of the people. The Labour Movement is not, any more than any other human institution, incapable of error. It has had its Ramsay MacDonalds and Jimmy Thomases as well as its Keir Hardies and Beatrice Webbs, and it may have them again. Every socialist knows that it is through the Labour Movement alone that a socialist Britain will be built, and he knows too that it is only by continuous hard work, vigilance and self-criticism that the Labour Movement will succeed in its aim.
The pamphlet also emphasises the importance of the organised working-class - a fact that is also worth re-emphasising today:
THE LESSONS OF HISTORY
"History shows us that forms and organisations of society are not sacred and eternal; that they are, indeed, thrown up by the necessities of the time and are in a constant state of change and development. Capitalism came about, not because a number of people thought that it might be a good thing; but because the hitherto prevailing social order-feudalism - was unable to adapt itself to the changing needs of the time and therefore had to be replaced ...
THE LESSONS OF HISTORY
"History shows us that forms and organisations of society are not sacred and eternal; that they are, indeed, thrown up by the necessities of the time and are in a constant state of change and development. Capitalism came about, not because a number of people thought that it might be a good thing; but because the hitherto prevailing social order-feudalism - was unable to adapt itself to the changing needs of the time and therefore had to be replaced ...
THE ROAD TO SOCIALISM
And so, just as capitalism - a higher stage of civilisation - swept away and replaced feudalism, so must socialism replace capitalism. For socialism alone is capable of solving the problems which capitalism has thrown up and of turning to good use the discoveries, inventions and advances which were made under capitalism.
And just as it was the commercial and industrial middle class which led the way forward from the feudal society which frustrated their hopes and needs, so is it the working-class which will lead the way forward from our decadent capitalist society.
The working-class, the great majority of the people, has everything to gain and nothing to lose by the destruction of capitalism. That is why it is to the Labour Movement, the organised working-class, that socialists look for the advance to a more satisfactory society. Not all socialists are born into the working-class; members of every class are touched by the breakdown of capitalist society and see in socialism the solution. But only the working-class is strong enough to accomplish the tremendous task of changing the world, and it is by organised activity as allies of the working-class that middle-class people can assist in the struggle for socialism. This is something which should never be forgotten. The middle-class intellectuals may feel all the frustration of the present decay; the theoreticians may write blue-prints on the New Society; the young poet may write satire at the expense of the Tories; but only in so far as they join in with the working people will they make any effective contribution to the socialist cause".
Marxists of that time would not have agreed with every word of these two pamphlets - and would have had their own criticisms of both the Labour leadership and the policies advocated by supporters of the Communist Party. However, what is clear is that the debates across the Movement were openly about how to build a socialist future. That is the debate that must be returned to openly today
No comments:
Post a Comment