The so-called
Left-wing parties
DURING
THE NINETEENTH CENTURY all kinds of political action were discussed and
advocated by various working class groups: political strikes, armed
revolt, sabotage, bomb-throwing, assassination, demonstrations,
petitions to Parliament, and seeking the help of the Liberal and Tory
Parties.
With the extension of the franchise to male workers
with the Reform Acts of 1867 and1884 a new phase opened. It was then
that parties were formed, claiming to be socialist, that were to have a
continuing influence on working class politics: the Fabian Society and
Social Democratic Federation in 1884 and the Independent Labour Party
in 1893. Unsound theories from the early nineteenth century or thrown
up by the new parties are still to be found in the modern so-called
'Left-wing' organisations.
Like the modern 'Left-wing'
organisations all three parties claimed to seek the abolition of
capitalism and the establishment of Socialism.
In 1893 the
Fabian Society and the Social Democratic Federation (S.D.F.) signed the
'Manifesto of English Socialists' which declared:
"We look to
put an end for ever to the wages system, to sweep away all distinctions
of class, and eventually to establish national and international
communism on a sound basis".
The I.L.P., which was then in
process of formation, did not sign the Manifesto but would not have
dissented from its declaration. Keir Hardie, founder of the I.L.P.
(later to become 'father of the Labour Party'), could still claim
several years later that their aim was "free communism in which . . .
the rule of life will be: From each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs" (From Serfdom to Socialism, 1907). Also that
"The Labour Party is the only expression of orthodox Marxian Socialism
in Great Britain" (My Confession of Faith 1910). Of course this was
said to placate his followers and there was nothing in the Labour Party
to justify it.
What separated the three parties at the beginning was their conception
of how their aims were to be achieved.
Through
the dissemination of specialist information amcng politicians and
administrators, the Fabians hoped to enlighten political opinion
generally on the need, step by step, to introduce measures of social
reform and nationalisation — the policy known as 'gradualism'. The
S.D.F. aimed to build up an independent socialist party based on
Marxist ideas. It soon learned, from the very small number of votes
given to its candidates at elections, that no quick growth could be
expected on that basis. Seeing this the I.L.P. concluded that straight
socialist principles were unacceptable to the workers and decided that
growth of membership must come before growth of socialist knowledge.
They adopted the policy of building up a non-socialist membership on a
programme of reforms with the hope that acceptance of socialist ideas
would come later. It was the policy of involvement and support for
every demonstration of discontent in the trade unions and elsewhere:
"getting with the workers in the day-to-day struggle", no matter how
trivial the issue.
The S.D.F. also became affected by this
policy which in 1904 was to lead to the breakaway movement
establish¬ing the SPGB, based on frank acceptance that winning over
the
workers to socialist principles is a difficult and slow process. It was
made more difficult by the refomist propaganda of the Fabians, the
I.L.P. and the S.D.F.
At the end of the century all three of
those parties, particularly the Fabians and the I.L.P, turned their
attention to building up a mass party with trade union backing — the
Labour Party.
The I.L.P. line appeared to succeed beyond even
what had been hoped from it. Backed by trade union votes and money, the
Labour Party grew in membership and representation in Parliament, and
I.L.P. influence seemed to grow with it. After the 1929 General
Election more than two hundred Labour M.P.s were members of the I.L.P.,
though
most were Labour, not I.L.P. nominees; but by that time the Labour
Party leaders and trade unions had no further use for the I.L.P. What
it had done was to bring about its own destruction. Its original
justification for its policy — that of converting the Labour Party into
a socialist party — had been a total failure. The Labour Party has made
no progress whatever towards understanding and accepting the socialist
objective defined at the outset by the Fabians, the S.D.F. and I.L.P.
Today this applies equally to the 'Tribune Group' and others in the
Labour Party who style themselves 'Left-wing', and to the trade unions.
In
1917, after the Communists had succeeded in capturing power in Russia,
a strong old style influence came into British politics. The Communist
Party of Great Britain, formed out of the membership of several
existing bodies, was before long to take the lead among 'Left-wing'
organisations. Owing to its mixed membership it was divided about
Parliamentary action; but along with the old I.L.P. policy of seeking
reforms and "getting with the workers in the day-to-day struggle", it
took its line from Russia. At that time this meant advocating
dictatorship and armed revolt. Mr. W. Gallacher, a member of their
Central Committee and later Communist Party M.P., declared:
"They
had talked of a Revolutionary Workers' government, but did they realise
what was implied? Would the organisation of the workers for the
revolutionary government be a legal one? The task of fighting for a
revolutionary government would be a task of bringing the workers out on
to the streets against the armed forces of Capitalism" (Workers Life, 6
December 1929).
In one of the periods when they were not telling
the workers to vote for MacDonald and other Labour Party leaders, they
also carried on a campaign of smashing up opponents' meetings. This was
announced by Harry Pollitt, the General Secretary of the C.P.G.B., in
the Daily Worker (29 January 1930):
"There should not be a
Labour Meeting held anywhere, but what the revolutionary workers in
that district attend such meetings and fight against the speakers,
whatever they are, so-called 'Left','Right' or 'Centre'. They should
never be allowed to address the workers. This will bring us in conflict
with the authorities, but this must be done. The fight can no longer be
conducted in a passive manner .... The Communist Party and its organ,
the Daily Worker, will lead the working class, fighting boldly and
openly, against this present government of scoundrels and agents of
capitalism".
The government of the day was a Labour Government;
but before long the Communist Party was again calling on the workers to
vote Labour as it had done at some previous elections. Smashing up
opponents' meetings still finds favour with some of the 'Left-wing'
self-styled 'democrats'.
Now, in line with the shift of policy
of the Communist Parties of France and Italy, the C.P.G.B. presents
itself as an ordinary, 'respectable', reformist party using
parliamentary methods and seeking to compete with the Labour Party on
its own ground. Its election programmes are full of reform proposals
paralleling those of the Labour Party: but on each one pressing for a
little more than the Labour Party considers it expedient to ask. An
example of the distance travelled since the days of 'heavy civil war'
is in the Communist Party's attitude to the property and incomes of the
rich. In their election programme in 1929 (which described the Labour
Party as "the third capitalist party) the demand was made for the
confiscation of "all personal incomes over £5,000 a year",
confiscation
of all fortunes over £1,000 at death, and repudiation of the
National
Debt, In those days Communist Party propaganda scorned
'Fabian
gradualism'; but their election programme in 1970 had as one of its
'principal proposals' an annual wealth tax "on all fortunes over
£20,000" to be at an average of three per cent". What could be
more
gradual than that?
But the shift of the Communist Party over to
ordinary reformist parliamentary action created a vacuum which has been
filled by a medley of organisations, claiming to be 'further left', and
in practice adopting policies like those of the Communist Party half a
century ago, including what the Party had taken over from the I.L.P.
They include so-called communists who support State capitalist China
aaainst State capitalist Russia — or the other way round — and several
brands of Trotskyists'.
So now the 'further left' organisations
use against the Communist Party the fallacious arguments formerly used
by that Party. For example, the Socialist Worker (published by I.S.,
now called Socialist Workers Party), in its issue of 27 July 1973,
denounced the Communist Party's "parliamentary road to Socialism". This
was on the ground that the working class cannot take control of
Parliament through elections; that Parliament does not control the
State machine, and that the State machine cannot be used to change the
rest of society completely. That the Communist Party road is not one to
Socialism is true enough; but criticism of the Communist Party has no
bearing on the case for a socialist working class gaining control of
Parliament. An astonishing statement by the S.W.P. in criticism of the
Communist Party is that the working class would be out-voted by "the
middle class and ruling class". As the working class constitute ninety
per cent of the electorate (see section "What is Capitalism") they
obviously do not understand who the working class are. And an article
by Paul Foot, editor of the Socialist Worker (The Times, 14 August
1975) maintained that, as the Wilson Government had failed to do
anything for Socialism, this proved that Parliament could not be used
by Socialists — ignoring the fact that the Labour Government did not
have and did not seek a mandate for Socialism from the electorate, and
represents a Party which stands for the perpetuation of capitalism.
The
'Left-wing' organisations generally claim to be Marxist; but they
interpret this to mean either the anti-Marxist policy of Lenin based on
Louis Blanqui's doctrine of minority armed seizure of power followed by
dictatorship, or the equally anti-Marxist doctrine which holds that the
workers can revolutionise society without needing to control the State
power. In the field of economics the 'Left-wing' organisations mostly
reject Marx's analysis of capitalism in favour of the myth of the
Keynesians: that capitalism can be operated without unemployment
through "managed expansion of demand" — that is, through inflation.
Those
who accept Keynesian doctrines cannot accept the Marxist explanation of
inflation. The Communist Party of Great Britain in its October 1974
Election Programme attributed inflation to a variety of causes,
including V.A.T., membership of the E.E.C. and armaments expenditure,
with no mention of Marxist theory.
International Socialism
(March 1974) gave as explanation "The present inflation is similar in
many ways to the upsurge in prices, wages and interest rates which
occurred at the height of the classical boom". The boom was by then
already over and the depression had begun. In the depression prices
rose faster than ever. On their theory prices ought to have been
falling.
The other journal of the same organisation (Socialist
Worker, 4 August 1973) gave a different explanation which supported the
idea that wage increases "must have some effect on prices". "Of course
they do. Quite simply, business raises its prices when increases in
costs threaten its profit margins".
But whereas the C.P.G.B.
ignored Marx, the Socialist Worker repudiated the Marxist explanation,
under the impression that it is something invented by Mr. Enoch Powell.
"But
Enoch Powell says it is all the fault of the government printing too
much money. This is an illusion even shared by some on the left".
Statements
of socialist principles and the Marxist conception of the classless
socialist system of society to replace capitalism never appear in the
propaganda of the 'Left-wing' organisations.
One crucial test
for the 'Left-wing' organisations concerns their willingness to create
confusion by urging the workers to support capitalism administered by
Laboor government. At the February 1974 Genera Election the following
organisations all told the workers to vote for Labour candidates.
Communist Party of Great Britam
International Marxist Group
International Socialists (now Socialists Workers Party)
Workers Fight
Workers Revolutionary Party
The Tory Mr. Enoch Powell was also telling the electorate to vote
Labour!
The
tactic of supporting one administration of capitalism against another
on the ground that, on particular issues or in general, there are fine
shades of difference, is a reactionary survival of the old practice of
voting Liberal against Tory or Tory against Liberal. (During the second
world war it led the Communist Party to support Tory candidates.)
Even
if it achieved small temporary gains this would count for nothing
against the harm done by encouraging the workers to believe that their
interest can be served by placing in power the enemies of Socialism. On
this ground alone, apart from the rest of the case against them, the
so-called 'Left-wing' organisations have no claim to working class
support.
|
 |
|
