Chapter VIII. Compensation or Confiscation?

Most of the modern advocates of nationalisation have explicitly abandoned confiscation after the issue had been hotly debated for some years.

The debate was always unreal because it was conducted on the untenable assumption that socialism can be introduced gradually, step by step, before there is a socialist majority and before political control has been achieved on the issue of ending capitalism and introducing socialism.

This erroneous attitude is well illustrated by a Report published by the I.L.P. in 1925 for submission to the annual conference in that year. The report rejected confiscation and did so, to quote the words of the committee, because the signatories “assume that in this country socialisation will take place gradually, one industry after another being transferred to public ownership and organised as a public service” (p. 3).

Again, the committee urged the expediency of compensation because “Nationalisation by a Socialist majority with an acquiescent majority of Non-Socialists involves the satisfaction of the sense of justice of the ordinary man “ (pp. 5-6). (Our italics).

It will be seen that this I.L.P. committee envisaged a Parliamentary majority of “Socialists”, but a majority in the country of “Non-Socialists”! (How, except by the usual vote-catching fraud, a majority of one outlook could be elected by electors who had an opposite outlook was not explained. It is only fair to state that Mr. J. Maxton and one other member of the committee dissented from the whole of this part of the report.)

On the absurd assumption made by the committee it was of course inevitable that they would conclude that confiscation of one industry after another would “be unjust as between owners of different kinds of capital, lead to serious economic disturbance, and greatly strengthen opposition to Socialism, and prevent us from carrying out our policy as rapidly as we would otherwise be able to do.”

Page 35