The workers, the producers of wealth, are poor because they are robbed; they are
robbed because they may not use the machinery of wealth production except on terms
dictated by the owners, the propertied class. The remedy for working class poverty
and other social ills is the transfer of ownership of these means of production from the
Capitalist Class to society. That, in a few words, is the case for Socialism.
The work of rebuilding society on this new basis cannot be started until power is in
the hands of a Socialist working class, and that cannot be until many millions have
been convinced of the need for change and are broadly agreed on the way to set to
work to bring it about.
It is just here that the Socialist meets with an objection which is in appearance
reasonable enough. Many who would accept the foregoing remarks can go with us no
further.
Is it not better, they say, in view of the certainty that Socialism cannot be
introduced at once, to devote much, if not all, our energy to making the best of
Capitalism, and getting "something now"? By "something now" they mean higher
wages, increased State protection against destitution through illness or unemployment,
and other like proposals.
It may then come as a surprise to them that we also believe
in getting something now. We differ in that we are not willing to subordinate Socialist
propaganda to the demand for reforms of Capitalism, and in that we strongly hold that
the best way to get these things is by the revolutionary activity of an organisation of
revolutionaries. In other words, the quickest and easiest method of getting reforms
from the ruling class is to let them see that it will endanger their position to refuse.
While we recognise that Socialism is the only permanent solution, we are not
among those who consider that the Capitalists are simply unable to afford better
conditions for the workers. A comparison between the total income from property,
and the petty cost of doles and relief, shows the falsity of that somewhat common
notion.
On the one hand the workers would, if they ceased to struggle, soon find that
there is still room for a worsening of their conditions, and on the other hand were they
free from the mental blindness which prevents them from striking a blow when and
where it would be most damaging, they might, even within Capitalism, raise their
standard of living and diminish their insecurity. Unfortunately they do not yet see the
brutal facts of the class struggle, and too often allow themselves to be paralysed in
action by their belief in the supposed community of interest between them and their
exploiters, by their response to every deceitful appeal in the name of patriotism, and
by their lack of confidence in their own powers and intelligence.They will put up a
straight fight against their employers, but they have not yet seen through the more
subtle hostility of the newspapers, the politicians, and all the other defenders of the
employing class who pose as neutrals because it makes their influence more deadly.
The employers and their hired defenders know well enough that your gain is often
their loss, and they therefore have good reason to persuade you not to seize the
opportunities that offer of raising your wages or reducing your hours. But many who
talk about the beauties of an "advanced programme of social reforms" seem not to
have realised that if such things are to be of any worth to you necessitate at first the
dipping into the profits of the other class. Various well-meaning persons may preach
arbitration and conciliation, but you know well enough that sweet words do not, as a
rule, charm employers into giving higher wages. They will not give up any part of
what they hold except under pressure one kind of pressure is fear; the fear that refusal
to spend part of their on reforms will encourage revolutionary agitation for the seizure
of the whole. There is supposed to be another way of getting "something now." It is to
assist into office a non-revolutionary party like the Labour Party.
It is pleaded at the moment on that Party's behalf that it is "in office but not in
power," and that its weaknesses arise from that one fact due to causes beyond its
control. Within limits this is true, but why in such circumstances was office accepted?
It can hardly be questioned that an official opposition, 192 strong, bent on hampering
the Government could have influenced legislation not less than when actually in
office. In fact, however, the Labour Party was not free to choose. It dared not refuse
office; it dare not while in office attack the roots of Capitalist privilege, and had it
continued in opposition to Baldwin's Government it would not have dared to obstruct
as a means of compelling the granting of concessions. The reasons for its impotence
in each of these situations are the same. Its programme and policy, its supporters, the
basis of its organisation, and the ground upon which it chose to fight elections all
combined to commit it to the administering of Capitalism as distinct from treating the
present opportunity merely as a prelude to the fight for Socialism.
From the circumstance that the bulk of the members of the Labour Party do not
accept Socialism as a present political issue, but at best only as a hope for the future, it
would be plainly suicidal for them to talk of throwing down a challenge to the
Capitalist Class. The only alternative is to do as the Labour Party are trying to do.
They are trying to run the Capitalist system better than the older parties have done.
We can we can readily concede that as administrators the Labour men will prove
themselves no less intelligent and capable than their predecessors, and probably more
receptive of new ideas and methods than the men who made and mismanaged the war.
But the essence of our opposition to this policy is that except in quite minor
respects there is only one way of administering Capitalism—the Capitalist way.
Ultimately it is the economic organisation of society which dictates the broad lines of
policy and breaks those who ignore them. The problems which present themselves for
settlement, such as war, unemployment, poverty, arise from the very nature of the
present social system. They may be dealt with in more than one way, but they cannot
be treated in a manner satisfactory to the workers without first destroying Capitalism.
Support of the unemployed at comparatively trifling cost is, from the Capitalist
viewpoint, a solution of the unemployment problem. Their problem is to avoid the
risk of riot and revolt and their policy succeeds. War is but an extension of ordinary
commercial competition, and poverty is both the effect and the necessary condition of
capitalist wealth and monopoly.
Even where a Labour Government is able to introduce certain alleviations, these
must be paid for in the sacrifice of political independence. The removal of the "Gap"
is the price of consent to plans of the Conservative majority for the Navy and Air
Forces. To argue that these objectionable measures would have been carried through
by the last or any other Capitalist Government misses the point of our criticism.
Capitalism produces certain evils. These evils, have, by their persistence, discredited
three Governments since 1918. A Labour Government which seeks to carry on is
certain not to be able to remove the evils, and under the added embarrassment of
having roused high hopes, will be discredited, too, and the unhappy sequel will be that
those who openly defend the present system will with some show of reason instance
the failure of the Labour Party as proof that there is no solution, and many of the
Labour men will drift or be forced into offering the same defence themselves.
It is to the general situation and not to the weakness or cowardice of individuals
that we must look for an explanation of the actions of the Labour Government, many
of which have already given obvious displeasure to their more advanced supporters.
Their term began with a strike of locomotive men, who, despite their solidarity,
were compelled to accept wage reductions. So far from intervening to obtain
"something now" for the strikers, Mr. MacDonald appointed as Colonial Secretary
Mr. J. H. Thomas, who quite openly condemned them and hoped and intrigued for
their defeat.
The miners, too, are putting forward a demand that their wages be raised to the
1914 standard, but the Editor of the Labour Magazine (January, 1924), an official
Labour Party organ, can offer them no better assistance than an appeal in the
following terms:—"We are sure that the miners will not embarrass the first Labour
Government by pressing untimely demands . . ."
It would appear at least reasonable for the miners to receive slightly more than a
starvation wage before the non-producers who own the mines should be allowed to
draw their millions of pounds of profits. Even if the Labour Party, like MacDonald,
are definitely committed to retaining the profit-making system, it cannot be doubted
that they would, if they conveniently could, raise the miners wages; but because they
are "administering capitalism" such a demand is of necessity an "untimely" one. What
the miners get, even if it be given legislative endorsement, will be the result of their
own organisation and action.
When the Dockers came out on strike for increases which were generally admitted
even by some of the Dock employers to be long overdue, the Government had mails
unloaded by Naval ratings and had made all preparations for unloading foodstuffs,
etc., had the strike continued. This does not necessarily imply on their part a positive
wish to break the strike. What it does mean is that this is one of the duties inevitably
forced upon those, whatever their beliefs, who would undertake to administer
Capitalism.
The strike had to be ended or countered. If the Labour Government had refused to
act it would have forfeited the right to govern. Through Mr. Shaw, therefore, pressure
was brought to bear on the Dockers' representatives to accept certain terms which
were actually slightly worse than those finally granted by the employers.
"It was stated yesterday that the settlement terms follow the 'private suggestion' made
by the Minister of Labour last week, with the exception that July instead of June was
first proposed for the operation of the second shilling increase." (Daily News, 22
February, 1924.)
As for the nature of the "private suggestion" referred to, the Worker (March 1st)
quotes as follows from Mr. Bevin's speech to the delegates:—
"The Government is responsible for the moving of the mails. They have refrained from
using soldiers, naval ratings, blacklegs or force of any kind. But they are being driven
up against it, and soon will have to take the choice of exercising their powers or
going out of office. That was the choice, and there is no need to beat about the bush.
We discussed the position with the Government . . . I want you to see the influence on
our judgment in the course of the developments that have gone on."
With regard to the unemployed, Mr. MacDonald, in his opening speech on policy
in the House of Commons, made it quite plain that he is not going to assist them at the
expense of the propertied class.
"We are not going to diminish industrial capital in order to provide relief." (Daily
Herald, 13 February.). This was received with "renewed cheers."
That attitude is explained by an interview MacDonald gave to an unemployed
deputation in Edinburgh, at which he is reported as saying,
"The possibility of financial panic was also a factor to be taken into account . . . For
the immediate future good administration was requisite to win the confidence of the
financial groups and ensure stability." (Worker, 9 February.)
It is evident that to gain and keep the "confidence of the financial groups" rules out
all measures aimed at depriving the Capitalist Class of any part of what they hold,
except on terms pleasing to them.
Dr. Salter, in the New Leader, lays down a general principle on the wage question:
"It is quite certain that under present world circumstances and in view of the
competition in outside markets, no new and higher rates of wages in any industry or
in any locality should be imposed by law without careful preliminary expert
investigation." (7 March, 1924.)
It would doubtless be "untimely" and "embarrassing" to suggest careful enquiry
into the need for supporting an idle class of property owners out of the product of
industry.
But the question of armaments has shown up in its most glaring aspect the
weakness of the Labour Government, its complete dependence on those who pull the
strings, and the truth of the Socialist contention that those who accept office on such
terms can be no more than caretakers of the Capitalist system. In the first place it was
no accident that anti-working class imperialists like Lord Chelmsford and Brigadier-
General Thompson should have gone to the Admiralty and the Air Ministry
respectively. Labour members may be allowed to prattle about the Sermon on the
Mount, provided they keep the fighting forces up to the level require by the
international situation. Thus we have Mr. "Pacifist" Ammon at the Admiralty
announcing the intention of laying down five new cruisers and two destroyers, and
MacDonald actually defending it as a means of providing employment. Of the whole
batch of Labour men only one, the Rev. H. Dunnico, voted against the Government;
161 voted with them, and the rest abstained. Some of the latter will perhaps follow
Dunnico on the next occasion. The internal anarchy of the I.L.P. is well illustrated by
their inability to control the M.Ps. A message of congratulation to Dunnico was
passed unanimously by the 55 delegates attending the half-yearly conference of the
Northern Counties Divisional Council of the I.L.P. It conveyed to him "Heartiest
congratulations on being the only M.P. who stood loyally to the principles which our
party hold."—(Daily News, February 27th). It was left to Liberals like Kenworthy to
protest.
The Government which will not "diminish industrial capital in order to provide
relief" for the unemployed has also agreed to "a big scheme of Air Defence,"
involving an additional expenditure of £2,500,000 for 1924-25, and with the promise
that "the total of air Estimates may be expected to rise for some years."—(Lord
Thompson, Daily Herald, March 8th.)
The Herald uses the word "Defence" on its front page, yet in its editorial of the
same day it endorses MacDonald's view, supported by numerous "experts", that no
aircraft building can really provide any security whatever against hostile raids.
Much has been made by Labour Party apologists (e.g., New Leader, March 14th)
of the fact that the gross expenditure on the three services is less than last year, but as
Lansbury points out, this is merely due to the changing technique of warfare:
"It is said we are to spend less on armaments as a whole; it is true, because the more
deadly weapons, such as bombs, gas, aeroplanes and submarines, are cheaper and
yet more deadly than the obsolete Dreadnoughts and other costly weapons." (Daily
Herald, 15 March.)
Lansbury's further reply to those who pretend to see something different in the
Labour Party's attitude to armaments is equally forcible.
"But far more important is it to realise that exactly the same kind of speeches as are
being made to-day from the Government benches in defence of armaments, were made
during the years 1906-14 by Sir E. Grey, Lord Haldane, Mr. Winston Churchill, and
Mr. Lloyd George." (Ibid.)
The belief, which is now the bedrock of the Labour Party's policy, that peace can
be ensured by preparing for war, is not new, and it has not exactly been confirmed by
history.
The truth is that competition in disposing of the surplus products of each Capitalist
country in the world's markets, and rivalry in the struggle for possession of raw
materials and trade routes, lead inevitably to war. The Labour Government are now
busy considering schemes for reducing the cost of production in the Empire's staple
export industries. In a capitalist world that means more embittered competition, and a
consequently increased probability of early war with those who feel themselves being
throttled in the commercial struggle. Those who have taken on the administration of
Capitalism must also face the responsibility of preparing for the conflicts that are the
product of Capitalism.
The true cause of modern wars was bluntly exposed by a French General, Marshal
Lyauty, speaking at a Banquet of the National Congress of Councillors of Foreign
Trade at Marseilles in October, 1922.—(Star, October 31st, 1922.)
"French soldiers are fighting in Morocco to acquire territory in which rise rivers
capable of supplying power for electrification schemes which will prove of great
advantage to French trade. When we have acquired the last zone of cultivatable
territory, when we have nothing but mountains in front of us, we shall stop.
"Our object is commercial and economic. The military expedition in Morocco is a
means, not an end. Our object is the extension of foreign trade."
Without foreign markets capitalist industry in Great Britain perishes. Without
protection by dominant armaments those markets are prizes to be had for the asking.
Those Labour men who believe that they can promote capitalist trade without needing
to arm in order to hold what they gain, are living in a fool's paradise. They have to
build cruisers and bombing planes to overawe and if need be to shatter the forces and
cities of whatever States come into conflict with Great Britain.
We Socialists see that wars are unavoidable if the interests of the Capitalist Class
are to be protected, but we are not concerned in protecting them. We recognise that
under Capitalism the workers have nothing to lose in war except their lives and
nothing to gain, and so we urge them not to support Capitalist wars or the preparation
for them.
Our aim as Socialists is the destruction of the Capitalist system of society, and we
are therefore unalterably hostile to all political parties which seek to gain control of
Parliament for any other purpose than the establishment of Socialism. The Labour
Party is such a party; it has gone into office in the custody of the Liberal Party; its so-called
Socialists are puppets dancing on the strings of the industrial and financial
capitalists behind the scenes; its Pacifists are merely decoys who will allay suspicion
while the militarists prepare for war; its wild men are a convenient buffer to receive
the blows of the workers so soon as they tire of waiting for something to be done to
relieve their misery.
As has been well said, the Labour Party has taken over a bankrupt concern; not, however, to wind it up, but to carry it on. As well as the troubles of previous administrations, the present Cabinet is threatened with a
promising crop of revolts. The men of peace grown suddenly stiff-necked and highhanded
in office will surely come into early conflict with those of their late
"comrades" who were too honest to desire or too insignificant to be offered posts in
the Government. The genuine disapproval of the former and the ill-concealed venom
of some of the others are likely to make for turbulence rather than tranquillity. So that
even if our first Labour Government is only a Puppet Show, it should merit the
distinction conceded by one observer, of being the best show in London.
(April 1924)
