The Communists and the Labour Party. How Moscow Helped MacDonald
Young workers attracted to the Communist Party by its denunciation of the recent Labour Government and of the Labour leaders in the National Government, are often unaware that the Communist Party for years supported the Labour Party and urged the workers to place power in their hands. The Communists now wish many of their past activities forgotten. They do not want the workers to remember that the Communist Party willingly associated with the MacDonalds and Hendersons in the anti-working-class policy of preaching that the way to Socialism was through “Labour” Governments and capitalist reforms. But it is important that these activities should not be forgotten, nor their lessons overlooked. The hold that MacDonald and Henderson, Thomas and Clynes, and the other Labour Party defenders of capitalism have over the minds ot the workers has been strengthened by the work of the Communist Party and the Communist International in the past ten years. Below is a brief record which will show that this serious charge against the Communists is founded on indisputable evidence taken from their own official publications.
1921—OPPOSITION TO THE LABOUR PARTY
In March, 1921, the Communists opposed Mr. J. R. MacDonald, then standing as Labour candidate at Woolwich East in a by-election, and in August of the same year they ran a candidate, Mr. R. Stewart, against the Labour candidate, Mr. Morgan Jones, at Caerphilly, Glamorgan. On both occasions the Communists denounced the Labour candidates and the Labour Party in the most downright manner. Mr. R. Stewart made the accusation that leading members of the Labour Party were “responsible for the . . defeat of the miners” in the lock-out which occurred that year. He justified the Communist Party’s opposition to the Labour Party in quite simple and straightforward terms. In an article in the Communist (August 20th, 1921) he wrote :—
“But, it may be asked, why do the Communists oppose the Labour Party at Parliamentary elections? We oppose the Labour Party for the simple reason that it is not a Labour Party at all.” (Italics his.)
He faced up honestly to the charge of “splitting the vote,” and gave a direct answer :—
“The answer to all that is that the Communist Party is splitting not the “Labour Vote”—whatever that may mean !—but the voters in two important divisions—those who understand the need for the overthrow of capitalism and those who do not. We leave these latter to the Labour Party.” (Ibid.)
1922—TRYING TO JOIN THE “LABOUR” CIRCUS
In 1922 the Communists completely reversed their policy. They were applying for affiliation with the Labour Party. The Executive Committee of the Labour Party asked whether the Communist Party “proposes and intends to become a loyal constituent of the Labour Party, conforming at all points with its constitution and working for the promotion of its objects.”
The answer given by the Chairman of the Communist Party on their behalf contained the following :—
“The answer to this question is that the Communist Party in the event of affiliation intends to conform to the constitution of the Labour Party, without prejudice to its right of criticism on policy or tactics in common with all affilialied bodies.” (Communist, June 10th, 1922.)
In other words, they were now seeking to join a party which they declared was “not a Labour Party at all.” The application was rejected.
There was a General Election in November, 1922. The Communist Election Manifesto (Communist, October 28th, 1922) urged the workers to give “conditional” support to Labour Party candidates; that is to say, support only if they pledged themselves against any alliance or understanding with any “Capitalist Party,” and if they pledged themselves to vote against all war credits, etc.
In practice this demanding of pledges was disregarded, and the Communists voted for even the most reactionary of the Labour Parly candidates. Thus at Gorton the Communists put forward Mr. Harry Pollitt as Communist candidate in opposition to Mr. John Hodge. Then they withdrew him and asked Mr. Hodge for “pledges.” Mr. Hodge did not pledge himself to vote against war credits, and even on unemployment he declined to satisfy his Communist questioners. The Communist Daily (November 13th, 1922) said : “It is not clear from the Labour candidate’s reply whether he agrees this point in the Communist Party’s prgramme or not.” Nevertheless Polhtt withdrew his candidature and supported Mr. John Hodge.
Mr. R. Palme Dutt, a prominent Communist, writing on the Labour Party’s election address, said :—
“There is not a single working-class issue in this international policy of the Labour Party Executive.”
With regard to that part of the Labour Party Manifesto dealing with home affairs Mr. Dutt said :—
“Their programme is a programme of Reconstruction, but it is the Reconstruction of Capitalism.” (Communist, November 4th, 1922.)
Among the Labour Party candidates, whom the Communists supported at the 1922 General Election, were Mr. Morgan Jones at Caerphilly and Mr. MacDonald at Aberavon.
1923—HELPING “RAMSAY MAC.”
At the 1923 General Election all pretence about “conditional support” was dropped. Now the Communists were not only willing -supporters, but were almost lyrical in their enthusiasm for the leaders of the party which they said “is not a Labour Party at all.”
MacDonald they had formerly described as a “lackey of the Bourgeoisie” ; now they felt so friendly that the Workers’ Weekly (December 7th, 1923) affectionately called him “Ramsay Mac.” Their local branch secretary reported on their activities :—
“We Communists here are doing our best to help Ramsay MacDonald to beat the capitalist candidate.”
The Workers’ Weekly described the election campaign as follows :—
“ …. local organisations of the Communist Party are working for Ramsay MacDonald in Aberavon, Bromley in Barrow, Ernest Hunter of the I.L.P. in Hackney, J. R. Clynes in Manchester, and in hundreds of other constituencies.” (Workers Weekly, December 7th, 1923.)
In Barrow they were helping J. Bromley, the Labour Candidate. Their Secretary wrote :—
“All our illusions and theoretical deductions have been hung out on the clothes line to dry.”
The Workers’ Weekly article continued :—
“Working-class unity is being forged in the fight. The Labour Party has officially endorsed as its candidates both Comrade Paul in Rusholme and Comrade Vaughan in Bethnal Green. There are now four Communist candidates officially supported by the National Labour Party. . . .”
Mr. W. Paul’s trump card at the election was a letter from Mr. MacDonald assuring the workers that Mr. Paul was a fit and proper person to be a Labour M.P. !
So the “revolutionary” Communists were united with a party which “is not a Labour Party at all” just for the sake of trying to get four candidates into Parliament.
1924—RELYING ON MAXTON
After the 1923 General Election the Labour Party entered office for the first time as the Government. (They had, of course, been in the war-time Liberal-Labour-Conservative Coalition). Promptly the Communist Party issued a “Call to All Workers” (February, 1924), in which they complained because the Labour Government did not include “tried and trusty fighters like Lansbury and Smillie” ; and Mr. Tom Bell, in the Communist Review (January, 1924), was assuring us that working-class interests were going to be looked after by Wheatley, Maxton, Johnston and Kirkwood !
SUPPORTING THE ENGLISH KERENSKY
Soon afterwards the affection of the Communists for their friend, “Ramsay Mac,” turned again to hatred. Yet, in spite of that, the General Election in October, 1924 (i.e., after the Labour Government), found the Communist Party again supporting all the Labour Party candidates.
The Workers’ Weekly (October 17th, 1924) said :—
“The Communist Party declares that the task of ihe moment is return a Labour majority in the present election, in reply to the challenge of the capitalist class.”
They did this in spite of their own admission that the 1924 Labour Government—
“have behaved just like Kerensky in 1917. Instead of using their position to help the workers, they used it to help the capitalists.” (Workers’ Weekly, November 7th, 1924.)
Among the candidates they supported were their old friends, Mr. MacDonald at Aberavon and Mr. Morgan Jones at Caerphilly !
1926—HELPING THE BETRAYERS OF THE GENERAL STRIKE
In 1926 occurred the General Strike, It was claimed by the Communists that that strike failed simply because of the failure of and betrayal by the Labour leaders. (See Labour Monthly, July, 1926.)
Yet, in face of this belief, the Communist Party continued its own betrayal of the interests of the workers by urging them to vote for these same Labour leaders. A Communist Party pamphlet, “Communism is Commonsense,” published in July, 1926, i.e., two months after the failure of the General Strike, contains the following- :—
“. . . Communists urge the workers to support Communist and Labour candidates, even if the latter are Right Wingers, in the hope that they may reflect at any rate to some extent the needs of the masses, and that they will, when the present Labour leaders have got sufficient support in Parliament, form another Labour Government and by its futility prove the uselessness of relying on Parliamentary reform for the achievement of Socialism.” (Page 18.) (Italics ours.)
At the Hull By-election in November, 1926, the Communists issued a leaflet telling the workers to vote for Commander Kenworthy, a recent recruit to the Labour Party. An amusing feature of this was that Kenworthy declared that he had not dropped his Liberalism, but was joining the Labour Party because that Party had taken over the mantle of Liberalism.
1928—COMMUNISTS STILL SUPPORT MACDONALD
In February, 1928 (see Communist Review of that date), the Communist Party published a thesis giving its reasons for continuing to support the Labour Party. In the course of the article we are told :—
“Even in the case of MacDonald, Thomas, Henderson and Co., the party cannot (1) advise the workers to vote Liberal or Tory, (2) advise mere abstention, (3) put up a candidate who would let in the Liberal or Tory.”
It will be noticed that the Communists had now deserted their 1921 attitude of defying the charge of splitting the Labour vote.
Finding it hard to fight for their own programme, they had given up the fight. In 1921 they were optimistic and thought that they would receive the support of great numbers of workers. As soon as they found that the number of workers prepared to support them was very small, too small to give them Trade Union and Parliamentary positions, the Communist would-be leaders turned over to the policy of supporting Labour Party candidates so that they themselves could get the votes of workers still intent on voting for capitalism. The Communists were no longer of Mr. Stewart’s early opinion that it was desirable to “leave these latter to the Labour Party.”
MOSCOW GIVES ITS ORDERS
But at this point Moscow stepped in and ordered the British Party to reverse its policy. They were instructed to run candidates in opposition to some of Labour Party candidates, but to support others. (See Workers’ Weekly, February 24th, 1928.)
In the 1929 General Election the Commmunists ran 25 candidates of their own—all of them unsuccessful. By opposing Mr. Morgan Jones at Caerphilly and Mr. MacDonald at Seaham, Durham, the Communists had, after a long and costly detour, “progressed” almost back to their attitude of 1921. But whereas 1921 their candidate at Caerphilly polled 2,592, in 1929 the Communist polled only 809. Counting only the election expenditure officially returnable, and including the lost deposits, the Communists threw away over £9,000 at that election.
1929—STILL PREPARED TO SUPPORT LABOUR PARTY CANDIDATES
Their attitude in 1929 was still not one of straight opposition to the party “which is not a Labour Party at all,” for they were prepared again to stage that piece of deception which they called asking Labour candidates for “pledges.”
In a statement issued to the Press on April 13th, 1929, by the Political Bureau of the Communist Party, this crooked policy was explained :—
“A Labour Government at the present day would be a Government of capitalist rationalisation, only differing from the Tory and Liberal Parties as to the best methods whereby rationalisation could be brought about at the expense of the workers.
It is, therefore, no longer possible for Communist Party to advise the workers to give unconditional support to Labour candidates, even in constituencies not being contested by the Communists.
The Communist Party is advising workers only to vote for such Labour candidates as are prepared to accept a policy of minimum working class demands, involving the repudiation of Mondism, of imperialism, and of the policy of trade union disruption now being actively operated in the trade union movement.
Unless these demands are accepted the Commmunist Party will advise the workers to refrain from voting,” (See Sunday Worker, April 14th, 1929.)
Yet thev admitted in their 1929 election pamphlet, “Class against Class,” that :he Labour Party “is the third capitalist party. It … has nothing to do with Socialism” (page 8).
EXPLAINING AWAY THE PAST
They also tried to explain away their “changed attitude to the Labour Party.” “Class against Class” contains this tortuous explanation :—
“Prior to the formation of the Labour Government in 1924, the Communist Party, although the leaders of the Labour Party were as treacherous then as now, advised the working class to push the Labour Party into power whilst sharply criticising and exposing the leaders of the Labour Party. To-day this policy is no longer possible for the following reasons.
The situation of 1929 is entirely different from that of the years prior to the General Strike and the Labour Government of 1924. In the years immediately after the war the Labour Party . . . was a federation of trade unions and parties offering facilities for criticism from within and a means of struggle for our Party to battle against the middle-class leadership and to strengthen the working class forces within it.
The Labour Government exposed the Labour Party leadership completely. It proved the Communist Party criticism to be correct. The “Minority” Labour Government was nothing more than a coalition with the Tories and Liberals. The Labour leaders “led” the General Strike only to betray it in the face of the challenge of the State.” (p. 9.)
But, by going back over the statements and actions of the Communists during the past ten years, we can see how utterly dishonest this so-called “explanation” is.
The Communists, it will be noticed, justify their support of the Labour Party up to 1924 on the ground that “immediately after the war” the Labour Party was different. Yet, as we have seen above, they opposed it in 1921 for precisely the same reason as that which they give now. When Mr. Stewart declared in 1921 that it was “not a Labour Party at all,” he was speaking truly.
They claim that the situation was different after the 1924 Labour Government. But, as we have also shown, they continued to support the Labour Party after the 1924 Labour Government. And was not the war-time Coalition alone a sufficient reason for opposing the Labour Party before 1924 ?
They claim, too, that the General Strike altered the situation and that the Strike was betrayed by the Labour leaders. Yet we have seen that after the General Strike they were still supporting these Labour leaders, “even if the latter are Right Wingers,” including a professing Liberal like Commander Kenworthy. And they would have continued to support all the Labour leaders, “even in the case of MacDonald, Thomas, Henderson and Co.,” if Moscow had not ordered otherwise.
This is the record of political tricksters who claim in “Class against Class” that “No Party can serve the robbers and the robbed at the same time,” and that the Communist Party is “the only Party of the workers.” They have known all the corrupt arts of the political job-hunters except one ; they have not known how to capture the glittering prizes. They should learn that some show of consistency and sincerity is required even in the most opportunist politician if he is to be successful.
H.