Editorial: A Socialist Minority in Parliament
The position of a Socialist minority in Parliament and on local councils
Mr. R. Jessop (Spalding) asks a question which has often been answered in these columns, but which is obviously of continuing interest and merits repetition.
“What are the tactics of Socialist Members of Parliament in a minority position to be? Supposing the Government should introduce a Bill to increase Old Age Pensions, introduce wages boards, or any measure that would be of benefit to some section of the workers. Would the Socialists oppose such measures on the general grounds that they only deal with the effects of capitalism, or would they support them as giving the workers some small benefit whilst at the same time pointing out that Socialism was the only satisfactory solution to the problem?
The position of a Socialist Town or County Councillor also is not quite clear to me. Whilst capitalism continues, such individuals will be obliged to administer that system on housing committees, gas and water committees, A.R.P. committees, etc. Except that they will be standing by to help in the administration of Socialism, when it is instituted, they will, for the time being so far as I can see, have to do a similar job to any Labour Party member who can see nothing beyond combating the immediate ill-effects of capitalism. Is this your view?”
Regarding Parliament, the answer, in brief, is that a minority of Socialist M.P.s would vote for or against measures introduced by other parties, or refrain from voting, in accordance with the Socialist Party’s view as to which course would be in the interest of the working class and Socialism. To use our correspondent’s own words, they would vote for certain measures “as giving the workers some small benefit, whilst at the same time pointing out that Socialism was the only satisfactory solution to the problem.”
A minority of Socialist M.P.s would obviously not vote against a measure which simply raised old-age pensions, or raised wages, or helped trade union organisation, or made it easier to carry on Socialist propaganda or organisation.
It would, however, be of the greatest importance that a Socialist minority should retain its complete independence and not enter into pacts or bargains with other parties or groups. Its position would be quite different from that of the Labour Party minority, which is elected on a non-Socialist programme by electors who are reformists, not Socialists, and which does enter into arrangements with other Parliamentary parties.
The position is much the same on local Councils, but it is not that stated by our correspondent, who takes it for granted that the minority of Town Councillors must take part in and share responsibility for the administration of local affairs. Although Labour minorities habitually sit on the sub-committees of the Council there is no need for them to do so. A Socialist minority of Councillors would use their position on the Council to put forward the Socialist view, but would make it clear that the majority in control were responsible for Council decisions and for the carrying out of the work of the Council on sub-committees and in the various departments of the local authority services.
The local authorities in Great Britain only have the powers devolved upon them by Parliament and the central Government. They cannot act on their own responsibility, outside the limits set for them. The Council majority are, in effect, only the agents of the central Government, and when a Council refuses to carry out the central Government’s wishes steps are taken, as at Poplar some years ago, to have local services carried on irrespective of the wishes of local electors and their representatives on the Council. A Socialist minority (or even a Socialist majority) on a local Council would be governed as to what they could do by Parliament and the central Government and the electors who voted Socialist would very well realise this and not expect their Socialist delegates on the Council to do the impossible.
ED. COMM.
Mr. G. E. J. Hill (Cheddar) asks the following questions:—
(1) Do you intend to send your own candidates, if possible, to Parliament ?
Answer
Yes. A start is being made in East Ham North, where our candidate is in the field. The increase in the number of candidates and the return of Socialist candidates to Parliament depends, of course, on the growth in the number of Socialists among the electorate.
(2) Is there any present Parliamentary party you support?
Answer
No. There are no Members of Parliament who were returned as Socialists, simply on the programme of instituting Socialism. The. Labour M.P.s and the handful of Communist and I.L.P. M.P.s were all returned on a reformist programme, by electors who still believe in the policy of trying to reform capitalism instead of abolishing it.
(3) Could not the S.P.G.B. enter the Labour Party and endeavour to lead it towards a genuine Socialist policy? .
Answer
The S.P.G.B. is endeavouring to persuade the members of the Labour Party and also the much larger number of workers who are outside that party to adopt the Socialist policy instead of the reformist one. It is a difficult task. Many thousands of workers who know what the S.P.G.B. stands for reject it and choose Labour Party reformism instead. Some day they will learn better and choose Socialism, but already the choice is clear to them. If the S.P.G.B. entered the Labour Party (assuming, which is most unlikely, that the Labour Party would let us) the clear choice would disappear. The S.P.G.B., instead of standing plainly for Socialism, would be associated with reformism and would have to devote the greater part of its energies to explaining that it was in the Labour Party under false pretences and that it did not really accept the Labour programme and policy, although in order to receive affiliation it had to pretend that it did.
This would not keep the Socialist issue clear nor would it speed up the progress of Socialism.
ED. COMM.