Labour Party: Milk-and-water Reformism

If, after this year’s Labour Party conference, Peter Sellers makes another “political party” recording, it should be a sell out.

The Labour Party may not have a monopoly of the art of talking a lot and saying nothing, but this is not for want of trying. When it comes to dodging the real issue and substituting platitudes, they hold their own with the best. Feeling confident that the Tories have at last discredited themselves enough to bring the plums of office within their grasp, the Labour Party find it difficult to conceal their jubilation. They are not in the mood at the moment to reflect that they were discredited and kicked out after only six years.

As always with those who set themselves the task of running capitalism, jubilation is inevitably followed by disillusionment. The capitalist class should be pleased that the Labour Party is there in readiness to devote itself so diligently to running the system and defending their interests.

After a prolonged silence on the subject, Wilson has dragged out the word Socialism again—the word, but as usual, not the contents. He says, “we are redefining and we are restating our Socialism in terms of the scientific revolution.” The supremely relevant question of ownership is conveniently dodged. That he envisages a future, where the life of mankind is moulded to the dictates of new monster machines is made abundantly clear. It is also quite clear that class divided society will remain, for he goes on “the Britain that is going to be forged in the white heat of this revolution will be no place for restrictive practices or for outdated methods on either side of industry.” The two sides of industry, the exploiters and the exploited, must not try to restrict each other—a sort of light-hearted co-existence is to exist between the robbers and the robbed.

Wilson thinks that the pace and intensity of the capitalist rat-race will greatly increase. But he is determined that Britain shall not only survive but expand ; the nationalist minded politicians of Germany, America, Italy, Japan, Russia, etc., are bent on the same thing. This is capitalism.

What Wilson either has not yet learnt, or keeps quiet about, is that rivalry for markets and resources is the commercial war which leads to military wars. To talk of Socialism in this context is ludicrous. As the only purpose the Labour Party has is to forge ahead technologically, to build trade and win markets, the pursuit of profits must remain the dominant consideration. All their talk of change comes to nothing. While the monetary system lasts there will continue to be rich and poor. Not that money of itself causes riches and poverty, but money is an appendage to the class ownership of the means of production. It therefore accumulates mostly in the pockets of the owning class. This is just as true if the ownership takes the form of government bonds and is directed by the state.

Wilson contradicts himself on the question of state planning for he argues, “The danger, as things are, is that an unregulated private enterprise economy in this country will promote just enough automation to create serious unemployment, but not enough to create a break through in the production barrier.” He then goes on to illustrate that private enterprise America is already far advanced with automation. Is he trying to tell us that a small amount of automation will create lots of unemployment, but a lot of automation will create less? He quite bluntly lays it down that ” allowing for the fact that the automative revolution here will be later and slower, we have to be ready to create ” 10,000,000 new jobs in Britain by, say, the mid-1970’s.” In America the figure is calculated to be 40,000,000 new jobs. Clearly this is a world-wide prospect because as Wilson knows, Germany, France, Japan, Italy, etc. will be doing the same things with the same object in view—to corner as much of the world market as possible.

Wilson and his followers, however, are nothing if not versatile. It is not just automation and unemployment for which they .have no answer, they have none for any other problem either. Take war. To quote Wilson again:

“Advanced capitalist countries are maintaining full employment to-day only by virtue tof vast arms Borders, and panic would be the order of the day in Wall-street and other stock markets the day peace breaks out.!

Here, indeed, is something the labour leader should know all about, since it was the Labour Government which introduced rearmament in this country after the war. But now he proposes to establish a Ministry of Disarmament to help in undoing the work of the earlier Labour government of 1945 to 51, which the Tories have simply taken over and expanded. What is most tragic of all is that the cheering mass of labourites were blissfully unaware of what a massive indictment of capitalism all this sordid business is.

Although the word revolution was bandied about at the conference, there was no sign that the delegates know what it means. Typical of their muddled thinking are their arguments on education. Wilson says, with a brave flourish, “as Socialists we oppose this system of educational apartheid, because we believe in equality of opportunity.” He did not say why this system (that is the 11-plus) was carried on for six years by the Labour government if they were opposed to it. A resolution urging the next Labour government to abolish fee-paying schools was overwhelmingly defeated. One speaker for the National Executive did advocate the integration of fee-paying schools into the State system and a resolution to this effect was carried. Nobody explained how this shabby reformism would bring about equality of opportunity.

Whether fee-paying is done privately or through the State, it is obvious that those children whose parents can afford it will pay and those who cannot will have to rub along as best they can. Education under capitalism is bound to reflect the needs of the system. The working class are trained to work and the capitalist class taught to rule. As work becomes more and more scientific and technical, the wage-slaves have to be brought up to scratch to meet the demands of their masters’ system. The Labour Party in this, as in everything else, simply respond to the current needs of capitalism, and shape their policies accordingly.

Typical of the milk-and-water reformism of the Labour Party were the statements made on the so-called Health Service. The Health Service was heralded in 1948 as a panacea, a free health system that would wipe out the old inequalities. Here we are, nearly 20 years later, with chairman Anthony Greenwood wanting to reduce the number of private beds in hospitals. He daringly suggested that Labour would “Allow Health Service patients to use pay beds when they were not being used” and “ensure that patients who wanted to use pay beds, should pay the full cost.” Some years ago American politicians were talking of second-class citizens in third-class houses. Now the Labour Party are thinking of putting second-class citizens in first-class beds. They are even prepared, so they say, to build new hospitals in which small rooms would be more readily available for Health Service patients. This is one way of keeping the rich and poor apart, but like the rest of the Labour Party schemes, it will never remove the distinction between them.

Without wishing to predict the outcome of the next election, it does seem that the working class, having been hoodwinked by the Tories for thirteen years, may be set to let the Labour Party kid them, in their turn. This would be a distinction without a difference. One thing we will predict is that it will be ” business as usual” for capitalism, with the Labour Party, if they get in, cracking the whip. They may think they have the plans, but the slumps and wars, the riches and poverty of capitalism are quite impervious to such pettifogging scheming. Capitalism will still be here when the next Labour government have gone the way of the last four.
H. B.