From the June 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard
The recent furore in the press and within the Labour Party
itself over whether the Party will admit to its ranks “Marxists” has been the
cause of much debate concerning the origins of Labourism. Tony Benn, a member
of the Government, defended the notion that Marxism has had a strong influence
in developing the Labour Party. Benn’s claim is spurious and unfounded: the
rejection of Marxism, and hence revolution, fated Labour to follow a reformist
path leading to the inevitable disillusionment of its members.
Most of Labour’s early leaders if asked what books were
seminal in shaping their views of society would probably mention John Bunyan’s
Pilgrim’s Progress, Henry George’s Progress and Poverty, the Bible. If Capital
was mentioned at all it would come a long way down the list. In fact, it has
been claimed that the Labour Party owes more to the writings of the founder of
Methodism, John Wesley, than to the founder of scientific Socialism, Karl Marx.
Keir Hardie, founder of the Independent Labour Party, said: “I claim for
Socialism that it is the embodiment of Christianity in our industrial system,”
It was said of Hardie’s meetings that they often began with a hymn, followed by
a lesson, and concluded with a prayer.
The Labour Party’s view of society at its foundation was not
an economic analysis of capitalism. The capitalist system was bad because it
was run by hard-faced politicians who were indifferent to social evils, and not
because of its economic laws which placed the pursuit of profit above all else.
Therefore, the solution to the problems of society lay in removing these men
from; office and replacing them with a more decent set who would, by reforms,
abolish the poor, feed the hungry, etc.
This was a denial of reality. No party, however
well-intentioned, could hope to spirit away the essential basis of capitalism,
whilst at the same time acting as custodian of that very system. The only
option was to change society in a revolutionary way and this was rejected out
of hand by the Labourites. Thus, having no Marxist outlook, it was
understandable that Labour leaders would find working with the avowedly
capitalist Liberals no hardship (it still is the case). Ramsay MacDonald, the
first Labour Prime Minister, said he could see “no profound” gulf between Liberalism
and Socialism. He argued that socialism was to be furthered by the close
collaboration of men of goodwill from all [sic] classes on the basis of
“conceptions of right and wrong” common to all. Keir Hardie’s hatred of class
strife was a direct result of his Christian beliefs and Liberal upbringing.
The Labourites from the beginning shied away from the fact
that the working class’s interests were diametrically opposed to those of the
capitalists. In fact they held firmly to the principles of free-trade
Liberalism. Keir Hardie himself left the Liberal Party not because he found the
policies of Gladstone distasteful, but as a result of the way the local party
branch chose its parliamentary candidates; a method which excluded working men.
Hardie affirmed his still-felt affinity for Liberalism when he stood for
election as an independent labour candidate in 1892. His election manifesto
stated: “Generally I am in agreement with the present programme of the Liberal
Party.” So much was Liberalism the cornerstone of much of the early ILP
ideology that the Manchester Guardian could say, in 1901, of its annual
conference: “what must strike a liberal . . . is, one would say, how much of
the proceedings are devoted to the advocacy of traditional Liberal principles.”
When it came to deciding what Hardie’s party was to be
called, the 1893 Conference rejected the idea of naming the new party the
Socialist Labour Party, for in the words of Katherine Conway: “The new party
has to appeal to an electorate, which has as yet no full understanding of
Socialism.” This opportunistic approach to the working-class electorate has
characterized the Labourites from the earliest times. Its refusal to commit
itself to definite principles was the nearest it ever got to having principles,
Henry Pelling, the historian, has argued in his book The Origins of the Labour
Party that by adopting the broad, indefinite title of the ILP, the party was
only reflecting the fact that most of its support lay in local parties and
union branches which were not committed to socialism. The object of these
bodies was to build a parliamentary party on the basis of social reform, not
social revolution. The eight-hour day, abolition of overtime, old-age pensions,
and so on, were prominent amongst the ILP’s early demands. Their allies in this
were to be trade unions.
This appeal to trade unions proved ultimately successful. It
was union support which saved the infant Labour party. For in the general
election of the late 1890’s all the Labour candidates had been defeated,
polling 44,000 votes in all, and the ILP was on the verge of bankruptcy.
But the unions were not attracted by overthrowing capitalism
and replacing it with Socialism. What interested them most was the creation of
a political party which would safeguard their immediate existence by using
parliament to pass favourable legislation. This would have been entrusted to
the Liberals, as traditionally had been the case. However, they had allowed the
employers to organize strike-breaking organizations, especially in the docks,
they had voted against the eighth-hour day demand, they had watched without a
murmur the Taff Vale case of 1900. It was disillusionment with Liberalism and
not capitalism which forced the unions to throw in their lot with Labour.
During the period between 1906 and 1914, the Labour mps
merely acted as a pressure group, prepared to barter their vote for small,
piecemeal legislative measures advancing the cause of trade unionism, and in
this they were reasonably successful. For example, they secured the repeal of
the Taff Vale judgement in the Trades Disputes Act of 1906. However, Labour was
normally content to follow the Liberal lead at this time, which led it to be
described as the “handmaiden of liberalism.”
Let us turn to another group concerned in the formation of
the Labour Party, the Fabians. They were a group of well-to-do intellectuals,
George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Sidney and Beatrice Webb amongst them. It was
the Fabians who, in Britain, made socialism synonymous with the state. They
made the remarkable discovery that in the wasteland of capitalism there were
patches of socialism in the form of public baths, parks, playfields,
cemeteries, washhouses and public conveniences. Even the War Office and
Scotland Yard had for them the character of socialist institutions. Another of
their brilliant contributions was the theory of gradualism: the official
socialism of the Labour Party. Finding words like “revolution” alien to their
vocabulary, the Fabians argued that socialism was to evolve almost
imperceptibly over many years, until one night everyone would go to bed (except
those on nightshift) and in the morning they would wake up inside socialism. To
quote Keir Hardie, Socialism would come “like a thief in the night”. The main
agent for this unconscious change in society—no one was to be aware it was
occurring, except the Fabians — was to be the state. Attempts at putting this
theory into practice via nationalization have not brought Socialism one inch
nearer, neither have they reduced class conflict—witness the recent bitter
battles with the miners.
The emphasis it placed upon working within the capitalist
system, meant that the Labour Party was open to all sorts of social reformers
and cranks. Trade unionists, dissatisfied Liberals, well-to-do philanthropists,
and out-and-out careerists saw in the Labour Party a meal-ticket. A direct
result of the influx of the intellectuals and managerial types was the ousting
of working people from the representative positions in the party. By 1945,
Arthur Greenwood, Labour’s Lord Privy Seal, could say approvingly: “I look
around my colleagues and I see landlords, capitalists and lawyers. We are a
cross section of the national life, and this is something that has never
happened before.” (Hansard, 17th August 1945)
Thus in the origins of the Labour Party we can see the seeds
of future failures. The Labour Party has not brought Socialism about because
from the outset it never was a Socialist party. It sought to win votes on the
basis of social reform and not social revolution. Any socialists who might have
existed in the Labour ranks at that time were swamped by non-socialists, who
dictated the party’s course along essentially reformist and capitalist lines.
Any notion that once into office the Labourites could take the capitalist dog
for a walk has been subsequently shown to be false. The dog has taken them for
a long walk down the road of power politics and social evils. Support of two
world wars, presiding over massive unemployment, etc., has been the sorry
outcome for a party, which failed to realize that capitalism can only be run in
the interests of the capitalist class. It was not a question of good men with
Christian principles, but of socialist economics.
Bill Knox
(formerly of Edinburgh Br)
No comments:
Post a Comment