Socialism and Dictatorship
THE Jews are not the only aggrieved group in the world whose members have felt the impulse to draw closely together and resist the threat of the Fascist dictators in Germany. The whole Labour movement in this country and elsewhere has been stirred to indignation ; and the Communist Party, in proposing a united front against Fascism, could have chosen no more favourable moment for an overture to British Socialists. But the official leaders of the Labour movement have been swift to damp down this too zealous manifestation of sympathy. The National Joint Council, representing the Trades Union Congress, the Labour Party and the Parliamentary Labour Party have lost no time in issuing a manifesto denouncing revolutionary methods, and pointing out that just as " the follies and furies of Tsarism led straight to Communist dictatorship in Russia," so " the fear of the dictatorship of the working-class in turn has evoked the iron dictatorship of capitalism and nationalism." The Joint Council takes the opportunity of reaffirming its belief in the methods-- by which for thirty years the British Labour movement has gained political strength and in " the attainment of Socialism by peaceful means." They declare their faith in constitutional procedure, which will suffice, " as soon as the workers are sufficiently advanced in political wisdom," to " place their own movement in the seat of government."
Is this to be taken as a tentative withdrawal, on the part of the official Labour leaders, from the extremist attitude into which the Labour Party was rushed at the Leicester Conference last October ? At those meetings, it will be remembered, the official leaders were snubbed and the personal advice of Mr. Henderson was rejected. The Conference denounced the old method of Gradualism, and sought to tie the hands of their leaders in advance to a policy of implementing the whole Socialist pro- gramme at the first opportunity ; and further modified the official proposals by insisting on " Workers' Control " in industry and the nationalization of the Joint Stock Banks. Are we to take the Joint Council's declaration of faith in peaceful democratic procedure as a withdrawal from the Leicester position—or, rather, a cautious side- tracking of it ? That is how it may appear to some rest- less spirits in the movement who are profoundly discon- tented with the old leadership and suspect their executives of slackening the pace and submitting to the ritual of party politics. The truth is that the manifesto is not an indication of a change of mind, but of the fact that there are and long have been two minds in real opposition among those who are associated under the banner of official Labour. The moderate section is in charge of the two organizations—, industrial and political—and it has had its say in this energetic and, so far as it goes, reassuring manifesto. But how far, actually, does it go ? The spirit, if not the letter, of the pronouncement is against the adoption of extreme provocative policies, in office no less than out of office, What, otherwise, would be the point of asserting SO vigorously that reaction of the Left only leads to reaction of the Right, dictatorships of the workers to dictatorships of the capitalists ? But it is careful not to dot the i's or to say anything which could be denounced as a reversal of the resolutions adopted at the October Conference. Though its tone indicates moderation of policy when Labour acquires power, actually the mani- festo commits it only to moderation in the means of seeking power. It is to pursue the method of the " ballot," not the " bullet "—through " democratic principles," not by " machine-guns." But- exactly what it will do when its " own movement. is in the scat of government, armed with all the powers of the democratic State "— on that it observes a discreet silence. In view of Leicester the Joint Council dare not affirm that it will shrink from endeavouring to implement the whole policy of Socialism at one stroke.
But if the Joint Council is silent, not so all other leaders. Sir Stafford Cripps has rushed in where Trade Union leaders feared to tread. He, too, declares his belief in constitutional means and lack of faith in revolu- tion ; but goes on to identify himself with the policy of the Leicester Conference. " The next Labour Government must secure the citadel of economic power within the first month and before the political power is taken away from it." " If, when Labour gets power, the other people want to cause -a revolution," he went on, hinting that the measures taken would be such as to precipitate violent Conservative reaction, " I want to have control of the armed forces and the police before the revolution starts." That is somewhat provocative language coming from an eminent lawyer and ex-minister. And if we ask what are the measures which might make "the other people want a revolution," we. have only to turn to a strictly logical interpretation of the Leicester resolutions put forward by Mr. E. F. Wisc. The Labour Government, as soon as it is installed, should at once transfer the key industries and services of the country, including the whole of the banking system, to communal ownership, and in such a way that it would be impossible for any succeeding Government " even to attempt to reconstruct the capitalist system." " We must make such an omelette that it is impossible for the eggs to get back into their shells."
There is no mistaking that that is the present policy of the Labour Party as endorsed by the body which claims the sole right to dictate its policy. Whether it would actually be carried out by a Labour Government in power is another matter, and would depend on whether it were controlled by men like Mr. Henderson and Mr. Morrison, or by men like Sir Charles Trevelyan and Mr. Wise. But that is the avowed policy, and whatever we may think of it, it would be absurd to deny that it is revolutionary. It declares its intention of making so drastic a change in the economic system that no subse- quent legislation can undo its work. That, whether desirable or not desirable, is clearly revolution, and not the less so if it could be effected by peaceable means. Sir Stafford Cripps must be aware that it is revolution, or he would not thus blithely follow in the steps of that academic franc-tircur of the Socialist movement, Mr.
Harold Laski, in forecasting the probability of a violent reaction among Conservatives to the revolutionary measures which the Socialists may introduce. But will they introduce them, in this full-blooded, uncom- promising way ? Will the spirit of Mr. Henderson, or that of the last Labour Party Conference, be in the ascendant when the Socialists come back to Parliament, with a possibly independent majority, and with the constitutional right to effect anything within the space of two years ? It will be necessary, before the next general election, that the issue should be clearly defined not merely by the official representatives of the Labour movement, but by ministers who seek to represent the country as a whole. Will the party, when it resolves its internal differences, take its stand, with • Sir Stafford Cripps, on the necessity of getting control of the armed forces and the police, or adhere to the peaceful spirit of the mani- festo? In other words, will it provoke the Fury of Fascism, or exorcise it ?
Previous page
