. TOPICS OF THE PAY - .
EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION
lk-xT HEN the Labour Government took office in 1924 V V. it seemed that the evolutionary group among the Socialists had got the upper hand, and would be able to impose their will for a long time to come on the left wing, with its doctrine of short-cuts and revolutionary trans- formations. The chief point to be -borne always in mind is that those, who want to introduce Socialism by revolu- tion since evolution is too slow for them are ready to sacrifice democracy. They really care nothing for the will of the majority. They say, in effect, "If people do not know what is good for them we will find a way of forcing what is good upon them. It is ridiculous to wait till a majority can be persuaded. That may be never.'! Your true revolutionary fears nothing more than he fears the people. He knows that the British people will examine a horse very carefully point by point, and have it " vetted " more than, once before they consent to buy it. Therefore he has little use for the persuasion business.
For our part, as we are democrats in practice as well as in name, we should be prepared to abide by the decisions of the majority even if they made the most ghastly mis- takes. We should put up with the mistakes till we could persuade a majority to think differently. That is the only logical meaning of democracy, and anyone who disputes it cannot really be a democrat. The victory of the evolutionary over the revolutionary Socialists has, unfortunately, turned out, within a shorter time than anyone could have expected, to be illusory. The decisions of the Independent Labour Party at the Whitley Bay Conference are as important as they are interesting. It will be worth while to watch the I.L.P. very closely, as it has long enjoyed the reputation of supplying the brains of the Labour Party. Possibly it has become conscious of being associated too much with brains and too little with wage-earning, and sO, in a very human way, it wants to prove that it can shout as loud as the loudest voiced wage-earner who abuses the ex-Ministers of the Labour Party for being "no good" and "no better than the Tories."
However that may be, the I.L.P. has got the bit be- tween its teeth now, and it will be most interesting to see whether it can bolt with the cart. This is a matter which concerns us all, for even if the Labour Party should not come into power again soon, it is likely to remain the official Opposition. The character of the party as a whole, therefore, will react on our national life at innum- erable points of contact. In our view the time has dome when Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, if he is to be an effectual leader of the Opposition, must make up his mind between evolution and revolution. But perhaps that is not to state the case quite fairly. It is well known that he has already made up his mind. The only thing in question is his ability to act. He said in a recent-description of the ideal Socialist that "he does not stop the life of society in order to try new experiments Or to put a brand new system into 'operation. -The pledges. he gives do not con- tern his achievements of .the -morrow so -much as -the purpose which underlies and impregnates all- his continu- ing action. . . . He- is an evolutionist par excellence." Compare with those words" the. programme of the which is compendiously described undet the new motto, "Socialism in Our Time." If that motto is te be fulfilled in the spirit in which Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Brailsford (one of the chief spokesmen of the new I.L.P. programme) have engaged in public combat we shall have to repeat with a particular application the hallowed petition, "Give peace in our time, 0 Lord."
The "Socialism in Our Time" programme includes the living wage, a national banking system, with the 'control of currency and credit, the nationalization of the importation of food and raw materials and the nationaliza- tion of railways, mines, electrical generation and land. At the Whitley Bay Conference the policy of the living wage was rather hotly criticized on the ground that this -was the very policy which the Trade Unions had put their Money on for a great many years without the least success Why back a horse that had been numbered among the "also ran" over and over again ? Nobody, apparently, went quite so far as Mr. Ramsay MacDonald; who had called the pOlicY "a' sanctification of Phrases of no definite meaning." But there was much evident misgiving: Mr. Ramsay MacDonald himself, it may be noted here, was not present at the Conference, although he is a member of the I.L.P., and he offered, it is said; no explanation of his absence. No doubt the explanation is contained in the pre-Conference controversy. The debates at Whitley Bay, alas ! produced More fog than light. The living wage, to whieh chief attention was paid; seems to mean something far beyond 'what has hitherto been understood by that phrase. Mr. Brailsford spoke of it as a "living income." He was not the only speaker whO showed a tendency to sacrifice a good old word in favour of a worse one—in the manner of the theologian who thought it was a humiliation for St. Paul to be called a "bond- servant of God," and therefore called him an" employee.h. It seems that family allowances, in addition to wages, are only to be thought of as a transition stage till the living income, properly so-called,'Can be Paid. It seems also that "Socialism in Our Time" requires that a few " decrepit " industries which cannot afford to pay a living income should be left out of the scheme of nationalization at first. But if ,ability to pay the living income is the qualification for nationalization how can the I.L.P. logically demand the nationalization of the mines ?
Mr. Brailsford has explained in the New Leader the need for hurry. He is afraid that if Socialism is not introduced in our time the Capitalists may find a way of making their system sufficiently attractive to stave off Socialism indefinitely. This urgency is, of course, the result of the new thoughts which have been taking shape here since the discovery that high wages can actually be combined with cheap production. We should have expected an idealist like Mr. Brailsford to say that if anyone could give the wage-earner good pay, good con- ditions and general happiness, he would take off his hat to him and yield him place. But apparently Mr. Brails- ford is less concerned with getting happiness as soon as possible for the working man than with setting up one of those brand new systems which Mr. MacDonald tuts so explicitly condemned. Mr. Brailsford says; " If we Shirk or postpone the task, if we fail to 'realize the need for a conscious and deliberate strategy, Capitalism mair save itself for a generation. . We march to defeat if we allow our own Army to suppose that our purpose' is merely to win. for it an easy Material life." We wonder Whether the working-man ever understood that he was to be used in this way ; whether he ever understood that his life and prosperity were to'be staked on a doctrine— the doctrine Of-doing things in a certain way merely, for the sake of doing them in that way:? Surely he always understood that he was invited to accept Socialism because it could 'bring him a welfare that Capitalism could not bring him.
Well, we shall see what progress the I.L.P. makes under its new banner. Mr. MacDonald will "never lead an' efficient Opposition so long as it does not know exactly where it is going, or how it proposes to get.there. This might seem to be only a private matter for the Labour Party; but there are other aspects. An Opposition that is united on essential things is necessary for the proper conduct of the nation's business.
Previous page
