Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From The New International, Vol. XVII No. 3, May–June 1951, pp. 189–191.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
|
In the January–February issue we printed several contributions to a discussion of the nature and perspectives of the British Labour Government. A British comrade herewith contributes his views. We hope to present a comment on these views, as well as additional material in a future issue. – The Editors. |
Marxist evaluation of the post-war situation was based on three main propositions: (1) The imminent collapse of capitalism – the British economy in particular; (2) the exposure of Social Democracy as agents of the employers, resulting in splits and the emergence of revolutionary currents; and (3) the exposure of Stalinism as a counter-revolutionary force.
It was upon the edifice of such ideas that the movement was largely built, and as we know, events have proved them incorrect. Russia emerged strengthened – despite Stalin, they were compelled to effect a social transformation in the property relations of the countries they occupied. As a result of these events and the struggles in the Far East, international capitalism is immeasurably weaker than before. On the other hand, the working class movements are much more powerful.
On a broad historical scale, these events constitute a decisive turning point in the struggle for socialism and planning. Although we are faced with many generations of struggle, of wars and revolutions, the bourgeoisie now tolerate measures hitherto opposed, partly because they have no alternative, and partly as a means of retaining their hold and control as best they can. This is an important factor which must be understood – for it demands a new evaluation and opens up new possibilities.
In Great Britain, Social Democracy, with a powerful working class movement behind it, and an enfeebled capitalist class in control, (coupled with the whole international situation) has carried out measures, and introduced a degree of control not thought possible on the basis of the previous record of Social Democracy.
It is inevitable, with such a shift of class relationships, that the organized working class would improve its position relative to that of the employing class. Wages, which accounted for 39 per cent of the national income in 1938 (after taxation) increased to 48 per cent in 1949. In particular, the lower income groups have benefited considerably, largely as a consequence of labor scarcity.
It would be grossly sectarian to dismiss the record of the Labour Government as being merely a more intelligent way of managing capitalism. The shift of class forces has started a process which can have profound consequences. It has resulted in the raising of the general level of consciousness to a very high level. Full employment is already considered as a natural part of life. The need for a healthy democratic control of nationalized industries subject to an overall national plan is the subject of many discussions.
The labor movement now discusses the mechanism and tempo of achieving socialism. Its temper reflects both its invincible strength and confidence on the one hand, and its seriousness and self-restraint on the other. All are essential ingredients for the future socialist society.
While it is true that the labor movement has begun to make slight infiltrations into the general structure of capitalism, and that it provides a point of departure which can result in a peaceful social transformation peculiarly adapted to British conditions, who must not be deceived into thinking that this is a foregone conclusion, or even probable in such an unstable world.
The degree of intervention in the mechanics of the system is far from adequate. The property relations in particular, are no different at all – 5 per cent own 75 per cent; it was 80 per cent over 50 years ago. Never before have the employers enjoyed such profits as at present. In addition, as the employers have regained their strength, so the labor leaders have “regained” some of their traditional timidity.
At the present time, not only has progress virtually ceased, but retrogressive measures have been introduced of sufficient magnitude to provoke a minor crisis in the leadership.
Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that past Marxist analysis would label the present leadership a left-wing leadership on the basis of its record. The fact that it is called right wing is indicative of the way the whole movement thinks in a more socialistic direction. The labor leaders, by the logic of past events, and based on the supreme power of the working class, have developed a vested interest in remaining in power with its accompanying advantages. Their tenacious struggle against Tory electoral tactics reflects a new-found boldness and confidence – it also serves to quiet criticism within the labor movement on other issues.
By a series of temporary expedients – (the U.S. Loan, Marshall Plan aid, etc.) the British economy has not only made a rapid recovery, but achieved an overall balance for the first time since 1870. What is not so readily appreciated is the very precarious character of this stability. The slightest fall in American demand immediately provokes a crisis of major dimensions. In the event of even a mild economic recession, the Labour Government would face a situation demanding much more radical solutions.
It is against a background of such experiences that there is a confused but growing realization that within the British labor movement there exists the basic ingredients and possibilities for pointing a third way out of the present situation – that we must try to indicate a path separate from either Moscow or Wall Street. Attlee reflected this pressure when he went to Washington; Bevan reflected it even more so during the recent Budget crisis.
For Marxists, this represents a heaven-sent opportunity – not to act as self-appointed leaders with a monopoly of wisdom – but to make a genuine attempt to establish ourselves as responsible and respected leaders in the movement. Many of our ideas are common currency, and Stalinism has seldom been so weak. To talk of the “oppressive Transport House bureaucracy” is so much rubbish, for we have more than enough opportunities to express ourselves.
To operate as an illegal grouping, filled with pessimistic forebodings of coming slumps, “splits” in the Labour Party, and condemning the labor leaders as “traitors” is the best formula for disaster one could possibly conceive. To operate in terms of evolving into a revolutionary party seizing power in a revolutionary situation, accompanied by the development of Soviets, is like listening to a voice from a forgotten age.
The British labor movement has within itself more than sufficient of the organizational forms necessary to effect the transition to socialism. By working loyally within that framework and assisting every development which is in our direction, we will be operating in a manner best suited to British conditions. There can be no doubt that the future will produce many surprises – but for the present and immediate future this is the ONLY formula for real influence and success.
This does not imply that organizational forms are not necessary. There are many organized groupings already in existence, but all accept the Labour Party as the medium via which their ideas will be realized. Every movement which has split off in the past has been doomed to failure, for the working class does not easily change its allegiance – and this will be even more so after the experiences of the past six years. When it seeks an alternative leadership it looks for new leaders within the Labour Party.
We must avoid at all costs, repeating earlier mistakes of a too rigid approach to problems. The basic laws of the class struggle can operate in many ways and adopt many guises. Formulas for future successes will not always be found in the books of the old masters. In building up a current of thought consciously accepting ideas at present only half appreciated, many comrades who were shattered by the new post-war factors will regain confidence in Marxist ideas and realize that it was not the Marxist method which was at fault but too rigid an interpretation of its ideas.
Without being sectarian on the one hand, or completely losing our identity in the broad mass on the other, this does attempt to indicate a basis for the regroupment of Marxist elements in Britain – and most important – one which endeavors to adapt Marxism to the peculiarities of the British political scene.
Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 21 November 2018