Some Merits of his Case

[p011] SOME MERITS OF HIS CASE Mr. Bevan’s arguments are not to be lightly dismissed. ‘They correspond to some peculiar features of British political life which have to be weighed and examined in objective fashion. The very fact that a leader of the Labour Left like Mr. Bevan himself gives so exalted a place to Parliament is additional testimony to the exceptional value attached to it. It is unquestionable that esteem for this institution is greater here than in any other country. In France Parliament has become a laughing stock, but it is still taken with tremendous seriousness by all classes and their representatives in Great Britain. Every political leader of the working class must take this special feature of our political psychology into account. The overwhelming majority of the workers still share this general respect for Parliament and look toward it for action on their behalf. But that is only one side of the situation. Their confidence in Parliament ebbs and flows in accord with the evolution of their struggles and class understanding. In 1945, when they voted Labour to power the workers 9

[p012] 4 expected much, if not everything, to come from and through action at Westminster. They are not quite so naive and confident about this nowadays, after the experiences of the past seven years. And when the Tories control Parliament or their own party leaders mark time of slide backward, their trust in Parliament can subside very swiftly and considerably. As a rule, British workers take a realistic and practical attitude towards Parliament. When Labour representatives there appear to be doing the job they have been elected to do, they are willing and even eager to extend credit ‘to Parliament. But, as has happened only too often, when the opposite turns out to be the case, the disillusioned and dissatisfied workers look for other ways and means to make their energy felt and their demands known to the powers-that-be. The British workers are also profoundly attached to democracy. This is by no means the same, as Mr. Bevan implies, as a veneration for Parliament. It is a much broader and deeper sentiment. In fact, Parliament often outrages the democratic feelings of the British people by its violations of democracy, or its indifference towards the rights of other peoples. This is the case with the colonial wars it sanctions or, to take a fresh example, its treatment of the African Seretse Khama. And how much respect does the ordinary worker have, or should he have, for the present Tory- manipulated Parliament which he feels to be a fraud even from the standpoint of representing the electoral majority. This ingrained democracy is one reason why British Labour has such contempt for the British Communist Party and pays no heed to its solicitations. Our workers cannot abide any cult of “infallible leaders” whether they are named Pollitt or Stalin.* They want to maintain full right * “T have listened for two days to what the Chairman called a ‘debate’ on Pollitt’s and Gollan’s speeches, But it was like no other debate you hear in Britain. There was no argument; no opposition. Each speaker rapturously agreed with what Pollitt or Gollan had said in every particular. There was no criticism of even. the tiniest detail.".--DUDLEY BARKER’s report of the British Communist Party Congress, Daily Herald, April 14, 1952. -'—This report has not been denied by the Daily Worker. 10

[p013] of free and fair discussion in their organisations. This _spirit of rank-and-file democracy likewise makes them suspicious of any attempts by right-wing Labour Party or trade union leaders to suppress discussion or criticism on major policy questions. Such devotion to democracy is one of the principal safeguards of the health and progress of our Labour movement. This much must be conceded to Mr. Bevan’s thesis. If the passage of effective power from the magnates of great wealth to the masses of workers could proceed harmoniously, gradually, and without convulsions, that would offer enormous advantages for the next steps in the transition from capitalism to socialism. It would be the most economical, efficient and desirable mode of realising the inevitable changes which are already long overdue and cannot be further postponed if Britain is to move forward. It would involve the least sacrifices for the British nation—and who would want to do such things the hard way if an easier were accessible ? The question then comes down to this. How realistic are Mr. Bevan’s proposals? Does he take into account all the factors at work in the situation, and can Parlia- mentarism do the job along the lines he projects ?