Labour and Leadership

[p004] Labour and Leadership The development of the Tory offensive, 1956-57—Capital versus Labour—The old Right wing—Gaitskell’s ‘new men’ and the union leaders—The Tories’ hidden weaptn—Possibility of a ‘National’ government—Strike strategy and the electoral fight—The Communist Party woos the Right wing—The workers left without rea! leadership—The building of a Marxist leadership—The linking of the industrial and political struggles HE resignation of Thorneycroft and his colleagues from the Treasury opens a new stage in the ‘Lory offensive against organized Labour. Since the British Motor Corporation strike in the summer of 1956 the offensive has followed a generally consistent ccurse, though with twists and turns; just as a river, though bending, flows always the same way. In 1956 the Government and the employers set out to test the strength of the unions as a prelude to a harsher wages policy, which they hoped would lead to unemployment and a universal reduction in the standard of living. Heartened by the treachery of the Right-wing trade union leaders and of the Communist Party leaders, they forced matters to a head with the engineers in 1957:! but the danger of a premature show-down, which would have found the Tories politically unprepared, made necessary an interim slowing down of their offensive. The engineers received wage increases, but at a price which included a standstill agreement separating them from the 1958 wages fight of several major sections, notably busmen, railwaymen and miners. The Tories, too, paid a price, but it was part of their strategy of seeking the best ways to fight the trade unions. The attack against rank-and-file workshop organization continued. John McLoughlin was successfully victim- ized at Briggs; this was all the more encouraging to the Tories, since the Communist Party was in. the leadership of the shop stewards in the factory and on the area bodies of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Then came the Covent Garden strike, and Mr Frank Cousins revealed that when it came to a show- down his Left talk gave way to Deakinism in deeds. During the summer of 1957 the economic situation grew worse. All those reformists who hailed the engin- eers’ increase as a sign that the ‘moderate policies’ of Macmillan had prevailed were rudely shocked by the 7 per cent. Bank Rate. The stage was now set for un- employment, which in turn would strengthen the Tories’ efforts to get to grips with organized Labour. and the employers they represent have to make ad- L: is important to understand that the Tory leaders justments, not only to their plans for industrial 1See Robert Shaw, ‘The Engineers’ Strike and the Labour Movement’, Labour Review, vol. 2. no. 3, pp. 76-81, May- June 1957. struggle but to their political policies as well. The basic, mecontrovertible fact from which our analysis must flow is that the employers have made a decision to fight Labour. For the past twenty-one months there has been no fundamental retreat from this decision: yet its poli- tical implications have been constantly under review by the Cabinet. Now the present Government can re- main in power until 1959. It has a working majority and one of the weakest-led Labour Oppositions in history. However, even the most dim-witted Tory MP (and by no means all of them are dim-witted) must real- ize that the stage is now set for a full-scale conflict with the working class, and that if such conflict is carried to its logical end while the Tories remain in office it can lead to a radicalization of the Labour Party to a point where far-reaching nationalization and other pclicies could be forced on a new Labour government —despite Gaitskell and Co. ABOUR’S coming to power in an atmosphere of L class warfare could have very serious consequences ior British imperialism. The Right-wing faction is far from strong enough to act as a satisfactory re- formist buffer in such a contingency. Consisting almost entirely of public school careerists, it has no real ex- perience of working-class movements and working-class struggle, unlike the old Right wing of Attlee, Bevin, Morrison, Dalton and Co., who gained their experience during the struggles of the twenties and thirties. In the defeat of the 1926 General Strike Stanley Baldwin drove home the lessons of what might be called the un- written ‘Master and Servant Act’ which governs the conduct of Right-wing reformists, and the Attlee gener- ation never forgot these lessons. They skilfully combined a grip on the unions with the most treacherous Parlia- mentary politics. They feared coming into office with a majority, and so without an alibi, for should this happen, it might quickly lead to their exposure. That is why they were by no means enthusiastic about the 1945 General Election victory. History now records that the post-war replacement boom and the arms drive, while in the main sheltering them from large-scale exposure, nevertheless seriously weakened their political prestige, especially on such questions as the consolida- ton of the nationalized industries. A debate on the real meaning of socialist policy has continued in the Labour movement ever since.

[p005] LABOUR REVIEW HE Brighton conference did not settle this debate. Gaitskeil and his ‘new men’ came to an unstable compromise with the trade union leaders. There was agreement on vague double-talk resolutions, The leaders of the big unions, worried about the Tory offensive, see a Labour government as the only alter- native. This, they feel, would give them an opportunity to call for sacritices from their members under condi- tions where the edge of class conflict could be blunted. Gaitskell’s faction consists of several ambitious career- ists who chafe at waiting too long for the Ministerial plums. The limousines, the palace junketings with Scot- land Yard watching over their personal safety:* this, to these little men, is power. Having scarcely any ex- perience in the class struggle they mark time advocating policies which mean all things to all men, but which commit them to nothing fundamental when they take office. Many of them sincerely believe that they can make capitalism work more efficiently than their Tory counterparts can. So at Brighton they joined forces with the trade union chiefs. Both sides were motivated by opportunist considerations. Both sides feared more than anything else a head-on class collision with the Tories. Brighton was a demonstration of a frightened reformist leadership running away from reality and at the same time feeling too weak to defy the rank and file completely by throwing the principle of nationaliza- tion overboard altogether. The conference decisions. though vague, do still allow the movement to work out a specific and practical nationalization policy that would constitute a substantial threat to British capital- ism. That the employers are keenly aware of this danger can be seen from the statement of Mr Ian D. Lyle at the Annual General Meeting of Tate and Lyle Ltd. Speaking about Labour Party policy he said: There have been some industries named in the official list of those destined to be nationalized outright. Without a doubt they will know how to react to a direct threat of this nature. Indeed we already have most heartening evi- dence of the determination of certain sections of the steel industry to defend themselves against nationalization. Regardless of this example of upper-class arrogance, events are more and more compelling the movement to fight for the extension of nationalization. ACMILLAN’S Government is unable to defeat M the British working class in a clear-cut life and death struggle. It contains some skilful strategists; but it is constantly in a crisis of one kind or another —crises which reflect the chronic, insoluble crisis of British imperialism. On what then does this Govern- ment rely? On what is its unquestionable (and, to the superficial observer, remarkable) inner confidence based? For decades the employing class has utilized the Right-wing Labour leaders as a means of demoral- izing the workers and bringing them to heel. This is still the case. The weapon up the Tories’ sleeve is the Right wing of the Labour Party and the trade unions. The Government is determined to continue its offensive against the working class. It is cheered on by the in- 2A familiar sight at Labour Party conferences during the last Labour Government was the Special Branch men, complete with red ties, mingling with the delegates as part of their duty of guarding Labour Ministers. 2. January-February 1958 decision of Gaitskell and his friends; the result of the Leicester by-election serves to emphasize that the do- nothing attitude of the Right wing is already holding back and confusing large sections of the working class. culties have been rendered more acute by the serious trade recession in the USA. Apart from purely secondary considerations of timing there is no difference between Macmillan and Thorneycroft on the economic measures needed to meet this situation. The Government is pleased that its policies over the past year have reduced wages by £75 million while at the same time it has persuaded the Right wing of the TUC to recognize and discuss with its ‘three wise men’ econ- omic sub-committee. The purpose of this committee is to keep the Labour leaders talking while the employers are on the attack. The TUC leaders are content to take part in this class collaboration talking-shop because it provides them with an excuse for not giving leadership to the Labour movement. Why, for instance, has not the TUC called a conference of all trade unions with wage demands, in order to work out a common indus- trial strategy to defeat the employers? Instead it permits individual unions to drift unprepared into a fight with the employers. Such sectional struggles court disaster and can lead to serious demoralization in the event of defeats. Why has the National Council of Labour not organized a joint emergency conference of the three parts of the Labour movement to ensure a_ united struggle to help the unions with wage demands? The rank and file of the movement must press for these actions to be taken now. The Right wing of the TUC must stcp talking with the enemy and organize the fight against them; if they will not do this they must make way for those who will. The need to fight is obvious. If wage increases were out of the question in Tory eyes in 1957 they are out of the question in 1958, although it is not excluded that here and there certain tactical awards may be made in order to divide the unions. If the National Health Service was considered ripe for pruning in 1957 its future is certainly no brighter in 1958. We are led to believe that the differ- ences between the Prime Minister and the ex-Chancellor are differences between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ policies on economic measures. This view suits the reformist leaders, who like to think in terms of ‘moderate’ Tory governments: but it is a dangerous illusion. Macmillan and Thorneycroft are agreed that the economic situa- tion is more serious now than when the Bank Rate was raised to 7 per cent. but there are political differences between them on how this situation should be faced. Thorneycroft felt that strong measures must be taken in the immediate future. Macmillan and his supporters believe that a serious effort must be made soon to cope on the political plane with the inevitable effects of the struggle to reduce living standards. They feel that Thorneycroft’s policy could well do irreparable damage to the Tory Party’s electoral prestige. While they can- not avoid loss of support altogether they naturally want to reduce it to a minimum. Macmillan’s policy is a short-term one. It seems to indicate that the possibility of an early general election is being considered among the Tory leaders. The way Fleet Street is building up Macmillan and Butler as the watchdogs faithfully de- W culties Brignton the Government’s economic diffi-

[p006] LABOUR AND LEADERSHIP a fending the Health Service rings suspiciously like pre- election propaganda. Thorneycroft is being branded— and explained away—as a die-hard Right-winger, fight- ing tooth and nail to reduce living standards, with the Macmillan wing taking a moderate stand. The Tory strategists could fake a ‘save the pound’ election cam- paign. They could piay upon the conflict with Thorney- croft—and at the same time, in the event of a bus strike or railway strike, they would denounce the ‘wild men’ on the Left. If the Tories did not win a majority at the polls they might nevertheless, thanks to the Labour Right wing’s lack of policy and refusal to struggle. retain enough seats to command a strong position in Parliament. A Right-wing Labour government with a small majority and without a socialist policy would immediately have to face the full effects of Tory econ- omic policy under conditions in which it wouid be extremely difficult for it to escape pressure and anger from the Right and the Left. It would find survival diffi- cult. Thus the conditions could be created for the formation of a ‘National’ government ‘to save the pound’ and ‘to save the nation’. Whether they like it or not the Gaitskell leadership are step by step paving the way for such an eventuality. The April budget could be rigged to build up election propaganda, leaving an autumn budget to deal the real blows. An early general election would suit the immediate policies of the Right- wing trade union leaders who are faced with strike de- cisions by their members; they would be able to appeal for the postponement of decisions until after the elec- tion, on the ground that a Labour government would make the hardships of a strike unnecessary. Thus the Macmillan-Thorneycroft rift could turn out to be the preparation of a political trap for the Labour move- ment. A Right-wing Labour government without a socialist policy could do nothing but sow demoraliza- tion and help the Tories. The generation that has come into political life since the end of the second world war should study ‘the greatest betrayal in the political history cf this country’,? the defection of J. Ramsay Mac- Donald. Such a betrayal could happen again. UT it need not happen again, provided that B socialists face up to the class struggles forced upon the movement by the employers’ offensive, pro- vided they fight back with energy, determination and élan. A comprehensive inter-union strike strategy which would treat each strike as part of a general struggle, and mobilize the full force of organized Labour to defeat the employers, is absolutely imperative. Such strategy could be devised by the shop stewards’ com- mittees and the militants of the various unions in a short time. One successful strike, even a small one, is worth a dozen Parliamentary debates with the Tories. Inter-union rank-and-file organization is a vital part of the answer to the Tory offensive. It is not the com- plete answer, however. We have entered a period when industrial struggle cannot but .lead to political action, by its own inner logic; more and more do workers, in challenging their employers, challenge thereby also the political leadership of those employers, the Tory Gov- ernment and the State apparatus. Whenever a strike 3C. R. Attlee, As It Happened (1954), p. 74. takes place ward and constituency Labour Parties must be drawn into the struggle, particularly in the area of the strike. The strike weapon and the electoral fight are two sides of the same coin. In certain situations the two can and should be combined. Such a strategy will open the way for the development of socialist policies within the Labour Party—the demand for the national- ization of the engineering, shipbuilding, motor car and chemical industries, for instancz, a demand whose adop- tion would be a real step forward. HAT are the tasks and prospects before Marxists in this situation that is pregnant both with danger and with promise? To answer this question we must examine, if only briefly, the last re- maining stronghold in Britain of that pernicious pseudo-Marxism which for too long has stunted the growth of a revolutionary movement in this country. We refer to the Communist Party. Elsewhere in this issue will be found a valuable and scholarly study of the first days of that party, showing how Stalinism fastened its grip on it. Today we stand at the latter end of the process, when two years of crisis have re- vealed the theoretical decay and practical bankruptcy of Stalinism and drained the party of many of its honest members, leaving (at the top) no more than a stagnant pool. Stagnant pools can be virulent, however; and all who desire to see the construction of a real Marxist leadership have the duty of making sure that Stalinism never again canalizes the hopes and energies of British militants. It is currently making desperate efforts to do so. It is doing its best to present a Left face to the workers, and to a membership of whom many are still critical or sceptical. King Street has launched campaigns against rocket bases and pledged support for workers on strike. But these campaigns do not offer a sound socialist strategy for smashing the Tory Government and for rallying the rank and file of the Labour Party to fight for socialist policies. Verbal opposition to the construction of rocket bases can be so much hot air unless it is linked with class action against the Govern- ment and the employers. A successful strike is a blow against rocket bases, even though its immediate aim is a struggle against redundancy. Yet when the Aberdeen plumbers decided not to work on rocket bases the Daily Worker merely gave this prominence as a news item. failing, however, to draw any general conclusions. Yet if organized Labour followed the example of the Aber- deen men how could rocket sites be built? No one wants trade unions which are led by or influenced by members of the Communist Party to embark on adventures; but why did the Electrical Trades Union, for instance, not demand that the Trades Union Congress support the Aberdeen plumbers? Why did the Daily Worker not call on trade unionists to give their full support? Though an invitation is extended to the TUC and Labour Party leaders to participate in the Daily Worker birthday rally, this courtesy is not, significantly enough, offered to the editor and staff of the Left-wing Labour organ Tribune; though this would seem to be an obvious gesture if unity of the militant workers’ Press be one of the aims of the rally. At the same time as thousands of militants are beginning to find themselves in active opposition to the Right wing the Communist Party, a 3

[p007] LABOUR REVIEW political spinster of nearly forty summers, makes these coy overtures to the Right wing! HERE are still inside the Communist Party a con- "T ‘sicerabie number of workers who have yet to see ‘ that their party’s industrial policy is not based on winning victories and exposing the Right wing in in- dustrial and political struggles. It is a policy which is designed to capture ‘key positions’ inside trade unions; and at times this leads to the formation of sordid alli- . ances with careerists who will join with anybody in order to better their positions. It is an opportunist policy, which avoids a serious struggle against the Right wing, and which, despite Left-sounding words, leaves the workers without real leadership. In the fight against sackings the Communist Party demands consultation but is silent on the demand for a four-day week, which would keep the employed and unemployed united. Yet workers who have taken part in a redundancy strike know that consultation, while necessary, may be tanta- mount to unemployment by common consent of em- ployers and unions if it is presented as the object for which the struggle is fought. (What good did the much- trumpeted agreement which ended the Tube Investment strike do for the eighty unfortunates who were as much out of a job when the strike ended as when it began?) Today the industrial struggle is the spearhead of the political fight against war; the Communist Party leaders, who refuse to recognize this, in practice stand in the same camp as the Right wing, despite all their talk about ‘peace’. This, no doubt, is why they seek to stand on a common platform with the Right wing at the Albert Hall. In practice the Communist Party cannot fight the Right wing; its policies prevent this. An indus- trial member of the party cannot explain away the shame of Hungary and the crimes of Stalin. The Soviet leaders demand peaceful coexistence with the imperial- ists; therefore an all-out effort to expose the Right wing, who uphold the principle of collaboration with the im- perialists, is out of the question for the Communist Party. How can it ‘peacefully coexist’ unless it at least maintains the status quo with the reformists? That is why the King Street hullabaloo about the Right wing amounts to nothing. HE continued existence of the Communist Party prevents its members, however active many of them may be in their trade unions, from joining the Labour Party and fighting within its Left wing for the ending of the present Right-wing domination of the party. The Communist Party leaders are quick to claim that the Right wing is so strong that the Labour Left has been smashed to pieces and that there can be no Left and no mass movement without the leadership of the Communist Party. This is an excuse for not entering the fight. The Communist Party is utterly discredited January-February 1958 Its role henceforward is to act as a less and less effective barrier to the flowering of the real, Marxist-led, revolu- tionary movement that will guide the British working class to socialism. The King Street leaders can never provide Marxist leadership, because this would mean, in effect, repudiating their own past—witness in this respect the crisis of the party’s History Commission. A party which is unable to discuss its past mistakes can never be a Marxist party, because Marxism is a science based on the truthful treatment of facts. And this party has no future, unless the sterile antics and vaporings of a sect can be called a future. But it is incontestable that many of its members desire to fight as real communists. The time has come when they should openly demand and fight for the disbanding of the Communist Party and the entry of its members into the Labour Party. For it is in the course of the coming struggles within the Labour Party that the Marxist leadership will take shape. Many former leading members of the Commun- ist Party are already making valuable contributions towards this end. Joining the Labour Party to fight for Marxism has nothing whatever in common with liquida- tion and revisionism, which mean the repudiation of Marxism and the policies which flow from a Marxist analysis. Since the day-to-day experiences of the work- ing class are continuously vindicating Marxism, enough Marxists active inside the Labour Party and the unions would be able to gain powerful support from the rank and file of that party; this in turn would make it extremely difficult for the Right wing to expel people. There is no reason why, in the course of ‘struggle with the Right wing, a new Marxist society could not be legalized within the Labour Party in just the same way as the Fabian Society. The Labour Party is not the private property of Transport House and the Fabians. Its rank and file can be won, on an increasing scale, for Marxist ideas. T is when it is merged with the living day-to-day [scruzetes of the workers in their organizations that Marxist theory becomes a real guide to action, a fer- tilizing, invigorating material force. For British Marxists in this fateful New Year of 1958 there is no more urgent task than to link the militant industrial struggle in the pits and workshops and on the building sites with the militant political struggle in the Labour Party, against reformist policies and Right-wing leadership, for social- ist policies and socialist leadership. The combination of these struggles in one united drive forward against the ruling class would do more than anything else to halt their offensive and inflict shattering, sweeping and de- cisive blows on them. The best possible contribution that serious militants in the Communist Party can make to the fulfilment of this great aim is to fight inside the Communist Party for the disbanding of that party, so that its members can strengthen the work of those who are building a Marxist movement in the trade unions and Labour Party.