Scarborough 1960

[p002] Scarborough 1960 arisen with individual Labour and trade union leaders. The background of the crisis in the Labour Party and the trade unions can only be understood from an examination of the class forces in Britain. In 1956 the employers began an offensive on the industrial front. With the recession in the autumn of 1958, there were indications that they were prepared to press home their advantage in a labour market where unemployment was growing. The stubborn resistance of the working class, particu- larly in the motor car and building industries, how- ever, acted as a sharp warning against the dangers of the employers overplaying their hand. Early in 1959 the Tories realized that if this situation was to continue it might seriously jeopardize the possi- bility of their remaining in office after the general election. Credit facilities were relaxed and unemploy- ment slowly but steadily declined. This represented a retreat on the part of the Tories. Nor did the retreat come to a halt when they won the general election. Early this year they were forced to retreat before the threat of national strike action by the rail- waymen. The 42-hour week was conceded to the engineers and a small increase in wages was granted to building workers. Other sections of the working class, such as the dockers, pressed demands for more wages with similar results. In the motor industry, some specialized groups of workers have succeeded in obtaining substantial increases because they were able to take advantage of the overseas competitive markets. With the retreat of the employers and the Tory government, the working class have gone over to offensive action. The highpoint of this is the sea- men’s persistent demand for a 44-hour week and £4 a month increase. The Tories won the general election, but paid a price. They were forced to make a partial retreat in their offensive against the working class. All this has added greatly to the crisis of the Right-wing bureaucracy in the Labour movement which is indirectly forced to reflect the class struggle. Gaitskell and his allies, with few exceptions, are new men in the leadership of the Labour Party. They

[p003] 82 have taken office under entirely different conditions from their predecessors Morrison, Attlee, Dalton, Bevin, etc. The general strike of 1926 and the slump of 1931 had inflicted a major defeat upon the working class. Under such conditions the bureauc- racy in the Labour Party was consolidated and pre- dominated over all other tendencies for almost two decades. The class struggle has now turned de- cisively in favour of the working class at a most dangerous time for the leaders of the Labour Party. New men with little or no experience, apart from university debating circles and government depart- ments, have come to the fore in the Labour Party. They have scanty knowledge of what is involved in this turbulent political situation. The clumsiness of Gaitskell represents the confusion of the bureauc- racy at a time when the working class are pressing home their offensive. The leadership of Gaitskell could only be stabil- ized if the ruling class was strong enough to inflict a shattering and definitive defeat upon the working class. Since they are unable at this stage to em- bark upon such a venture, the crisis for the Right wing must get worse. The possibility of a split in the British Labour Party is posed under conditions which are distinctly unfavourable for the Right wing. They have to decide what is to be done at a time when the Labour movement is adopting more Left-wing and socialist policies. The Right wing are in effect isolated. Their use as a weapon of class collaboration for the Tories has dwindled considerably. Small wonder there is a mood of despondency in their ranks. Moreover, important sections of the Tory Party are now coming to the conclusion that Mr. Gaitskell is no longer able to lead the Labour Party. An editorial in the Daily Telegraph of September 8, commenting on the anti-H-bomb vote at the Trades Union Congress remarked : ‘The real meaning of yesterday’s vote is thus plain. If Mr. Gaitskell can survive as leader of the Labour Party as at present constituted it can only be by a species of chicanery. Even if it works this year, there can be no assurance that the trick can be repeated next year and the year after. This being so, the party would be better dead; and the quicker it can get through its agony the sooner some more reasonably constituted successor can be set on its feet.’ What the Daily Telegraph is really saying is that Mr. Gaitskell should go ahead and split the party so that a ‘more reasonably constituted successor (a Right-wing Labour splinter party?) can emerge.’ Whilst it is true that this may not represent the opinion of the majority of the ruling class, never- theless it shows the direction in which the wind is blowing. Worse still, the decision of the Trades Union Congress calling for more nationalization, a!- though vague, is nevertheless an indication that on LABOUR REVIEW—October-November, 1960 domestic policy the plight of the Right wing is al- most as bad as it is on foreign affairs. It will be very difficult even for Mr. Carron of the Amalga- mated Engineering Union, and Mr. Lowthian of the building workers’ union to ‘look both ways’, since their unions are heavily committed to the nationalization of the industries with which they deal. The chickens have come home to roost. For- gotten now are the ideas outlined in the share- buying proposals of the Brighton conference docu- ment ‘Industry and Society’. One can hardly ex- pect Mr. Douglas Jay and his Right-wing colleagues to feel happy over this turn of events. Yet what can they do? They will have to decide their future —and very soon. These new developments are a source of encour- agement for the Left wing of the Labour Party and the trade unions. After the long years of waiting since 1945, the stage is now being set for a new advance by Labour. The question that is posed is: shall we be able to take advantage of these events by seeing that a socialist Britain becomes a reality in our time? The election of a majority Labour government in 1945 raised the hopes of millions of people that they would live to see a socialist Br:tain. We know only too well what happened. The Right- wing Attlee leadership, once elected to Parliament, retreated until they completely lost power to the Tories. Mr. Bevan, and other Lefts like him, made Right- wing speeches and Left-wing speeches during these difficult years. Looking both ways is not the pre- rogative of Mr. Carron. There are many Lefts in the Labour Party who still look both ways. Indeed, this is one of the great difficulties which faces Mr. Cousins. The entire Labour movement records its gratitude for the determined struggle which he has put up against the H-bomb and the watering down of Clause Four. If Arthur Deakin had lived to re- main the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, this could never have taken place. The Tories and the Right wing lost a powerful ally on the day that Deakin died. What- ever may be the limitations of Frank Cousins (and we are sure that he himself doesn’t claim to be the greatest socialist of all time), it is safe to say that he has made a major contribution in changing the policy of the TGWU. The difficulty which Mr. Cousins has not yet overcome is that he is also affected by this ‘looking-both-ways’ technique. At the TUC he found himself voting with the most ex- treme Right wing on a resolution to curb the powers of shop stewards. His own union is still staffed by many Deakinite stalwarts. These men are con- stantly operating policies which dampen down the militancy of the rank and file of the union. Sooner or later Mr. Cousins will have to decide what he is going to do in relation to this situation, He cannot

[p004] SCARBOROUGH 1960 continue indefinitely playing a centre role. The experiences of the late Aneurin Bevan. should be most instructive for him in this respect. Bevan compromised with the Right wing from 1945-51, Then he was forced to break from the Cabinet under the most confused circumstances. The high point of his opposition was reached at the Morecambe conference of 1952. Mr. Bevan still continued to ‘look both ways’ until Attlee resigned the leadership in 1955. Then he moved over to the Gaitskell camp and openly joined it at Brighton in 1957. What did he accomplish? Absolutely no- thing. Such is the role of centrist politicians and trade union leaders in this present period. Instead of wasting time sneering over the two faces of Mr. Carron, it would be more profitable for the Left wing of the movement to realize the blind alley into which centrist politics in general leads. There is a warning here for the leaders of Victory for Socialism. The TUC decisions against the H-bomb and for more nationalization are bound to encourage a tend- ency towards more political discussion. This was true of the TUC. The speeches were in general betier than in previous years. The differences be- tween those who wanted socialism and those who didn’t were much clearer. Here is a foretaste of what will be exverienced in the movement as a whole in the months ahead. The despondency in the ranks of Labour, which reached its high point after the general election of October, 1959, was in no small measure due to the betrayal of the Left at Brighton in 1957 by Aneurin Bevan. A frustrated Labour rank and file cannot produce many enthusiastic fighters for socialism. Scarborough, 1960, promises to be the venue of one of the most enthusiastic conferences since the party was founded. The rank and file feel they are getting somewhere at last. The fights against the H-bomb and for more nationalization are class questions. Great possibili- ties open up for the development of a Marxist pro- gramme and policies. The important thing to realize about the next stage of the struggle against the Right wing is that the rank and file of the Labour and trade union movement must be -en- couraged to exercise their tremendous strength in ali future conflicts in the struggle between capital and labour. That is what is so dangerous about the problem which Mr. Cousins faces in relation to his own union. The witch-hunt against shop stewards was initiated by the ruling class and its Fleet Street propaganda machine. The TUC enquiry did not arise because of demands from the factories but from demands from the employers. But these shop stewards, maligned by the employers, are the men who are in the forefront of the campaign for more national- ization and against the H-bomb. It is their milit- ancy which must be encouraged. This does not 83 mean, however, that the rank and file should be en- couraged to embark on adventures. It does mean that the political level of understanding of the ranks will only be heightened as a result of firm leader- ship in the fight against the Right wing and the em- ployers. Mr. Cousins cannot continue to com- promise with the Right-wing trade union bureauc- racy against shop stewards and at the same time call for a struggle for nationalization and against the H-bomb. He, too, will have to make his deci- sion before long. The issues confronting the Left wing of the Labour Party and the trade unions cannot be de- cided by new illusions in this or that personality. This was the source of the great confusion which arose from Bevan’s desertion to Gaitskell in 1957. Active Labour Party members and trade unionists must begin to think for themselves along the lines of the class struggle now taking place against the employers and the Tory government. The Right wing have operated a strict policy of bans and proscriptions. Some of those responsible for the anti-H-bomb resolution at the 1957 confer- ence have been expelled in the 1959 proscription of the Socialist Labour League. The great difficulty before the rank and file is that they have not been drawn actively into policy-making. They are asked to endorse this or that official handout from the top, but the Right-wing leaders are not concerned about any opinions that the ranks might hold. When Marxists come forward with policies which have now been proved to be completely correct, they are witch-hunted out of the party. At the time when the discussion is about to begin it is bludgeoned to an end by the witch-hunters. The fight to end bans and proscriptions is not a mere organizational question. The whole future of the Labour Party and the trade unions requires this step to be taken if the rank and file are to be in- volved in policy decisions which give them an oppor- tunity to govern the party. Even if the Scaborough conference decides against the bomb and for more nationalization, such a decision will come to no- thing if it is referred for action to the policy com- mittees of the party. Since these committees are influenced more by the pressure from the Tory Party and the press rather than their own rank and file, the decisions of Scarborough, important as they may well be, will amount to nothing. The 1960 annual conference of the Labour Party must mark the beginning of a great change inside the Labour Party. The acid test for such a change would be the readmission of Marxists who have been expelled from the Labour Party into member- ship and the lifting of all bans and proscriptions. In the struggle to. accomplish this, great steps for- ward in the struggle for a socialist Britain are possible.