Marxism Under Fire . Peter Cadogon and the I LP

By G. HEALY The history of the Labour movement is a history of political tendencies. Since the policies of the movement can only be determined by discussion and argument it is natural that there should be various organizations which subscribe to different opinions. Superficially this may appear to some people to be rather unfortunate, yet in the course of history this division of opinion, especially in the Marxist movement, has often led to important victories. There is the history of the Bolshevik party, a history of fierce debate and discussion leading to the greatest discipline in action against the common class enemy.

There is, however, one yardstick which must be applied to the conduct of groupings inside the Labour movement who have political differences. That is the attitude of one of these groupings towards the common class enemy should another of the groupings be attacked.

The long struggle between Stalinism and Trotskyism always found Trotskyists in the forefront defending the democratic against suspension. To read him in the Socialist Leader one rights of the Stalinists under persecution by the class enemy. would imagine that he had been brutally assaulted. We take Marxists regard differences of opinion as the business of the note of the fact that whilst Cadogan advocated Stalinism and Labour movement and no one else’s. And if their opponents justified its crimes for several years, he never to our knowinside the movement are attacked they fight to defend their ledge, at any time used the same type of vicious language right to propagate their opinions, regardless of differences. about the leaders of the Communist Party as he has used The Socialist Labour League is constantly being witch- against the leading members of the Socialist Labour League. hunted by the capitalist press and the Right-wing of the In any case, such language always tells more about the person Labour Party. Several of its members have been expelled who uses it than about those of whom it is said. from the Labour Party and from trade unions. One of the tendencies in the Labour movement which has supported the The political differences actions of the Right-wing in expelling our people is the inCadogan opens his article in the Socialist Leader with the significant sect calling itself the Independent Labour Party, and statement that : ‘The October Revolution of Lenin and Trotsky its paper the Socialist Leader. When the Socialist Outlook was the most successful failure’. was banned by the Labour Party in 1954, Mr. George Stone, Here is a remark which is very acceptable to the Right-wing the editor of the Socialist Leader, supported the ban. When of the British Labour Party. These gentlemen like to convey our members were expelled from the Labour Party last year, the impression that they consider that, while there is some the Socialist Leader supported the expulsions.

good in Russia, the revolution was a failure. Marxists, on the It is no surprise, therefore, that this paper should now beother hand, constantly endeavour to explain how the great come the open forum for people who have deserted the Marxeconomic advances of the Russian revolution are in contradicist movement and are rapidly making their way to the Right.

tion with the parasitic role of the Soviet bureaucracy. CadoBirds of a feather flock together, and Mr. Peter Cadogan, Egan equates the bureaucracy with the revolution in his ‘success of Cambridge, who is never tired of shouting about his hatred and failure’ formula. This is a major concession on his part of sectarianism, now finds it convenient to attack the Socialist to the Right-wing reformists.

Labour League in one of the most sectarian and unprincipled He then goes on to speak about the transformation of the of all papers in the Labour movement.

State. Marxists have always carefully explained that it is It is also not surprising that in his article (Socialist Leader, impossible to transform the capitalist State; that the State has January 23) Cadogan should reveal his intention of snuggling to be destroyed in the course of revolutionary struggle and reup more closely to the Right-wing of the Labour movement.

placed by a State based upon the working class after it has After all, could there be a better place to outline one’s opportaken power. Cadogan here subscribes in effect to the Stalinist tunist tendencies than in a sectarian newspaper? Especially _ theory of the ‘British road to socialism’ which is very acceptsince the ILP has provided quite a crop of opportunists for able to Fabians and reformists in general—and which Cadogan the Labour Party in the past—John McGovern, for instance, himself debunked only three years ago. and Walter Padley. Perhaps Cadogan thinks he, too, is moving There is not a word in his article about how to fight the along one of those traditional ‘British’ paths in this respect.

Right-wing in the Labour Party and achieve socialism in Britain. Instead he proceeds to advise members of the SocialCadogan and the SLL List Labour League to get rid of Healy so that, to use his own Cadogan was expelled from the Socialist Labour League words : ‘The Socialist Labour League can clearly demonstrate because he refused to avail himself of his constitutional right to the whole Left that it really intends to change its ways.’ to present his political opinions to the membership and took What is this ‘left’ that Cadogan speaks of? There is no his views to the public at large. As a result he revealed that doubt that the Socialist Labour League is in political opposifar from being as democratic as he claims to be, he treated tion to the centrists of the New Left Review and their supthe membership of the Socialist Labour League with contempt. porters in the Labour Party. These people are at least honest The opinion he expressed to the public was fundamentally at in their approach to the class struggle. By and large they variance with the policy of the League. He insisted that the refuse to accept it, and of course they are extremely annoyed world should unite in ‘a front that cuts across class bounda- with the Socialist Labour League when we insist upon the ries’ in the struggle against the H-bomb. The Socialist Labour decisive role of the working class in the struggle for socialism. League, on the other hand, believes that it is necessary to Why should Healy be expelled to satisfy this ‘left’? Cadogan widen the gulf between the classes as part of the struggle to has a very clear answer for this, too: ‘If this is not done,’ he establish socialism, the only answer to the H-bomb. Conse- says, ‘then the Right-wing will continue to point the finger quently, Mr. Cadogan parted company with the League. of scorn at Healy.” Here we have Mr. Cadogan’s policy in a It should be said that on leaving the Socialist Labour League nutshell. We should break down the class barriers, that is, get Cadogan expressed himself as fully satisfied with the way he rid of the idea of class struggle; throw the very great achievewas treated by the National Committee which heard his appeal ments of the Russian revolution overboard and make ourselves

oe Rutiand Boughton 1878-1960 .eeeeee=—w Caen TSS sss, respectable to the renegades of Transport House; end all revolutionary talk about the need to overthrow the State, leaving the door open for supporting the Parliamentary road; demand that the Socialist Labour League purges the Marxists and then we shall be so respectable that even the Right-wing will recognize us.

The day that the League is recognized as ‘respectable’ by Transport House, that day will sound its death-knell. We are The eminent composer of ‘The Immortal Hour’, Rutland Boughton, died in London on January 25.

He joined the Communist Party in 1926 and left it in 1956. Below we reprint, instead of an obituary, a passage from the article ‘How Come These Traitors’ — an analysis of the causes of degeneration of working-class leaders—which he contributed to the Labour Monthly for November, 1926, during the discussion which followed the betrayal of the General Strike.

Absolute standards of living have changed since 1926, but the principle Boughton expounded remains the same, To pay the secretary of a trade union or the editor of a Labour paper a higher salary than the average wages of the men he is intended to serve is contrary to every principle of socialism and common sense.

The theory appears to be that if the Labour movement is to , have really first-class officials they must be kept for Labour by the sort of wage they could get from the boss class. But the boss class can always afford to pay the highest salaries and so secure the most efficient of these men who are for sale.

Therefore of such men Labour can in any case only get the second best, the men left over when the boss class has had its pick—unless, of course, a certain number of very efficient men are actually allowed to put on the livery of Labour the better to do the bosses’ own work; and in that case it is fully to be expected that they will get a good deal more than Labour pays them.

I don’t mean that such men would receive actual bribes of cash. That would be too obvious and would not properly achieve the masters’ object.

But popular Labour leaders whose ideas are flabby and offer no real threat to the capitalist system may be invited, for instance, to write for the capitalist Press, with great advantage By our Political Correspondent proud of the hostile way our policies are received by the capitalist press and Transport House, as well as by Cadogan. - There is no room in the Socialist Labour League for reformists and Right-wingers. We are sure that this principled position on our part will not frighten away serious people in the Leftwing who may be critical on this or that question in relation to Marxism. We are confident that it will in fact attract them towards the Socialist Labour League. to themselves and to the increase of a reputation for broadmindedness among the masters.

Or they may be called upon from time to time to act as Labour adviser to capitalist organizations. But under the most favourable circumstances, even when the highly-paid leader is a man of principle, he is unable properly to serve or represent the workers if he lives at a higher rate than they live.

Plutocratic embrace It is not his fault so much as the fault of the workers who overpay him, A man who gets the cut of a joint every day in the week forgets (if he ever knew) the needs of a man who lives chiefly on bread and potatoes.

A man who can take his family once a week to the theatre cannot understand the intellectual starvation of one who finds it hard to afford a daily paper.

Further, if an official is paid well enough to mix without too much discomfort in circles frequented by the master class, he will be open to another demoralizing influence—to that flattery which is the third cause of official Labour treachery.

When MacDonald got into such a muddle over the forged letter (i.e., the ‘Zinoviev’ Letter, 1924), I heard a great dramatist remark, ‘He has fallen a victim to the charming manners of the English governing class.’

And while the workers will have to take steps to guard against that sort of failure they must not despise too much the men who have failed.

Not one of the workers themselves but would become weakened in moral fibre if day in and day out, year in and year out, he were assailed by the subtle sweetness of pretended and genuine admiration from fair women of fine culture, and by the even more powerful flattery of their men when they ask for advice and incidentally learn many solid and useful facts which lie behind the Labour official’s opinions, the knowledge of these facts being so necessary for the continuance in power of the capitalist class.

This is not a wilful treachery of the official: he cannot help himself in the false opinion of superiority which a high salary gives him.

€