by ALEX MASSIE

4
—LONDON.

N its 1945 election pro-

-gram the Labor Party

declared itself to be “a
Socialist party, and proud of
it,” a party whose ultimate
Purpose is “the establish-
ment of a_ Socialist Com-
‘Monwealth of Great _ Bri-
tain,”

This” declaration is in ~ keep-
ing with the definition of ob-
jects in the constitution of the
‘Labor Party: “To secure for the
workers by hand and by brain
the full fruits of their industry

+ upon the basis of the com-
Mon ownership of the means of
Production, distribution and ex-
change.” The same aim is ex-
Pressed in the rules of the Com-
Munist Party: “To achieve a
_ Socialist Britain in which the
_ Public ownership of the means
of production and exchange shall
replace the existing capitalist
System,” .

This similarity in formal state-
‘Ment of general aims has led

Many to suppose that the dif-

ference between Marxists and
non-Marxist socialists is one of
Method only. Actually, the mat-
ter goes much deeper; differences
Over method are secondary to
‘and arise from differences in
- the understanding of what is
Meant by socialism—and indeed,
_ by capitalism.
Certainly there were profound
differences between, say, Mac-
Donald and Marxists over
Method. The Marxist could nev-
er accept the view that “the
Socialist method is that of mov-
ing out step by step, and of
walking by sight and by faith

at the same time.” But this em-_

Pirical, gradualist “approach to
Socialism” was the logical con-
Sequence of an underlying ideal-
ist conception of the process of
Social development, of the na-

ture of capitalism and of social-
ism as stages in that develop-
ment, and of the transition from
the:one to the other.

Thus, MacDonald held the
‘view that “in human history one
epoch slides into another,” that
this mode of social progress is
brought about by .a process
whereby “individuals formulate

ideas, society gradually assimi- Cf

lates them, and gradually the
assimilation shows itself on the
social structure.” This works out
in the end that “political pro-
grams today are being moulded
by the demand, emanating from

the individual conscience, that
society should do justice, that
merit should be rewarded, that

the righteous should not need
“to beg for bread.” ‘As to capi-
talism, “the idea that capitalist
society is based on private prop-
erty is a mere chimera’ ngeOuae:
quently, all “the socialist wants
is “society to be organized s0
that the ownership pt property
by the few will not’ mean that
a great mass of people must
exist in poverty.” As to social-

ism, “the scattered fragments of
reform promised by the politi-
cal parties are but the
foreshadowing of socialism”
when they are “followed out,
joined together, socialism is the
result.”

Socialism, therefore, “is quanti-
tative, not qualitative;” it is “not
the uprising of a class” but the
rise of “social unity and growth
towards organic wholeness.”
Given those views, it follows
logically that “the existence of

a class struggle is of no im-—

portance to socialism unless
it arouses intellectual and moral.
antagonism.” The “motive force

FRIDAY, JANUARY ‘81, 1947

by having it

of socialism” is not the class
struggle of the workers against
capitalism, but “the condemna-
tion of that struggle.”

The charlatan who concocted
this travesty of socialism (in
Socialism and Society and The
Socialist Movement) is dead and
damned, his philosophy describ-
ed by his successor, Clement At-
tlee, as “essentially fascist.” It
should not be forgotten, however,
that MacDonald was accepted
by the reformist wing of the
labor movement as its spiritual

leader and that, by its choice,- 2

he was premier in the second
Labor government at. the very
moment of his monumental be-
trayal.

AT was tragic enough. It
was even more tragic that
the movement as a whole did
not draw the full conclusions
from this object lesson by de-
cisively rejecting the  anti-
Marxist, empirical reformism of
MacDonald. Of what use was it
to. protest, as Herbert Morrison
did, that we must now “put so-
cialism first” if the conception
of socialism was to remain that
of MacDonald?
That this conception does still
prevail among certain Labor

‘leaders has haq striking con-

firmation in a speech made on
October 27 — a speech which
Prompted the above reflections.

Many socialists must have
rubbed their eyes in amazement
and dismay when they learned
from reports of this speech that
Morrison holds the conviction
that there is “no need to abol-
ish the profit motive,” and that

“the government is not out to

abolish the profit motive” which,
in itself, is “right and Justifi-
able. ” The aim of the govern-
ment was to “make it work for
the people and not for the few”
“socialized and
harnessed to the larger inter-
ests of the community.”

True, Morrison wagged an ad-
monitory finger at the capital-
ists on the grounds that “the
working of the profit motive in,
this country has been marred by
three enormous abuses.” These,
he. said, “must be corrected.”

The capitalists must “recognise

and honestly admit these abuses
and assist in rooting them out”
s0 that it would be “possible to
speak of the profit motive as
having an honorable part to play:
in society.”

The object of the wore Party,
as we have seen, is to secure for,
the workers the full fruits of
their labor by establishing com-
mon ownership of the means of
production. Morrison, it seems,
pursues a different object, limit-~
ing himself to the correction of

certain “abuses” incidental to
the working of private _owner-
ge
e

H iced first of these, in Morrison’s

view, is that the profit motive
has been “used as an excuse for
exploiting labor and treating
workerS as a commodity instead
of as people.”

The exploitation of labor and
transformation of labor-power
intO a commodity is not an
abuse. but the very essence of
the capitalist mode of produc-
tion; the profit of the capitalist
class aS a whole—and not just
that of the “bad” employer — is
Gerived wholly and solely from
exploitation of the working-
class, But this is not the place
for an exposition of Marxist po-
litical economy.

In any case, Morrison is not like-
ly to pay much heed to such a
‘foreign’ doctrine. Our reform-
ists pride themselves.on having‘
evolved a distinctive ‘British’
socialism derived frofm native
sources. It is rather curious
that in their search for home-
grown sources they should have
overlooked the teachings of
Thomas Hodgkin.

Long before the first Marxist
work on the subject, Hodgkin

-,was—in the eighteen-twenties—

reading lectures on Popular Po-
litical Economy in which he
pointed out that “the laborer ig
not allowed to work unless, in
addition to replacing whatever
he uses or consumes, and com-
fortably subsisting himself, his

labor also gives a profit to the:

capitalist on all the capital which
he uses or consumes while en-
gaged in producing.” Hodgkin,
condemned this as exploitation
and enslavement of the workers.
It is left to Morroson to praise it
s “right and justifiable.”

But then, Morrison is discay-
ering as right and justifiable so
many things that have been con-
demned and fought against by
the labor movement. _Imperial-
ism for example: “I am a great

friend of the jolly old Empire, .

and we mean to stick to it.’ No
wonder the Fabian Colonial Re-
search Bureau protests that this
“makes a travesty of our work,
a mockery of our sincerity, and

a hypocrisy of our professions.” .

Mistaking the objective for its

realisation, Morrison proclaims -
the British, are the
pioneers in the new politieal and

that “we,

social order.” A queer order it
is: An Empire without imperial-
ism, private ownership and pri-
vate profit without capitalism.
These—imperialism and capital-
ism—remain only as “obsolete
labels” which mischievous out-
Siders “attach to us.”

It would be a dreary business
to pursue Morrison further
through his new order, for which
“the © British Commonwealth
(blessed word!) is the model .. ..
the pattern of political, economic
and social progress . . . which
the rest of the world will in-
mem find itself following.”

@
i WOULD be an impertinence

to Morrison to dismiss these

statements as irresponsible
chance remarks. It would be a
mistake, on the other hand, to,

confine oneself to a criticism of -

€ach statement by itself. Their
essential content, over a wide

range of subjects, is so uniform

as to leave no doubt but that we
have to do with a connected
system of views, with the con-

sistent expression of a definite

conception of socialism and of
the role of the labor movement.

Morrison has not founded a
new school of socialist thought.
He expresses in a crass way:
views that are shared by a ma-
jority of his colleagues in the
Labor government and in the
leadership of the Labor Party.
These views represent the re-
formist, social democratic . con-
ception of socialism—the | out-
look that was fostered in the

,,on the grounds that “something
“must be put in the place of

. It is not a question of all or noth-

- ing-class moyement are

‘of this critical “spirit is

_ €xample

‘Should be lifted up to and

labor movement by Fabianism

Marx” (see History of the Fa-
bian Society), and of which
Ramsay MacDonald was the per-
sonification.

UGH DALTON has described

MacDonald as a “political dis-
aster.” The greater political dis-
aster is that MacDonaldism was
not cleared out of the labor
movement together with Mac-
Donald. One of the proofs that
it has continue@ to dominate the
outlook of many Labor leaders
is that in Dalton’s Practical So-
cialism for Britain one finds nu-
merous passages that read like
an echo from the works of Mac-
Donald quoted above. One ex-
ample is his use of the words.
“Socialism is a quantitative thing.

ing, but of less or more.” Could
the idea that there is no funda-
mental difference between capi-
talism and@ socialism, that capi-.
talism will “grow into the social-
ist state” by the gradual quanti-
tative accumulation of “install-
ments” of socialism—of reforms
within the framework of capital-
ism—be’ more clearly expressed! —
Lest his meaning be not suf-
ficiently clear. Dalton. goes
on to elaborate his contention
that socialism is not qualita-
tively, but only quantitatively
different from capitalism: “ .
We may measure the degree in
which any particular community
is socialist by the relative extent
of the ‘socialized’ sector and of
the ‘private’ sector in its econo-
mic life. . . there is no civilised
community which has no social-
ised sector . .. no nucleus of a
planned economy. All yhave a
system of public finance and
some public services—including
law, police, civil administration,
and some armed forces, as an ir-
reducible minimum.” That, in
the social democratic view, is so-
cialism—“less or more”!

T= (Brighton Trades’ Union
Congress in October revealed
that large sections of the work-

critical of the Labor gove
in respect of the way in -
it is interpreting in 2
many aspects of the policy
which it was elected. The | growth

come and healthy sign.
proof that the whole
would back the gove

bolder, more aggressive polidy
against capitalist Rage ad

So far, eitlatan pe been.
confined, in the main, to this-or
that aspect of government pol-
icy. There has been no wide-
spread discussion in. the move-
ment over such questions as, for
the connection be-
tween the outlook ‘betrayed by
Morrison and those aspects of
the work of the Labor govern-
ment which were so sharply —
criticise? at the Trade Daten
Congress. sue

Yet there is a direct connee
tion between the two, between
the social democratic Philoso-
phy which prevails in the upper
ranks of the Labor leadership
and the practical Policies pur-
sued by them. The conflict over _
practical-political policies is, at
bottom, an ideological conflict, a
conflict of ideas, «to determine
whether the social democratic
or the Marxist outlook will pre
vail in determining the course
to be taken by the movement. __

But it is not yet fought out
openly, as a war of ideas, in a
way that will draw masses of _
workers into a study and criti-
cal weighing-up of Marxism and —
social democracy. That it

fought out on this plane—as well
as on particular issues of policy. _
and ee ee Se
ae ere