Great Britain
ORGANIZED LABOR MOVES LEFT IN BRITAIN: DEFEAT FOR GAITSKELL AND RIGHT WING
After the General Election defeat, in concert with the right-wing revisionist trend in Europe, Gaitskell and the right wing of the Labour Party on the fundamental principles and policies of the Labour began an assault movement. They wished to take a stand similar to that of the revisionists who have changed the official programme of the Social-Democracy in Germany and in other European countries. This was an expression of the pressure of capitalism due to the sustained boom.
The policy advocated by Gaitskell, Douglas Jay, Crosland, and other members of the Frognal Road declared that the nature of capitalism had changed and with capitalism's new prosperity it was necessary Labour has based itself in the past. Gaitskell and the abandon the programme of nationalization which other leaders of the right wing expected to win an easy majority.
The Labour movement in Britain, however, has bee! developed over decades in a struggle against LiberalLabourism. Founded for the purpose Labour representation, it adopted a socialist objective of independent in its Constitution only in 1918, following the wave radicalism which swep: Europe in the wake of the Russian Revolution. Nearly all the important have adopted, in one form of words objective of socialism in their constitutions. The Labour Party, which is based on the unions, its local branches, and also its constituency organizations, is far to the left of the leadership.
In spite of the increase in the standard of living, full employment and the benefits of the "welfare state," thu mass of the more class-conscious and organized section of the working class feel a deep distrust and profound disbelief in the lasting character of the had it so good" 'prosperity." In any event, the more conscious part of the working class, the more active section that forms the backbone of the Labour Party and the trade unions, understand that this prosperity is to a great extent based on women working, overtime, bonus schemes and a greater rate of exploitation than in the past due to the increased productivity of labor.
Gaitskell and his cronies in the Hampstead coterie completely mistook the temper of the movement. At this stage they are completely out of touch with the feelings of thr rank and file. In contrast to such previous leaders of the Labour Party, as MacDonald, for example, who parIcipated in the movement's development, or Attlee, who started at the bottom and had some feeling for the movement, Gaitskell in effect started as a university graduate and stepped straight on to the parliamentary arena. It was probably a moot point whether he joined the Tory Party or the Labour Party. He represents a petty-bourgeois tendency which has no feel whatsoever for the mass
Marx and Lenin had observed that, while in many respects the British working class was far more backward than their brothers on the Continent, once they had made a step forward, it was not easy to push them back to previous positions. ing class learn slowly, empirically, and as Trotsky observed, clumsily and ponderously, but once they have assimilated a lesson, it is not easy to dislodge them from any position in the field of ideas or social conquests. It was with this that Gaitskell and the other revisionists had
Raising the question has had the opposite result to what Gaitskell had expected. During the election camgaign, the labour leaders had been compelled to addin a spurious position of criticism of the ruling class order to revive some enthusiasm among the workers. Gaitskell had attacked the monopolies and the millionaire backers of the Tory Party. This, plus a careful build-up in the capitalist press, had for the first time given a certain Labour Party. It was this among other things which amount of personal popularity to the leader of the probably misled Gaitskell into thinking that he could without 1oo much difficulty change the policy of the party what he considered an "election-winning" programme.
The reaction in the constituencies and in the trade-union branches, however, was one of instant alarm. Gaitskell stamped his foot but it was the legions of his opponents now famous Clause 4 of the Constitution adopted that he stirred up. Gaitskell's assault had been on the in
74 1918. This declares for the nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the democratic control thereof, as the objective of the Labour Party.
The attempt at "streamlining" and "modernizing" the Labour movement "in line with modern realities," far from meeting the expected acclaim inside the movement, had the opposite result. It received the enthusiastic plaudits of the entire capitalist press, from the shrill screams of the Daily Express to the hysteria of the Mirror, from the extreme right Daily Mail to the sedate Times, from the Liberal News-Chronicle to the official Labour journal, the Herald; serious bourgeois weeklies like The Economist and the serious monthlies and quarter. lies all greeted this "coming of age" of Labour. There was only one thing urong: the reception it receiver among the active organised workers!
Even the Parliamentary Party, especially the trade-union MPs, Ps greeted il with any enthusiasm, and they received it with dismay. Only a few middlequickly took refuge in silence. Had Gaitskell persisted in his intention, nothing could have been more certain than his overwhelming defeat at the Party Conference. It is doubtful if he would have received half a million votes for the proposal! In this predicament the "Leader" had to be rescued from his troops. Whatever popularity had been gained in the election had rapidly evaporated in the atmosphere created by his stubborn attempt to change party policy. George Brown, in reality one of the extreme right-wingers but with a little more "savvy" and tact than his leader, found the apparent answer. As one of the trade union MPs with more experience of the movement as a former trade-union organizer, he thought he the solution. A frontal attack on the hard-won objectives of the party was not possible. Why not a flank attack? Leave Clause 4 and at the same time put in another clause which in effect nullifies it! All the trade-union leaders had been furious with Gaitskell for "stirring i! up." Why start a discussion when after all the clause can be left peacefully embedded in the Constitution without any pratical relation to Labour's real policies? In reality Gaitskell wished to bury nationalization, even of a partial once and for all. Now he seized on Brown's suggestion as a way out. Clause 4 would remain but so would a new declaration of aims which would enshrine as Labour's aim a "mixed economy" of private enterprise as well as public ownership.
In Brown's quaint phrase it would be the New Testament of Labour, side-by-side with the Old Testament. as with the Christians, obviously the New Testament would be the more important part, which would decide policy and programme for Labour. It was this new compromise • that was moved at the National Excutive. In the alleged interest of unity, with some amendments, the draft was accepted by the former Bevanites, the supposed leaders of the left wing on the National Executive. They stilled their consciences by referring to the phrase which speaks of the necessity for the nationalization of the "commanding heights" of the economy — commanding heights which were left vague and unspecified. So that Douglas Jay could later declare in a speech that, apart from steel, the commanding heights were already nationalized! According the only vote against this "compromise" that of the Transport & General Workers Union nominee on the Executive, Harry Nicholas.
This complete misunderstanding of the temper of the movement by even the so-called left is very significant. Ar one Union conference after another this compromise has been rejected by the rank-and-file delegates, orior they sensed the ranks' feeling, union leadership as well. At the Amalgamated Engineer-
Union Conference a resolution against amending
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL Clause 4 in any way was carried unanimously, even such right-wingers as Carron supporting it. At the Building Workers Conference the same occurred. In spite of the opposition of the executives, miners both rejected the compromise. Undoubtedly the bulk of the constituency parties will react in the same way. The T & G WU executive of course rejected the compromise unanimoulsly! Even the : National & G M WU, which remains the citadel of the right wing, carried a resolution in favor by only a narrow majority. If the question is pu: to the Party Conference, Gaitskell will be overwhelmingly defeated. The party leadership are trying to avoid defeat by shelving the issue until amendments are debated in 1962.... The whole issue will be dropped and Gaitskell & Co will not revive it to face certain defeat. I remains to be seen whether this manœuvre will bo
Meanwhile the Gaitskell leadership's defense policy too, which has consisted of tailing behind the Conservatives, is receiving one setback after another. On this issue too the active workers are repudiating the party leadership.
the Gaitskell. amended policy received a majority of about two to one, at the conference of the National Union of Railwaymen, a resolution demanding unilateral nuclear disarmament was narrowly carried by 39 to 38. The A EU executive, face of the pressure of the members, has now decided to present a resolution on unilateral nuclear disarmament in line with their conference decisions. The line-up of the is now 2,884,000 for unilateral disarmament and 1,769,000 against. Most of the constituencies will also support unilateral disarmament, so the defeat of the Gaitskell leadership on this issue is now certain. Only if one or more union leaderships betray their mandate can Gaitskell gain a majority. As things stand, this seems leadership is virtually certain of defeat on this question.
Facing defeat on this question, Gaitskell had threatening to ignore conference decisions as "not binding" or the Parliamentary Party. This further "clanger" dropped by Gaitskell only incensed the workers and even many of the union bureaucracies. If the leadership tries to maintain this position it can only lead to the resignation of Gaitskell. The bulk of the members of the Parliamentary Party know that there is no future for a head-on defiance of the party itself.
Coming in a period of boom, with a relative lull in the events have great significance the future of the Labour movement in Britain. is a big difference in the attitude towards the leadership in 1945 and at the present time. The organized active minority, which bears the bruni of the work in the wards and union branches in proselytizing the ideas of socialism, has become far more critical, and has moved somewhat to the or at least is endeavoring to maintain the best traditions of the past. It is not prepared to give up the hardwon programme of the past.
From this point of view undoubtedly and even from that of the right wing, Gaitskell is the worst leader yet. He has an unerring instinct for rousing the antagonism and opposition of the party masses. Undoubtedly even right wing, of whose prejudices, backwardness, rance Gaitskell is the perfect embodiment, would be glad to get rid of this inept and crude petty bourgeois, if they had an alternative leader. Had it not been for the illness and subsequent death of Bevan the entire party would have turned to him in relief in the present circumstances. Gaitskell only survives as leader because the right wing cannot think of anyone better to fill his sboes. The lack of seriousness and principle of the "Leader" was shown in his endeavor to regain some popularity by an unexpected attack on the land speculators and a demand for
----- photo credits and running heads -----
left,
FOURTH INTERNATIONAL the nationalization of the land. It should be clearly understood, however, that this is only a dress-rehearsal future events in Britain. Undoubtedly it is only the more advanced elements who attend their ward parties, union who have been affected by these It does not involve the class as a whole — as yet! In face of the pressures of capitalist "prosperity," of the press, and of the leadership, this is a splendid demonstration of the soundness of the core of the organized working class in Britain. It represents the elemental surge of the workers in the constituencies and unions in defense of what they believe should be a class and socialist programme. It is a splendid testimonial to the soundness of the more active and thinking elements. Behind them they will bring the of their class.
In an editorial following these events the Daily Herald asked what the fuss was all about. The Constitube reaffirmed and then the party should "practical business." How little they have under. stood the lesson of these events. These events are a dress rehearsal for the storms of the future. In 1945 the Labour Party came to power in Britain under favorable circumstances. The next essay in government may not be so fortu-
75 nate. These events have underlined Trotsky's idea that it is impossible to break the will of the working class to transform society on socialist lines. The next Labour Government will, under conditions of crisis — for without it seems unlikely under present circumstances that Labour will come to power — be faced with demands for drastic attacks on capitalist society, for the nationalization of this or that industry.
Under these circumstances the Labour movement can begin rapidly to transform itself. An organized left wing involving tens and hundreds of thousands of workers will appear. The ideas of Marxism and the Marxists within the Labour Party will gain a mass audience. Gaitskell blunderingly attacked the socialist premise on which the Labour presents itself to its members. He unwittingly revealed the social basis of the Labour Party. It will be impossible to maintain the present relationship of forces within the Labour socialist working-class base and its petty-bourgois leadership, reflecting capitalist influence and ideology within the Labour movement. A veritable gulf will appear between them. In the coming epoch, great numbers of workers within the Labour movement will find the road to revolutionary Marxism.
U.S.A.