Notes for a revolutionary handbook BOOKS
JO GRIMOND, MP `For old unhappy far-off things and battles long ago.' Remote, indeed, are most of the events described in this book—The Revolution- ary Movement in Britain 1900-1921 by Walter Kendall (Weidenfeld and Nicolson 105s). Re- mote in themselves and apparently responsible for hardly a footprint in the sand of British politics. This is a history of those movements and parties which stood, in conventional lan- guage, to the left of the Labour party. The last of them to carry some weight was the ILP. Who now remembers De Leon or Grayson?
The book is a history of events and a dry one at that. The author makes little effort to explain the beliefs of the various socialist sects whose meetings, membership, personalities he faith- fully records. Nor does he discuss at any length whether these beliefs were right or wrong. He makes few generalisations. He excludes drama with a puritan self-denial. He does not even mention that Grayson, a brief hero of the earlier years of the century, ultimately disap- peared in circumstances unexplained even to this day. It must require considerable self- restraint to turn your back on any passage of even the palest purple about some of the revo- lUtionaries whom he .handles. However, this • is the fashion in dealing with politics or indeed history.
Yet if the revolutionary movements of 1900 ' to 1921 are to be treated in this way is it worth doing at all? For the reader who is prepared to draw his own conclusions it is. One of the • author's main contentions is that the reason why the Communist party in Britain has made so little impact is that it is an alien, imposed organisation. While at the same time the large amount of Russian money which it commanded gave it a considerable advantage over its rivals. But has there ever been a chance for a revo- lutionary—or even radical—movement in Britain since the First World War? The interest in this book is the light it may shed on the pros- pects of such movements today. And one of the most curious features of British politics is the absence of a Communist party or even a significant party of change. The present situa- tion would seem almost ideal for such a party —but where is it?
The salient feature of recent movements of disruption has been that they have been thrown back on Marx partly because there is no one else to fall back on. The doctrines of economic and technological determinism have been so rooted in the western world since the war that political philosophy has abdicated to psepho- logy. So when a generation grows up which once again wants to make its own value judg-
ments where can it turn but to Marx? But then, of course; the trouble starts, for the world is no longer the world of Marx and the develdp-
merit of both Marxist-Leninism and capitalism in practice has been very different from that foretold by the prophet. In the meantime, the , major working-class movement in Britain learnt by bitter experience to loathe and distrust com- munism. So we never had a party with a strong ideological and reformist, let alone revolution- ary, view. Now the moment for such a party thought of in nineteenth-century terms has passed.
An argument to which this book subscribes is that, had the various socialist parties which existed before and through the first war been allowed to develop naturally, we might have had now either a much more ideological Labour party or a new Socialist party to the left of Labour. This party could then have offered a home for the disgruntled idealists or ideologists. Such a party could have appealed to the patriot- ism or nationalism which is endemic in politics. It would not have made the blunders which a Communist party drilled from Moscow was bound to make. It could have cooperated with a party of general reform. And the existence of such a party might naw be a great asset in British politics. But can it be created now? I think not.
Existing parties continue, and will continue for a long time, as structures for the mobilisa- tion of power in the existing pattern of British politics. They are steadily ceasing to represent a coherent ideology. Their basis in class is vanish- ing. Few of their members feel that one party represents their point of view right across the range of political issues from Stansted to Biafra. But their patronage is large. They still have their use. And they are entrenched in the con- servatism and inertia which have been the mood of the British majority since the war. They will survive. But to try to found a new British party on traditional lines would be like trying to resurrect the dinosaur.
There are, of course, considerable minority groups, fed up with the present state of politics. What, then, should we do? These groups have one thing only in common, dislike of the govern- ment and dissatisfaction with their standing in Mr Victor Grayson haranguing the mob modern society. For them we are in the Asiatic situation in which it is not conflict between parties or classes that matters but conflict be- tween the government and the governed. The government is regarded by them as embracing all the institutions which depend upon it, in- cluding the nationalised industries and the universities. And they sec the faults of the gov- ernment arising from the vices of our society. Beyond this, the groups have differing interests and objectives. Politically many of them do not fit into the left-right spectrum but, in so far as they do, a few are fascist inclined.
A revolution of the traditional sort, that is to say the seizure of power by some of a dispos- sessed class, is in these circumstances impos- sible. Further, many of the best publicised groups are irrelevant—if they were less so they would not get the publicity they do. Student stunts are irrelevant, though the state of the universities is not.
There would seem to be two possibilities for those who want change. The first is to work from within to change the constitution and the nature of the parties. This requires some occa- sion, some event phich will force reform on a conservative nation. There could be a change in the constitutional position of England, Scot• land, Wales and Ireland. Some change there is certain. And this change could be an occasion for altering the government system of alt four countries. Reformers should turn their attention to the sort of constitutional changes which are desirable, so that they arc ready if the moment arrives when change is a possibility.
The second possibility is to dissociate from the present society and government, pinning all hope on a crisis. Looking at the western world, the Establishment has sometimes ghetto/a itself lacking in belief and easily panicked. Fur- ther, industrial society is vulnerable to the action of individual groups in spite of its apparent solidarity. Look at what students and An- guillans, Fold workers and directors of com- panies have achieved for themselves by chal- lenging the system. Anguilla has got more atten- tion to its needs by expelling Mr Whitlock than two years of decorous representations would have achieved. And there are signs that in some groups of highly unrevolutionary people non- cooperation with the system of government is being seriously considered. But this type of challenge needs the occasion which would have to be something more than the next economic crisis; it needs leadership which is prepared to exploit the situation to the full. As Mr Walter Kendall points out, such leadership has not so far existed in Britain. It does not today. Fur- ther, a society divided into groups, organisations or strata is very difficult to overturn. I don't say it might not happen. But so far no analysis has shown how it could.
The greatest danger we face from having no effective instrument of change in our democratic methods—no radical movement, no pressure for the politics of value as against the politics of sensation, gossip and psephology—is that if people get more and more disillusioned with the instruments of government there will grow up an unpleasant appeal to strong methods and the suppression of dissent. If this happens, those ,on the so-called left, who in fact have been foremost in imposing uniformity, chanting 'slogans and embracing fashions, will be to blame. The way lies open to one of the estab- lished parties to become a vehicle of reform by reforming itself. And the lessons embedded
in this book could be a help in such a process. For had the Labour party studied more care-' fully what was happening in the 'twenties and 'thirties, it might have today a better chance of regaining its momentum.
Previous page
