A SOCIALIST FIVE-YEAR PLAN
WHATEVER doubts there maybe about the policy of the Labour Party in the event of victory at the polls, at least we know exactly the plans of that section of it which belongs to the Socialist League. It has defined its programme in no halting terms at its annual conference at Leeds. It proposes that the .first act of the Labour Party, when it has removed from its path the dragon of the House of Lords, would he to transfer to the com- munity the " main points of economic power," namely, the credit and monetary system, and the land.. Having secured control of the banks and the investing power of the community, it would proceed " with the maximum possible rapidity " to the nationalization of the key industries—coal, cotton, wool, iron and steel, ship- building, transport, gas, electricity and agriculture.
The military and police forces of the Crown would be reorganized, overseas trade. would be brought under State direction, and workers' control would be established in industry (the last resolution being put forward " in contradiction of Mr. Herbert Morrison and theoreticians of the Labour movement").
All this is in accordance with a Five-Year Plan capable of being carried out during the lifetime of a single Parlia- ment ; and it is to be accompanied by " ambulance • proposals " for dealing with immediate issues like slum clearance, housing, the raising of the school age, the reduction of hours of labour, increased pensions, and relief for the unemployed on a scale of 12 a week for a man and wife and two children. Whilst the programme of action was thus defined, the spirit in which it was to be undertaken was shown by resolutions denouncing " such • capitalistic schemes" as the London Passenger Transport Board (a moderate Socialist institution which owes its origin to a Labour Government), urging the Council to take the lead in promoting. a united front side by side with the Communists, and calling on the workers to pre- pare for the risk of war. In view of the programme and -the resolutions, it is not easy to detect much difference between the Socialist League and its parent the I.L.P., except that the former hopes to capture the Labour Party, while the.latter has despaired of doing so.
But this difference is of great importance. A Socialist League outside the Labour Party would not at the present time be a great power in politics, but inside the party it is extremely influential, and no one can be certain that its superior driving-power will not give it control. There- fore it is well that we should have this clear statement of where it stands and how it will attempt to gain its ends. Sir Stafford Cripps said that there were no important differences between the League and the Labour Party as to the final objective„ but only about the means to attain it. This is hardly correct. That example of nationalization embodied in the London Passenger Transport Board, which for the Labour Party is a model for Socialism, is denounced by the League as "Capitalism." The former will have nothing to do with the industrial anarchy of " workers' control " in industry, but the latter go beyond even their friends in Russia in insisting on it. But perhaps it would be a mistake to attach too much importance to all the resolutions swallowed with such voracity at the conference. It is probable that Sir Stafford Cripps himself does not take some of the items on the programme quite so seriously as his supporters. It is well known in the experience of polities that conferences propose and Governments dispose, and even an extreme Socialist Government with Sir Stafford Cripps at its head would be no exception to the rule,- It is reasonable, therefore, to pay more attention to the words of the leader than to the resolutions of his followers, not forgetting, however, that it is the spirit and passion of the rank and file that arm him for the conflict. The central point for Sir Stafford Cripps is that the break with Capitalism must be abrupt ; the attainnient of constitutional power must be instantly followed by the seizure of economic power, the key to which lies in possession of the banking system and the land. He has sketched with admirable precision a few short, sharp measures by which he and his friends will put themselves in the position to make a new Britain according to plan. He has been frank. He has not shrunk from the cer- tainty of frightening people. He sticks to his guns. He has no interest in winning an election which fails to confer on his party a, mandate. And there is an element of reason in his contention that those who ask him to moderate his demands because of the effect on the electorate misread the lesson of post-War Europe. He is right when he says that it is the urgent desire for active change that has been forcing the younger electors into movements like the Fascist movement. The modern aware-ness of profound and swift changes taking place in the composition of society and in the economic con- dition of life has led to an insistent demand for energetic rulers capable of taking far-reaching measures to deal with them, and taking them quickly. It was this demand which led to the setting up of a National Government, but it would be folly to claim that the present Government has realized the nation's high-pitched hopes ; some of its close friends have produced their own plans of recovery which are revolutionary compared with the Government's achievement. Sir Stafford Cripps is justified in supposing that the electorate is not in the least likely to be offended with him merely because his proposals are for bold, swift, comprehensive action.
Where he has obviously gone wrong is in appealing at one and the same time to two distinct forces, which are in their nature opposed. He has addressed himself to the forces of order, which want a new constructive plan of the State, and at the same time to the revolutionary instincts of a section of the masses, who want destruction. He has attempted to reconcile an appeal to the sane ambitions of the democrat who desires economic equality with an appeal to the passion of those who are angry, disappointed and vengeful. Miss Susan Lawrence, her- self a member of the League, at once recognized the discrepancy, patently revealed as it was in the decision to create a united front with Communism. "'If you think Parliament is a humbug," she said, " leave all this futile electioneering work ; but if not, do not March with sham unity side by side with those whose tactics you despise." There she put her finger exactly on the weak spot in Sir Stafford Cripps's campaign. He is running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. He is asking for a planned Utopian State, and he is pursuing it by wrecking methods, in company with persons whose minds are inflamed with destructive revolutionary ardour. The control of the Bank of England by the State, as suggested by the President of the Bank Officers' Guild the other day, is not a proposal calculated to alarm the public ; but its transfer to a band of revolutionaries led by Sir Stafford Cripps and supported by a rout of adventurous fanatics is altogether a different proposition. Even if his plan were a far better one than it is, it would be discredited by the character of the propaganda behind it. He is preaching order, and stirring up the spirit of anarchy.
Previous page
