"Socialism and the Labor Party "

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 91, 13 December 1912, Page 3

"Socialism and the Labor Party "

* . Commended by "The Maoriland Worker" to all in the United Labor Party who want Socialism

By FRED. HENDERSON, in the "Clarion."

The- only variation in the monotony of pointing the raoral of by-election results is that, they become steadily worse and worse, from the Labor Party point, of now. Hanloy and Crewe were bad enough, and now comes East, Carmarthen, the worst of the scries so far. The Labor candidate has actually polled fewer votes standing now as the adopted and recognised candidal* of the Labor Party than ho did at Mie. last, general election, when he. fought a sin-gle-handed fight on his own personal initiative without official recognition or support. It is not necessary for mc to re-peat over again upon this new text what I have already said in the "Clarion" about Hanley and Crewe. Hem we have tho same contemptuous rejection of the Labor Party nominee by a constituency with an overwhelming preponderance- of industrial workers; tho same demonstration of the fact that the Labor Party policy, after six years of Parliamentary trial, has failed to impress itself upon working-class electors as a policy independent of Liberalism. Once again we have it remorselessly shown to us that there is no reason the public can understand for the separ-. ate existence of a party organised apart from the- Liberal Party, declaiming against the Liberal Party, fighting constituencies against the Liberal Party, and yet having no better use to make of its representation in Parliament when it gets it than to support the Liberal Party. "If Liberalism is good enough, for you to support in Parliament), it is good enough for us to support at the ballot-box." That is the retort of the electors to the wooing of Labor candidates; and I do not see how it can be otherwise so long as the Labor Party remains a non-Socialist party devoted to social reform within the existing order, and therefore, in its fundamental principles, indistinguishable from Liberalism. I do not want to labor the point by constant repetition. I have said all thai) I have to say about it in my pamphlet on "Socialism and tho Labor Party," and I have tried to say it without any sort of rancour or bitterness, in the hope of persuading those of my. fellow-Socialists who are still in bondage to the superstition of social reform within the existing order to look the facts honestly and clearly in the face. I am delighted to see that it is in the same spirit) of freedom from "rancour and bitterness that my good friend, the chairman of the Independent Labor Party, Mr. W. C. Anderson, replies to my pamphlet in last week's issno of tho "Labor Leader." There has been so much acrimony, so much imputation of bad faith, on both sides in this controversy that it .is a pleasure to read Mr. Anderson's courteous and reasoned statement of his case for the Labor Party policy. I think his reasoning unsound and his conclusions fallacious, but> I shake hands very heartily with him in the determination to keep this discussion to tho merits of the question, and I do not think we are in the least likely to attack what wo believe to be one another's unsound reasoning any less vigorously because of our mutual recognition of good faith. Mr. Anderson's defence , of the Labor Party policy of social reform within the existing order is that while "the Labor Party is ready for big Socialist changes, the people are not yet ready." The present evil conditions, he says, many of which can be greatly improved, give us feeble blood and dull, muddled brains, and before we can get Socialism we must have fighters for freedom, and these must have good blood and clear brains. Therefore, our political business at present must be with such social reforms as will give the people more leisure, more time to read and think, a greater measure of security, and some relief from daily anxiety and strain. "When we have got these things, he says, "they may then lift up their eyes to the wider vision and set about building the new state." I am glad that we- have at last so frank and open a statement of the position as that. It puts an end to many confusions; "We know now, in the most explicit terms, that Socialists who adopt the Labor Party policy do «> on the distinct avowal that Socialism is not practical politics for this.generation. The people are not ready for it. They are unready for it, be it .carefully noted, not merely because they'have not studied and discussed and considered it sufficiently, but because they are physically and mentally incapable of studying and.discussing and considering it. It is not their judgment about Socialism that makes thorn unready; it is tho unfitness of their.Wood.and brains. Socialism, as a practical political proposal, is off the board ..until we can get a* new generation with., hotter, blood and better brain's. Only.ihen will tho people he able to set about building the new state' which we Socialists desire. Mr. Anderson's idea that w« can build up a race vigorous in blood and strong in brain under capitalism and within the capitalist system, and that we must wait till we have dons so before we can begin our Socialist attack upon capitalism, seems to mc to be sheer illusion. If capitalism is capable of being so adjusted as to produce a raco of workers healthy in body, alert in mind, enjoying leisure and security and freedom from anxiety, then it seems to mc that our whole Socialist diagnosis of the evils of.capitalism and how they , affect .human life must be wrong. By ' such an argument. I suggest to Mr. . Anderson that he is not only denying to Socialism a place in practical poli- ■ tics, but that be is also destroying the case for Socialism on its economic side. He is conceding to Liberalism all that [ it asks; for what is his statement of , the case for the Labor Party policy but a statement of the ordinary Liberal case , for social reform as against Socialism ? :. : ■ i How long does Mr. Anderson calcu- \ late that it will be before, having transformed the wage-slaves of capitalism into vigorous and alert citizens, equip- . -ped with leisure and security, while still' leaving them wage-slavee, we may be ready to begin our Socialist work preper in politics ? My Liberal friends are very fond of telling mc that, as a.re-

suit of the social reforms of the past ocotury, the worker to-day is ever so much better off than he used to be. What, with Factory Acts and Mines Reall the- rest of them, wo have been plodding for over a century along Mr. Anderson's road of sorial reform within the existing order. At. every stage in that.--process it might have, been said: "Let, us waif; for a. little- more of this social reform, and we shall then he gulatinn. Acts and Insurance Acts, and ready, to begin the. real work of emancipation." But after a century of it, we are still, Mr. Anderson tells us, too feeble in blood and dull in brains to set about building the new state. We must still go on tho old lines for a while longer,, tuning up tho band before we can begin to sound tho march music of Socialism and humanity.

For how much longer ? Another cen- ' tury,? I say that tho time is NOW. A, movement that is. always waiting for to-morrow is a movement for which there is never any to-morrow. And my call to my Socialist comrades is that we should put our faith and courage in our Socialist beliefs to the test of actual political fighting. As for electoral BUccess, I do not think that even immediately We are likely to do worse than the Labor Party is doing; and if we have to face our Hanleys and Crewes and we should at least have the satisfaction of knowing that we had preached the gospel to the people, while from the point of view of ultimate results—well, if the people are unready, I do not think that the best way to make; them ready is to preach a gospel diluted down to their unreadiness. I do not think that the people are unready for Socialism because they are too feeble in blood and dull in brain to understand it and to fight for it, but because, so many earnest and true Socialists have been timorous about it, and have gone about preaching social reform within the existing order instead. Can you wonder that the people remain unready when Socialism itself enters the political arena with an avowal of unreadiness and a, substituted gospel of meagre reforms of a non-So-cialist character?

Mr. Anderson's statement of the case for th© Labor Party policy is, I repeat, precisely the statement of the ordinary Liberal case against Socialism. It is just-exactly what Liberalism is always telling us-r-that Socialism may be all very well as a remote ideal, but that we must alter human nature by a long process of ameliorative reforms before people will bo fit to lift up their eyes to such a vision.

That is the fundamental and essential agreement between Liberalism and the Labor Party; agreement that, so far as the immediate politics of the present day are concerned, Socialism is impractical, and that wo must devoto ourselves to going step by step along the road of social reform. The only difference between Mr. Anderson's position and the Liberal position is that whereas he very earnestly believes that sooner or later we shall arrive at Socialism along these lines, Liberalism is content to leave that issue to the future. And that is only a speculative difference. So far as the immediate practical work of politics here and now is concerned tho Liberal conclusion and the Labor Party conclusion are identical ; the conclusion that this is not the time to set) about building the new State, but only for social reforms within the existing capitalist State. I claim, therefore, and on his own showing, Mr. Anderson's support for my case against the Labor Party; that in its essential policy it is indistinguishable from Liber ali sm. The bearing of all this upon the independence of the Labor Party as a political organisation is obvious. Assume that Mr. Anderson and all the otter good and earnest Socialists who are, as I think, wasting their days in promoting the Labor Party policy, assume that, they are right in the desponding view which has led them to such a policy- Assume it to be true that the people are not only unready but unfit for Socialism. Assume it to be true that before they can be.i «- pected to be Teady to lift, up their eyes to th© wider vision they must first be made fit in body and mind; and that this fitness can only be brought about by leaving Socialism out' of practical politics for the time being, and by concentrating upon 6ocial reforms and adjustments within the existing capitalist, order.. What is the political moral to be drawn from that?

The moral, surely, that I have repeatedly drawn in my previous articles and in "Socialism and the Labor Party.". .There is no justification in such a policy for tho existence of a separate independent party in English politics. If any of my Socialist comrades have any doubt about that, if they cannot see that a non-Socialist Labor Party devoted to social reform within tho existing order must necessarily incline to Liberalism, because of the similarity of its purposes to-Liberalism, I can only refer them to the record of the Labor Party in Parliament during the past six years in proof of it. At any rate, it is now plain enough that the general body of electors have no doubt about it. If the recent series of elections had been arranged as a demon stratien on purpose, they could hardly have made it plainer. You cannot, I repeat, build up an independent political party except for an independent purpose, and the moral of Mr. Anderson's essentially Liberal insistence upon social reform and the unfitness of the people for Socialism is that we ought to be inside the Liberal Party and certainly that we ought not to risk letting a Tory in by fighting Liberals. That is the moral which the electors are very obviously drawing, and the more they agree with Mr. Anderson's reasoning tho more likely they arc, I think, to draw that moral, and to voto Liberal for fear, of endangering tho ca,use of social reform by letting the Tory in.

If only I could persuade friend Anderson and all the other ~ood Socialists who have got into this entanglement our Socialist energy can be, devoted to something better than these minor adjustments of capitalist society! If only we could all take the field together for Socialism! lam not without hope of that glad confident morning of real battle. ■