Socialism Within The Labour Party example essay topic

Critically assess the Political Philosophy of Socialism and it's evolution within the British labour party during the interwar period, 1919-1939 It was Karl Marx (1818-1883) who said: 'Socialism moves us to take a definite position against a structure of society in which the unjust division of wealth contradicts basic decency'. Marx, often founded as the father of modern day socialism, saw a huge injustice in the division of wealth between the proletariat (working class / ruled class) and Bourgeoisie (middle class / capitalist /ruling class). The communist manifesto of 1848, written by Marx and his colleague Frederick Engels (1820-1895) cited guidelines towards the emancipation of the proletariat through non-violent means, i.e. through the formation of a politicized party of socialists gathered by means of a workers union, uniting to form the creation of a workers party. Socialist sceptics such as Edward F. Adams, have accused Marx of creating theories such as that of surplus value purely to reinforce his argument (and the general popular feeling of his time) that socialism is scientifically the better political philosophy:'s ocialism is not based upon the Marxian theory of value, but the Marxian theory of value was evolved in an endeavour to fix a scientific basis for a popular movement already fully under way. Socialism is therefore not based on reason but emotion; not on reflection but desire; it is not scientific, but popular. ' Present day socialist ideology has split itself into two broad camps.

The Communist approach to socialism, as adopted by Stalinist Russia, believed socialism could only be achieved through violent revolution and totalitarian dictatorship. Social Democracy sought to achieve socialism by non-violent means and turns it's back on dictatorship. The late 1970's saw the high point for communism. Almost two thirds of the worlds population lived in communist areas, these included the former Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, China; the south-east Asian nations of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam; the African nations of Angola and Mozambique; and the Latin American nations of Cuba and Nicaragua. Today only China, North Korea and Cuba practice under a communist rule. It is therefore appropriate to say the communist approach to achieving socialism has proven somewhat unsuccessful.

Communist countries tend to be characterised by stagnation and a lack of innovation, this can be attributed directly to the public ownership and state control over factors of production (land, labour and capital). Businesses have little competition and often act as a monopoly in a communist country. Industry only has the task of producing a quota and cannot go out of business as they are government funded; meaning no incentive to produce goods to a high standard or keep costs down. This gives berth to inefficiency. Employment is often secure in a communist country as policies towards international trade and foreign competition are minimal as governments seek self-sufficiency. If an employee is comfortable, he / she is usually lazy; this too leads to a counter-productive output.

As communist countries pursue self-sufficiency, they do not benefit from new technology products innovated abroad meaning economic growth is stunted and lags behind that of a capitalist competitor. The collapse of soviet Russia in the mid 1990's was the most recent, major political economic reform. The USSR is now a collection of fifteen republics, most of which are structured as democracies. Social Democracy is also in retreat, although not as extensively as communism. The most prominent social democratic countries over the past twenty years have been Great Britain, France, Germany, Norway, Spain and Sweden.

Consistent with Marxist roots, social democratic parties (when they have been in power) have nationalized industries to be run for the "public good rather than private profit". In the UK for example, until the early 1990's state-owned companies had the monopoly in many industries such as telecommunications (British Telecom), Gas (British Gas) and Railway (British Rail). As this led to great inefficiency, the Conservative government decided to privatize these industries. Since 1997 Labour have been back in power and supported this move of privatisation on the grounds that business is more productive, output is greater, costs have dramatically fallen for the consumer and government spending has reduced, freeing up capital for more needy alternatives.

Socialism can also be opposed on the grounds that it caters for the preservation of the weak where in a capitalist society they would be killed off naturally by their inability to survive. Edward F. Adams states:' There is implied in all socialistic writing the doctrine that organised man can override and as implied to himself, repel the fundamental law of nature, that no species can endure except by the production of more individuals than can be supported, of whom the weakest must die with the corollary of misery before death. Competitive society tends to the death of the weakest, socialistic society would tend to the preservation of the weak. ' As morbid as this perspective is, it bares relevancy when considering the prospect that population growth + diminishing marginal returns = mass starvation. Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) cited:' The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population when unchecked increases in a geometrical ratio.

Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first power in comparison with the second. ' In theory socialism would have profound effects on world food output if it were to become the dominant political philosophy in the twenty first century. Before the outbreak of war in 1914, socialism within the labour party was mainly based on affiliations through the trade unions, numbering nearly two million and socialist societies numbering some 30,000-40,000 members. In 1918 the trade unions were in a much stronger position than before the war. The Dilution of labour in 1916 (allowing unskilled men and women to take on jobs previously done by skilled men and women) did much to enhance the status of the unions, creating a sense of 'working together' for the war effort.

An increase of union membership from 4,150,000 in 1914 to 6,530,000 in 1918 gave the unions a sense of confidence to press for increased wages and better conditions. In response to the increasing power of the working classes, the labour party released their radical, uncompromising, rhetoric Labour and the new social order 1918, promising a stern commitment towards a socialist state and the abolishment of private capitalism through a new approach of "liberal-radicalism": 'We of the Labour party must ensure that what is presently to be built up is a new social order, based not on fighting but on fraternity - not on the competitive struggle for the means of bare life but on a deliberately planned co-operation in production and distribution for the benefit of all who participate. ' In the reforms of 1918 the party underwent major structural alterations, placing the workers unions over the socialist societies as the main institutional powers within the party's conference and national executive committee. This reformation back to ideological socialism was an attempt by men such as Arthur Henderson to establish labour as an independent political body. The doctrine gave the labour party a popular thesis at a time when they need it the most. As Henderson said:'s ome sort of social faith was the necessary basis for the consolidation of the labour party into an effective force.

' Many historians, such as A.J.P. Taylor believe the Labour party had used the doctrine to cloak its actual intentions. The Labour party leader; Sidney Webb held that the party had merely used the "socialist" outlook to pursue a more regulated, economically secure form of capitalism:' Behind its radical rhetoric was the key to more welfare, higher efficiency and greater social justice. Shorn of its rhetoric, Labour and the New Social Order was a Fabian blueprint for a more advanced more regulated form of capitalism' Between 1918 and 1928 the party diluted the severity of what it meant by "socialism". They did not abandon totally what was originally promised in 1918 but played down somewhat their original intentions for a complete transformation from capitalism into socialism. In their programmatic documents of 1925 they had simply talked of 'National Reconstruction and Reform' and by 1928 this had turned into a meagre 'Labour and the Nation' approach. By 1925, the party's promise of common ownership of all means of production had been altered to 'foundation industries' abandoning any pretence of challenging the private ownership of industrial and financial sectors such as chemicals, armaments, motor cars, and private banking.

David Coates puts it best in his 1975 book 'The labour Party and the Struggle for Socialism' when he says:'s ocialism had become something to which lip service was to be paid for electoral purposes'. The parliamentary leaders of the labour party throughout the nineteen-twenties adopted a more conservative approach to governing, acting counter-productive to the goals and ambitions stated in 1918. Ramsay Macdonald did a sparse amount to hide his obvious conservative opinions. He was seen by his party to have never been a socialist in the first place but an individualist cloaked by his expression of utopian socialism:' He is no longer intent on social reform - whatever indignation he ever had at the present distribution of wealth he has lost' The Labour party of 1924 and 1929-31 used the excuse that many of its votes in office rested heavily on liberal support, thus it was restricted in which policies it was able to implement. This was viable in 1924 but in the instance of the 1929-31 labour government-the liberals, headed by David Lloyd George, were more radically left wing than the labour party. In fact, the liberals supported the Macdonald governments' practices and even made appeals to create a coalition in government but were refused by Labour on the grounds that their unemployment policies were 'fanciful and unworkable'.

Many debates took place between 1932-34. The main themes of the talks were on a bolder economic role played by the labour government. A revival of socialist ideas and a sense of awareness that previous leaders had failed to implement their promises of socialist restructuring. The conclusions of their debates were summed up in the National Executive Committee's 1934 interwar-war programme for 'Socialism and Peace'. It committed the party to a policy of full and rapid socialist economic planning under central direction. This included an injection of taxpayer's capital into existing social services such as housing, education, maintenance of unemployment and rent control.

The programme was so radical it even threatened to abolish the House of Lords if they were to obstruct the passing of legislation. As radical as the new labour proposals were, they still held hesitations and lacked specific detail as to how their goals were to be achieved. By 1937 the party had released a document 'Labour's immediate Programme' which restricted the nationalisation of industries to that of coal mining, gas and electricity supply, railways and the Bank of England. The programme proposed to leave the bulk of the productive industry in the hands of the industrialist (or capitalists).

The new labour government of the 1930's had promised to deliver 100% socialism and yet again managed nothing more than:' Middle class, syndicalist romanticism' Criticisms of the fuzzy and indistinct nature in which the document was written show the party was still thinking in a theoretical and abstract manner rather than practically:' The road to socialism that was being proposed was still parliamentary, piecemeal and gradual; and committed the party leadership to no action (beyond parliamentary debate and public meetings) ' Conclusion The labour party's 'Labour and the new Social Order' promise of social reform was a response to the popular feeling of the working classes of the time, the very people whom elected the party in the first place. The evolution of social democracy in the labour party of the 1920's was driven backward by the party's own labour conservatism. The systematic defiance of the party to implement the socialist transformation was down to its leadership. Men like Ramsay Macdonald and J.H. Thomas held conservative views and in their conservatism became stagnant and reluctant to act on the promises made in 1918. The labour government of 1924 achieved 191 parliamentary seats, and in 1929 achieved 287 seats. In both instances, they got the popular vote but much of their support came from the liberal side and consequently restrained the governments' powers to implement radical policies.

Overall, the intension to create a complete socialist nation was nothing more than a means to achieve election and then re-election. The evolution of socialism in the interwar period went as far as the public ownership of 'Capitalism's derelict industries'.

Bibliography

Adams E. F, A Critique of Socialism (Tom oye Press San Francisco June 1913).
Barry E, Nationalisation in British Politics (London Macmillan 1988).
Beer S, Modern British Politics (Faber London 1965).
Coates D, The labour party and the struggle for socialism (Cambridge University Press 1975).
Malthus T. R, First Essay on Population (London Macmillan 1926).
Marx K. and Frederick E. Communist Manifesto (February 1848).
Mckenzie R. T, British Political Parties (London Mercury Books 1963).
Miliband R, Parliamentary Socialism (London Merlin Press 1973).
Miliband R, and Saville J, The Socialist Register (London Merlin Press 1965).