Thomas Bell

Divided Council in Ranks
of British Labor Party

(6 March 1923)


From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 3 No. 23, 6 March 1923, pp. 178–179.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.


Since the general election in Great Britain, an internal struggle has been going on inside the Labor Party. The cause of this struggle lies in the successes of the Independent Labor Party at the polls, and the attempts of the I.L.P. leaders to gain control of the Labor Party machine.

In the last Parliament the leadership of the Labor Party lies in the hands of quite moderate and “constitutional” trade union leaders. Thus we had respectable would be statesmen like Clynes or Thomas speaking on behalf of Labor, to the disgust of the I.L.P.’ers outside the House of Commons who were continually obliged to apologize for the ordinary Liberal doctrines of their leaders The I.L.P. made no secret of its intention to remove this difficulty for itself by replacing Clynes with Ramsay Macdonald. The latter gentlemen was paraded as a heaven-sent statesman of the first order. Considerable propaganda was put in to prepare the way for Macdonald in the event of his being returned io Parliament. Even the Liberal bourgeois press proclaimed him as the one man wanted to make the Labor Party an effective opposition. And so, when the election took place and Macdonald was returned, the first meeting of the Parliamentary group, thanks to the numbers of the I.L.P.’ers, voted him as leader of the Party in the House of Commons and removed Clynes, who meekly agreed to act as deputy to the hero of the Second International.

An important factor in deciding the issue between Macdonald and Clynes (i.e. between the I.L.P. and the pure and simple trade unionists) was the phenomenal political landslide in Scotland for the Labor Party, most of whom are active I.L.P.’ers.

Now, the Glasgow I.L.P.’ers in particular had associations with the revolutionary shop-stewards during the war. For this reason their psychology is peculiarly different from their comrades in England or Wales. Moreover, they were returned on the crest of a rent agitation which had been responsible for many unemployed workers being able to set rent free for months. They promised to secure rent which, due to a technical weakness in the law, ought to be returned by the landlord. Apart from this, the whole tradition of the Clyde workers for years back has been rebellion and resistance to capitalism in every shape and form.

When these Scottish I.L.P.’ers came to London they found themselves up against the problem which others have always had to face. Either they must conform to the procedure of the parliamentary machinery of the Labor Party and be quite respectable, only speaking when the Henderson, Webb, Macdonald caucus allows them, or they must live up to their reputation, which is, to kick over the traces and fight.

The few “scenes” and demonstrations in the House provoked by these Scots indicates in a way the struggle going on inside the Labor Party towards the leadership and control of the machine. Perhaps the most significant manifestation was the debate on the Government’s policy the other day, – on the international situation, when the official Labor leaders went into the same lobby and voted with the Liberals, while the Scottish laborists refused to vote.

Another factor in the internal struggle of the Labor Party is the attitude adopted towards the situation in the Ruhr. The Labor Party is calling for one thing and the I.L.P. for another.

Forgetful of the decisions of the Conferences at Rome and the Hague, where the Second International (of which the Labor Party is the main prop) pledged itself to promote a general strike in the event war, the joint meeting of the General Council of the T.U.C. and the N.C. of the Labor Party, at which meeting Mr. Edo Fimmen of Amsterdam fame attended, agreed upon the following policy:–

The General Council of the British Trade Union Congress and the Executive Committee of the British Labor Party calls upon the British Government:–

  1. To adopt a policy of definite diplomatic intervention, if possible with the cooperation of the United States Government, with a view to securing the earliest possible evacuation of the Ruhr Valley by foreign troops.
     
  2. To support any proposal which may be put forward at the next meeting of the Council of the League of Nations on January 29, that the valid claims of France and Belgium for the reconstruction of the devastated regions and the Ruhr Situation should be dealt with by the League under Article 11 of the Covenant.
     
  3. To propose that the French and Belgian troops be withdrawn from the Ruhr pending the inquiry by the League into the whole situation.
     
  4. To appeal to the Governments of the Little Entente, and especially Poland and Czecho-Slovakia, not to yield to any pressure to occupy German territory and by doing so involve Europe in a new war.

It was agreed that the resolution should be forwarded io the Prime Minister of Great Britain, to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, and to the members of the Council of the League.

Contrast the above policy with the following statement which appeared in live Morning Post of Feb. 21st, from the pen of the national organizing secretary of the I.L.P. (Mr. Fenner Brockway) in reply to the Earl of Pembroke who attacked the I.L.P. for being pro-German.

“The I.L.P. is neither pro-German nor pro-French. It is seeking a solution of the present difficulties which will be just both to France and Germany and which will give promise of a permanent settlement.”

The fact that the I.L.P. is not animated by antagonism to France is proved by its recent declaration of policy on the European situation. The I.L.P. understands that there can be no hope of better relations in Europe until France has (1) some guarantee of the means to restore the devastated area and (2) some security against a renewal of war. The I.LP. has put forward proposals to meet both these needs.

It suggests, first, that France should withdraw claims for reparations not warranted by the pre-Armistice agreement and reduce her demand to a sum sufficient for the reconstruction of the devastated areas. On this being done, the I.L.P. urges that the British Government should (1) join in guaranteeing an international loan to France, (2) waive all claim to any share of reparations, and (3) subject to a general settlement, agree to a cancellation of the whole or part of the Allied debts. This is a practicable policy, and in the long run France would gain much more by co-operative action on these lines than by isolated efforts to secure impossible reparations by force.

As regards security, the I.LP. does not believe that France can be guaranteed peace by military agreements. Armed alliances will inevitably lead to a reversion to the policy of the Balance of Power, with rivalries tending to war. The I.L.P. proposes as an alternative that the League of Nations should be transformed into a real association of nations, with a revised and democratic constitution; such a League is the only effective method of securing France or any country against aggression.”

Fenner Brockway is one of the humanitarian pacifist elements m the I.L.P., as may be judged from the foregoing statement.

Leaving that for a moment, let us turn to the Scottish I.L.P.’ers. Four of these worthy gentlemen, J.J. Wheatly, J. Maxton, D. Kirkwood, Campbell Stephen (all M.P.’s), determined on a visit to the Ruhr to see things for themselves. While on the flying visit they tell us that they ...

discussed the situation with M. de Brouckère, the well-known leader of the Belgian Socialists, the British General Headquarters Staff at Cologne, the British Consul-General for the Rhineland, and the British Vice-Consul at Essen, von Bülow, a director of Krupp’s famous works, the Executive Committee of the Ruhr Miners’ Union, and a number of artisans and gentlemen occupying professional positions in the Ruhr district. All these spoke English fluently and are keen students of the problem on which we desired information. We had also the privilege of meeting General Degoutte, the French Commander-in-Chief and his staff, and in several other ways studying the situation on the spot.

It is interesting to note the familiarity of these heroes of the 2½ International with the military chiefs of capitalist imperialism.

After giving a few “impartial” observations on the “high standard of comfort” of the German miners in particular and studying “carefully” the effects of the situation on their bourgeois masters, they arrived at the following decision and offered it to the capitalist Press as a way out of the morass the bourgeoisie has landed into as a result of its criminal pursuit of gain.

The only way out of the difficulty is for France, Germany, Britain, Belgium, and Italy, to internationalize the Ruhr coalfield. The German mine-owners could not reasonably object. They are the debtors of the Allies, and are of the class of Germans who can afford to be taxed. Besides, the German Government would lie expected to compensate them as it did the owners of German ships, live stock, and rolling stock confiscated by the Allies. The administration of the coalfield would, of course, be in the hands of an international board of directors, who would appoint a managing director and the necessary staff. The coal would be disposed of in the competitive market in the ordinary way, and the dividends earned would tie distributed proportionately as reparations.

Germany’s dividend would be the political independence and freedom from occupation in the Ruhr, and every other part of Germany, which the scheme would ensure to her. In addition, by the Allies at the outset fixing a reasonable sum as reparations, she would be given an incentive to work harmoniously for the liquidation of the debt, and the restoration to her of the Ruhr coalfield which would follow.

The dividends of the Allies would be increased by their saving on military expenditure. France would have her national safety guaranteed by the international control of the source of German war materials. Britain would be safeguarded against the overwhelming advantages in the world’s markets, which a monopoly of the Ruhr coal with the Lorraine ore would give to any nation. Italy and Belgium would gain in status by sharing in the control. The whole world would benefit by the sense of security and common interest created by such a settlement.

Who does not recognize this scheme as the programme of French Nationalism?

Since the publication of this statement by these ardent members of the I.L.P. there has been war inside the Labor camp.

Henderson, Webb etc. have been working for years to make the Labor Partv a centralized and disciplined Party. Gradually the old loose federal basis of the Party is being removed. This action of the I.L.P.’ers has been repudiated by the official leaders of the Party, but has only led to a widening of the gulf between the official Labor Party and the I.L.P. Thus there is growing up in the Labor Party a dear “right” wing and a “left” wing. The “left” which otherwise might be taken up by the I.L.P. is going to be taken by a section of the latter, and that the Scottish element.

More and more, as the schism widens, the latter will be driven away from their pacifist colleagues towards communism. As yet they will not join the Communist Party. But the Communist Party can afford to look forward with satisfaction at the internal struggle now going on, inasmuch as it will compel the masses of the workers who are looking or, to see the truth of the Communist contention, that the middle-class leadership of the Labor Party is more concerned with making good in the eyes of the capitalist imperialists, than safeguarding the interests of the working class.


Last updated on 9 August 2021