1931: Labour's First Gang of Three

Scan page 5

MacDonald with Thomas (centre) leaving a Privy Council meeting in 1924 As Roy Jenkins, the Gang of Three' and their motley assortment of right wing supporters begin to quit the Labour Party, a number of questions about 'Labourism' have been thrown open to public debate.

For example, what is the difference between socialism and social democracy?

In particular, when we talk of 'social democracy', which for the likes of Williams and Owen or Foot for that matter, comes first: defence of the interests of the working class in the struggle for socialism; or defence of the interests of capitalism and its state in the form of bourgeois democracy?

Another, equally important question is why the reformist Labour Party, with its idea of gradually winning socialism through Parliament, continually spawns reactionary, crypto-Tory groups like that around Reg Prentice, the Social Democratic Alliance, or now the much inflated Council for Social Democracy?

Witch-hunt

And why, when such anti-socialist groups appear, does the leadership of the party, instead of driving them out, beg them to stay?

This is particularly important when we bear in mind the constant witch-hunts against socialists in the Labour Party, (such as Oxford Socialist Press supporter Ted Heslin), who want to be members!

Ever groups like the Militant tendency are constantly subjected to witch-hunting inquiries.

Thus, on the eve of the January 24 Special Conference, Foot stated that he wanted yet another investigation • of Militant's activities. He has sought no such investigation of the Council for Social Democracy.

To understand recent developments in the Labour Party and draw out their real political significance it is useful to look back to the 1930s, and the split from the Labour Party in 1931.

James Ramsay MacDonald is now remembered by the labour movement as the arch traitor who abandoned the Labour government in order to secure a 'coalition' National Government which included 472 Tory MPs.

Unfortunately, while this is true, as is the additional point that the split occurred over the determination of MacDonald and his supporters to cut the dole by 10%, this simple truth masks a number of other more significant. lessons for workers about the politics of the Labour Party and particularly its leadership.

For, in reality, we learn nothing simply by branding MacDonald, Snowden and JH Thomas-the then 'Gang of 3? -as traitors.

The important point is, why did they become traitors to their class? And how did they come to that position when they were the official leaders of the Labour Party and its government?

'Left' Ramsay MacDonald was a founding member of the Labour Party, and for much of his life was regarded as a 'left' MP. He was a leading figure in the independent Labour Party, "We shall look back to this time when for a moment-for it is to be but a moment-the men who made the Labour Party seem to turn away from it."

[our emphasis)

In fact-though in very ironic fashion-there is much truth in this. For MacDonald, socialism meant "social democracy"

He was a reformist, who believed in gradual, peaceful parliamentary change within capitalism, with socialism as some distant 'never-never land' as one of his colleagues put it.

As such, he was opposed fundamentally to the notion of a workers' revolution. He was, despite his 'left' reputation, an anti-communist, and, like the rest of his reformist co-thinkers, he saw parliamentary democracy as the key to the future.

Not was he, in this, any different from those who in 1931 chose to remain loyal to the Labour Party.

Throughout the 1920s the Labour Party refused to allow the British Communist Party the same rights of affiliation given to the Fabians and the ILP.

The Labour Party, which men like MacDonald and Thomas had helped to build, was not a pure workers' party but a hourgeois workers' party.

Its politics were the politics of class collaboration, not of class struggle, and its perspectives were restricted within the confines of the continued existence of capitalism.

In government, therefore, it sought simply to manage capitalism better-by legislating reforms for the working classnot to smash the system of capitalist exploitation. There lies the key to MacDonald's Nor can it be said that this was concealed before the momentous days of' August 1931.

Those, like Arthur Henderson, Lansbury and Attlee who remained loyal' to Labour had experience of the 1926 General Strike.

There they had experienced at first hand the politics of JH Thomas-whose commitment to bourgeois democracy was so great as to lead him to say, on the eve of the strike, that ne hoped that Baldwin's Tory government would not be defeated. Thomas worked ruthlessly throughout the nine days of the strike to destroy the unity around the miners.

Such open treachery by Thomas in the General Strike did not prevent loyal Labourites like Henderson and Lansbury from serving in the same Cabinét as Thomas three years lateI.

After all, Thomas personitied the politics of Labour as the political wing of the trade unions, trade unions themselves led. by reformist social democrats!

Not is it surprising that MacDonald, having decided to dissolve the two year old Labour government on August 24 1931, was concerned not to destroy his old party.

In a meeting of Junior Ministers he advised them to remain in the Labour Party. "You have your careers to think of," he told them.

But probably more importantly at the end of his stirring advice he added, "you still have a job to do." MacDonald knew his Labour Party just as well as the bankers, businessmen and Tories knew their MacDonald.

And today the capitalists still know their Healeys, Hattersleys and Foots!

Continued