The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-03-01


lean liberal and labor press, as we'll
as the organs of capitalism, have de-
voted columns of space to it. There
has been a decrease in the articles on
Russia for here is something that
American writers think they under
stand-it has homelike flavor and
there is no great hostility to the
British Labor Party as yet.
1t is, say most of the publicists,
the apotheosis Of democracy and the
browning proof that in Anglo-Saxon
nations no other weapon than the bal
lot need be used by the workers.
In the liberal press, particularly,
does the comment reach an ecstatic
note; the dictionary is plundered to
embellish the adjectival eulogies of
the aims and methods Of the British
Labor Party.
A Neglected Fact.
None of the commentators seem
to have taken into consideration one
fact that is obvious to the most ca
sual observer of the British labor
mOvement-that the Labor Party is
not homogeneous entity but huge
amorphous body in which all shades
of opinion from the Manchester
school of liberalism to the advocates
of social revolution thru the Dictator
ship of the workingclass are repre-
scented.
No criticism or comment which
does not stress this fact is worth
the paper 1t is written on. The
British Labor Party is the exact OPP
posite of the Communist Party Of
Russia in every respect except that
both number workers and farmers
among their supporters.
The Communist Party can be crit
icised as party but the British La
Dor Party cannot and this, think,
accounts for the enthusiasm of the
liberal brethren; each can find some
proof that his pet hobby is embodied
in its program.
Communist Criticism.
1t can be ascertained quite easily
that the criticism of the British La
Dor Party by Communists is in strik-
ing contrast to that of all other writ
ers on the subject; that, as a matter
of fact, Communist criticism is not
criticism of the British Labor Party
as such but of its leaders and their
policies.
More even than the now almost de-
funct social-democratic party of Ger
many is the British Labor Party a
party of leaders, but with this differ
ence-the Labor Party leaders have
no such control over their followers
as had the officials of the German
organization. This is blessing for
the British workingclass.
The leadership of the British Labor
Party is now in the hands of parlia-
mentarians, that is to say that those
who speak for the party are commit
ted to a belief in the eternal efficacy
of present parliamentary forms as
the only means necessary to abolish
capitalism and establish social sys-
tenn free from exploitation.
There is not the slightest evil
dence to support the contention made
by their admirers that Macdonald,
Snowden, Webb, Brailsford and other
intellectual leaders of the British
Labor Party have any different con-
ception of the role of the working
class other than that of the "full-bel-
ly" philosophy of the members of the
Liberal party.
The Tone of Responsibility.
True, their appeals are directed to
the workers; they glorify the work.
ingclass in public speeches but their
official and private acts show them
to be dominated by the middle-class
craving for responsibility that has
been the curse of the British labor
movement and that cannot be escaped
by any party which sets as its goal
a parliamentary majority.
The rise of the Labor Party does
not mean, as so many liberal observ-
ers contend, that the British work
ingclass has been converted suddenly
to perfect confidence in parNamenta-
ry action or that the left wing Of the
labor movement has seen the error Of
its ways and abandoned the strike