According to Ben Pimlott, the author of Labour and the Left (1977): "The Socialist League... set up branches, undertook to promote and carry out research, propaganda and discussion, issue pamphlets, reports and books, and organise conferences, meetings, lectures and schools. To this extent it was strongly in the Fabian tradition, and it worked in close conjunction with Cole's other group, the New Fabian Research Bureau." The main objective was to persuade a future Labour government to implement socialist policies.
G.D.H. Cole arranged for Ernest Bevin to be elected chairman of the Socialist League . However, the following year, the Independent Labour Party members insisted on Frank Wise becoming chairman. Cole wrote later, "as the outstanding Trade Union figure capable of rallying Trade Union opinion behind it I voted against... but I was outvoted and agreed to go with the majority". Cole attempted to persuade Bevin to join the Socialist League Executive, but he refused: "I do not believe the Socialist League will change very much from the old ILP attitude, whoever is in the Executive."
Ben Pimlott argues that G.D.H. Cole was the main figure in the Socialist League. " The Socialist League was socialist first and radical second; like the ILP and the CP its approach was fundamentally utopian. .. In this respect Cole, the effective founder of Guild Socialism, was the major figure. In spite of his tactical differences with the League, his intellectual influence remained strong. He played a large part in the formulation of the League's policy document, Forward to Socialism ; he continued to deliver lectures to, and write pamphlets for, the League; and several of his former SSIP colleagues remained on the National Council. " Cole used his position to promote the idea of workers' control of industry.
In April 1933 G.D.H. Cole, R. H. Tawney and Frank Wise, signed a letter urging the Labour Party to form a United Front against fascism, with political groups such as the Communist Party of Great Britain. However, the idea was rejected at that year's party conference. The same thing happened the following year. Although disappointed, the Socialist League issued a statement in June 1935 that it would not become involved in activities definitely condemned by the Labour Party which will jeopardise our affiliation and influence within the Party."
In 1936 the Conservative government in Britain feared the spread of communism from the Soviet Union to the rest of Europe. Stanley Baldwin, the British prime minister, shared this concern and was fairly sympathetic to the military uprising in Spain against the left-wing Popular Front government. Leon Blum, the prime minister of the Popular Front government in France, initially agreed to send aircraft and artillery to help the Republican Army in Spain. However, after coming under pressure from Baldwin and Anthony Eden in Britain, and more right-wing members of his own cabinet, he changed his mind.
Stafford Cripps was another advocate for an United Front: " Up till recent times it was the avowed object of the Communist Party to discredit and destroy the social democratic parties such as the British Labour Party, and so long as that policy remained in force, it was impossible to contemplate any real unity... The Communists had... disavowed any intention, for the present, of acting in opposition to the Labour Movement in the country, and certainly their action in many constituences during the last election gives earnest of their disavowal." Aneurin Bevan added: "It is of paramount importance that our immediate efforts and energies should be directed to organising a United Front and a definite programme of action."
In 1936 the Socialist League joined forces with the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Independent Labour Party and various trades councils and trade union brances to organize a large-scale Hunger March. Aneurin Bevan argued: "Why should a first-class piece of work like the Hunger March have been left to the initiative of unofficial members of the Party, and to the Communists and the ILP... Consider what a mighty response the workers would have made if the whole machinery of the Labour Movement had been mobilised for the Hunger March and its attendant activities."
Stafford Cripps was the main supporter of a United Front in the Socialist League: "The Communist Party and the ILP may not represent very large numbers, but all of us who have knowledge of militant working-class activities throughout the country are bound to admit that Communists and ILPers have played and are playing a very fine part in such activities... Just as unity has wrought wonders in Spain, inspiring and encouraging the Spanish workers with a heroism past all praise, so in our, as yet, less arduous struggle it can give new life and vitality."
Richard Crossman disagreed with Cripps and his followers: "The Socialist League... dilate on the need for Communist affiliation and a strong policy with regard to Spain, as though these items were of the slightest interest to any save the minority of politically conscious electors. Such critics frame their propaganda to satisfy their own tastes and neglect the simple fact that it is not they but the Tory voters who must be converted. Their busy activity is self-intoxicating, but millions of people still read the racing page, because, on the whole, conditions are not bad enough to drive them to politics, and they have not seen a Labour canvasser for five years, far less seen any signs of practical activity by the local Labour Party. "
After the success of the Left Book Club during the summer of 1936, members of the left-wing of the Labour Party began to believe there was a market for a socialist weekly newspaper. I n January 1937 Stafford Cripps and George Strauss decided to launch a radical weekly, The Tribune , to "advocate a vigorous socialism and demand active resistance to Fascism at home and abroad." William Mellor was appointed editor and others such as Aneurin Bevan, Ellen Wilkinson, Barbara Betts, Konni Zilliacus, Harold Laski, Michael Foot and Noel Brailsford agreed to write for the paper. Winifred Batho reviewed films and books for the journal. Mellor wrote in the first issue: "It is capitalism that has caused the world depression. It is capitalism that has created the vast army of the unemployed. It is capitalism that has created the distressed areas... It is capitalism that divides our people into the two nations of rich and poor. Either we must defeat capitalism or we shall be destroyed by it."
The United Front agreement won only narrow majority at a Socialist League delegate conference in January, 1937 - 56 in favour, 38 against, with 23 abstentions. The United Front campaign opened officially with a large meeting at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester on 24th January. Three days later the Executive of the Labour Party decided to disaffiliated the Socialist League. They also began considering expelling members of the League. Cole and George Lansbury responded by urging the party not to start a "heresy hunt".
Arthur Greenwood was one of those who argued that the rebel leader, Stafford Cripps, should be immediately expelled. Ernest Bevin agreed: "I saw Mosley come into the Labour Movement and I see no difference in the tactics of Mosley and Cripps." On 24th March, 1937, the National Executive Committee declared that members of the Socialist League would be ineligible for Labour Party membership from 1st June. Over the next few weeks membership fell from 3,000 to 1,600. I n May, G.D.H. Cole and other leading members decided to dissolve the Socialist League .
The Socialist League was socialist first and radical second; like the ILP and the CP its approach was fundamentally utopian. It accepted as an article of faith that unemployment was an endemic feature of capitalism. William Mellor prefaced his proposals for a short-term programme by means of which Labour could tackle unemployment with the note: "The plans out-lined are not presented as a cure of this scourge of capitalism. Socialism alone can change compulsory Unemployment into remunerated leisure, with the machine as a servant, and effective demand equal to productive capacity." Thus non-socialist planning could at best - when carried out by a Labour Government with genuine socialist intentions - bring a temporary alleviation, pending the transition to socialism. At worst, when carried out by a capitalist government, it reinforced the control of industry by capitalist and financial interests, at the expense of the workers.
The latter possibility was especially abhorrent because of the strong Guild Socialist background of the League. In this respect Cole, the effective founder of Guild Socialism, was the major figure. In spite of his tactical differences with the League, his intellectual influence remained strong. He played a large part in the formulation of the League's policy document, Forward to Socialism ; he continued to deliver lectures to, and write pamphlets for, the League; and several of his former SSIP colleagues remained on the National Council. Two of these, Mellor and Horrabin, central figures in the League, had a particularly strong Guild Socialist background. Both had been members of the Labour Research Department group of Guild Socialists with Cole in the early twenties. Mellor had been a Guild Socialist delegate at the Foundation Conference of the CPGB. It was therefore not surprising that the Socialist League put a very strong emphasis on workers' control, or that it put up an intense resistance to any scheme for industry which seemed to negate it.
Socialists must see that, if industry has to be managed by Boards, the workers have a controlling place on those Boards, both nationally and locally and in every factory or other unit of industry or trade. It is not in practice sufficient that the workers' interests should be represented by one or two trade union officials on a central body. The national or local board must be built up out of similar boards in factories, mines and workshops. It is not impossible to devise means for the election by the workers of their representatives in the control of industry... Nationally, the Board of an industry must be under the direct control of some such planning authoriry as the economic committee of a reconstituted cabiner, and it must be answerable to Parliament.
Fundamentally our problem is a simple one. We loathe and detest the whole idea of Imperialism, its fierce competition built upon the greed of capitalism, its exploitation of subject peoples and its selfish approach to all problems of foreign policy. Whether the imperialism is British, French, German, Italian or Japanese, it is equally wrong and equally certain in the long run to plunge the world into war.
At the Edinburgh Party Conference in 1936, the League both made ground and lost it. On rearmament, a confused debate in effect left the matter open, and paved the way for a coup by Dalton on the issue in the Parliamentary Party in July 1937. On Spain, an initial resolution backed by the National Council of Labour supporting non-intervention was withdrawn, after Spanish fraternal delegates had made an impassioned plea for aid. A new resolution was presented, demanding that the British and French governments should sell arms to the Spanish Government if other powers could be shown to be violating the Non-Intervention Pact. On Cripps' motion, this was strengthened with a phrase placing on record the Conference's view that the Fascist powers had already violated the Pact, and the whole resolution was carried unanimously.
Thus by the autumn of 1936 the Socialist League had some reason for encouragement, but at the same time the Party's attitude to rearmament was causing concern. Meanwhile, the Left felt its own impotence when it com¬pared its position with that of French and Spanish comrades. Reports from members of the international Brigade, in particular, appeared to present a shining example of the possibilities open to socialists ifthey were able to forget their differences and act together in the struggle against fascism.
After the decision in November 1934 to become a "mass organisation", the Socialist League embarked on a programme of demonstrations and agitation. The results were disappointing. New recruits on the Left went to the Communists. The Socialist League, like the ILP, was outflanked and ignored. This was in spite of the League's new General Secretary, J. T. Murphy, whose energy and enthusiasm were combined with a solid training in the organisational techniques of the CP. Murphy tried to create the atmosphere of a fighting unit, advancing with marxist commitment and determination towards its goal. He made strenuous efforts to tighten organisation by bringing Area Committees and branches more under the direction of the Executive. But it was a losing battle.
The November 1934 Conference had optimistically halved the subscription, in the belief that a consequential increase in working-class membership would more than compensate for the loss of revenue. It did not do so. A permanent deficit necessitated heavy dependence on the munificence of Sir Stafford Cripps.
Up till recent times it was the avowed object of the Communist Party to discredit and destroy the social democratic parties such as the British Labour Party, and so long as that policy remained in force, it was impossible to contemplate any real unity... The Communists had... disavowed any intention, for the present, of acting in opposition to the Labour Movement in the country, and certainly their action in many constituences during the last election gives earnest of their disavowal.
It is of paramount importance that our immediate efforts and energies should be directed to organising a United Front and a definite programme of action.
Why should a first-class piece of work like the Hunger March have been left to the initiative of unofficial members of the Party, and to the Communists and the ILP... Consider what a mighty response the workers would have made if the whole machinery of the Labour Movement had been mobilised for the Hunger March and its attendant activities.
According to the eventual agreement, the objective of the Unity Campaign was "unity of all sections of the working-class movement within the framework of the Labour Party and Trade Unions in common struggle against Fascism, Reaction and War, and for the immediate demands of the worker, in order to develop the strength and unity of the working-class for the defeat of the National Government". This was to be "built upon the basis of day to day struggle for immediate limited objectives by mass action, industrial and political, and through the democratisation of the Labour Party and Trade Union Movement."
Only the Socialist League, and particularly the undevious Cripps, had accepted this objective as it was stated. The CP's aim was to further its own campaign to affiliate to the Labour Party - or at least to win sympathy inside the Labour Party through its attempt to do so. The ILP joined partly to end its own debilitating isolation and partly as a matter of principle. Maxton, who was opposed to the reaffiliation of the ILP, was highly sceptical about the whole operation. Brockway, though he had come to the conclusion that the ILP must reaffiliate or fade away, later justified his support for the Campaign entirely negatively. Acknowledging that the Campaign was a disastrous failure, he asserted that "if I am asked whether the ILP made a mistake in entering the campaign, my answer is No. The effect would have been disastrous if we had refused the invitation of the Socialist League to participate in an effort to realise what was in the heart of every class-conscious worker - the need for the unity of the working-class."
The Communist Party and the ILP may not represent very large numbers, but all of us who have knowledge of militant working-class activities throughout the country are bound to admit that Communists and ILPers have played and are playing a very fine part in such activities... Just as unity has wrought wonders in Spain, inspiring and encouraging the Spanish workers with a heroism past all praise, so in our, as yet, less arduous struggle it can give new life and vitality.
This is the real folly, due, I fear, to a lack of understanding of the movement... The real difficulty will be in meeting the argument that the offenders against party discipline are prominent and for the most part middle-class people and that they should not be treated differently from rank-and-file members who offend and are dealt with by their local parties for infractions of discipline. I fight all the time against heresy hunting, but the heretics seem to seek martyrdom.
The Labour Party has ceased to be the natural vehicle for the emotions and aspirations of the masses -their anger, their hope, their impulses of humanity and gallantry. It tends to become a mere electioneering machine. My case is, in a sentence, that this jealous boycott of the Left impoverishes and narrows the Party.
The Socialist League... dilate on the need for Communist affiliation and a strong policy with regard to Spain, as though these items were of the slightest interest to any save the minority of politically conscious electors. Such critics frame their propaganda to satisfy their own tastes and neglect the simple fact that it is not they but the Tory voters who must be converted. Their busy activity is self-intoxicating, but millions of people still read the racing page, because, on the whole, conditions are not bad enough to drive them to politics, and they have not seen a Labour canvasser for five years, far less seen any signs of practical activity by the local Labour Party.
