The results of an election 80 years ago prompted arguments which have familiar, rhyming lines for our modern context.
At long last, after its 1930s and 40s slumber, the name Freedom (incorporating War Commentary) reappeared on the masthead of Freedom Press’s late August 1945 edition, over the headline “Is This Peace?” Pointing to the economic troubles of Britain and the US, disease and hunger on the continent, and continued oppression elsewhere as noteworthy examples of what “success” had actually brought working people.
Today’s article selection however is from a little further down in the paper, as it attempted to orient its position around the results of the July elections, which had delivered a stonking majority for Labour. Much of the left was giddy over the result, the first of its kind for, as they saw it, the party of the labouring classes.
Not so the editorial team at Freedom, who would write a both trenchant, and to modern eyes prescient in places, critique of Labour’s prospects. Some of the article is primarily of historical interest, but some resonates with what we have seen from Labour today, even edging on fundamentals affecting 2025 phenomena such as Sultana-Corbyn’s Your Party, and proscription.
In an era of Labour slicing chunks out of our civil liberties, for example, the following should strike a powerful chord:
“We did not vote, and yet we have exercised civil liberties so far as they would stretch – we may have gone a bit further at times but that’s because the definition of civil liberties is being continually hedged and limited by capitalist governments. Civil liberties include “unlicensed” printing, free speech, free assembly, strikes etc. These we must take advantage of. When they are stolen from us, we will show we can use even more effective weapons in our armoury.
“Don’t tell us we neglect civil liberties because we neglect the vote. We use them all the time, not once every five years.
One need only replace “publishing” and find all four under recent attack by the very party people voted for supposedly to keep the far-right out. The “Online Safety” Bill and proscription, the recent flurry of arrests of peaceful protestors in London and elsewhere, and the retention of the anti-strike laws reinforce the precise intent of Freedom’s writers, 80 years ago.
~Rob Ray
Anarchist Commentary
Labour’s conquest of power is due in a very small measure to the so-called “Left-swing” (new-fangled name for discontent) in Europe, but came primarily because it has stolen the thunder of the Tories.
It used to be a reformist drag on the workers. Now it is a party of the professional and middle-classes. The Daily Express is the first of the Tories to welcome this heartening fact (for them): “More than half the Socialist MPs today spring from the professional and middle classes. Less than half of them have ever earned a day’s pay by manual labour. Inevitably the weight of the new professional and middle class elements in the· party will be felt with a consequent change of emphasis on legislation.” (1/8/45).
An examination of.the candidates’ background, plus one’s own observations of the electoral campaign, confirm. this report entirely. What emerged above all in the election is the apathy of the working-class, as compared with the rising enthusiasm of the middle-class for the policy of the Labour Party.
In the old Labour strongholds there were the usual 10, 20 and 30,000 majorities for Labour, but, there were quietness, apathy and lack of interest as compared with the rallies, enthusiasm and busy activity in the middle-class areas where Labour got the most “unexpected” results.
This signifies clearly that Labour is going to carry out a programme which may or may not please the Tories but will definitely please that stratum of the population on whom the Tories depend.
This is· in particular the case with nationalisation, for it has never been shown that the workers would benefit at all from it. Mr. Attlee once stated he did not see that a worker on the LNER was any less a cog in the machine under private enterprise than he would be under State control. The benefit of nationalisation goes to the State, that is to say to the technician, the manager, the professional man, whose class party is now in power.
At the present time we must. make it clear to the workers just what the Labour Party does represent, for it can’t quite easily be foreseen that for the purposes of “industrial peace” the workers will be appealed to for loyalty to “their” government and efforts will be made to divert the rising tide of ardour and discontent at this critical time away from direct action for food, housing, demobilisation and in industry, by saying “trust your leaders and. don’t embarrass them till they’ve had a chance.”
“HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN . . . ?”
Some questions pursue one on the platform meeting after meeting, reappear in correspondence in letter after letter — the questioners being convinced there is no answer possible, and yet the question itself is only a most threadbare coat in a new dye. Everyone nowadays jeers at the old Tory argument that we must have had a pretty good standard of living between the wars since the soldiers were so heroic at defending their heritage, etc., yet how often do we hear the stolid argument — that “Russia can’t be what you anarchists say it is,” etc., etc., because look at the millions of Russians who went out to fight, who tore the guts out of Germany, drove Hitter back and so on and so on. (A recent letter put it that the writer had to admire Stalin because of the way his people had died!)
I have got hoarse with repeating on the platform that it is perfectly obvious that a Great Power is going to play a major part in a total war. Whatever Ireland’s or Sweden’s political complexion they would clearly have played no more “heroic” a role in the war than they have done, even with a “Communist” glorification of militarism. On the other hand,, the Russians, like ourselves and the Americans and the Germans, are in a position to sacrifice their lives for the greater glory of the beloved masters. As long as there is imperialism there will be war, and so long as certain countries remain big powers they will make the major sacrifices in war. The others are sacrificed in other ways — like India and Poland.
It sounds simple enough to them in terms of England and America and Germany, but when it comes to Russia a peculiar pan-Slavism seems to affect our so-called Leftists. At the Central Hall, Westminster, overflow rally to celebrate Labour’s victory (26th July) their spokesman called out for cheers for “Joe Stalin, who also helped to win the war” — which rather nettled the crowd, servicemen in particular, who had been so indignant about the suggestion that Churchill won the war. Of course, the “Communists” yelled their heads off.
“YOU DELIBERATELY THREW AWAY …”
Another illusion is that about how the workers got the vote. Anarchists are often accused of “wasting the vote for which our forefathers died, were transported, etc.” In fact, the workers got the vote by a political wangle of the Tories. In giving the vote to the working classes, Disraeli rubbed his hands with glee and said, “But don’t you see, we have dished the Whigs?” He stole their primary argument — that the suffrage should be universal — he “found them bathing and walked off with their clothes.” Every independent historian and Disraeli’s own words bear witness to the fact that universal suffrage was introduced as a party-political fight.
But our forefathers were imprisoned, transported, killed, by the capitalist class. Yes but not for the vote — in the class struggle, and in the struggle for ciyil liberties. But civil liberties are not the same as universal suffrage. Either can exist without the other.
There is too much sloppy thinking on this point. People say (you could read it in almost every newspaper) that “the democratic machine was getting rusty” because there had been no election for ten years. Extraordinary! We missed only one election — that of 1940 — and the democratic machine goes rusty!
These people who think civil liberties mean casting a vote do not know what civil liberties mean, and admit it by the fact that they never do anything else bar cast a vote. We did not vote, and yet we have exercised civil liberties so far as they would stretch — we may have gone a bit further at times but that’s because the definition of civil liberties is being continually hedged and limited by capitalist governments. Civil liberties include “unlicensed printing,” free speech, free assembly, strikes, etc. These we must take advantage of. When they are stolen from us, we will show we can use even more effective weapons in our armoury.
Don’t tell us we neglect civil liberties because we neglect the vote. We use them all the time, not once every five years — and rusty if you miss one five-yearly stretch.