How naive can the Parliamentary left get? This question is posed by the speech of James Dickens in his constituency, Lewisham West, last week. He said he voted for the Government in the devaluation debate because Mr. Wilson had stated the stand-by credits "would have no strings whatever" attached. This shows remarkable faith, not only in Harold Wilson but also in the international banking fraternity. Did Mr. Dickens really think that the Gnomes of Zurich and the sharks of Wall Street had turned themselves into a Benevolent society, anxious only to sustain the Labour Government? Anyway Mr. Dickens soon had a rude awakening. The letter of Intent sent to the International Monetary Fund the say after the debate by former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jim Callaghan, revealed that the credits were only forthcom ng because the I. M. F. were assured that drastic measures would be taken to cut the living standards of the British workers. When even the most extreme of right-wing politicians on the Labour benches, Frenk Tomney of Hammersmith North, openly voiced his fears of the effects of devaluation on the workers, there can be no excuse for James Dickens and his fellow left-wingers. As Mr. Tomney rightly said, for devaluation to succeed it must be deflationary "and then the prospect of unemployment will face the workers again. . . The weight of the responsibility would fall once again on the working class and trade unionists. It would be their job to forego their just wage demands in an effort to put Britain on the road to prosperity." What the left mst realise is that the present crisis is not simply because of the ineptness of Wilson and his Cabinet but arises directly out of their failure to carry out a socialist policy both at home and abroad. The crisis is a crisis of British capitalism but is also symptomatic of a malaise which faces capitalism as a whole. The crisis demonstrated in an exceptionally sharp fashion the hollowness of the theories expounded by Anthony Crossland, the late John Strachey and others that capitalism has succeeded in overcoming its internal contradictions. . The collapse of the British economy had world-wide repercussions, demonstrating how tightly interconnected the copitalist system is. It revealed also the inherent instability of the system for immediately after the fall of the pound, the dollar - symbol of the most powerful capitalism became threatened and all-out efforts had to be made to save it. The United States is the main prop of capitalism today and a recession there would lead to a world-wide slump. Even capitalism's most optimistic supporters - and some of them, unfortunately are in the Labour Cabinet - are by no means certain that such a catastrophe is not on the order of the day. At best they have bought a limited period of time. At such a time it is not for the left to bolster up Wilson, Callaghan and Co. It is not at all a question of substituting a Tory Government for the present Labour Government. That is how the right-wing leadership likes to pose the issue. The left's task now is to progress from criticism of Wilson's
(cont. over)
After Devaluation - Left Must Act Now . - « continued
policy to actively building a new leadership for the Labour Movement. -
There has never been a more favourable moment than this for such a develop-
ment. The unions are in ferment and the draconian measures foreshadowed
in the "letter of Intent" will stir them into renewed militancy. Conditions
are ripe for an alliance of the Labour Party left and the militant trade unionists. If the Left fails to take advantage of this opportunity they will find the Right cocking a favourable ear at the overtures of Duncan
Sandys for an agreed "programme of action to see the country through the economic crisis". We would be well on our way to a repeat of 1931. The left M.P.s should get together with leaders of the more militant Trade Unions and call an emergency conference, over the head of Transport House, if need be. This conference should hammer out a socialist programme for Britain and openly challenge the present leadership of the Labour Movement. The alternative is the almost certain return of a Tory government at the next election or = even worse = some sort of collaboration between the Right wing leadership and the Tories.