MACHINATING MACDONALD.

NZ Truth, Issue 72, 3 November 1906, Page 1

MACHINATING MACDONALD.

Special attention is. now being directed to the British Political" Labor movement by the visit to Australia and New Zealand of Mr J. Ramsay Macdonald , the principle whip of the British Labor Party, as well as by various events that are taking place m Great Britain itself; Mr Macdonald was, before his election to the House of Commons, a very prominent member: of the .Independent Labor Party! a;,spcjalisliv organisation that is not 'tb\M confounded^. .with; the Labor Party retiirned to -the House of Commons as the result „ot the efforts of the Labor Representation C ommittee . ' Many members of the Independent Labor Party, are. also members of the new Labor Party ; but there are also numerous members of the latter' body who, like slr Shackleton, had no connection with Ihs Independent Labor Party; and a minority of the members pf the Hquse' of Commons Labor Party consists of members that have, little or no ,sympathy \with Socialism.,. Generally speaking, however/ the British Labor Party may be, regarded . as having a distinctly Socialistic tendency, which would be much stronger weir? it not for the fact that the Social Democratic Federation, which fe the oldest and most. 'thorough-going Socialis£ societyS'ift^eat ,gritain/ri?fused' ( td^ filfate iVith ; the liabor; Representation Committee, which committee, secured the return qf the, : > members- of. the Labor Party. ' ' : ■■ • - : ,•' ''■.

A Labor Leader's "Liberal "Leanings.

Besides having been a prominent member df the original Independent Labor Party, Mr Macdonald was the secretary of the Labor Representation Committee ; and, what is niore, he is an author; and has written* a work m favor of Socialism, which work he has entitled "Socialism and Society." The Socialism of this booTc is, however, of a : decidedly diluted kind, so much so, indeed, that it has;been-,call-ed by a Social Democratic critic cialism adapted to ' the petty bourgeoisie." Mr Macdonald, indeed; has lone; stibwn a tendency to compound with that "mammon of unrighteousness," Liberalism ;. and it vis/ regards ed by some people as largely, his fault that the English electorate of Leicester is represented by "only one labor member (Mr Macdonald .himself^, and by a member ,of the plutocratic Liberal Party, instead bf by two members of the Labor Party. Moreover, he recently excited much disgust among many English. Lahorites and Social Democrats; by giving his support io-a Bill, • introduced by the Liberal millionaire, ■ -' $ir ;•.. John Brunner, which would permit of children being granted exemi^on^rtificates m large numbers that' would enable those children to go lip work m the cities when but thirteen; years of a f.o. and, m the country, when but twelve vears, of age. This bill, however, aroused such great jndignatidn "that it was incontinently dropped,,

Although Mr Macdonald denies the .statement made by Mr Richard Bell that the former "represents" two Liberal newspapers, yet he admits ' that one Liberal newspaper lias agreed Jto take all that he may care to send (thereto,. It is not at all likely, i therefore,, that Mr Macdonald would

: be tempted to, send, to £he Liberal I buyers of his journalistic wares, artij tiles that would be greatly repugnant ' to the principles of the capitalistic Liberal proprietors of the newspaper — possibly the "Daily News," or the "Tribune"'— that is likely to print his

"freelance" productions. In spite of what Mr Macdonald says, his dallying with Liberalism is too easily demonstrated. for> it ;to be explained away by assertions to the effect that Mr Richard Bell has been "wiped out" and that his recent remarks

about Mr Macdonald merely constitu- ' ted a • 'strong; personal, attack." The i chief difference between Mr Richard Bel] and Mr Ramsay Macdonald seems td be that, while the former openly allies himself with the Liberals, the latter does so covertly. Mr Macdonald's "sneakine fondness" for Liberalism is illustrated by nearly all his utterances upon important public questions.

That Mr Macdonald is either disinclined to see* the British Labor. Party anything much more than a tail to the Liberal kite, or does not -realise that the secret of the strength and

power of the Australian Labor Party is the independence Jthat it has always shown 'with regard to disputes abbut duties of customs atfd excise, is made clear by the following from an "interview" with Mr Macdonald tfiat is published m one of the daily newspapers:— .:

Dealing with preferential trade," Mr. Macdonald said the Labor Party m England w.ould not countenance • any form of protection. The argument that it would provide more work and higher wages for the British artisan was unsound. Superficially, it was alUrightv but when considered. in detail it was all wrong; . . . The goods which Australia sent were not competing with home producers; but if the tariff on agricultural product* was .raised, the English producer would, demand that it should be made sufficiently high to protect them, and there yras protisctipn right away, and that his party. Ay/puld not accept. .

• Tliere Was, he said^ no such thing as preference on their markets. They had to have freetrade or protection, and preference was bound: to merge into'the latter. He did not wish it to be understood that the vote of his party was against preference as being at all antagonistic to good-feeling. They felt that economically^ the basis of preference was unsound. ;„' "

; ; T^e^v^itude,^ tilia,^; ;Mi Macdonald: thuslt^s^p^mljty;> Ibe -considered by him 'to be an attitude of "indepeMdence, ■ ' Ijuj; , tx> us d)t; looks remarkably like dejiehdence—on "the 1 Liberal Party. The fiscal changes proposed by Mr - Chamberlain are ot so slight a nature, as far as -. their ultimate results to the masses of the people of Great Britain are concerned, that if, because of these fiscal proposals, the Labor Party were to refuse to give support to the Chamberlain Party m return for substantial political or economic concessions, it would simply prove that it consisted of most a^ mazing asses. The position with regard to Liberal • Tree Trade" and Chamberlain's Protection is pertinently put by the well-known Labor writer R. . B. Slithers m his book, "My Right to Work." Addressing Mr Chamberlain he says :—

, Ifl am in.-wprk lam nofcgoingto^rouble about your nine , farthings a week extra income. . -. Does' your programme include ; legislation for restoring to every British ' citizen the right to work? Will it ensure work and wages, a decent livelihood, for every able and willing worker? No? Then I cannot consider it. . . The difference between your policy and the Freetrade policy^as it affects me, as it affects the unemployed and the working classes, is the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It is a difference of nine farthings.

. If, however, Chamberlain displayed any -desire to niake the Unemployed Act passed by the Government of which he is a member qf real value, if he proposed so to alter the Act as to make it compulsory upon local authorities to provide funds for the absorption of the\ unemployed, then the members of' the Labor Party would prove themselves exceedingly foolish if they did not give such support to Chamberlain as would enable liini to amend the Unemployed Act m the direction suggested, 'the , difference between the 1 fiscal policies of Chamberlain and Camp-bell-Bannerman is "a- difference of nine farthings" yet Maodonald says that the Labor Party "would not accept" Chamberlain's Protection* or aftv other form of Protection. Pooh \ If Mr Macdonald really believes that a fiscal policy involving '^ l a difference of nine farthings" is of greater importance, is more worth, fighting about, than the Right to Labor, than a law for the establishment of a maximum Labor day, 01 for the fixing of a minimum wage, ihen he has. in-, deed, very much to learn • and it is well that he did come to Australia, for the Australian" Labor Party may teach him " something about fiscal matters that he may find of lasting value.

The idea that the Liberals are any more the friends of the workingclasses than the Conservatives is a political superstition that dies hard. Yet some of the staunchest friends of the working-classes, struggling against capitalistic tyranny, have been Tories like Richard Dastler. Michael Sadlier, and. Joseph Rayner Stephens, while Liberals like John Bright and Richatd Cobden most bitterly denounced legislation for the regulation of the hours of labor of women and children, and have denounced trade

unions as-most odious tyrannies. The Factories Acts were, m fact, passed through , -the „.; v^BarHaxdefit' largely with Tory help and m spite of bitter, Liberal, opposition. ; Fredl<mc&\ J^cels: ; §hc^vs in^is^brK ebttditi^: of the ; ; Wbrkins Ciasises m 1844" that;, outside of the Chartists and a few Radicals, the only friends the English; workers had m Hie House of Gammons m 1844 were the members ,ot the Young Enriaiid Party, who were Tories of the school described m Disraeli's : M Sybil." Lord Randolph Churchill's "Fourth Party" of Tory Democrats were also much more inclined to favor industrial legislation than were the Liberals.

As if to emphasise the opposition of the Liberal Party to Labor . legislation, we have cabled to us from England, the information that the Master of Elibanlc,, who is the Scottish Liberal whip, denounces the Socialists of the Labor Party as wreckers, while the reti&scade Fabian Socialist, R..8. Haldane, who is nt>w the British Secretary of State for War, declares that if Mr Keir Hardie, the leader of the Labor Party, wishes to nationalise anythinrr the Liberals will "cross swords with him." It is not the first time that the Scottish Liberal whin has howled agajnst the Socialism of the British Labor Party, for we find the following references to him m London "Justice" for September 1 :—

We gladly pick up the gauntlet thrown down by. the Scottish Liberal Whip last Saturday afternoon, when the Master of Elibank, addressing a Liberal' gathering m Peeblesshire, expressed his contrition for the support he gave to Smilh'e's candidature some years ago, because " he did not appreciate or realise at the time what had since been forced upon him about the real cleavage between Socialism and Liberalism— namely, collectivism and individualism/ . ... The Socialist Party, he added, "had opened war on the Liberals, and he was not very certain that it would not be necessary m the future for the Liberal Party to em-bark-upon another crusade." We fancy they embarked on this - one , some twenty years ago, -when they endeavored to suppress Socialist propaganda m London by an attempt^ which we baffled, to extinguish the' right of out-dbor public meetings. For their own credit's sake they would do: well to rebpenthe crusade m some less, ignoble fashion. In the meantime, editors of Liberal newspapers may as well take this tip from official quarters by withdrawing their silly appeals to Socialists "to join- hands " with a party which has never lost any opportunity to stab us m the back.

Mr J. Ramsay Macdonald would dp well to devote a considerable proportion of h..s time while m Australasia to a careful consideration and review of his position with regard to the fiscal policies of political parties-** and to an equally careful consideration of the tactics of Australian Labor with regard to iiiscalism. Chamberlain's scheme is not one that ' is likely to commend itself, to Australians, and it .certainly. ;does not appear to us to be worthy of Australasian acceptance ; but if British Labor members should succeed m obtaining the balance of power, and if they ' should then refuse to accept beneficial industrial legislation from Chamberlain simply because he favors a fiscal system that means "a difference of nine farthings" to the people of Great Britain, then they would prove themselves the densest donkeys ■ that ever set up to be statesmen.