Labour government to assist private enterprise¶
Core Argument¶
This chapter excoriates the Labour government’s post-war economic strategy, arguing that its core purpose is not socialist reconstruction but the preservation and assistance of private enterprise, particularly the monopolies and combines. The central narrative thrust is that Labour’s policy, personified by Herbert Morrison, represents a continuation of capitalism under a different political signboard, with the state intervening via subsidies to crush smaller, ‘inefficient’ units in pursuit of lower export costs. The author insists this is a direct betrayal of working-class interests.
The key claim is that the Labour leadership has accepted the capitalist axiom that profits are the necessary ‘incentive’ for production. The evidence cited is Morrison’s apparent conversion to this view, which the text treats as a capitulation to “capitalists and their hired economic hacks.” The chapter argues that this policy can only lead to a trade war with America and other rivals, because British imperialism is “old and enfeebled,” having lost its pre-war privileges. To compete for survival against a stronger American rival, British capital must drive down the living standards of its own working class.
The historical context is the immediate post-war period, where British capitalism is depicted as weakened and outclassed. The theoretical context is a Marxist critique of capitalist crisis: the author predicts an inevitable slump caused by the internal contradictions of the system. Every capitalist country will pursue the same export-surplus strategy, workers will be unable to buy back the goods produced on the domestic market, and a “terrific slump” will result. The chapter directly polemicises against Morrison’s claim that sacrifices now will yield higher standards after five years. This is dismissed as a pretence; the sacrifices will benefit only the capitalists, not the nation.
The polemic is sharpest against the Labour leaders themselves—Morrison and Cripps—who are accused of preparing to augment the “huge war profits” of the capitalists rather than expropriating them. The author contrasts this with the socialist alternative: a planned economy without profiteering, waste, or private ownership, where production could be increased and living standards raised simultaneously. The chapter concludes by mocking the farce of Labour “kind-heartedly” adding to capitalist profits in the ‘national interest,’ when every schoolboy socialist knows that profit for the capitalist means increased exploitation for the worker.