A directive to members¶
Core Argument¶
This directive, issued in March 1943, establishes a rigorous, principled line for comrades confronting the popular agitation surrounding the Beveridge Report. Its core argument is that the Beveridge Plan is not a progressive step toward social security but a calculated diversion—a “red herring” designed to channel the inevitable revolutionary upsurge of the working class into the dead end of reformism. The directive warns that the Plan’s broad support, manufactured by skilful newspaper propaganda and the right wing’s parliamentary opposition to it, creates dangerous illusions among workers, who mistakenly regard it as a “lesser evil.” The task of the party is to shatter these illusions, not by opposing the Plan outright, but by exposing its limitations and reactionary features, thereby forcing discussion back onto a principled, socialist plane.
The document draws on a Marxist perspective of crisis for British imperialism and impending class struggles. It argues that only petty capitalists and reformists believe the Plan can be implemented; the genuine representatives of big business are scientifically correct in opposing it, because the financial guarantees would be undermined by inflation in any crisis. The Plan is thus utopian, and even if partially operated, it could only be short-lived before capitalist crisis collapses it. The directive’s polemical target is twofold: first, the reformist Labour and trade union leadership, who present Beveridge as a panacea and whose policy of limiting demands to this reform is characterised as a betrayal that will lead to disillusionment and, ultimately, fascism; second, the reactionary capitalists, whose hostility to even this miserable reform demonstrates capitalism’s inability to grant minimum social security.
The directive provides concrete tactical instructions for different institutional contexts. In trade unions and Labour movement bodies, the party must oppose any resolution endorsing the Plan or calling for its implementation without a break with the coalition. The prescribed amendment demands that Labour break the coalition and fight for power on a socialist programme. If this amendment falls, the party votes against the original resolution, demonstrating principled opposition to betrayal. A secondary amendment is permitted if the original resolution demands immediate implementation: the party would then demand that Labour break the coalition to implement Beveridge, explaining that without a struggle against big business the resolution is a farce, and pledging support if this step is taken. In Parliament, the political case is identical, but the emphasis shifts: the attack is thrown against capitalism for its hostility to even this miserable reform, and the party votes with the reformists against the reactionaries, harmonising class hostility with maximum weight for legislated reforms. The difference in voting arises from the class character of the two institutions: in the labour movement, voting with reformists would mean voting with betrayers; in Parliament, it means voting against the class enemy.