Aneurin Bevan serves as left cover¶
Core Argument¶
This chapter delivers a blistering Marxist critique of Aneurin Bevan’s performance at the Labour Party conference, exposing him as a dangerous fraud rather than a genuine left-wing leader. The core argument is that Bevan, despite his rhetorical attacks on Ernest Bevin and the coalition government, ultimately functions as a “lightning-conductor” for the Labour ministers—defusing working-class anger through empty criticism while actively supporting the imperialist war and the Tory-dominated coalition. The author insists that Bevan’s refusal to break up the national government makes him as responsible for British imperialism’s crimes as Bevin himself, and indeed more dangerous because his words create an illusion of opposition that prevents the masses from moving against the government.
The chapter draws on specific evidence from the conference debate. Bevan’s speech is quoted directly: he condemns Bevin for having support only from fascist Spain, fascist Portugal, and the Tories, and demands that Labour representatives either exercise more influence or leave the Tories to “do their own dirty work.” Yet when delegates shout “what is your alternative?”, Bevan lamely pleads that the Executive Committee had not permitted amendments. The author seizes on this moment as proof that Bevan wants to “have his cake and eat it”—supporting the coalition while indulging in harmless criticism. The polemic is sharpened by invoking the Greek workers dying from British imperialist bullets, and by daring Bevan to take his concealed position of open responsibility for Churchill’s crimes to the steel workers of Ebbw Vale and the miners of South Wales.
Historical context is provided through reference to the “glorious episode of the Jolly George” in 1920, when British workers prevented Churchill from making war on Russia by stopping supplies—a touchstone for the rank and file’s militancy that Bevan fails to lead. The chapter also notes the cowardly behaviour of trade union bureaucrats like Benstead of the NUR and Griffiths of the miners, who shelter behind the claim that they cannot break up the government. The leadership’s Vansittart attitude—blaming German and Japanese masses for their rulers’ crimes—is condemned as treacherous.
The polemic is directed squarely at Bevan and the so-called left wing of the Labour Party, but also at the entire Labour leadership, which is terrified of being forced onto the road of taking power. The author’s concluding note is that conference decisions are one thing, but the decisions of the masses are another—the last word rests with them.