630 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



now betrayed by the younger school of Labour — ^which, how- 

 ever, still waits for an original thinker who shall construct an 

 economic system to its satisfaction. 



But from the first Labour in Britain (and in the United 

 States also) has been markedly different from the Continental 

 movement. The Syndicalists in France, the Revolutionary 

 Socialists in Germany and Italy, and the Bolsheviks in Russia 

 have indeed produced reactions in the Labour Party in this 

 country, and some of their doctrines — the general strike, direct 

 action, the dictatorship of the proletariat — have been praised 

 and imitated by recognised British Labour leaders. But none 

 of these doctrines has prevailed. 



British Labour does not concern itself much with doctrines 

 until they involve action ; it prefers practice to theory. And 

 in practice the general strike has broken down in this and other 

 countries. Direct action has been rejected as unconstitutional 

 after several sporadic attempts. The dictatorship of the 

 proletariat remained a mere catch-phrase until Lenin proceeded 

 to translate it into fact. The moment that fact was seen to 

 involve the conscription of labour by the Government, British 

 Labour would have no more to do with Bolshevism. 



Theologians declare that there is one unforgivable sin. As 

 its nature is nowhere defined by authority, interpretations 

 differ as to its nature ; but, to Englishmen, the one unforgiv- 

 able sin is to oppose liberty. Labour has often charged that 

 sin against Capital, but, when it discovered that the very 

 system in Russia which had abolished Capital stood for indus- 

 trial slavery, it parted company with Communism. Silently, 

 but without hesitation or doubt, it rejected Communism for 

 ever. 



The fact is profoundly significant. There are many revo- 

 lutionaries in British Labour, but Labour is not revolutionary. 

 The revolutionaries are at the bottom of the movement, the 

 constitutionalists at the top. It is a source both of weakness 

 and strength in Labour politics. The extremist attracts the 

 young with the promise of a new heaven and a new earth ; the 

 constitutionalist, with his belief in ordered development, reform, 

 and progress, attracts the older and more thoughtful. The 

 weakness of Labour is that the extremist frightens as many 

 as he attracts, and is naturally taken as typical by political 

 and other enemies of the movement, while the constitutionalist 

 has to fight for his life against the extremist. Every politician 

 is prepared to be attacked to his face by his enemies. But to 

 be kicked in the back by his friends is an addition that makes 

 neither for comfort nor sound constructive thought. It is not 

 even conducive to progress. 



Labour has externally a stricter discipline and a greater 



