Notes by the Way: The Archbishop’s Very Slender Means (1942)

The Notes by the Way Column from the February 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The Archbishop’s Very Slender Means

On the resignation of the 77-years-old Archbishop of Canterbury the Daily Mail comments as follows: 

“Dr. Lang renounces a salary of £15,000 a year for a pension unlikely to exceed £1,500—or. as he put it, ‘to face the restraints and inconveniences of very slender means.'”—(“Daily Mail,” January 22nd, 1942.)

* * *

Sir W. Citrine on the Labour Party’s Attitude in the War

While the following candid statement by Sir Walter Citrine contains nothing not already widely appreciated, it deserves to be placed on record against the time when those who are less candid may want to give a different version. The statement was made in a speech at Maidstone on Saturday, January 24th, 1942.

“In this war no workman, particularly no trade unionist, should have the slightest hesitation in throwing all into the war effort. For years we have been shouting “Stand up to Hitler.” We wanted the Government to stand up to him over Austria, over Spain, and at Munich. No one can say we did not enter this war with our eyes open. Now, we are in it, it does not become us to find any means of excusing any lack of enthusiasm”—(“Times,” January 26th, 1942.)

A somewhat different report was given in the People (January 25th, 1942): —

“We can be charged by other sections of the community as being one of the organised sections that demanded war. No one can say we did not enter this war with our eyes open.”

* * *

No Communism in Russia

Now that the British and Russian Governments are Allies and the “International” is being played here on ceremonial occasions as a mark of honour to the Russian Government, the idea has occurred to several newspapers that it is desirable to remove the impression that Bolshevism is a danger to capitalism. Hence the publication of information which hitherto has been ignored. Sir Bernard Pares, the authority on Russian questions, who has in recent years been favourably regarded by the Communists and has been a strong advocate of the Anglo-Russia Alliance, lectured at Manchester on January 10th on the Bogey of Communism. The Manchester Guardian (January 12th, 1942) reported him as follows: 

“There was only one period in Russian history when the Marxist doctrine was practised, and that was for the three years after the Revolution—1918 to 1921. That was a perversion of the big, warm family idea, and it was given up as hopelessly ridiculous. The doctrine ruling at present was exactly the same as here: ‘From everyone according to ability, to everyone according to his his work.” So it had been as long as Stalin had been in power. “Communism” was a thing which Russia might try to better to realise in the future, when the world was a better place.”

Then the Daily Mail (January 24th, 1942) had an article by Negley Farson on life in Russia, telegraphed from Moscow two days previously. Among the interesting points made by Parson are the following: —

“The Soviets have not changed Russian life so much as many outsiders think—nor did they ever intend to.

There are still beggars, although you will find them standing outside the churches. And that many churches are still open is proved by the fact that 25,000 people worshipped in Moscow on the day when an appeal was made for every Russian—Christian or atheist—to repel the German invaders.

Inequalities in earnings still exist in Russia. A man who cleans the streets gets about 100 to 200 roubles a month—an actor like Moskvin gets possibly 1,000 roubles for one special performance.

Soviet writers like Sholokhov, who wrote “And Quiet Flows the Don,” receive royalties just like any English or American best-sellers—only Sholokhov’s books probably sell in millions, for Russians are avid readers.

Waiters take tips, but on three occasions since I have been in Russia this time they have actually refused them from me. Yesterday two husky girls who carried my bags up to my room at the Hotel Metropole in Moscow (where I lived in 1915) handed me back part of my tip with a smile, saying I had given them too much.

Russians may also invest money in War Loans or Five Year Plan Loans, which formerly paid interest as high as six per cent. They may leave money to their children just like any Westerner. But the “crippling” power of money has been shackled by the fact that no man may use it to exploit another.”

On the education system he says: —

“Education is free and compulsory—and no amount of money can buy a better education for one child than for another in the First Grade—say, up to the age of 13 or 14. But after that age money may, strangely enough, provide additional knowledge. For example, for the teaching of music, languages, art or any special subject that a child might be interested in, special tutors may be paid for.

Also, although education is free up to the ages already mentioned, after that the pupil’s parent must pay a definite sum both for high school and university education.”

* * *

Death of the People’s Convention

According to the Daily Herald (January 7th, 1912) the National Committee of the People’s Convention decided on January 3rd “to suspend activity as a separate organisation,” thus failing by nine days to reach its first anniversary. It will be recalled that at its first convention held on January 12th, 1941, the Convention wanted a “People’s Government and a People’s Peace.” One of their main criticisms of the Labour Party then was that it ought not to be in the Churchill Government, a policy denounced by Mr. Pritt as “the linking up of its leaders with their class enemies.” Now the promoters of the Convention are all for the war and their criticism is no longer directed against Mr. Churchill.

* * *

British and Russian Foreign Policy

The Evening Standard (January 22nd, 1942) published statements which originated from Swedish sources about points discussed by Stalin and Eden during the latter’s visit to Moscow. Whether the statements are correct it is impossible to say, though evidently the Evening Standard attaches some weight to them. Some of the points seem likely enough in the light of past relationship between Britain and the Czarist Governments. Russia is alleged to want to keep the three Baltic States, and to secure territory from Rumania and Finland. Echoes of former Russian aims appear in the demand that “The Soviet Union must have guarantees that at no time in future can Iran (Persia) serve as a springboard for eventual invasion against the U.S.S.R.”

The same point is referred to by Madame Tabouis from New York as follows: —

“The demand for an outlet upon the Persian Gulf, which would create a new Russian “lung” seems to be uncontested.”—(“Sunday Dispatch,” January 4th, 1942.)

Other points in the Evening Standard statement are : —

“Russia has no interests in Africa; Britain’s bid for a dominant position in the Mediterranean is acknowledged as legitimate.

Russia welcomes British policy which seeks to ensure that never again will North Africa or Northern France serve as a jumping-off place for attack against the British Isles or the British Empire.”

According to Madame Tabouis the Moscow negotiations have left the position that “Britain’s voice will be all important in the matter of decisions regarding Northern and Western Europe, while the Soviets will retain an influential role in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.”

* * *

Who Should be in the War Cabinet ?

Mr. Hannen Swaffer, who is a loyal supporter of the Labour Party, suggests, in the People (January 25th, 1942), what should be the composition of the War Cabinet. His list is: Churchill, Beaverbrook, Bevin, Shinwell, Lloyd George and Anthony Eden. One significant feature of this list seems to have escaped Swaffer’s notice—at any rate, he makes no remark about it—the fact that three of the six are Conservatives, one is a Liberal, and only two are Labour M.P.s.

* * *

Communist Arguments for Lifting the Ban on the “Daily Worker”

When the Daily Worker was suppressed a year ago the Communists were opposing the war. Now their principle argument for the removal of the ban is that they could help the Government to increase production in a way that official propaganda fails to do. The Manchester Guardian (January 21st, 1942) reported speeches made by Daily Worker supporters at a lunch on the previous day: —

“Both the editor of the paper, Mr. Rust, and an unnamed shop steward from a London factory dwelt on the bad effect which its suppression had, they said, on the workers and therefore on production. Mr. Rust said that they wondered what was behind the unexplained suppression of the “Daily Worker,” and both speakers were sure that the removal of the prohibition on it would hearten the workers, increase their confidence in the Government, and raise production.”

The New Statesman (November 29th, 1941) published the following by one of their regular contributors : —

“A Communist friend put the matter like this. “The Government,” he said, “take for granted that the ‘Left’ must support the war as long as Russia’s in it. We must urge all possible production, and so we do.” We are pledged to support Mr. Churchill—and so we are; even to the point of supporting Conservative candidates at by-elections when other candidates put up specifically as all-aid-to-Russia candidates. They think they have no reason to worry about the Left any more; why go to the bother of allowing the “Daily Worker” to appear? They are making a mistake.They are quite right about us. Communists will do all they can. But there are other Left groups who take a different line, who find it very difficult to support Mr. Churchill and who may turn, if left alone, and run after all sorts of Trotskyites’ hares and I.L.P. red herrings. Such people take no notice of official propaganda. We are the only paper who.can influence those who think the whole war “hooey” anyway, or who are against fighting for the capitalist and so on. It’s our job to convince them, but we cannot possibly cover the field without the “Daily Worker.”

Edgar Hardcastle