Party News from the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard
Tuesday, July 22, 2025
How you can help to get the Socialist Standard known. (1938)
From the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard
Firstly, by getting the Socialist Standard on sale at newsagents. Write to our Publicity Committee and we will give you full information regarding terms and conditions.
Secondly, by getting the Socialist Standard into the public libraries. Write to your local librarian and suggest that he should put the Socialist Standard on show. Get your friends to write. The more local pressure there is the more successful you will be. Our own Libraries Secretary will co-operate from this end if you will communicate with us. And do not forget, once the Socialist Standard is on show, to pay a regular visit to the library and make sure it is well displayed; if not, do not fail to ask the reason why.
Thirdly, send a sixpenny postal order to the Publicity Committee, together with the address of a possible sympathiser, and we will send the Socialist Standard for three consecutive months. Your own name and address will not be disclosed in this connection.
Letter: A reader's criticism of the socialist attitude to Russia. (1938)
A reader's criticism of the socialist attitude to Russia.
A reader asks us to deal with the following letter of criticism of our attitude:
Finsbury Park, N.4.
Dear Comrades,
Do you realise how much harm you are doing to the cause of Socialism in this country by your persistent and consistent condemnation of Russia and Russia’s rulers? Granted, it may not be the particular brand of Socialism which you advocate. But, surely, you don’t forget to take into account Russia’s pre-revolution history? Do you expect a Social Nirvana in 20 years? And please don’t forget you are trying, by British standards, to sit in judgment upon the Russian temperament, one of the most baffling and complex races in the world. And have you no word of encouragement to say of her material and social achievements? I repeat that your attacks upon Russia are doing your movement far more harm than good. The Daily Express surely does the job with a lying completeness. that you could never overtake!
But let me point out to you the core of the danger. For good or ill, the undiscriminating average person always identifies Russia with Socialism. This, of course, is political ignorance. But you will agree with me that the majority of people in this country are politically uneducated. When you teach a small child to read you teach it to utter words. You don’t devote most of your time to teaching it the difference between a consonant and an adjective! That comes later, when the child’s mind has been released from the strain of memorising. And my point is this. Until the masses have become possessed of a general all-round knowledge of the curse of Capitalism in practice, and the solution of Socialism, they will have neither the patience nor the selective knowledge to want to investigate as to whether “ B ” Socialism is more sensible, humane, efficient and just than “ A ” Socialism. To condemn Russian Socialism, to our particular type of worker, is not to give them a true picture of Russia, so much as to damn Russia in their eyes, and in so doing all other Socialism stands equally damned. Concentrate more on the evils of capitalism, which they think are so normal and natural, demonstrate the simple answer of Socialism; and leave the raping of Russia to Beaverbrook’s ignorant paid hacks. Why do the dirty work for the Daily Express ?
M. F. Smyth (Mr.).
Reply.
Before dealing with our correspondent's temperate criticisms of our attitude towards the present rulers of Russia, it is necessary to protest against the unwarranted and unsupported insinuation that we are doing the dirty work of Lord Beaverbrook. We are quite prepared to defend what we do and say. We are not called upon to defend Lord Beaverbrook. If our correspondent, however, thinks we are paid by Lord Beaverbrook to attack the Russian Government it is his duty to provide some sort of evidence. If— as is no doubt the case—he knows perfectly well that his insinuation is absolutely false he should not try to score cheap points by making it. Incidentally, our correspondent appears not to know just what line Beaverbrook does now take towards Stalin. What Beaverbrook’s newspapers have been doing recently is to express admiration for Russia and to argue that the progress made in that country is a tribute to capitalism.
Our correspondent's first point is to say that Russia is a Socialist country, but not “the particular brand of Socialism" advocated by us. This is an old and dangerously muddled form of reasoning and one not confined to Russia. The S.P.G.B. does not advocate a “particular brand" of Socialism: there are no brands of Socialism. There is capitalism, in which goods are produced by wage-earners for sale at a profit, and in which there are privileged sections of the community with large incomes and accumulated wealth, and, on the other hand, there is Socialism, in which things are produced only for use and in which there is no system of wage-labour, no rents, interest or profit, no privileged and unprivileged sections of the population. All the so-called “brands” of Socialism, from Hitler's “pure National Socialism" to the various forms of State capitalism administered by Labour Governments, and including Stalin's State capitalism and Mussolini's system, which he claims is superior to both capitalism and Socialism, are one and all nothing more nor less than varieties of capitalism in various stages of development and under various systems of political control.
The first duty of Socialists in their task of explaining Socialism is to make it crystal clear that none of these varieties of capitalism is Socialism.
This brings us to our correspondent's analogy of teaching a child to speak; He says that we teach the child to utter words and do not devote most of our time to teaching the child the difference between parts of speech. True, but you do take care to teach the child approximately the correct meaning of the words. You do not point to a cat and say, “ That is a dog.” Similarly, as Socialism is a democratic system of society based on the common ownership of the means of production and distribution, nobody who appreciates the vital need for clarity and understanding would dream of pointing to the Russian dictatorship, in which inequality is great and growing as part of the declared policy of the rulers, and say, “ That is Socialism.”
We are asked to take into account Russia's pre-revolution history and the question is put: "Do you expect a Social Nirvana in 20 years?” The first argument is one used by every apologist for things as they are. Ever since there was a Socialist movement anti-Socialists have been trying to fog the issue and impede progress by telling the workers that things were worse still 50 years earlier, and that we must above all avoid going too fast. Naturally, the privileged group in Russia, living on a standard out of all reach of the mass of the population, reply to the latter's complaints by saying that Russia's pre-Bolshevik backwardness prevents things being improved for the masses. When the masses begin to think they will notice, however, that this factor has not prevented the minority from doing very well for themselves.
Our answer to the particular question is that we never accepted the early Bolshevik claims that Socialism was an immediate possibility in Russia. We pointed out from the first that Socialism will not be possible in Russia or anywhere else until industry has developed to a highly productive stage and the majority of the-population want Socialism. These conditions do not exist in Russia, so the Bolsheviks were either themselves mistaken or they were hoodwinking their followers when they promised Socialism.
It is correct, as our correspondent says, that the average worker identifies Socialism with Russia. He also identifies it with Labour Government and, if he is a typical non-Socialist German worker, he no doubt accepts Hitler’s claim that Germany is now a “pure Socialist” country. All of which are very urgent reasons why Socialists should lose no opportunity of proclaiming that the Russian secret police-ridden dictatorship is not Socialism. We do not want workers to be made lastingly hostile to Socialism by the belief that it means the suppression of speech, organisation, and a never-ending, sickening story of plots, murders, and shootings.
When our correspondent asks us to concentrate on the evils of capitalism he forgets that dictatorship and suppression are two of the most important evil results of capitalism. We shall go on denouncing them, whether in Germany, Russia, France, the British Empire or anywhere else.
We may add that, whether our correspondent is right or not about the Russian temperament, there is a growing mass of Russian workers who object to Stalin.
Ed. Comm.
Answers to Correspondents: Socialists and Parliament. (1938)
Letter to the Editors from the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard
Mr. G. E. J. Hill (Cheddar) asks the following questions:—
(1) Do you intend to send your own candidates, if possible, to Parliament ?
Answer.
Yes. A start is being made in East Ham North, where our candidate is in the field. The increase in the number of candidates and the return of Socialist candidates to Parliament depends, of course, on the growth in the number of Socialists among the electorate.
(2) Is there any present Parliamentary party you support?
Answer.
No. There are no Members of Parliament who were returned as Socialists, simply on the programme of instituting Socialism. The. Labour M.P.s and the handful of Communist and I.L.P. M.P.s were all returned on a reformist programme, by electors who still believe in the policy of trying to reform capitalism instead of abolishing it.
(3) Could not the S.P.G.B. enter the Labour Party and endeavour to lead it towards a genuine Socialist policy? .
Answer.
The S.P.G.B. is endeavouring to persuade the members of the Labour Party and also the much larger number of workers who are outside that party to adopt the Socialist policy instead of the reformist one. It is a difficult task. Many thousands of workers who know what the S.P.G.B. stands for reject it and choose Labour Party reformism instead. Some day they will learn better and choose Socialism, but already the choice is clear to them. If the S.P.G.B. entered the Labour Party (assuming, which is most unlikely, that the Labour Party would let us) the clear choice would disappear. The S.P.G.B., instead of standing plainly for Socialism, would be associated with reformism and would have to devote the greater part of its energies to explaining that it was in the Labour Party under false pretences and that it did not really accept the Labour programme and policy, although in order to receive affiliation it had to pretend that it did.
This would not keep the Socialist issue clear nor would it speed up the progress of Socialism.
Ed. Comm.
Answers to Correspondents: Why not a weekly “Socialist Standard” ?
Letter to the Editors from the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard
Why not a weekly “Socialist Standard” ?
Mr, F. Smith (Finsbury Park) asks why we do not publish The Socialist Standard weekly. We would like to, but it is impossible with our present resources. Having no paid writers and speakers, the S.P.G.B. has to carry on all its propaganda activities through the voluntary work of members in their spare time. It is quite out of the question to publish a weekly journal in that way. When we have the resources, only to be got through more members, we shall not be content with a weekly, but shall want a daily, the first Socialist daily to be published in Great Britain.
Ed. Comm.
Answers to Correspondents. (1938)
Letters to the Editors from the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard
Mr. R. Jessop (Spalding).—Thanks for your letter containing many interesting questions. These will be taken up and replied to one by one as space permits. Ed. Comm.
D. G. Dennis (Clapham).—The questions in your letter will be dealt with in due course. At the moment we have a large number of questions awaiting reply in the “ S.S.” Ed. Comm.
J. C. Carr (Salford) and A. Thomson.—See reply to D. G. Dennis above. Ed. Comm.
Letter: The position of a Socialist minority in Parliament and on local councils. (1938)
The position of a Socialist minority in Parliament and on local councils.
Mr. R. Jessop (Spalding) asks a question which has often been answered in these columns, but which is obviously of continuing interest and merits repetition.
“What are the tactics of Socialist Members of Parliament in a minority position to be? Supposing the Government should introduce a Bill to increase Old Age Pensions, introduce wages boards, or any measure that would be of benefit to some section of the workers. Would the Socialists oppose such measures on the general grounds that they only deal with the effects of capitalism, or would they support them as giving the workers some small benefit whilst at the same time pointing out that Socialism was the only satisfactory solution to the problem?The position of a Socialist Town or County Councillor also is not quite clear to me. Whilst capitalism continues, such individuals will be obliged to administer that system on housing committees, gas and water committees, A.R.P. committees, etc. Except that they will be standing by to help in the administration of Socialism, when it is instituted, they will, for the time being so far as I can see, have to do a similar job to any Labour Party member who can see nothing beyond combating the immediate ill-effects of capitalism. Is this your view?”
Regarding Parliament, the answer, in brief, is that a minority of Socialist M.P.s would vote for or against measures introduced by other parties, or refrain from voting, in accordance with the Socialist Party’s view as to which course would be in the interest of the working class and Socialism. To use our correspondent’s own words, they would vote for certain measures “as giving the workers some small benefit, whilst at the same time pointing out that Socialism was the only satisfactory solution to the problem.”
A minority of Socialist M.P.s would obviously not vote against a measure which simply raised old-age pensions, or raised wages, or helped trade union organisation, or made it easier to carry on Socialist propaganda or organisation.
It would, however, be of the greatest importance that a Socialist minority should retain its complete independence and not enter into pacts or bargains with other parties or groups. Its position would be quite different from that of the Labour Party minority, which is elected on a non-Socialist programme by electors who are reformists, not Socialists, and which does enter into arrangements with other Parliamentary parties.
The position is much the same on local Councils, but it is not that stated by our correspondent, who takes it for granted that the minority of Town Councillors must take part in and share responsibility for the administration of local affairs. Although Labour minorities habitually sit on the sub-committees of the Council there is no need for them to do so. A Socialist minority of Councillors would use their position on the Council to put forward the Socialist view, but would make it clear that the majority in control were responsible for Council decisions and for the carrying out of the work of the Council on sub-committees and in the various departments of the local authority services.
The local authorities in Great Britain only have the powers devolved upon them by Parliament and the central Government. They cannot act on their own responsibility, outside the limits set for them. The Council majority are, in effect, only the agents of the central Government, and when a Council refuses to carry out the central Government’s wishes steps are taken, as at Poplar some years ago, to have local services carried on irrespective of the wishes of local electors and their representatives on the Council. A Socialist minority (or even a Socialist majority) on a local Council would be governed as to what they could do by Parliament and the central Government and the electors who voted Socialist would very well realise this and not expect their Socialist delegates on the Council to do the impossible.
Ed. Comm.
Letter: Suppose Hitler and Mussolini attack Great Britain. (1938)
A correspondent (Mr. J. C. Carr, Salford) puts several questions. Two of them, and our answers, are printed below. Others will be dealt with as space permits.
Suppose Hitler and Mussolini attack Great Britain.
The S.P.G.B. naturally does not agree with imperialist war, but what would you do if Hitler and Mussolini were to attack this country? Would the workers he expected to stand still with their arms tied as it were behind their backs?
Reply.
The answer, of course, is yes! Why ever not ? Hitler and Mussolini (which means the German and Italian sections of the robber class) would have only one object in threatening war against the British section of the robber class, that is, to plunder them right and left of the wealth they have accumulated and are now accumulating by the exploitation of the working class in the British Empire. The British ruling class would howl with pain and fury, but if the British workers stood still and declined to get all worked up over the thieves' quarrel the British would have to buy off their German and Italian rival bandits by handing over some of the spoil. For example, they would have to hand over lumps of the overseas Empire and, perhaps, pay colossal “reparations," thus reversing (as far as Germany is concerned) the process going on after 1918. But why should the workers worry about that? They might even find, as German workers in the post-War years, that unemployment would decline, while deliveries of goods were being made to the foreign powers, and also that when a ruling class has its hands full dealing with a stronger foreign power it is apt to be much less dictatorial and much more accommodating to its own subject class. It needs their loyal support and has to pay for it.
To put the matter in proper perspective, it should be observed that the German and Italian Governments would not want to add to their burdens by actually occupying Great Britain, but even if they did temporarily do so (as the British and French occupied German territory after 1918), it would perhaps be a trifle irritating, but the working class would go on living (or partly living) just as usual.
Moreover, and this is important, if the British workers behaved sensibly and refused to fight for their masters, Hitler and Mussolini would find their difficulties multiplied at home. German and Italian workers may be war-mad and imperialism-mad for a while (but their record is no worse and is, indeed, a trifle better than that of the British workers), but when they found that stories of Germany and Italy being threatened by British workers were false they would begin to turn their attention to their own wrongs once more.
Ed. Comm.
Would arms be useful to the workers?
Question.I suppose you would say don’t re-arm for the capitalists. Did the possibility ever strike you that arms would be useful things to seize and capture for the establishment of the workers’ State?
Reply.
Regarding the first part of the question, our answer can only be that it does not matter what we say about re-armament at the present time. The British workers, because they are not Socialists, returned the present Government to office at the last election with power to re-arm, and the capitalists are going on with it, no matter what anyone says.
Regarding the main part of the question, the possibility of gaining control of the armed forces of the State struck the S.P.G.B. so forcibly and so early that it was embodied in our Declaration of Principles when they were formulated in 1904. But it all presupposes several things. For the workers to have arms means nothing whatever apart from the ideas in the workers' minds. In 1914, when many British workers were war-mad, they did not want arms in order to establish Socialism, but in order to kill their fellow-workers abroad and, incidentally, to kill members of the S.P.G.B. at home.
So, until the workers want Socialism, having arms will not help. When the workers do want Socialism then they will indeed be able to gain possession of the armed forces, along with the rest of the machinery of Government, by means of the vote, just in the same way that Hitler and Mussolini and the British ruling class have done.
We are reminded of the story (it is related by men who are now members of the S.P.G.B.) of how in 1919, just after the War, they were so disillusioned that they listened readily to some organisation preaching armed revolt. They discussed it before demobilisation and as soon as they had handed in their rifles, on being demobilised, they rushed round to a meeting of the organisation to consider ways and means of getting arms!
It shows the absurdity of the idea, for in practice the soldier has no more control of his gun than the worker has control over his employer’s factory. While the workers as a whole are prepared to vote the capitalist class into power it is they, through the State, who control the soldiers’ guns and everything else.
Ed. Comm.
SPGB Meetings (1938)
Party News from the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard
Blogger's Notes:
The July 21st 1938 Lewisham Branch meeting, "Breakaway Unions—For or Against" is an interesting one. Frank Snelling and Bill Waters were both bus workers, and were both involved in rank and file movements in their union. Snelling ended up leading a breakaway union. More details about the bus workers, their rank and file movement and background on Frank Snelling are available at the following links:
East Ham Parliamentary Campaign (1938)
Party News from the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard
.jpg)
.jpg)