Notes by the Way: Indian Offer to Occupy Belfast (1935)

The Notes by the Way Column from the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Indian Offer to Occupy Belfast

It is often urged in defence of the British occupation of India that the Indians are unable to keep the peace among themselves. Hindoos, Sikhs, and Mohammedans are sometimes on such bad terms with each other about religious and other differences that riots occur and lives are lost. The British authorities then step in and try to keep the peace. This is all very well, but what are the Indians supposed to think about the recurrent riots in Belfast, where Protestants are now refusing to work alongside Catholics, demand the dismissal of the latter, and mob those who do not at once clear out. Several lives have been lost, and many persons have been injured. Troops had to be called out to patrol the streets.

We are waiting to hear that the Indian National Congress has offered to occupy and pacify Belfast.

Irish Gentility

Southern Ireland also is determined not to be out of the picture, and with fierce conflicts between the police, farmers' mothers, wives, and daughters at Cork, is establishing its right to be regarded as a civilised nation. The following is taken from a report by the Cork correspondent of The Times (July 13th) of riots between farmers’ wives, mothers and daughters and the police, when an attempt was being made to sell up farmers' stock for payment of land annuities to De Valera’s Government: —

Some of the women were black and blue with the handling they got. They were driven back time after time, but re-formed in massed formation and charged the police. They captured helmets and caps, and brought them back as trophies. Then they threw them back to the police, charged again, and recaptured . them. The women had a banner, which was taken by the police; but the women recaptured it. Women were sent staggering with punches. Eight women were taken inside the gates under arrest, and the battle subsided for ten minutes or so. Women reinforcements arrived with baskets of eggs and the police were bespattered from head to foot. There was a baton charge and the women cleared away, but not before some were injured.

Mr. De Valera, who is unable to prevent these riots in Southern Ireland, nevertheless, accuses the English Government of being responsible for the riots in Belfast!

The Boll-Weevil Problem

The Boll-Weevil is a pest which attacks and destroys cotton crops. The United States Government, in accordance with the vicious nonsense which masquerades as economics in capitalist circles, is also engaged in destroying or, rather, restricting the cultivation of cotton in order to keep the price up. The same Government employs a large body of men to help kill the boll-weevil, and large sums of money are spent killing it with calcium arsenate. A correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (July 17th) says that people in the cotton areas are asking : “Why kill bugs and at the same time resort to artificial means for crop reduction?” The Manchester Guardian answers the question by pointing out that the individual grower may want the total output of cotton restricted, but wants his own crop preserved. That is so, but whichever way the situation is regarded, it is a splendid example of the shocking lunacy of capitalism.

Who said That?

Students of politics and politicians can guess who said:—

We are leaving no stone unturned gradually to raise the workers’ standard of living. (Times, July 1st.)

You will rightly answer that it is a record played on all die capitalist gramophones, from Tokyo to Montreal, and from Pole to Pole. Actually, these words were used by one of the latecomers, Hitler's right-hand man, Dr. Goebbels. Anyone who still had any lingering suspicion that the Nazis might try to do something for the German workers must, in face of these words, now know that they will do nothing whatever.

The Excuse for Fascism and Nazism

The Nazis in Germany came to power partly through the clever exploitation of a supposed Bolshevik danger. The man who taught them this trick, Benito Mussolini, has admitted (according to Mr. Wickham Steed Observer, June 30th), that his similar story about Italy was utterly false. 

On July 2nd, 1921, Mussolini wrote an article in the Popolo d'Italia containing the passage: —

To say that a Bolshevik danger still exists in Italy means taking base fears for reality. Bolshevism is overthrown.

Mussolini then proceeded to work up a panic about this non-existent danger, as a means of gaining power. When, later on, his attention was called to his double-faced attitude, he replied: —

What I wrote then was true, but it is also true that I climbed into power on the shoulders of those who thought there was a Bolshevik danger.

It is always a sound policy to be suspicious of a known bandit who implores you to let him protect you from some danger supposed to be threatening you.

The Industrial Research Racket

Employers have always been interested in the discovery of ways of reducing the amount of labour required to produce each unit of the product in which they are interested. They have also always considered it useful to obscure their motive —the search for additional profits—with talk of workers’ welfare. Nowadays in the most highly industrialised nations, the whole process has been organised in Governmental and private bodies, which profess to be interested in the scientific study of labour processes, the relationship between hours and conditions of work, and the functions of the human body, and the suitability of the individual worker for particular kinds of work.

Whatever may be the intentions of the individuals responsible for these organisations, and whatever incidental increase of knowledge may result from their efforts, such bodies, in the lump, are absolutely fraudulent. Because industry is controlled by the capitalists and their agents, and operated for profit, these industrial research organisations are only called in by the employer to serve some need of his. The claim of independence and neutrality as between employer and employed is a hollow one. There is a simple test. Let any of these organisations give a single instance of the workers in a factory being allowed to call in research experts to examine the competence, suitability, intelligence, etc., of the directors and shareholders of the company, and their claim to the fees and dividends they receive. This never happens because the object of such investigations is not and cannot be, under capitalism, a disinterested search for truth, it must always be directed to promoting the interests of the profit-seeking class, who own and control.

Evidence of Returning Prosperity

Under the above heading the Daily Telegraph (July 25th) describes how “The prosperity tide is flowing strongly again.” Elsewhere in the same issue are the latest figures of the number of persons receiving poor relief. In England and Wales on January 1st of this year the number was 1,472,891, an increase of 70,166 over January, 1934. The prewar figure (January 1st, 1914) was 761,578. (See Statistical Abstract, 1935, p. 83.)

Looking at profits instead of pauperism there is more justification for the Daily Telegraph's view. The Economist's index of profits shows a continuous and substantial increase each quarter since the end of 1933. 694 companies, which published their reports during the quarter ended June 30th, showed total net profits (after payment of debenture interest, etc.) of £80 millions, and paid an average of 6.7 per cent. on their ordinary shares (Economist, July 13th).

Progress or Only Promises?

Lord Trent, head of Boots, the Chemists, addressing the Royal Sanitary Institute Health Congress, at Bournemouth, on July 18th (see report in Times, July 19th), said some sound things about the conditions of working-class life, marred, however by a quite unfounded optimism. He said that “the practice prevailing last century” was that “of treating labour as a commodity by hiring in the cheapest market and casting aside when done with.” No one will dispute that. His second claim was that ”there existed in this country a growing body of employers . . . who held very definitely the view that there was an obligation upon them to give their employees the widest possible opportunities for making the best of their lives.” He then went on to say that the above obligation “involved a very considerable departure from the practice prevailing last century.” This brings us to the important question whether in truth the present practice is any different from that of a century ago. Granting for the sake of argument that employers hold the view attributed to them, can it be said that it makes any difference to their conduct? If Lord Trent thinks it does will he explain how it is that we have seen during the past crisis three millions of workers cast aside by employers who no longer wanted them?

Either the employers have not changed their hearts or, if they have, capitalism has prevented them from giving expression to the change by treating the workers differently. In either case Lord Trent’s assumption that capitalism will remedy the workers’ problems is shown to be unjustified.

Major Douglas’s Little Joke

When Major Douglas and other Social Credit illusionists are asked why it is that banks pay such small dividends compared with the more profitable of the industrial and commercial concerns, seeing that, according to Douglas, they have the power to ”create credit” without limit, and thus make profits of hundreds per cent., their reply is that the banks pay moderate dividends for "reasons of policy, ” for fear of attracting too much attention.” (See Social Credit, 1933 Edition, p. 157.)

In 1935 (see Times, July 25th), five overseas banks paid no dividend at all, and numbers paid 2 per cent., 3 per cent., and other small amounts up to 10 per cent. It is highly diverting to be told by Major Douglas that bank shareholders, "for fear of attracting too much attention,” rest content with no dividends at all, while Great Universal Stores pays 45 per cent., Beecham’s Pills 27½ per cent., Prices, Tailors, 65 per cent, (they own "The 50/- Tailors ”), Eastwood Flettons 166⅔ cent., Woolworth’s 70 per cent., and the Insurance Companies from 25 per cent. to 100 per cent.

Major Douglas had better think up some more plausible argument—or, better still—scrap the great superstition about “credit creation” and start studying the subject.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Future of Palestine - Part 2 (1935)

From the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

The Union of Zionist Revisionists make clear their capitalist aims for Palestine. They have planned an economic policy which, they say, is the best way of building a Jewish State in Palestine. In their pamphlet, entitled "Basic Principles of Revisionism," we read the following

The constructive period in the life of a State knows only one social commandment—the interests of the constructive work itself to which all other interests—whether of persons, groups or classes—must be subordinated—every class in society must be regarded as a cog in the constructional machine: their class interests must be satisfied when they benefit the State, but repudiated when they hinder the work of upbuilding the State . . .

Shades of Hitler and Mussolini! Are the revisionists ignorant of the State, its history and its functions ? Is the State a mystical entity, above classes, and to which all classes are subordinated? Later on the Revisionists let the cat out of the bag when they tell us what the State is to do in the upbuilding of the new Jewish Society.

Similarly Jewish private capital, and State upbuilding are synonymous; but the payment of interest on private capital is the sine qua non of a supply of capital, hence any resistance to the payment of a legitimate interest on private capital is clearly in opposition to the State . . . 

So here we see that the State is not absolutely divorced from classes and class interest. Obviously, if Jewish capital is synonymous with State upbuilding then it naturally follows that working-class interests are not going to be served by the State. The organised industrial activities of the working class must conflict with capitalist interests, and it will therefore be the function of the State machine, under the control of the Revisionists, to suppress the workers.

Other Revisionist writers make plain their intention to enforce subjection on the Palestine workers in the interest of Jewish capitalists.

Mr. A. Abrahams, in his pamphlet, “What Revisionism Stands For," remarks thus: —

It should be realised that only by assuring investors of the possibilities of profit can capital be attracted. Profitable industry can in no circumstances be associated with philanthropy, but must be in a position to make its way against ordinary competition in the world’s markets. . . .

Further, in their “Blue-White Papers," 1935, the Revisionists emphasise their attitude towards the class struggle.

Conflicts of interests between employers and labour should be settled by “obligatory national arbitration.” By “national” arbitration we mean a permanent board of arbitrators (their italics) nationally and formally elected, and composed of persons known to have no partisan idiosyncrasies (our italics) . . . its verdicts should be final; and both strikes and lock-outs (as well as the boycott of Jewish labour) should be declared treasonable to the interests of Zionism, and repressed by every legal and moral means at the disposal of the nation. . . .

In regard to the “boycott” of Jewish labour, we can be sure that the Jewish capitalists in Palestine will employ the cheapest labour suitable for their requirements, and will give preference to Arab labour if it is cheapest and as efficient.

The Jewish Daily Post (14/5/35) published the following report from Jerusalem: —

According to the Hebrew daily Haaretz, Mr. Smilansky has issued a circular to the Farmers’ Federation, urging them not to purchase shekolim as a protest against the resolution passed at the recent session of the Actions Committee that employment of Arab labour disqualifies a land owner from membership of the Zionist Organisation.

It is clear enough that for the workers Palestine—as far as the intentions of the Revisionists are concerned—is not to differ from other capitalist countries.

Poverty is not a Racial Question

The problem of Jewish poverty in Poland, Germany, England and elsewhere will not be solved by transferring them to Palestine, nor will it be solved by the charity of the Rothschilds and the Melchetts. Poverty is not a racial problem. It is a disability suffered by members of the working class in all parts of the world where capitalism exists, and it will only be removed by the establishment of Socialism.

It has been argued by the exponents of Zionism that the Jewish worker carries two burdens—the burden of exploitation and the burden of persecution. Zionism, it is claimed, will at least remove the burden of persecution. The whole argument is a fallacy. The greatest persecutions experienced by Jewish workers are the persecutions of capitalism. Many Jewish workers in Germany knew the terrors of unemployment long before the coming of Hitler. There are thousands of unemployed Jewish workers in this democratic country and many more thousands almost destitute in America and Poland. In Germany the Jews suffering from the Nazi regime are mainly doctors, lawyers, barristers, teachers, journalists, and those Jews who held prominent positions in the Civil Service. If there are any Jewish workers who dread losing their jobs under a Fascist Government they may be interested to read the following which appeared in a letter from a Manchester correspondent, and was published in a recent issue of the Jewish Chronicle. It refers to Poland.

During the last few years more and more clothing and weatherproof factories have been opened by Jews. Competition has become keener; prices have been cut to the very bone; and naturally the Jewish working man has suffered most. His wages have been reduced to the lowest level. He cannot exist on the meagre wage (often less than he would receive at the Labour Exchange) that he receives at these shops. Not only this, the Jewish-owned workshops have been flooded by Gentile labour from the closed cotton mills. The latter now receive preference in that the workshops are open on Saturdays and Jewish holy days, instead of, as previously, on Sundays. The key positions, too, the managerships and the majority of clerical posts are entirely in the hands of non-Jews (Jews in the office might learn too much of the business!) and an orthodox Jew who refuses to work on Saturday often finds a notice of dismissal in his pay envelope at the end of the week. Many of the owners of these workshops hold treasurer ships and other high offices in our communal institutions. . . . 

Comment would be superfluous. We can only point out to the Jewish workers that nothing better awaits them in Palestine. Capitalism in England has given the workers of this country poverty, and the development of the system in Palestine will bring the same problems for the Jewish workers to solve. As in every other capitalist country, the production of goods will be limited by market requirements, and unemployment is inevitable. The Revisionists can give no guarantee of working class security and well-being.

The advantages of the Jewish workers in Palestine boil down to this. Instead of lining up outside a Labour Exchange in England, they will ask for a “dole” in a Palestinian Labour Exchange. Instead of being exploited in England, they will be exploited in Palestine. No longer will they run the risk of being beaten up by a Nazi hooligan, but they will have the proud privilege of knowing that they are being beaten by Jews in Brownshirts, members of the Union of Zionist Revisionists. (The Jewish Daily Post, 10/5/35, reports an occurrence in Vienna, when Revisionists smashed the furniture and destroyed the papers in the offices of a Jewish youth organisation with general Zionist sympathies, leaving behind them photographs of Dr. Weitzmann and Mr. Ben Gurion—Jewish Labour Leader—with the inscription “Weitzmann and Ben Gurion must hang.”) 

What, then, is to be the solution of the problems of the Jewish workers? We have already said that, in the main, these problems are the normal features of working-class life, poverty, insecurity, and premature death. While capitalism remains these vicious effects cannot be eliminated. Only the establishment of Socialism will remove them, and it will also remove anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitic agitation is used whenever it serves the interest of certain sections of the ruling class, just as anti-negro agitation is used in U.S.A.

Anti-Semitism is particularly severe in countries where there is still an ignorant and superstitious peasantry, but in the more developed capitalist countries conditions are not so favourable for the growth of anti-Semitic propaganda. The joint control of huge undertakings by Jewish and non-Jewish capitalists, the more experienced minds of the working class, all tend to weaken racial prejudice. There is also a larger proportion of Jewish workers in countries like England and America than there are in Germany. Even the final card of the Zionists, that a Jewish State in Palestine would afford the Jews security from pogroms can be answered. There is little danger from pogroms in advanced capitalist countries. Capitalism frowns upon civil violence. Anything in the nature of riot and bloodshed upsets the delicate mechanism of capitalist trade and finance. It also disturbs confidence in the ability of the Government to keep order. For example, in a city like London, with its immense population, an anti- Jew riot might easily lead to the destruction of valuable property in which many non-Jewish capitalists are interested, and it would also be extremely difficult for the police to keep such a mob in hand. Even in Germany, at the height of the Nazi triumph, there were no pogroms of a Czarist Russian character.

In conclusion we must emphasise that the problem of the Jewish workers is not the illusory one of preserving their identity as a race, but to protect their interests as members of the working class, in whatever part of the world they find themselves.

Our message to the Jewish workers is no different to our message to any other national or racial section of the working class. We say to them that they should unite with us in the overthrowing of the capitalist system and the building of a new society, wherein they will be allowed to live freely, and in equality.

Kaye and Scrutator.

[Concluded.]

The Future of Palestine - Part 1 (1935)

From the July 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

The rise of the Nazi Party to power in Germany, with the subsequent persecution of Jews, has resulted in renewed interest in the Zionist movement.

Zionism first came into existence as a political theory at the end of last century at the time of the Dreyfus case. Before then it had taken, more or less, the form of a religious longing to return to the “Holy” Land. It happened that an Austrian journalist, Dr. Theodor Herzl, had been sent to Paris to report on the Dreyfus affair, for a Vienna newspaper. Dr. Herzl was a Jew who had assimilated the culture and manners of Austrian society, and was greatly removed from Judaism. But the story goes that the Dreyfus case, with its attendant anti-Semitism, stirred him so deeply that he set himself the momentous task of discovering a solution to the Jewish problem. He “discovered” that the Jews are persecuted because they have no country of “their own,” and that the problem would be solved if they could be confined to a certain geographical area. He expounded these views in his book, “The Jewish State,” and declared that the Jews must establish a state of their own, preferably in Palestine. He obtained the support of well-known men like Max Nordau, Israel Zangwill and the French Baron, Edmond de Rothschild, who contributed a large fortune for the cause.

In 1901 the Jewish National Fund was inaugurated, in order to facilitate the collection of money for the purchase of land in Palestine and to assist the settlement of Jews in that country.

The movement grew slowly, but in 1917 Lord Balfour addressed his famous letter to Lord Rothschild, informing him that “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine . . .” This aroused the enthusiasm of Jews all over the world, who now imagined that here at last was something worth striving for. It was not, however, till 1921, when the Palestine mandate was finally granted to England by the Allied Powers, that the Zionist movement began to assume a more practical form. Different parties had arisen in Zionism representing a variety of opinions and interests. There were the General Zionists, the Poale Zionists (“Socialists”) and the Mizrachists (religious party).

At about this time Dr. Chaim Weitzmann, the chemist who helped to supply England with explosives during the Great War, was the leader of the World Zionist movement, and he sought to interest prominent British Jews in the development of Palestine. Amongst those whom he visited was the late Lord Melchett, head of the Imperial Chemical Industries. We are told by his biographer, Hector Bolitho (“Alfred Mond, first Lord Melchett”) that Dr. Weitzmann touched some hidden chord in Lord Melchett’s heart, with the result that Melchett visited the “Holy Land.” He was so impressed that, according to his biographer, ". . . he had made a vow that he would amass a fortune of fifteen millions, that he would work ruthlessly, until he had enough money to bring the Jews back to their country . . .” (page 366). He was elected to important positions in the Zionist movement, but we are told that ”. ..  the business man in him caused him to curb his zeal and work cautiously . .. ” (page 369).

There now arose a great deal of dissatisfaction with the administration of the Zionist movement, and the Union of Zionist Revisionists was formed by Vladimir Jabotinsky, assisted by Meyer Grossmann, who claimed that their policy alone was in line with the original Herzlian ideal. Meyer Grossman, however, has since left the Revisionists and formed another party of his own called the "Jewish State Party.”

In 1929 there was a serious Arab uprising, stated to have been caused by a demonstration at the Wailing Wall of Jerusalem. Lord Melchett, greatly incensed at the slaughter of his "fellow Jews” in Palestine, poured an avalanche of letters on the Press, and spoke passionately at a huge protest meeting in the Albert Hall. He wrote a letter to Lord Beaverbrook beseeching him to give the support of his Press to the Zionist movement. Hector Bolitho (page 370) quotes this letter to Beaverbrook: ”. . . It ought to be under the India Office, which is used to dealing with Eastern people . . . We might as well say that we must evacuate India because of the Moslem rows there . . . as that we must evacuate Palestine because once in six years there is a week’s trouble . . . We simply cannot evacuate Palestine, for the reason that if we did the Italians would be only too glad to walk in . . . and the French would support them. It would give them command of our flying route to India . . . and one bank of the Suez Canal . . . They would then command a magnificent naval harbour in Haifa, the outlet of what is probably the most important oilfield outside the United States of America—the Mosul oilfield.”

Lord Beaverbrook, however, did not agree with Melchett. He looked on Palestine as a barren, rocky country with little avenue for profit-making But Melchett did not see Palestine as barren and rocky. His biographer tells us (page 371). that Melchett ”. . . had bought hundreds of acres of land; he had seen the Dead Sea concessions and the Rutenberg Electric Power Concession growing from strength to strength . . .”

In view of this we are at a loss to understand whether Melchett wanted 15 million pounds to bring the Jews back to Palestine or whether he hoped to make this sum by bringing them to Palestine!

Revisionist Fury.

The Revisionists and the other sections were furious at this Arab uprising, the blame for which they laid at the door of the General Zionists because of their maladministration. A congress was called and Nahum Sokolow was elected president in succession to Weitzmann. But this did not stem the opposition of the Revisionists, who claimed that Sokolow or Weitzmann represented the same policy. Stormy scenes occurred. The Revisionists hurled unkind epithets like ”Red gangsters” at the ”Socialist” Zionists, who retorted by calling the Revisionists ”Dirty Fascists.” Mr. Jabotinsky tore up his congress card, and together with a large body of Revisionists marched out of the Congress Hall. (Quite recently the Revisionists left the Zionist Organisation completely.) When Lord Melchett died, his son continued to support the Zionist movement. He also holds an honoured place on the Board of Directors of Palestine Potash, Ltd.

Among other prominent Jewish capitalists who support Zionism are Lord Reading, Sir Robert Waley-Cohen, Sir Montague Burton and Sir Herbert Samuel. These capitalists feel themselves ”touched” at the plight of their ”fellow” Jews all over the world, and they have contributed large sums of money towards the Zionist movement. Hardly an appeal is made without some of these names, and others equally prominent appearing in the list of donors.

The quest of a country of one’s own would lead some people to believe that the Jews are different from any other race or nation. But Jews, like other races, are divided into two classes, capitalists and workers, and the fact that a Jew is employed.by another Jew does not alter his standing. He is a wage-slave and will be treated as such. No special privileges are conferred on him on account of his religious beliefs, or because of the shape and size of his nose. He is exploited with no less vigour than, for instance, is a Jewish worker employed by a non-Jew, or a non-Jew worker employed by a Jewish capitalist. All capitalists, be they black, white, Mohammedan, Christian, Buddhist, Jew or atheist, exist by exploitation, and it is the workers whom they exploit.

As has already been mentioned, the Zionists represent all types of opinions, and there is even a so-called Socialist Party amongst them. This party is out to build a ”Socialist” country in Palestine for Jews only, but their ”Socialism” is only Labourism—"State ownership,” and the usual stock-in-trade of reform parties. We need not pay much attention to this party and its chimeras. It spends its time in compromising with the General Zionists, and declaring coalitions. It speaks airily about "Marxism” and claims to have set up "Communistic" colonies in Palestine.

Jewish Imperialists.

The party that most concerns us is the Union of Zionist Revisionists, who are the only party which demand a Jewish state in the fullest sense of the word. Palestine to them is not a place where a few thousand Polish and German Jews may find refuge, it is not a spiritual home where Jews may study the Talmud, or attend universities. Palestine must be a Jewish state, inhabited by a Jewish majority, governed by Jews, administered by Jewish civil servants, and “protected" by a Jewish navy, army, air force and police.

In their pamphlet "Blue-White Papers, 1935," they say ". . . we happen to be thoroughly convinced that a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan is not only the best way, but the only way to give the Empire a permanent stronghold on the Mediterranean . . . Many British statesmen fully realise that the whole value of Palestine to the Empire depends on its transformation into a Jewish state . . . Palestine as a Jewish state, surrounded on all sides by Arab countries, will in the interests of its own preservation always tend to lean upon some powerful Empire, non-Arab and non-Mohammedan. This is an almost providential basis for a permanent alliance between Britain and a Jewish Palestine . . ."

But why is it the British Government does not see eye to eye with the Revisionists? The reason is that they have many conflicting aspects to take into account. A movement by the British Government towards the establishment of a purely Jewish state in Palestine would, for example, arouse antagonism from the Arabs. It favours British imperial interests to remain on good terms with the Arabs as well as with the Jews. They are not going to bum their fingers for Mr. Jabotinsky and Co. Again, it is hard to see how a Jewish state in Palestine will make England’s position more secure in the Mediterranean.

Kaye and Scrutator.

[To be continued.]

The Drought Peril (1935)

From the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

The contradictions of capitalism and its disservice to the community are vividly shown in the method of handling the water shortage. Under a national system of society the available water could easily be stored and directed to the points where it is needed. Under capitalism, however, the god of private property is all-powerful, and so we read in the News-Chronicle of June 12th, 1935: Many local authorities are handicapped by the unwillingness of owners of land with water sources to sell the water rights at a reasonable price. At present there are no powers to acquire such land compulsorily at an arbitration figure.

R. M.

Major Douglas in Alberta (1935)

From the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

An interesting situation has arisen in Alberta with the acceptance by Major Douglas of post as adviser to the Government. The Government in the province is in the hands of the Party known as the United Farmers of Alberta, whose hold on the electorate has been seriously undermined by the rapid growth of a local Social Credit League run by a Mr. Aberhart. Fearful of being defeated at the next elections the Government, in the words of the Canadian correspondent of the Economist, “hit upon the idea of importing Major Douglas himself, the parent of Social Credit, to confound Mr. Aberhart” (Economist, June 29th).

Major Douglas and Mr. Aberhart have said some harsh things about each other, and each claims that his particular scheme is the genuine article, so that it seems highly probable that the move of the Alberta Government will succeed in splitting the Social Credit vote. Major Douglas is not giving his aid for nothing. He is to have a “generous fee.” According to the Vanguard (Toronto, June 1st, 1935) he gets a retaining fee of 5,000 dollars and a further payment of 2,000 dollars for every visit to Alberta.

He has recommended the formation of a coalition Government which shall seek a mandate for the following four “fundamental objectives” (Economist, June 29th).

A drastic reduction of taxation, particularly upon property.

A maintenance dividend as of right, probably small at first, and graded so as to be at the maximum after middle age.

Measures designed to produce a low price level within the Province with adequate remuneration to the producer and trader.

Development of internal resources based upon “physical capacity rather than upon financial considerations.”

It will be noticed that these objectives might be accepted easily by any Liberal-Labour Party anywhere. Where they are definite they are in line with capitalism. Where they are vague they are good vote-catching devices.

What is important about the Alberta episode is that it exposes the real nature of the Douglasite gospel. Major Douglas and his followers are most emphatic that their scheme is not inflation of the currency, but that, in fact, is precisely what it is. The whole Douglas theory is based on an ancient myth about a supposed deficiency of purchasing power. There is no such deficiency, and consequently the issue of Social Credit in the form of the payment of an allowance to all citizens, since it is not to be provided by increased taxation, could only be done by inflating the currency and thus causing the price level to rise. Major Douglas is most anxious to deny this because experiences of inflation in France, Germany and elsewhere have shown how useless that is except for the problems of certain sections of the capitalist class. Now we find him acting as adviser to the United Farmers of Alberta, one of the planks of whose programme, adopted at a conference two or three years ago (see Canadian Annual Review, 1933), is inflation of the currency to bring the dollar down to the level of the wheat-producing foreign competitors of the Alberta farmers! Like certain English economists who have been prepared to give conditional support to the Douglas scheme, the Alberta farmers will be willing to do so simply because it involves currency inflation which they believe will help to reduce the burden of their indebtedness to the Canadian banks, mortgage companies and insurance companies.

Douglas – Defender of Capitalism

Before leaving Major Douglas it may be worthwhile to remind those misguided workers who support him how essentially capitalistic is his movement. He is himself an unrepentant anti-Socialist. In his Monopoly of Credit (Chapman & Hall, 1931) he describes the relationship between capitalism and workers as “a perfectly equitable arrangement” (p. 34) and in his Draft Social Credit Scheme for Scotland he emphasised that there was to be no ” interference with existing ownerships, so called,” and there would continue to be profits, wages and capitalist ownership (see appendix to Social Credit, revised edition, 1933, Eyre & Spottiswoode). He constantly puts forward the absurd theory – but a very useful one to the industrial and commercial capitalists in hoodwinking the workers – that capitalists and workers are both exploited and impoverished by their common enemy, the banker. One of the journals which espouses his cause, the New English Weekly, tells us (May 26th, 1932) that Douglasism could be introduced only under two forms of government

“A dictatorship … or a Patriotic largely and predominantly composed ‘Tory aristocrats’…”

On January 26th, 1933, the same paper had the following frank admission about the aims of the Douglas movement:

“… if by capitalism is understood the system of competitive production for profit, it can be said that the required change would not involve its destruction but only its regulation.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Socialism and the Co-Operative Movement (1935)

From the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Report of an address by an S.P.G.B. speaker on July 9th at Co-operative Hall, Seven Sisters Road to members of the Islington Co-operative Guild) 

S.P.G.B. address: There is to-day a crying need for Socialism. In the depressed areas of northern England, in the heavy industries, such as coal, iron and shipbuilding, we behold the usual scene of the wholesale dismissal of workers under capitalism. Coal miners with no work while mines stand idle; textile workers unemployed while mills are closed; shipwrights despairing for the future while many ships ply the seas in a state of disrepair, and with the minimum of comfort for the crew. Men and women are denied all these, as well as other means of living, though they could themselves produce their own means of existence if allowed access to the means of production.

These facts were observed by Utopian Socialists more than a century ago. But they were groping in the dark; they did not fully understand the working of the capitalist system. Fourier, for example, was very enthusiastic over a system of co-operative colonies, which, he said, would grow with great speed. Robert Owen also confidently expected that co-operative productive societies would sweep the country within his own lifetime. Why, then, is it that more than a century after co-operative productive and distributive societies began to work, no great impression has been made on the capitalist system?

After one hundred years of striving, the Co-operative Societies employ only a quarter of a million people in their productive concerns, where the average wage is a mere £3 per week. In the distributive side of the Co-operative Societies the average wage of employees is even less—£2 15s. per week. The Co-operative movement has departed from the ideals of Fourier and Robert Owen, and as its supporters themselves admit, it has to I compete with other firms run on capitalist lines. That is why Co-operative employees have to strike against bad conditions of employment, taking part in the class struggle just as workers in other firms do. Many Co-operators still believe that the Co-operative Societies will be the means of emancipating the working class. But the conditions prevailing in the Co-operative Societies expose this hope as baseless. The facts go to show that the Co-operative movement is perfectly content to run on capitalist lines. For that reason its directors invested large sums in War Loan, and helped the capitalist class to continue the Great War, though it probably meant the murder or maiming of Cooperative members in the fighting forces. In spite, however, of the Co-operative Societies' willingness to be patriotic, people like Lord Beaverbrook attacked them. Therefore, the Co-operative movement, in self-defence, set up its own political party to make itself a political force in the country. Not with a view to getting rid of the wage-slave system, but only to continuing capitalism—and the Co-operative Societies. This is made dear by their statement (in the People's Year Book, 1932), that their Party will strive for more Public Utility Boards, such as the London Passenger Transport Board—which was recently faced with a strike of thousands of its *bus drivers and conductors.

The action of the Co-operative Societies in trying to get political power is an admission of the supreme importance of that power, and shows that the Co-operative movement is beginning to realise that the working class cannot get its emancipation while the Government is in the hands of the capitalist class.

(This concluded the address.)

Many questions were asked and apparently almost every member of the audience wanted to take part in the discussion, but the divergence of opinion shown within this Co-operative Guild is astounding in an organisation which claims that it will transform society. One member said that Parliament was no good; another said that the Co-operative Societies must seek protection in Parliament. It was maintained, on the one hand, that the Co-operative Societies would expand and overthrow the capitalist system; while another member declared that big finance was the greatest power in the world, and admitted, when questioned, that it could destroy the Co-operative movement. Another participant in the discussion said that it was not true that the members of the Cooperative Societies were interested only in the dividend; but went on to say that though possibly most of their members did buy at Co-operative stores because of the “divi," that was because we were living under capitalism.

Many other mistaken ideas were expressed, as for example, that the S.P.G.B. is in opposition to Trade Unions. As regards the Trade Unions, we point out that the working class must organise to resist the encroachments of their masters, but that such organisation cannot achieve Socialism.

D. S.

Disarmament and the Working Class (1935)

From the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Of the numerous problems which owe their existence to the normal development of Capitalism, that of Disarmament seems to have outstripped all others in the degree of popularity. For many years organisations from the League of Nations Union down to the Labour Party and Christian Peace Societies have wasted their time, money, and energies in conducting Peace by Disarmament Propaganda campaigns, passing futile resolutions, futile because they lacked effective backing, even if such were practicable, and generally calling upon the Government of the day to give a lead to the remaining capitalist world in the attainment of disarmament.

The Government, however, ignoring the pleas of the ardent pacifists, is busily engaged in making its contribution to world peace by preparing the armed forces for war.

This policy, together with the identical one now being pursued by the rest of capitalist States, has been instrumental in changing pacifist optimism into unprecedented pessimism.

Their failure to appreciate the function of Government and armed forces is the main cause of their defeat.

Whilst not agreeing with Bukharin in other matters, we can certainly endorse the following: —

It ought to be obvious from the foregoing considerations that armaments are an indispensable attribute of State power, an attribute that has a very definite function in the struggle among State capitalist trusts. Capitalist society is unthinkable without wars —the inevitableness of economic conflicts conditions the existence of arms.

This is why in our times, when economic conflicts have reached an unusual degree of intensity, we are witnessing a mad orgy of armaments. (“Imperialism and World Economy.” L. Bukharin. Martin Lawrence edition. P. 127.)

These economic conflicts are, in their turn, conditioned by the endeavour of the master classes to gain economic advantage in controlling or annexing commodity markets, trade routes, sources of raw material, and areas of investment.

To expect Disarmament to be accomplished whilst retaining capitalist private property relationships is Utopian in the extreme; the pacifists, however, have no notion of the fact that the above stated capitalist rivalry, and their armed forces are determined by these relations.

How, then, is Disarmament to be achieved ? In answering this question we shall begin by pointing out that such an objective is inseparably linked up with Socialism, and both of these tasks can only be accomplished by the working class.

The first step in this direction is by far the most important and difficult, namely, the converting of working-class opinion to Socialist knowledge.

The result of the spread of Socialist thought is organisation in the Socialist Party. Then, in the manner laid down in our principles, the working class conquers political power. In doing this they disarm the master class of their control of the armed forces.

With the necessary conversion of the machinery of Government, including these forces, into a suitable lever with which to achieve emancipation, the task of ushering in the new social system begins.

As the resistance of the ex-capitalists to the new order becomes weaker so the need to maintain the weapons with which to stamp out this resistance becomes ever more unnecessary.

The coercive forces gradually die out until Disarmament in its entirety is an accomplished fact.

Southey.

Twenty-One Years Ago (1935)

From the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Twenty-one years ago commenced a war, in which millions of the working class suffered death and mutilation for the greater glory and profit of their capitalist masters. Not that the issue was presented quite so bluntly; the supreme aim, the British working class was told, was to make the recurrence of war forever impossible. And now, twenty-one years after the “War to end War,” the phrase, “the next war,” is beginning to become a commonplace; world expenditure on armaments has reached astronomical figures, and paternal governments seek to instruct civil populations how best to conduct themselves when subjected to poison-gas attacks.

Although ”to end war” was the supreme aim, there were also lesser, subordinate, aims. The ”World was to be made safe for Democracy,” we were told. It was made so safe that most of the post-war democratic constitutions have already given place to dictatorship in one form or another, and where democratic forms of government still survive, ”defence of democracy” continues to provide a basis for solemn pronunciamento and flaming appeals.

Twenty-one years ago Prussian militarism was presented as the implacable enemy of civilisation. To-day, for the time being, the friendliest relations exist between our capitalist masters and the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, dictatorship which, in its laudation of militarism, its cynical disregard of, and contempt for, all that civilisation is supposed to represent, would make a Prussian Junker of the old school blush with embarrassment.

We were also assured that the rights of small nations, of racial and national minorities, were to be safeguarded; to-day Jew-baiting is becoming increasingly popular, the persecution of national minorities goes on apace, while Imperialist Japan plunders a stricken China, and Mussolini prepares to “civilise” Abyssinia.

Twenty-one years ago, at the outbreak of the war, either the utmost confusion prevailed among those parties claiming to represent working-class interests, or, as in the case of the British Labour Party, they openly placed their services at the disposal of the capitalist class. Only the Socialist Party of Great Britain openly proclaimed its firm adherence to the principles of international working class solidarity, and urged the British working class to oppose its own class interests to that of the capitalists by organising together with the workers of all countries for the overthrow of capitalism, here and elsewhere.

To-day, there is every indication that the same people who deluded the workers then, are prepared to do the same again. The Labour Party talks about the need for defending “collective security,” “democracy,” and the League of Nations. Bolshevik Russia proclaims the “indivisibility of peace,” and hastens to recognise the justification of capitalist armed forces to maintain that peace—providing, of course, that the capitalist Power concerned is well disposed towards Russia.

To-day, just as twenty-one years ago, the Socialist Party asserts that as long as capitalism exists, so does the danger of war, and that the only way to abolish war is to abolish the cause of war— a social system based upon the private ownership of the means of wealth production. To that end the Socialist Party appeals to the workers to organise consciously for the overthrow of capitalism, by winning political power for the establishment of Socialism.

Arthur Mertons

Answers to Correspondents (1935)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

J. S., Toronto.—We fail to understand the point of your questions. The real question at issue in the correspondence with J. Hawkins was whether or not Marx constantly stressed the need to gain control of the political machinery. None of your quotations from Socialist Standard and Engels touches on this point. When Engels wrote of the need to suppress any “pro-slavery rebellion," he envisaged doing so in the only way possible, i.e., through control of the political machinery. That is why the S.P.G.B. throughout its existence, has agreed with Marx and Engels that it is absolutely essential for the working class to gain control of the political machinery, including the armed forces.

Editorial Committee.

Three Hundred Pounds (1935)

Party News from the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

These words are addressed to those workers who want Socialism. Most of those who want Socialism and who agree that the method advocated by the Socialist Party of Great Britain for its adoption is the correct one, are already inside the ranks of the Party. There are others, however, who, whilst sympathising with our position, have not yet found their way to join with us in the organised work for Socialism. Whether inside or outside the Party, however, it will be obvious that, carrying on our work under capitalism, we need, if our work is to be effective, plenty of that exchange medium—Money.

Those who perused our last issue will have seen that our need is, at the moment, particularly urgent. We have to vacate our present, somewhat cramped, premises very shortly. The Party is growing, and in order to carry on efficiently the increased amount of work and the various new forms of activity, larger and more commodious premises are necessary. It is estimated that the minimum amount required to enable us to effect the removal and obtain a tenancy of the type of premises deemed most suitable is Three Hundred Pounds.

Now, fellow workers, it is up to you. If you want Socialism, then let us have the wherewithal. Those who have a banking account can send us a nice little cheque, or even a fat one, if your balance is well on the credit side. If you do not possess a banking account, there is a Post Office not so far away, who will kindly oblige with a postal order of anything from 6d. to 21s. in exchange for the necessary cash. If you cannot afford a postal order, even stamps will be welcome. If you are not in the Party, but know one of the comrades, he will gladly give you a receipt for your subscription, however small—but we would like it large, if possible! All donations sent to Headquarters will be acknowledged in the Socialist Standard. 

Now, fellow-workers—step on it!

Donations to General Funds and the New Premises Fund (1935)

Party News from the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1935)

Party News from the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

L. Otway was the partner of May Otway, both joining the Walthamstow Branch of the SPGB in October 1924. He lapsed his membership in May 1942, two years after she had resigned from the SPGB over the Party's position on the war.

Outdoor Propaganda Meetings (1935)

Party News from the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Artists and Potboilers. A Chapter on the Incentive of Gain. (1916)

From the August 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

Let Us Forget !

Little apology is needed for the scanty mention of the European War in this chapter. In the contest every kind of cannon has now been used ; every variety of dismemberment and death been suffered ; the whole thing is now grown monotonous and dull. When the French plains and the Flemish fields, the hills of Russia and the hills of Italy have been sufficiently dunged with rotten death to please the masters, the fighting nations will see that, far from any good coming to them from the bloodshed, it has resulted in a silly national division of the workers, which is not good, nor anywhere near good.

Let people for a moment forget all the ephemeral “Commissions,” “Reports,” “Investigations,” “Leading Articles,” ”Booklets, and “Volumes” that are born of the war, and turn to matters of permanent interest ; let people turn from the Newspapers to the Classic Books, from Cannon to Galleries, and they will see that the old delicate dramas, the fine new stuff, the sweetness of the masters in painting of Spain and France and Italy, the sunny Dutch work, the pallid Japanese, all the singular inspiration of China, the philosophy of Germany, all do, not merely at one time or another, but all times, peace or war, show the harmony of talents and disclose the comradeship of genius. The greatest of all nations are brotherly, and their fraternal work will help to bring peace permanently at last on earth : it will not be done with siege-guns, no matter how massive they be nor what powder they spittle. All Art nourishes the spirit of revolution ; against the shape and cut of a book or chair or house as Morris did ; against the shape or cut of the earth, as in Shelley.

Our masters know this and have in all ages endeavoured to alter the vital secular character of Art into a something vapid and servile ; it must be changed, they said, from the passionate and wayward to the didactic and mechanical : they spoke with tongues of fire and their syllables were prisons. Artists were driven into all kinds of occupations quite alien to them : chiselling ships and barrels of muskets, allegories, chapel-altars. Samaritans, Virgin Man’s, colouring monasteries, till a daring Italian boy of the thirteenth century started dreaming by his flock on the hills of Padua, and in the end found that the sight of his pregnant ewes was quite as inspiring as a pregnant Virgin. A new, self-reliant epoch commenced for Art, and the masters’ fires, prisons, and titles since then have only scared the unsound, bribed the less keen and valuable, and filled the archives Paying of Art with chronicles of sorrow.

Paying the Price.

Whether they be ancient or modern, whether they be Russian novelists, Dutch or French landscapists or English poets, they have prepared, and must prepare, in youth, for a life of affliction and a ceremonious funereal ; must have thought, must now think, that if the funeral ostentation is forgotten or neglected, posterity will, with bronze busts and posthumous marble, compensate them for the dismal doom they suffered and the misery they endured.

Marvellous boys like Chatterton, are not prepared to suffer the fate that the stupid and mercenary arrange ; rather than a piecemeal death they end it all at once with a little acid. They think the worst acid better than the best editor. Some live on and fight. For this crime Dostoievsky is, in Russia, sentenced to death. The sentence is afterwards mitigated ; instead of death he is sent to Siberia (which he named the House of the Dead) for ten years. Out of Norfolk we get a hard instance. Old Crome, “the glory of the English landscape school” as he is now called by preface writers, was set on coach painting in Norwich. In the evenings and on Saturday afternoons, when he was not lining spokes and yellowing wheels, he did, in oils, the moons over Norfolk pastures, over massive scalloped cows ; shipping by the riversides he did after the manner of Hobbema, and Mousehold Heath with its chalk pits, donkeys, characteristic mills, as only Crome could—the lot to be sold for not many shillings. That picture of his in the London National Gallery was once divided in two and the the halves, when separately sold, brought him four guineas. It is very hard when a Preface Writer cannot say an artist’s unhappiness is due to a girl. Gainsborough, too, had to leave his “Market Carts,” his “Stricken Oaks,” his “Pools,” his “Sunsets over Devonshire Moors,” and for his pence, with his oils, flatter the fussy Duchess and the soft Earl.

The Martyrdom of Genius.

Also there was a Dutch painter born in a windmill some few hundreds of years ago Rembrandt van Ryn. He put his hand to the pallette and passed many a terrible day, for he did as his genius dictated. The feudal owners of much of the Dutch wealth did not like his Rabbis and washerwomen and singular mills and did not buy them. He was in the end driven from his Amsterdam shanty ; he took his wife, children, and paints from house to hovel and then along to humbler hovel. His name is now highest on the auction-room price list.

Last century a sad French boy worked a plough in Normandy. Until he was twenty, in his little leisure, he did, with charcoal only, snatches of beautiful country or the raw-boned, decrepit Frenchmen on the neighbouring’ farms. Eventually this mighty ploughman lived in Barbizon, a sad, colourless village jostled by massive, dark woods. He did then, as Rembrandt in Holland, follow where his talent of sorrow led. The Frenchman’s end was similar to the Dutchman’s. If joy isn’t yet, persecution is international. No one for many years would buy his “Dung Spreaders,” his “Peasants Reposing,” his “Potato Diggers”; so his suffering was distinctly hard, even in the catalogue of the hardships of artists. “My wife will be confined next month and there is nothing in the house. I do not know where to get my month’s rent” he wrote to Theodore Rousseau. He was found without fire or food. He was praised a little in the Press, but critics “Charm ache with air and agony with words.” Christy’s and Agnew’s know the man—they have lately sold one of his six-inch by five canvasses, of a “Shepherdess knitting,” for a thousand guineas. He painted “The Gleaners” and “The Angelas”—his name is immortal, Jean Francois Millet.

An Odious Comparison.

Under capitalism the man with colour schemes is no match in the market for the man with financial schemes : it is the nightingale against the vulture.

I could give instance after instance of the sorrow and pain which the talented in an enslaved community must endure if they watch or listen to the loveliness of the earth and then in any way tell it to others. The good men will cross the world, and, while a masterful class holds factory and field, while the democracy is content to be put off with an education, incomplete, suitable for commerce and nothing more, they must go without encouragement from the mass, without money from the opulent ; their telescopes will be broken in two, they will be sent, starved and pale, to their pallettes, and in rags to their violins.

But where in this record does the incentive of gain crop up ? If, as the merry masters say, it is for gain the best and the worst work, why do not the greatest leave their permanent, sincere work (which leaves them lean) and win gold with the transitory, the false, and the easily understood ? To hear our rulers speak one would think the poet sings because he wants butcher’s meat and wholemeal bread. He sings for nothing of the kind. He sings, as he draws breath, naturally, and he would die if he did not. It is idiocy to think he sings because it is hard to live, because engines and lands are privately owned, and would cease to sing to a wider world under Socialism. It is impertinence to say he sings at the bidding of silver and gold magnates and wouldn’t sing to a supreme democracy. As long as skies are blue and hills are green he will compose, whether dividends change or do not, whether money is or is not, whether the world listens or does not.

That, too, is the secret of the strength of the influence of minorities.

One Word about Potboilers.

One word about potboilers : we must never let them take up too much time. The artist is only hard hit when he stands tenaciously by his ideals. Some are, however, forced into apostacy or monotony, endeavour to repeat old masters, not because they are born rogues, not through any natural or youthful desire to emulate what is glorious, but because potboilers pay better. So we have a houseful of Academicians like La Thangue, with his geese, puddles, and red-hot, boozy-looking suns, his grizzly stacks with one star out beside a skinny, stippled moon ; a host of others doing silly, whitish Samaritans on shivering rags in a somewhat English, damp Egypt ; Leader who decorates Devonshire property with honeysuckle, spin and span labourers, Flaxman china, best food, best wives, best children. It will not profit us much to consider the yellow lies and pink apostacy of the other fellows who settle or pervert the national learning or taste in art. I need only say that a literate democracy would not have repetitions of dead masters, being familiar with the originals ; being atheistic, would not care whether the pallid Nazarene was in Egypt or out of it; being intimate with the fields would detest Leader’s landscape puddings. Under Socialism we will with our schools banish ignorance, with our Science banish Paradise, with our Art banish Academy sunsets and in consequence banish Academicians.

The work of the potboilers is made to be understood : it is fitted for dronish intellects ; it prospers under the hand of the aristocrat. On the other hand the work of the artist is always bewildering to the characterless slaves of his own particular generation and becomes the wonderment and delight of a remote posterity. But through illiteracy, which the Board Schools of the masters are instrumental in perpetuating, the worker takes small interest in Art. By cunning he is deprived of intellectual health and liberty, as he is of bodily entertainment and rest ; he is separated from Beethoven and Corot as from his loom and meadow.

It will be seen from the few illustrations I have given that while a few millions master the wonders and riches of the earth, the pictures, like the plough, the beautiful and the useful, will be the property of those who have too much gut to be satisfied with food and too little brain to be edified with Art.

The poem like the engine, the landscape picture like the land, to do good must be freely held by the democracy. To get this we must, by the unity of the workers of the world, destroy the tyranny of those who have not enough intelligence to produce any music nor sufficient diligence to sow wheat. Socialism means the ownership, by the community, of all society’s vital machines and land, and a redistribution, in consequence, of that possession, of books, pencils, and violins. With these things, and the life-long love of comrades, we will become the most splendid race the sun ever shone upon.

H. M. M.

By the Way. (1916)

The By The Way Column from the August 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

The continued absorption of the men of military age has had the effect of bringing in its train a greater demand for children and women to take the place of those workers who are thus removed from agricultural and industrial pursuits, in order that the latter may be trained in the art of scientific slaughter.

During the past month or so much has been said and written with regard to the employment of children and the question of education. Just recently, in the House of Commons, Mr. Arthur Henderson (Labour [!] M.P.), speaking as President of the Board of Education on the Education Vote, let fall the following remarks :

“The question of child-labour had excited much apprehension. . . . The Board had impressed local authorities to make full inquiries into the cases of children employed in agriculture. The Board would regard it as a very grave misfortune if large numbers of children were employed at an early age.

He expressed his gratitude to the Board of Agriculture for their co-operation with the Board of Education, yet in spite of their efforts the number of children engaged in agriculture had nearly doubled. It showed that by-laws were being relaxed without proper care and enquiry.”—”Daily Chronicle,” July 19, 1916.

If one was able to shut one’s eyes to the fact that the speaker was a Labour Member (and consequently was in the House of Commons supposedly in the interest of the working-class) it would be very easy to view the observations recorded above as an apology by an ordinary capitalist politician for jeopardising the education of this country’s future wage-slaves. But stay a moment ! Is not this hon. gentleman identified with the party who used to advocate “the raising of the age of child labour with a view to its ultimate extinction” ?

Another speaker who joined in the discussion said that he believes the President’s estimate of the number of children of school age employed in agriculture was far below the mark, and further suggested that the grant, or a large part of it, should be withdrawn from local authorities if they yielded to popular clamour and for the benefit of farmers robbed the children of their “birthright.”

* * *

We of the Socialist Party have, in season and out of season, insisted that the question of education is one which primarily concerns our masters. They do not educate the children because they desire them to become more intelligent, but because of the increasing development in the modern means of production and the higher education of the wage-slaves of other lands. This point has been referred to on many occasions by Lord Haldane, and even quite recently he emphasised the need of a far higher system of technical education. Therefore, if our masters desire to retain their supremacy as a commercial nation, they will see to it that the future wage-slaves shall be trained accordingly, and hence the grave concern of a small but intelligent section of the capitalist class at the invasion that is taking place in the ranks of the children of school age. Further confirmation of this is to be found also in Mr. Henderson’s speech, wherein he stated that

“The war has also brought home to us that our national prosperity and security demanded greater concentration of intelligence on problems of industry, commerce and public administration. He was glad to say that the Department had not failed to prepare for a re-conquest of the ground they had lost, but had taken steps to go much further than before after the war was over.”

* * *

Whilst I am on this topic there is one item which, perhaps, would not be amiss. It was recently stated in the Press that there were “cases of children attending school who were too sleepy to be taught owing to working early and late.” This was mentioned at the Frome (Somerset) School Attendance Sub-Committee meeting. The report continues :

“One boy of 11 milked seven cows night and morning and then went to school. He started work at five o’clock and had reached Standard II. The Chairman said he knew of a case where the teachers complained that children engaged on farm work were too tired to do anything when they got to school.”—”Daily News,” June 27, 1916.

One can understand the position of the teacher who has to impart information and instruction to children whose mental and physical energies have been sapped ere they reach the classroom. This evil is, of course, not confined to war time only ; it is an inevitable consequence of capitalist society, but to-day it is more pronounced. Here is a glorious opportunity for the idlers of modern society those who heretofore have never done anything useful in the community to do what they are so fond of prating about, work of “national importance.” Will THEY do it ?

To the teachers, parents, and members of the working class we send out our gospel of salvation. Study the position of your class ; realize that you are many and the drones are few ; help to speed the day when the exploitation of yourselves and your children shall be relegated to the past ; and join with us of the Socialist Party to assist the ushering in of a new society, wherein “poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.”

* * *

For some time past we have heard a lot of talk about what our patriotic bosses are doing for those who hare “done their bit.” We have grown accustomed to hearing that after this war “our heroes” are not to sell matches and bananas for a living, but at long last they are going to receive recognition of tasks achieved and duty done. Without here touching on the subject of pensions (which, is engaging a large amount of attention in the Press), I will pass on to an advertisement which caught my eye in the “Daily Chronicle” of July 21st. Here it is :

Army or Navy men wanted who have done their bitt; bring discharge papers; salary 28s. per week to start with . . .

There’s generosity for you ; 28s. a week for those who have “done their bit.” The Lord only knows what the remuneration would be for those outside the condition above stipulated.”

* * *

Our right reverend father in God the Archbishop of Canterbury, recently wrote to the Prime Minister with regard to the plea of the World’s Evangelical Alliance that the second anniversary of the outbreak of war be made a national day of prayer by Order in Council. The reply of Mr. Asquith was a materialistic one, for he and many others, though giving lip-service to orthodox religion, place more reliance in shot and shell than in the efficacy of a day devoted to national prayer. Which reminds one that another gentleman in days gone by was once alleged to have said: “You may pray to God, but keep your powder dry.” However, let me quote :

“I have received your letter. … I am not prepared to recommend that Friday, August 4, be proclaimed a day of national penitence and prayer. I must point out that Monday and Tuesday, August 7 and 8, are declared Bank Holidays.

The suggested Proclamation would enforce a stoppage of work throughout the country on the previous Friday, and would not, I think, conduce to the result which is desired.

I think that the community will readily respond to the proposal that services should be held on that day in churches of all denominations throughout the country, and I believe it to be more in accordance with general thought and feeling that the State should not intervene in the manner suggested.”

—”Daily Chronicle,” July 1, 1916.

* * *

We have from time to time commented upon the £. s. d. point of view of obtaining recruits for the Army. The following is decidedly frank and honest:

“In granting exemption to a farm hand, aged 30, with nine children, the Ramsbury (Wilts.) Tribunal expressed the opinion that it would be cheaper to keep him at home.”—”Daily Mail,” June 34, 1916.

* * *

During the period immediately following the passing of the Compulsory Military Service Bill for single men, there were many outbursts in the House with regard to the methods of roping in potential recruits. Reference was made to the destruction of medical certificates of rejection and those who held them were forced to undergo further examination. Such were the methods used then and ultimately condemned by Mr. Tennant when he could no longer maintain a policy of official ignorance on the matter. Despite all promises of reformation, and the period of time which has since elapsed, we find the following condemnation of the methods adopted by the military authorities :

“Improper treatment of men who have been sent to Warley for medical examination was made the subject of a strong protest to the War Office yesterday by the Ilford Tribunal.

It was stated that the men were asked by the medical authorities to sign a blank card which would be sealed up afterwards and sent to the military authorities. This the men refused to do, and they informed the Tribunal of the fact.

Mr. Middlemas, the military representative, took exception to the treatment of these men and said it was scandalous, and he himself had written a strong letter of protest.”—”Daily Chronicle,” July 21, 1916.

* * *

Much ink and paper has been used to present in lurid terms the “awful frightfulness” of the German. But lo and behold ! in due course come pen pictures of the “frightfulness” of the ruling class of Britain and her Dominions. We have in time of peace heard a great deal about the “master mind” and the “directive ability” of our bosses, and with microscope in hand we have set out to discover these qualities which it is alleged belong to our masters. I have in mind the “gamble” of the Dardanelles and the Meso­potamia campaign particularly at the moment, though numerous other items might be mentioned. That the question is a serious one may be gathered from the fact that the Lords, spiritual and temporal, appear to have been the first to publicly discuss it. Now for the indictment :

“The Duke of Somerset said he had an opportunity that morning of reading three or four very long letters from officers who had been serving in Meso­potamia. He could assure their lordships that the cruelties our men must have suffered through the utter incompetence of the authorities, both in India and at home, were simply disgraceful. They knew what the Belgians suffered and they knew also what our own men suffered when taken prisoners by the Germans at the beginning of the war. But our men were suffering very much worse than they had ever suffered through the brutality of the way in which things had been managed in Mesopotamia. What they had suffered was perfectly indescribable.

He would give one or two instances, in one case a thousand wounded were sent down in a ship with one medical officer and one orderly to look after the whole of them. They were all mixed up together—­officers, British soldiers, and native soldiers. There were men with dysentery and men with shattered limbs all in the same ship, and there was not a bit of morphia or a drop of chloroform. One officer who was sent down wounded never had his wound dressed from the time he was picked up until he got to Bombay.

‘Who is to blame God knows,’ he added. ‘There must be somebody to blame here, and, as for India, I think the officer in command of the troops there must be terribly to blame.'”—”Daily Telegraph,” July 14, 1916.

* * *

“Dardanelles Treaty. Russia promised both sides of the Straits,” are headlines which recently appeared in the “Daily Chronicle” (19.7.10) over a short announcement with regard to the return of the Russian Parliamentary delegates to Russia. The item of news goes on to state that “the most interesting statement was made by Professor Miliukoff, the former Liberal leader, who, according to the Russkoe Slovo, said :

“The most important question in which we were interested was the problem of the Dardanelles. An agreement has been made between Russia and her allies according to which we are promised both sides of the Straits.”

Who said we are fighting on behalf of Belgium ?

The Scout.

Patriotism and Class Interest. (1916)

From the August 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

Whoever has more than a very slight acquaintance with Socialist literature will be aware that on nearly every conceivable subject connected with the mental and social aspects of man’s life, the Socialist has a view-point and opinion which is distinct from, and usually antagonistic to, that which is usually regarded as true. This is so because the Socialist holds as correct ideas which, carried to a practical conclusion, would overthrow and wipe out the present condition of society, whereas the ideas of the mass of the population to-day are essentially those which, are favourable to the continuation of the existing system. It is, therefore, only to be expected that the Socialist conception of patriotism, is one which is unacceptable to almost any other school of thought.

Patriotism is often taken to mean “love of one’s country,” but this is misleading, as what is really intended to be the object of this “tender affection” is not actually the country or territory itself, but the social group which occupies it. It is social solidarity which is the essential nature of patriotism. This is plainly to be seen when we consider the more primitive forms of society where, as is the case with cattle-rearing nomadic tribes, the territory occupied is only an incidental factor varying almost from day to day. Here it is actual kinship which is the social “bond of union.” But this is not the case in modern societies, the members of which may be, and usually are, different in point of language and race. But, providing that they are born within the territorial confines dominated by a particular social group, that group claims their allegiance. This is probably the cause of the existing confusion between the terms “country” and “nation.”

Thus far both bourgeois and Socialist theorists may agree ; but when we come to the conception of the modern function of patriotism we find an immediate divergence and antagonism of opinion. To the brain soaked with the orthodox ideas of capitalist society (and suck brains prevail to-day) the sentiment of patriotism appears as one of the very noblest that can animate the human mind. To work staunchly for the welfare of the “nation” is regarded as highly creditable, and as one of the greatest forces of human and social progress. No greater compliment exists than to be called “a patriot.” 

But we—the Socialists—repudiate this view of patriotism. We will have none of it. This sentiment of national solidarity is to us a snare and a delusion. It is in our view one of the most pernicious of the many superstitions which today benumb the minds of the workers—for it is the workers that we stand for : their interests are our interests.

An impulse of loyalty to the social whole is obviously only valid when there is unity of interest therein, and is incompatible with the existence of class antagonisms in the community, when these conflicting interests are well understood by the classes themselves.

The working class of to-day is, because it is property less, in a condition of economic subjection, and the idea that a subject class can look after its own interests and at the same time look after the interests of the society of which it forms a part is a delusion. The reason for this is clear. The existence of a subject class implies the existence of a dominant class. In its structure and its institutions the society is always such as to perpetuate the conditions of the respective classes—the ascendancy of the one and the subjection of the other. If, therefore, the servile class desires to be emancipated from thraldom (as it must do if and when it realises its condition and therefore its interests), it must be antagonistic to the social structure and to the class who would maintain it. Consequently any allegiance to the social whole on its part would be suicidal folly.

For many thousands of years now, the division into conflicting classes has been an outstanding feature of all the most advanced societies. Under the system of chattel-slavery, upon which basis the earliest forms of civilisation were reared, patriotism took an openly class character. Although the slaves were an integral, and indeed, a basic, part of these societies, yet the conditions of their life were such as to prohibit almost entirely any sentiment of loyalty to the social group in which they worked. In the first place the manner of their exploitation and oppression was so clear and open as to admit of no misunderstanding. Secondly, they had usually no tie of blood or language with their oppressors which could serve as “blinkers” as they so often do to-day. The immense hordes of slaves in Babylon, Greece, and Rome, were gathered from all parts of the known world ; they would in many cases remember the land and society of their birth, where they were free men. All circumstances, therefore, conspired to to wipe out any trace of social solidarity among them and to keep alive a hatred of their oppressors.

Of “mighty Babylon” Romaine Paterson, in his valuable work, “The Nemesis of Nations,” says,

“The fact that every new conqueror was hailed with acclamation by her populace is a proof of their immense weariness. Both Cyrus and Alexander were received with shouts of joy by a vast multitude assembled on the walls. A great mass of human beings sunk in slavery, and living in slums where life must have been at least as degraded as it is in Shoreditch, Hoxton, and other parts of modern London, can have possessed no national interests. The peril of the State was not theirs.” (Page 127.)

These slaves of Babylon had not learnt the lesson which the modern proletariat must learn—they looked to the new conquerors for their salvation instead of to themselves, only to find a change of masters and a slavery as intense as the old.

What patriotism existed in these antique societies was found solely among the freemen, who constituted what our “elite” bourgeoisie do—”society.” As the slaves vastly outnumbered the free population, armed slaves were exceedingly dangerous, and consequently we rarely find the slaves taking part in, or being trained for, war. Not until that great class conflict of the ruling classes known as the Peloponnesian War, did the slaves of the Greeks become fighting men, and only then on condition that they were freed from bondage. The ruling classes in the several Greek States were often at war with each other, but when a slave rising broke out they were united in their efforts to crush what they feared as they feared nothing else. We read that Athens on one occasion despatched to Sparta a large force of troops to aid in the suppression of a revolt of the helots.

* * *

Times have changed. Of Babylon we have but a memory and a few crumbling remains dug from the desert sands. Greece and Rome have long fallen. But the slavery remains—changed in form, yes, but the same in essence, and even more effective as a means of exploitation. Under the modern system of wage-slavery the robbery of labour still persists, but hidden under the hypocritical sham of liberty of contract. The antagonism of interests within the nation is with us to-day, just as it has existed in all societies based upon classes. Only upon a recognition of this conflict of the classes can the workers organise effectively with the aim of emancipation.

As capitalism develops it ever widens the breech between the toilers on the one hand, and the parasites of capital on the other. Ever-increasing wealth and riotous luxury among the bourgeoisie presents to the worker’s eyes a more and more glaring contrast to the pitiful condition of poverty in which he exists. This being the case it becomes ever more urgent from the capitalist point of view to devise new, and to perfect old, methods of effecting that mental stupefying process which has always been one of the chief bulwarks of class rule.

Religion, which has served the master class throughout history so well, and which was the main “opium of the people” in the old days of chattel-slavery and of serfdom, through the development of science which the present era-must needs in its own interest encourage, is becoming less and less effective as an instrument of class subjection.

Patriotism, of all creeds, has appealed most to the master class in its efforts to find a substitute for religion, and consequently it is being pushed with greater persistence year by year. It is easy to see why this has been so. A patriotic working class kills several birds with a single stone. First, it offers to the capitalists the delightful prospect of a working class innocent of all “narrow,” “selfish,” class interests, ready to sacrifice all for the “national good,” and content to exude from every pore their wealth-creating energy, under this “harmoni­ous” system, based upon a “just” division into “fair” wages and “reasonable” profits.

Secondly, by fostering a belief in national superiority it creates a mutual distrust and even hatred between the workers of the different nations. Thirdly, it makes possible a ready and willing fighting force, to wage the wars of the various national sections of the capitalist class, which are an inevitable effect of the workings of the present system.

Is not this prospect to our masters’ eyes truly a glorious one ? No wonder they spare no pains to achieve and maintain it ! Through their control of the channels of education, both in the schools and in the censorship, literary, and even (as they find it necessary) of the theatrical and the picture shows, even to the street-corner orator, they wield an enormous power of mental oppression. The perverted “histories,” nationalist “economics” and “sociology,” the glaring pomp and show of “our” national butchers the armed forces, the Empire Day pageants, boy scout and kindred movements, all bear witness to the truth of the above contention.

Those flunkeys of capital, commonly called labour leaders (because of their well-known social function of leading the lambs of labour to the clippers of capital to be shorn of their surplus wool [value] with as little display of irritation among the lambs as the circumstances will permit) are, as would be expected, useful helpers in this process of pumping patriotism into proletarians.

One of the leading lights of this fraternity of leaders, Mr. Arthur Henderson, M.P., President of the Board of Education, recently delivered himself thus :

“He was satisfied that the spirit which has prompted millions of men in all classes to volunteer (?) for service was in a large measure due to that love of country which our schools had fostered. He quoted passages from the publications of the Board to show that the Department was fully alive to the importance of inculcating a sane and healthy patriotism in the minds of the young and promised that any practical proposals for furthering this object would receive his most careful consideration.”—”Manchester Evening News,” 28.3.16). (Query ours.)

* * *

Against all this array of the mental and moral influences of capital the Socialist, brings the logic of his position by which he stands or falls. Against nationalism he preaches the class struggle and the solidarity of interest of the workers the world over. He points to the worldwide spread of capitalism, to the gradual equalising of the condition of the workers in every land, and the sameness of the problems which they have to face. To the jingo “history” which, places in the forefront the blast of the bugle and the roar of the cannon, and conceives history as the rise and fall, birth and death, conflict and alliances of nations, the Socialists confront the facts of sociology, which show that the foundations of society and the driving forces of social progress lie in its mode of acquiring its material subsistence ; that the basic factors in a society are not its politicians and its militarists, but the producers of wealth, not the sword and the cannon, but the tools, the machinery, and the land.

Ours is a hard task, but it must be faced and accomplished. The education of the proletariat as to its interests and destiny is the great work which we Socialists have set ourselves. Once get the seeds of class-consciousness implanted, the favourable soil created by capitalist conditions will cause it to root, and to spread the mighty undergrowth of the international league of the working class. Then will the mental agents of class oppression, among them patriotism, wither and die like the weeds they are.

But that time is not yet. To-day more than ever in the past is the clarion call of ’48 a vital and a stirring necessity, to awaken the giant frame of labour to shake off the leeches which suck his blood and fetter his might :

“WORKERS OF ALL LANDS UNITE ! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT THE CHAINS WHICH BIND YOU, BUT YOU HAVE A WORLD TO WIN.”

R. W. Housley