Monday, September 1, 2025

They said it . . . (1992)

From the September 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

We had women on every platform daring the election, hat the party used them like decorative potted plants—Labour MP Ann Clwyd on women and the Labour Party.

#    #    #    #

I did it because they were going to repossess my Sky dish—David Kernaghan, explaining the armed robbery which brought him a seven-year gaol sentence.

#    #    #    #

You should not believe everything you read in the newspapers—Robert Clark, chairman of Mirror Group Newspapers. 

#    #    #    #

It is quite a work to dredge out of the English language pejoratives strong enough to describe their vulgarity, brutishness and maladroitness—Former Tory Minister Alan Clark on the royal family.

#    #    #    #

Nobody was going to throw the first brick because there were too many people living in glass houses—Norman Tebbit on the Mellor scandal.

#    #    #    #

With low coffee prices a symptom of stocks rather than supply, a stock destruction plan by producers would have a greater effect on the world market price than anything else— Lawrence Eagles, commodity analyst.

Letter: What justice? (1992)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

What justice?

Dear Editors,

“What Makes You Angry?” (Socialist Standard, July). I do not know whether responses were anticipated to such an open question, but I certainly feel able to throw in my twopenny worth.

The system under which we all exist, live, prosper and exploit (in that order) angers me constantly. The system is an evil joke played upon humanity, where success at one end of the scale is measured by the amount of poverty and suffering at the other.

I believe it was Balzac who remarked that “behind every great man is a crime”, or words to like effect, and it is true, if crime is defined as causing suffering and deprivation through greed and wanton cruelty.

Civilised society is merely a facade, the icing on a cake consisting of the following ingredients: selfishness, theft, murder; yes, even murder! After all let us remember that murder has not always been a capital offence. In Saxon times, the penalty for murdering a labourer was about £10, a bishop cost you £60, and an archbishop would set you back about £180. In fact, with the exception of regicide, you could pay in cash for most malefactions.

Inequalities in the way justice is administered enrage me. In the light of Guildford, Birmingham, Kiszko, and the remainder of Lord Lane’s whipping boys, what happened to Habeas Corpus, the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof? Were they conveniently forgotten in the haste to secure convictions for undeniable atrocities. And why aren’t the West Midlands rabble in prison instead of voting for the return of public executions, the tumbril cart, and the Tyburn Tree, when each week people who are unable to pay their poll tax are carted off to gaol amid harsh condemnation from the bench?

Why do people like Anthony Blunt get offered immunity from prosecution for offences against the Official Secrets Act, allowing them to continue their bourgeois lives, in exchange for a few names and dates?
And last, but by no means least, why is Lord Lane allowed to retain his title in spite of the damage he has done in the name of British Justice?
David Hinchcliffe,
Accrington


Reply:
“British Justice" has always been what it is today: an arm of the state machine which exists to defend the interests of the ruling class at home and abroad. Nor could it be anything else since, as Kropotkin once pointed out, the whole system of law courts and prisons is essentially only “organised vengeance called justice”.
Editors.

Between the Lines: State Murder, USA (1992)

The Between the Lines Column from the September 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

State Murder, USA

In sixteenth-century Geneva a deranged character by the name of Jacques Chapellaz confessed to cursing God and trying to eat the devil, though finding it hard to swallow his horns. The poor man was condemned to having his tongue cut out. That was then: dark, ignorant, religiously confused times. Panorama (BBC1, 9.30 pm, 3 August) was about how the USA claims to be a rational society which has surpassed the excesses of Old Testament morality. The programme showed how false is such a claim. In the cells of Death Row in Huntsville, Texas there are 358 men who have been sentenced to be murdered by the state. That is just one of the waiting rooms for death in the 50 states of the USA. Amongst those awaiting the legalised murder which “justice" has condemned them to are several who are clearly so mentally deranged as to have little control over their actions. For example, one condemned prisoner was interviewed who was described by a psychologist as having a mental age of ten and as compulsively agreeing with whatever is asked of him in order to please people. Obtaining a confession of murder from such a pathetic person was hardly difficult.

A new and highly conspicuous pressure group is called VOCAL: Victims of Crime and Leniency, comprising people who want courts to sentence more "wrongdoers" to death. Many of these advocates of callous vengeance were themselves bereaved as a result of murder. They have become bitter and irrational. But now they have won the right for victims' families to testify in courts in order to explain to juries how only an eye for an eye will satisfy them. The unreasonableness of expecting just responses to emanate from angry, vengeful relatives of those who have been murdered is obvious; their inclusion into the US “justice" system is proof that the objective of criminal punishment is largely revenge.

The reverse side of this thirst for revenge in the form of dead bodies, which turns “justice" into organised murder to show the murderers the validity of violence as the highest ethic, is fear. The reason for disgusting pressure groups like VOCAL, made up of wretched, hurt workers, is that they live in a society where almost everyone is scared. The victims are afraid, and their relatives are afraid that the criminals will be punished too little, and the criminals are made afraid by the threat of state murder. What way of running a society is such mutual fear? How dare the US leaders preach of new world orders and civilised values and human rights. In a socialist society, where anti-social behaviour will no longer be stimulated by the relationships of property, we shall not seek to solve problems (and problems there surely will be) by threats, either of confinement or murder.

The members of of VOCAL shown on Panorama would do well to read William Morris's News From Nowhere wherein Old Hammond, speaking from the vantage of a moneyless, propertyless, stateless socialist society, explains how the response to anti-social acts has changed:
'The punishment of which men used to talk wisely and act so foolishly, what was it hut the expression of their fear, since they - i.e. the rulers of society - were dwelling like an armed band in a hostile country. But we who live amongst our friends need neither fear nor punish. Surely if we, in dread of an occasional rare homicide, an occasional rough blow, were solemnly and legally to commit homicide and violence, we would only be a society of ferocious cowards."
In the USA today 80 per cent of people polled favour state murder; a decade ago less than half did. More fear, more cowardly revenge and more prisoners condemned to lives waiting for execution. Surely there is a wiser course for humanity.


Who is the savage?

Early Travellers in North America (BBC2, 9.10pm, 6 August) presented a series of accounts from nineteenth-century travellers who encountered the North American Indians. European orthodoxy at the time was that these people were savages, racially sub-human. In fact, visitors such as Charles Dickens, Frances Trollope and Robert Louis Stevenson were impressed by the dignity of the co-operative native Americans and horrified by the way in which they were cast into prison-like reservations and often killed. Coming only a few days after the Panorama documentary two points emerged forcefully: Firstly, there were no eases of native American Indian Death Rows; secondly, how many of the current "justice" officials owe their power to those before them whose prestige and wealth was obtained by organising the violent attacks upon and killings of defenceless Indians? If justice was about revenge - and both are terms from the vocabulary of capitalism - might not some of the great capitalist families of the Land of the Free be rotting in death cells instead of hopeless wage slaves, many of whom will be killed for crimes that they did not even commit but lack the money or the wit to prove their innocence?
Steve Coleman

SPGB Meetings (1992)

Party News from the September 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard



SPGB Series of Meetings: History . . . Not Our Masters Voice (1992)

Party News from the September 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard


Blogger's Note:
My guess is that this series of meetings were organised by the (then) new Camden Branch of the SPGB.

Unfortunately, only one of the meetings listed is available as an audio recording on the SPGB's website. Maybe recordings of the other meetings are out there somewhere. It would be nice to know who gave the talk on Tudor England.

Here's a link to the audio recording of Clifford Slapper's meeting:

Response to our question (2025)

From the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month’s Socialist Standard contained a review of a new book entitled Waking Up. A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity. Though a work of science-fiction imagining a world with far more advanced forms of technology than currently exist, it advocates and attempts to describe the same kind of society the Socialist Party has campaigned for throughout its existence – stateless, moneyless, marketless and with common ownership, voluntary cooperation and free access to all goods and services. It depicted, to use the author’s own words, a society of ‘seamless harmony between humans and nature’ with everyone leading ‘their own versions of a good life, respecting each other and the planet’.

One reservation the review had, however, was that there was no explanation of how we got there in the first place, how it all happened. The book’s author, Harald Sandø, has now taken up that challenge by providing a short, imagined account of the ‘shift that changed everything’, of the ‘move from a system of money, ownership, debt, competition, war and scarcity to a world of cooperation, sharing, abundance and peace’. He has also said he may integrate this into a future edition of the book. It happened, his account says, via a shift in consciousness of a ‘spiritual’ kind, whereby people voluntarily ‘began questioning the foundational assumptions of the system’. Even billionaires did this and this was especially important since they were the ones who funded the new system. They became out-and-out philanthropists redirecting private property to become ‘humanity’s shared inheritance’, so that ‘paradoxically enough the new moneyless world was created with money’. All this, we are told, happened in an entirely voluntary way with ‘no war’, ‘no forced redistribution’ and ‘no bloody revolution’.

We have in common with Harald Sandø one important aspect of this vision. That is the idea that the shift from the current society of private ownership and control, gross inequality and production for profit – which we call capitalism – to a society of common ownership, economic equality and production for need – which we call socialism – requires a profound shift of consciousness by the overwhelming majority of the population. We cannot, however, regard as plausible his notion that this will somehow be triggered by the generosity of billionaires electing to share their fortunes. Rather we see the prime condition – the sole condition in fact – for such a change in a spread of consciousness among the vast majority of wage and salary workers, which will then impel them, by democratic use of the vote, to take the power necessary to abolish capitalism and set about organising a genuine socialist society – very much of the kind looked forward to by the author of Waking Up and by a good number of others with a similar vision.

So though we welcome this book as, to quote the author’s own words, ‘a canvas for exploring possibilities’ and ‘an invitation to imagine, question and reflect’, we would insist on the need for democratic political action by the majority as a prerequisite for the successful establishment and organisation of the kind of society we share his desire for.
Howard Moss

Trotskyism regurgitated (2025)

Pamphlet Review from the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why you should be a communist. By Fiona Lali. Wellred Books. £2. 2025.

Fiona Lali is a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (ex-Socialist Appeal, the section of the Militant Tendency that stayed in the Labour Party after most left in 1991 until they were themselves finally expelled in 2021). She stood as their candidate in last year’s general election and has become their poster girl (literally as she appears on many of their posters). This pamphlet has been written as part of a recruitment drive by the RCP, at the moment the Trotskyist group that seems to have been the most successful in recruiting young people.

The pamphlet starts off with an attack on capitalism and is aimed at young people who realise that something is wrong with the world and want to do something about it. There is not much that can be objected to here. It’s the second part — about what is to replace capitalism and how — that is open to criticism. It starts off with the absurd claim that ‘the Russian Revolution of October 1917 — led by Lenin and Trotsky — was the greatest event in human history’. An important event in 20th century history perhaps, but in the whole of human history?

We are told that the regime it ushered in, while far from perfect (due to Stalin being in charge), was able, thanks to its ‘nationalised planned economy’, to industrialise the country and provide the workers with ‘extremely low rents’ that included ‘energy and phone services’ and retirement at age 55. The implication is that what happened in Russia in the last century is something to be emulated. But what the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917 led to was a form of state-run capitalism that left the workers propertyless wage-workers, indeed forcibly changed the peasantry into these. It had nothing to do with communism or socialism. Lali is deceiving herself and misleading others in suggesting otherwise. It is not the path to go down.

She presents the Bolshevik seizure of power as the model for the future. In a section headed ‘need for a revolutionary party’, she tells us that ‘what is required is a party of trained class fighters — cadres — who dedicate themselves to the study of the class, its history, and the theory needed to liberate us’ and that:
‘In the not too distant future, Britain will be convulsed by revolutionary upheavals. It is essential that we build a revolutionary party in advance of these titanic events. This is what we are doing. And we appeal to you to join us in this effort.’
Apparently, hundreds of young people, of which Lali is one herself, have responded to this appeal. It’s the classic formula, successfully applied in the 1960s and 1970s by the founders of Trotskyist groups, to attract young people discontented with capitalism — promising them exciting times of ‘revolutionary upheavals’ and ‘titanic events’ in ‘the not too distant future’.

There are good opportunities to advance the socialist cause at the moment but to make extravagant promises like these can only lead to disillusionment when they don’t materialise. The only positive outcome would be that some will be able to sort the Marxist wheat, which they will have had to study, from the Leninist chaff.
Adam Buick

Cooking the Books: Lord Desai’s retort (2025)

The Cooking the Books column from the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Times’s obituary (4 August) of the economist Lord Desai who died at the end of July recounted the following anecdote:
' “Marx wasn’t against home ownership. In fact he owned his own house,” Desai insisted when challenged about his own two properties. What Marx was against, he added, was using property to exploit workers. “Marx had no objection to the ownership of consumer durables”.’
The person who challenged him was being silly as nobody can seriously think that the ‘common ownership’ and ‘abolition of private property’ that socialists such as Marx advocated meant the common ownership of personal possessions. As Desai pointed out, Marx was objecting to the ownership and use of productive resources to exploit workers by the owners appropriating as theirs a portion of what workers produced.

As the Communist Manifesto put it:
‘The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. (…) Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations’.
As a lecturer and author of a number of books on Marxian economics (even if he didn’t really agree with them), Desai could also have referred his challenger to the passage at the end of the penultimate chapter of volume I of Capital:
‘The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: ie, on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production’.
In other words, socialism (or communism, the same thing) means that everybody would be able to ‘appropriate products of society’ as their ‘individual property’ to use or consume. Everybody would be able to take from or make use of what society had produced, according to their individual needs.

Actually, ‘property’ is probably not the best word here. Individual ‘possession’ would be better. ‘Property’ is a legal as well as a sociological concept and it can be doubted that a socialist society would need a formal system of regulation to protect what one person had taken from society for their use from being taken by somebody else. After all, why would somebody want to take someone else’s food or clothes or mobile phone or whatever, when they could simply go and get it from a distribution centre or order over the internet? It is also possible to imagine that people wouldn’t need to possess a whole range of consumer durables but could borrow them when needed from a local tool library.

Housing raises a different question, if only because people normally want to use the same living place for decades. Today, a house or flat, for those who own or who are buying one, is not simply a personal possession that they use but also a financial asset. Obviously that aspect, and so the sort of individual legal ownership we know today, would not exist in socialism. Everybody would be guaranteed an exclusive place to live in for as long as needed but we can imagine it being more like ‘usufruct’ as the agreed exclusive ‘right to use and benefit from a property’ without owning it.

Revolution (2025)

From the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Revolution n. In the political sense, a word which inspires dread in those who even passively support the status quo in a society, ie, most people – the rich through fear of dispossession, the poor through fear of violence and instability.

In fact, in history, political revolutions have arguably saved the poor from violence more than they have subjected them to it. Such examples would be where revolution has shortened or ended war, by overthrowing the rulers making the war – as in the case of Russia in 1917, where the mass slaughter on the eastern front was brought to a halt by the action of the soldiers themselves and their fellow workers at home. Disobedience and mutiny, often signs of approaching revolution, have thus saved lives.

However, revolution in the popular imagination (mostly drawn from the violence and turbulence of the minority revolutions of France and Russia, which freed the capitalist minority class from the restraints of feudal and semi-feudal monarchy) is not what socialists mean by the word revolution. Indeed, had these minority revolutions not been symptomatic of revolution in the economic basis of society, but merely political, socialists would not even call them revolutions at all.

Hence, whereas the French and the Russian, and the English, revolutions were revolutions, the so-called American Revolution was not, but merely a war for the independence of the colonial capitalists from the British capitalist state. It did not change the basis of colonial society, which remained capitalism. This is also true of national uprisings miscalled ‘revolutions’ which are simply the result of capitalist quarrels between national factions or between colonial and national factions for the control of capitalist loot.

All revolutions hitherto have been minority class revolutions, and hence marked by violence, as former classes of society have been expunged and others become ascendant. The revolutionary minority in all cases have made use of the majority in order to seize power, but the majority has yet to make its revolution.

With only two classes remaining in society, the 1 percent capitalist class who exclusively own the means of production and the 99 percent working class who are thus compelled to work for them, the socialist revolution will be the revolution of the majority of humankind. Since this can only happen when the majority are conscious and desire it, violence will not be necessary, unlike the minority class revolutions of the past.

The means for peaceful majority revolution have long existed in parliamentary bourgeois democracies, namely the ballot.

This political act will be the formality that will liberate the transformation, already long since waiting in the wings, of the economic basis of society in the interest of all – hence, real revolution.
A.W.

50 Years Ago: Doubletalk (2025)

The 50 Years Ago column from the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

An accomplished variation of the three-card trick was performed by Mr. Paul Foot — the International Socialist — in The Times of 14th August. After quoting the words of a dispirited shop steward at Norton Villiers Triumph where the Labour government has failed to provide further financial backing, Foot draws the following conclusion:
“These are dreadful times for socialists who put their trust in Labour Governments.”
This is coy stuff of course, one of the very last places a Socialist would put his trust is in the Labour Party. But there is method in the madness. He attacks the government in its attempts to run capitalism at a time, as he puts it, of “unprecedented capitalist collapse” for the following reasons:
“Labour’s elected representatives become isolated from their power base, impotent to resist the demands of the system which they try to manage. They mouth the mumbo jumbo of capitalism.”
All unsparing language of course, but we fail to recollect when this “power base” ie, the Labour Party supporters, expected or desired other than the continuance of capitalism. In thus discrediting the leaders specifically, the illusion could be created that they alone are deliberately perverting the desires of their supporters. He accuses the “helpless puppet” (the Labour Government) of recently being forced by economic conditions to “tear up two manifestos” but fails to note that each one of those manifestos was filled from cover to cover with “the mumbo jumbo of capitalism.”

Having pointed out that such an unlikely vehicle as the Labour Party has failed to introduce Socialism, he uses some loose logic to reject the whole parliamentary method:
“The parliamentary road to socialism has turned into another blind alley. The revolutionary road is beginning to open up.”
The “revolutionary” road to Worker’s Control is what he refers to. However we recall that Foot’s paper, the Socialist Worker, had little doubt, on 16th February 1974 when advising before the oncoming election that “The working class has to respond with a massive anti-Tory vote. And that means a Labour vote…” exactly which “helpless puppet” they favoured.

[From the So They Say column, Socialist Standard, September 1975.]

SPGB September Events (2025)

Party News from the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard



Our general discussion meetings are held on Zoom. To connect to a meeting, enter https://zoom.us/wc/join/7421974305 in your browser. Then follow instructions on screen and wait to be admitted to the meeting.

Action Replay: Steel, sand and Salford (2025)

The Action Replay Column from the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Professional football might seem to be a matter of massive transfer fees, millionaire players and even richer owners. But of course it isn’t always quite like that.

Sheffield Wednesday are an unfortunate example. They have not played in the top tier since 2000, and have had an up-and-down time since then. In 2015 the club was bought by a consortium headed by Dejphon Chansiri, a capitalist from Thailand whose family own the world’s largest producer of canned tuna. The intention was to invest in players and so gain promotion from the Championship to the Premier League, but things did not go as planned. Recently, players and other employees were not paid on time or in full, causing some players to leave. The Premier League provided support that allowed some players to be paid. Chansiri has said he is willing to sell the club, but wants £100m, widely seen as far too much. Supporters, who are becoming really concerned about Wednesday’s survival, displayed a flag with Chansiri depicted as Del Boy from Only Fools and Horses.

Lower down the pyramid, Morecambe FC have been suspended from the National League (the fifth level) after the owner failed to sell the club. The players could not train, the academy no longer functioned, and things looked very bleak. After a number of years in the Football League (including some in League One) Morecambe were relegated from League Two at the end of last season. Jason Whittingham, the owner, has been under pressure to sell but could not find a buyer. Supporters fear for the club’s existence, and local businesses and community groups are worried too about the income and facilities that the club provides, as well as the entertainment. In the words of one supporter, ‘We might win, lose, or draw – the result doesn’t really matter. We’ve never let football get in the way of a good day out.’ At the time of writing, though, it appears that a sale has been agreed.

Nor are such problems confined to football. Rugby league club Salford Red Devils have won just two of twenty-one games this season. They were forced to play a number of loan players against Hull FC and conceded 80 points after a number of top players left and wages were paid late. The owners, who bought the club at the start of the season, have maintained that they are committed to the club, but supporters are again dubious and very worried.

Sport is about trophies and success and the enjoyment of following a team, but financial issues often intrude into the good times.
Paul Bennett

Editorial: None of the above (2025)

Editorial from the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the next general election most voters in England are likely to have a choice between candidates representing six different parties: Labour, Tory, LibDem, Green, Reform UK, and the new Corbyn party. In Scotland and Wales, with the nationalists, it will be seven. This appears to extend democracy by offering voters a wider choice. But does it?

What, on paper, is on offer? Labour is in office nationally and has pledged to bring about economic growth and to improve education, housing and social amenities funded by the increased tax income that will be a by-product. The Tories are also promising growth but by being even more in favour than Labour of giving private capitalist enterprises free rein. The LibDems advocate something. The Greens promise to pursue reforms to benefit the environment. Reform UK says that cutting back on immigration will improve things for the rest of us. The new Corbyn party wants to return to what Labour promised in the 1970s by redistributing wealth and income more evenly.

Labour and the Tories — the Ins and Outs of British politics — have had many chances to implement their policies and have both consistently failed. It is tempting to conclude that it’s because their leading members are bungling incompetents, corrupt or nasty people, or, in the case of Labour, sell-outs. Some of them undoubtedly will be but that’s not why they fail. Even if they were all competent, well-meaning and honest it wouldn’t have made any difference. Replacing them in office by the members of some third party such as the LibDems or some new protest party such as Farage’s wouldn’t make any difference either.

The reason Labour and the Tories fail, and why the others would too, is because they all accept capitalism and believe that the government can make its economy work for everyone. But it can’t. Capitalism is based on the resources needed to produce wealth being in the hands of a minority and used to produce goods and services for sale with a view to making a profit. This is what drives the economy and is what all governments have to respect and implement. Governments don’t control the way the capitalist economy works. It’s the other way round. The coercive economic laws of capitalism impose on governments what they can — and can’t — do. Governments can’t conjure up growth, can’t give priority to the environment, and can’t redistribute wealth and power.

In this way conventional politics is based on an illusion. Governments are assumed to be able to do what those elected to office say they will. And so elections are seen as being about voters choosing what policies they would like to see pursued or what reforms they would like to see enacted by voting for the candidates of one or other political party that they consider would best do this.

There is a choice at elections but it is a choice of which grouping of politicians is to carry out what the workings of the capitalist economy demand. It’s a choice as to which of them is to preside over capitalism’s operation and implement its priorities.

Faced with this limited choice, socialists, opposed as we are to capitalism and all of its works, say ‘we are not voting for any of you’. What is needed is a change of system not a change of politicians in office.

August's "Done & Dusted"

Another bumper 'Done & Dusted'. Nice to have two back to back. But . . . and it's a big but . . . it could have been so much sweeter if I'd just done a handful more before the end of the month. (All will be revealed.)

All the Standards completed on the blog in the month of August.

This Month's Quotation: Lord Lytton (1935)

The Front Page quote from the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard
"Discover what will destroy life, and you are a great man."
This Month's Quotation
The quotation “Discover what will destroy life and you are a great man" is taken from Zanoni" (Chapter IV) a novel by Lord Lytton.

Pawns in Abyssinia (1935)

From the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is evident that the Italian Government is determined, at whatever the cost in men and money, to force big concessions from the independent State of Abyssinia, including, no doubt — if things go according to the Italian plans — the annexation of a large part of Abyssinian territory and the establishment of some form of close control over the remainder of the country. Why Mussolini’s Government is prepared to go to war can be explained on the usual grounds. Notwithstanding the Fascist promise of a new economic system, Italian industry is carried on for profit in competition with the rest of the capitalist world, and Italy’s lack of raw materials in her own territory or colonies places her capitalists at a disadvantage in the scramble for profit. Abyssinia is coveted because, among other attractions, it would provide a market for Italian goods and cheap supplies of raw cotton, which would free Italian capitalists from the need to import from America.

The excuse is often used by the Great Powers when annexing the territories of native races that the backwardness of the latter is withholding from the civilised world much-needed sources of supply, without any advantage to the natives themselves. In the war to conquer Abyssinia that excuse cannot very well be used. Nobody can argue that the outside world is being hampered by scarcity of cotton. On the contrary, one of the outstanding features of the depression has been the vast over-production of cotton in many parts of the world, and the expensive official schemes for destroying and restricting cotton crops. In short, the motive which sends a gigantic military force into Abyssinia is not economic, in the sense of a genuine need of the human race, but is purely capitalistic, the lust for profit in a world divided into antagonistic capitalist-national groups. So, if Italy wins and further develops cotton-growing there, the next world economic crisis will very probably see the Italian Government restricting the production of that article, after sacrificing lives innumerable to make the development possible. Other attractions in Abyssinia are gold, rubber, copper, potash, and platinum.

Unrest in Italy
There are other reasons also. The early enthusiasm for Fascism began long ago to wear off, and there have recently been reports of strikes and demonstrations, including some against the threatened war. Poverty and unemployment for the workers are the order of the day under the Fascist flag, as under all others, and faced with discontent, Mussolini, like many a doomed dictator before him, is grasping at military glory as a means of regaining popular support. Naturally, he pretends otherwise, and claims that all but a tiny majority of the Italian population are behind him. Nevertheless, according to the Geneva correspondent of the Daily Telegraph (July 17th), he takes the precaution of imposing a much more drastic control of the frontier passes leading into Switzerland, with the two-fold object of preventing the escape of men who do not want to fight and of preventing the importation of anti-war and anti-Fascist propaganda leaflets and journals.

From a military point of view, while all the advantages of money and armaments are with the Italian forces, the deserts and mountainous country will be comparatively easy to defend, and the weather will be against the invaders. While opinion generally is that in time Abyssinia would be crushed, the task may prove so slow and costly that the Italian capitalists may well come to regard Mussolini as an expensive luxury. According to Mr. Vernon Bartlett (News-Chronicle, July 25th), “It is true – even though it be denied – that exactly a year ago important Army officers were alarmed to learn that Signor Mussolini contemplated an Abyssinian campaign …. They advised against it, a commission on the spot advised against it. . . .”

The defeat of an Italian force by the Abyssinians at Adowa in 1896 led to the overthrow of the then Italian Premier, Crispi. Will history repeat itself ?

Something Rotten in the State of Abyssinia
Mussolini’s appeals to the Italian workers to sacrifice their lives in a quarrel which does not concern them are paralleled by those of Emperor Haile Selassie. Although the country has made only small advances towards capitalist industrialism, and that only in limited areas, it has its evils no less than those of the capitalist Powers. Chattel slavery still exists, and is only slowly giving place to wage-slavery. There is desperate poverty on the one hand, face to face with the wealth and power of the ruling class on the other. It is true, as the Emperor says, that “throughout their history they have seldom met with foreigners who did not desire to possess themselves of Abyssinian territory, and to destroy their independence,” but independence means no more to the subject class in Abyssinia than it does elsewhere. Moreover, much of the tribal territory held by Abyssinia was grabbed by the Emperor’s predecessors, and is now held by force against the wishes of the local population. It is one of the ironies of the situation that just as Mussolini is afraid of discontented workers at his back, so the Emperor has to take extreme precautions that the arms he imports do not on the way fall into the hands of his own unwilling subjects, who would use them to revolt against him.

Haile Selassie’s command over the kind of phrases to delude his subjects into fighting their masters’ wars is hardly less than that of Mussolini himself: “He who dies for his country is a happy man” – ” It is better to die free than live as slaves” (a little inappropriate perhaps in a country where there are many slaves) – “God will be your shield. United with God, our ramparts and our shields will face to-morrow’s invader with confidence. . . . Your sovereign will be in your midst and will not hesitate to shed his blood for Ethiopia. If no peaceful solution is found, Ethiopia will struggle to the last man for existence.”

The religious note will be better understood when it is remembered that the Abyssinian priesthood are said to own as much as one-third of the total land, and are immensely influential.

The Attitude of the Powers
Many of the other Governments have direct or indirect interest in the situation. The Abyssinian Government has for many years tried to insure itself against occupation by one Power by giving contracts and concessions to companies belonging to several different countries. America, France, Japan, England, Belgium, Germany and Egypt are among the countries with trading or other important interests. Owing, however, to the complications of the European situation — in particular, the aim of keeping Austria apart from Germany, for which Italy’s aid is essential — England and France would no doubt not be much disturbed at the idea of an Italian conquest of part of Abyssinia, provided that their own interests were safeguarded, along with Egypt’s interest in Lake Tana, from which the Nile flows. However, not only has America indicated hostility to any Italian conquest, but the Japanese Government has taken the same line, and is allowing influential Japanese organisations to work up an agitation against Italy for the proposed “violation of international law and justice.” The Japanese Government, which used the same methods in Manchuria and is now using them in China proper, is horrified that Italy should do this in Abyssinia.

A factor which may cause misgivings in many capitals is that any Abyssinian success may cause increased unrest throughout all the colonies in Africa.

It is worth remembering that Sir Samuel Hoare, British Foreign Secretary, has laid it down that Italy has a right to “expand,” i.e., to conquer the territory of other nations (Hansard, July 11th, col. 517).

It is also worth remembering that, in order to buy Italy off, the British Government offered to give away some British territory in Somaliland, without asking the local inhabitants or the population at home.

What the final outcome of the complex clash of interests in Abyssinia will be, it is impossible to foretell.

A Crusade to Stop Slavery
One argument which generally plays a prominent part in the wars of annexation waged by the European States against the coloured races — that the war is a Christianising war — cannot be urged here, because the Abyssinian ruling class are Christians and have, indeed, themselves played the game of Christianising the Mohammedans. Mussolini has had to content himself with another noble-sounding slogan. He is going to rid Abyssinia of slavery, and impose by force the very doubtful advantages of Italian capitalist civilisation. The Pecksniffian leader writer of The Times (July 15th), while chiding Mussolini for his “obstinacy," tells us of some of the evils existing in the ancient empire of Abyssinia, or Ethiopia: “It is known . . . that conditions of squalor and extreme crudeness exist among the greater part of their quarrelsome tribes, some of whom still retain the belief that a man is no man until he has killed his enemy.” The Abyssinians might retort that if there were no squalor already, conquest by any of the Powers would soon introduce it in large measure. Are not the notorious slums of the Italian towns squalid? And has The Times never heard of Britain’s army of paupers, and the shocking conditions of the depressed areas? As for the ferocity of the tribesmen, who is Mussolini to complain? Has he not for years bellowed of the glorious uplifting qualities of war?

The Labour-I.L.P. Attitude
With their incurable weakness for sentimental phrases, the I.L.P. and Labour Party have discovered here another “poor little Belgium” being attacked by a big Power, and want to take sides with the Abyssinian ruling class against the Italian. The I.L.P. New Leader (July 19th) wants the British workers to refuse to make or transport arms or munitions for Italy. Nothing is said of arms for Abyssinia, so, presumably, the I.L.P. has no objection to the making of war material for the ruling class of that country. The Labour Daily Herald is more explicit, and printed an article from their correspondent in Abyssinia (July 24th), containing the following :
“It seems as if all that remains for the Abyssinians to do now is to sharpen their spears, clean their rifles and hope that Europe will let them buy ammunition, so that it may be a fair fight” (italics ours).
Could anything better illustrate the hopelessly non-Socialist attitude of the little gentlemen of the Daily Herald? Here is a war about to take place between the exploiting class in two countries, one of which is more developed industrially than the other, and the organ of the Labour Party hopes that the slaughter of workers about a question which is not worth the life of a single one of them, shall be conducted on a “fair” basis, the only possible result of which would be that the killing would be prolonged !

The Socialist attitude is quite unlike that taken up by the Labour Party and I.L.P. We do not take sides in ruling class quarrels. A story told of the Viennese during the battle of Sadowa is more in line with what should be the working class attitude. At that battle, which occurred in 1866, the Prussians and the Austrians were fighting out the issue which of the two ruling class groups should dominate the German States and Central Europe. It is said of the Viennese that, while the battle was in progress they went on dancing, “as if it did not matter which side won.” They were right, and it would tax the ingenuity of all the assembled historians and apologists for war to show any tangible loss suffered by the mass of the Austrian population through the defeat.

The progress of the world, and the abolition of war can only come through Socialism. The duty of the working class is to press forward on that road, and not to be diverted by I.L.P.-Labour Party propaganda for this or that section of the ruling class.
Edgar Hardcastle