Confusion at the T.U.C. (1951)

From the November 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

When we were very young the gramophone was in its early stages. It was called the phonograph, it had tubular records instead of discs and each record, when played, ended with the spoken words, “Edison Bell Record.” We were reminded of this when we read the reports of the speeches at this year’s Trade Union Congress. For a number of years, since the end of the last war, in fact, the speeches of the “ big shots” at the T.U.C. have followed the same theme. So marked is the repetition that, as we concluded the report of each speech we felt like saying, “ Edison Bell Record.” Again, this year, as in previous years, unofficial strikes were denounced, support for the Government’s armament programme was urged, the Communists were castigated, increased production was demanded, continued austerity was forecast, and workers were warned to be moderate with their demands for wage increases.

The 83rd Trade Union Congress was held in Blackpool early in September this year and was attended by 917 delegates. The president, Mr. Alfred Roberts, in his opening speech, said nothing original. One has the impression that he read the speeches of his recent predecessors in the presidency and rehashed them with a slight variation of emphasis.

There was a minor revolt on the first day of the Congress when delegates voted for a reduction in the time allowed for speeches from members of the General Council and from fraternal delegates, thus allowing more time for general discussion. But, on the second day, following a bombardment from the General Secretary, Sir Vincent Tewson, the delegates rescinded the decision and gave back to the General Council the privilege of longer speeches. Sir Vincent said that the Council members needed the time to acquaint the delegates with all the facts before they made decisions. He did not give many facts in his speech on that occasion but hinted mysteriously of “certain people who cause the trouble” and “arrangements that took place outside the conference.”

The debate on foreign affairs developed into a battle between groups of delegates and the General Council,—”the floor against the platform,” as Sir Vincent had previously expressed it There were a number of resolutions, including one of over 250 words, but the General Council ruled the roost and its critics were defeated. The resolutions were a series of protests and appeals. A protest against the resumption of diplomatic relations with Spain, an appeal to abolish the atom bomb, a protest against the re-arming of Germany and Japan, an appeal for trade with Russia, and so on.

Of course, Sir Arthur Deakin—sorry, Mr. Arthur Deakin was there. We apologise for that slip of the pen. We are so used to having our Trade Union chiefs “honoured” by the representatives of the capitalist class that we were a little premature and lumped Mr. Deakin with his peers, Lord Citrine, Sir William Lawther and Sir Vincent Tewson. As Mr. Deakin has been elected president of the T.U.C. for the ensuing year he becomes an odds-on favourite for the next honours list. He treated Congress to his usual tirade against “reds” and Communists to the delight of some of the delegates who baited him. His anti-red mania has become a joke amongst Trade Unionists.

A new gang of critics of the General Council were present at the T.U.C. this year—the supporters of Mr. Bevan. These Bevan-ites were greatly discomforted by the support they received from Communists and by the insistence of some of the speakers on confusing them with the Communists. The confusion is easily understandable. The criticisms of both groups were so trivial 'and so far removed from the fundamental problems of the working class that neither of them is deserving of even the doubtful compliment of being termed rebellious.

The visiting high-light to this years Congress was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gaitskell. Prior to Mr. Gaitskell’s visit, some members of the General Council had reluctantly admitted the need for wage increases. But the Chancellor gave a warning. He said:—

“The cost of living here will go on rising in 1952, even with stable world prices, if we go on pushing up our costs through further substantial rises in wages and salaries. That is what we must avoid." (Manchester Guardian, 5.9.1951.)

He was full of warnings. He warned of the need to cut home production in favour of exports, he warned of the impact of rising prices on “our” balance of payments and he warned that fear and inertia was making our lives “thinner, poorer, harder and more burdensome than need be.” There you are, fellow workers, do not be frightened, work harder, cast off inertia and life will be fatter, richer, softer and oh, so cosy. Or will it?

The Chancellor talked of profits and dividends. He said that the total profit income of companies and public corporations had risen just over two and a half times between 1938 and 1950. He continued by claiming that the profits were taxed so that dividends had not risen so much and he concluded that part of his address by saying that he could not state that high profits had been an important cause of the rise in the cost of living. Naturally, Mr. Gaitskell, naturally! Such a statement would destroy the time-worn argument. that it is wage increases that cause rises in the cost of living.

The real plum in Mr. Gaitskell’s address, the real juicy tit-bit, came when he referred to the need for a more even distribution of property. To achieve this even distribution he suggested, ,

“. . .  some form of partnership by the workers in individual firms or industry through the distribution of bonus shares reflecting the rise in undistributed profits." (The Times. 6.9.1951.)

This is magnificent. It is novel. It is unique. Such acumen, such wisdom. A Daniel come to judgment. Yea, a Daniel. The Conservative Party has been talking about a “property owning democracy” for years; the Liberal Party has made co-partnership in industry its main plank for the past three years. Now comes Mr. Gaitskell to join hands with them in proclaiming this panacea for working class ills.

Co-partnership in industry has been tried in a number of fields at various times. The most noteworthy were the schemes of the gas companies and Lever Brothers at Port Sunlight. The object of such schemes is not to re-distribute property, but to encourage the workers to take a keener interest in the firm or undertaking whch employs them. They are expected to work harder to produce greater profits so that their share is larger. They are expected to do away with all restrictive practices, not to strike, to accept a minimum wage, in fact to tolerate all sorts of things in the interest of the undertaking in which they are co-partners. The share that the worker gets is so infinitesimal that it does not, or has not up to now, had the desired effect. The gas companies were probably the most generous in their co-partnership scheme. It is claimed that they devoted half the invested capital to profit sharing. When one considers the number of employees amongst whom this part of the profit had to be shared, and the much smaller number of investors who shared the other part, it gives a picture of the worth of such schemes to the workers. The benefit is to the employer who can use the idea of the co-partner to discipline his employees.

The Trade Unions in this country have never shown an interest in co-partnership schemes and Mr. Gaitskell had a cheek to make such a suggestion at the T.U.C. But there, fools step in where angels fear to tread. Trade Unionists who can swallow die rubbish that is handed out them by the Labour Party supporters may also fall for this idea. All it amounts to is an incentive bonus for greater production and a means to check wage increase demands.

Another screwy batch of proposals came from the General Secretary when he put forward a six point plan for peace.

His plan was that Russia should adopt the following six points,

1. Put the last touches to the Austrian treaty.
2. Let up on the people of Berlin.
3. Return the prisoners of war still held six years after the end of hostilities.
4. Wind up the Cominform.
5. Co-operate actively within the United Nations and cease making a fetish of the veto.
6. Co-operate in many specialised agencies of the United Nations—on economic, health and education issues and the I.L.O. (Daily Herald, 6.9.1951.)

All of which the Russian Government could agree to do and still declare war the following day, or have war declared against it the same day. Such tickling of the war problem is pitiful. There are numbers of workers who have not achieved Sir Vincent’s exalted position, who could tell him that the cause of war is deeper than these trimmings, that the conditions that his six points seek to remedy are the result of war, not the cause, and that to eradicate war from society the cause must be dug out by the roots.

The Congress went through its week arguing about industrial illnesses, children employed on the stage, bulk purchasing by the Government, National Health Insurance spectacles, the film industry, education of trade unionists, equal pay for women, and concluded its business with the usual votes of thanks and the singing of “Auld Lang Syne.” No. Not “The International” nor “The Red Flag,” just “Auld Lang Syne.”

Having appealed, urged and protested for a week the delegates went their several ways. The General Council? We hope they will not be bothered by ghosts from the 1926 or other bygone General Councils. What a set-up in the Trade Union world. If the workers continue to support Labour Government, the sting is taken out of their trade union struggles; if they use their unions as fighting machines they have to fight Labour Government. The solution to this queer contradiction is not to be found in Mr. Gaitskell’s proposal to re-distribute property but in the Socialist proposition to abolish private ownership in the means of production, and to make land, mines, factories, workshops, ships, road transport, air transport, warehouses, docks, garages—all the means of production—free of ownership, either by individuals, companies, public undertakings or the state.

W. Waters

The Magic Formula (1951)

From the November 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the Middle Ages the alchemists (the witch doctors of their day) spent much time searching for the philosopher’s stone. This stone if found was to change the base metals into gold. But their searching was in vain. They should have lived in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, when they might well have thought that their wishes had come true. In this period the wealth of a few increases and continues to increase without any effort on the part of those who own it. This surely must be the philosopher’s stone in action. But the explanation is a very different one—it lies in the formula M-C-M'.

This formula means money-commodities-MONEY, the second item “Money’’ being greater than the first. In this formula lies the explanation of capitalist production. The capitalists start with money which they change into commodities and back again into money—more money than they began with. Where does this extra money come from? The explanation is to be found in one of the commodities they purchase. This commodity is the labour power of the workers. This commodity, like all other commodities, is bought and sold at a price based on its value. This value is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour involved in the production of the food, clothing and shelter the workers must have in order to function as workers. And so the worker is not cheated on the sale of his labour power, or his wages. From a legal point of view it is a perfectly fair transaction. But this commodity labour power has a quality not possessed by any other commodity, which makes it to the capitalist the most treasured commodity of all. It can increase values beyond the value it contains itself. Other commodities can only transmit their own values into the commodities produced. Here then is our philosopher’s stone. And here also in the formula quoted above is the explanation of the world we live in. The formula, for example, explains wars. In order to bring in the extra amount of money shown in the last item of the formula the commodities produced have to be sold. The workers can only receive the amount their wages will purchase. And so there is an endless conflict between the various groups of world capitalist powers to find markets for the commodities produced by their workers. These conflicts lead to war.

This formula also explains the general and continued poverty of the working class. The workers can never obtain more than the value of their labour power. This means that they can only receive back a portion of what they produce. The part left over, which we socialists call surplus value, belongs to their masters. And so while workers may not be destitute, yet compared with a few, the capitalist class, they are poor. This formula also explains the intensification of exploitation. The capitalists must find markets in competition with their rivals. Production must be cheapened, and the only way to cheapen production is by lessening the labour time involved. And so we have speeding up. The formula given above explains all of the attributes of the capitalist system of wealth production.

The alchemists never solved this problem. They were unable to find the philosopher’s stone which would change base metals into gold. But we have found out how it is possible for wealth to increase under capitalism while the condition of the working class remains unchanged. And now we must take the next step. The next step is to bring about a state of affairs in which the formula M-C-M' ceases to exist—in other words Socialism, so that those who produce may enjoy the fruits of their labour. For the bringing about of that we invite the co-operation of each member of the working class. The working class must do that—we cannot do it for them. If we could we should have done it long ago.

And now—how will things be produced under Socialism? In the first place there will be no commodities—that is things produced primarily for sale. In fact there will be no buying or selling, and because of this no money. The one test for production will be the satisfaction of human needs.

There are those, of course, who argue against us that when we can have anything we want people will make pigs of themselves, but the pig turns away from the trough when he has had enough. But all of these arguments arise from the conditions we live under now. No member of the working class has enough. His needs are never satisfied. Given conditions where needs can be satisfied then mankind will take what is needed and leave the rest.

There are of course many other arguments put forward against Socialism, which space precludes us from dealing with here. We would say, however, that it is worthy of your serious consideration. Get to grips with the problem and you will soon be on our side.

Clifford Groves

Sob story (1951)

From the November 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Or “Swings and Roundabouts"

In the harbour of Monaco, millionaire Sir Bernard Docker came ashore from his magnificent yacht “Shemara” to talk to Sunday Express representative Bernard Harris (2.9.51) on the subject of rich men's taxes. The millionaire is an irate and indignant man, sobbing into his champagne; the sour milk of human unkindness is curdling his digestive juices. The reason in a nutshell is the Labour Party’s latest manifesto which declares “Further taxation must be levied on the small minority who draw large unearned incomes from private fortunes.” Sir Bernard says, “No one in Britain has got any real income now,” which boils down to the fact that under the present system of taxation no man is left with more than £6,000 per annum, To achieve this amount he must have a gross income of £100,000. To a millionaire this is mere chickenfeed, and you cannot possibly run a large yacht (crew of 32) and afford a town and country house, so what are you to do? The answer is, painful though it may be, you must draw on your capital. Thus the latest threat of further taxation hits where it hurts. “It is ludicrous” (wails Sir Bernard) “to think that you will get happiness and prosperity by forcing everybody down to a dead level of uniformity. Every man in Britain should have the opportunity to make all the money in the world. For in the creation of wealth for themselves men create work and good living standards for others.” His wrath is then directed against “this socialist talk of the rich living on the labour of others.” (For socialists read Labour). “It is complete ballyhoo. What have they ever created? Everything they have touched, including their nationalisation projects, has been a complete flop.” We would hesitate to class nationalisation as “creative ” but would like to put on record that all the vast wealth which Sir Bernard owns (including what was left by his Dad) has been and still is, created by the workers. There are only three ways of getting a living in this sorry world, by working, begging or stealing. We are not suggesting that Sir Bernard goes out and robs a bank when he wants some spending money. The fact is that capital invested in industry derives huge profits in the form of dividends from the unpaid labour of the workers. Capitalists the world over acquired and are acquiring their enormous wealth from the surplus labour put in by the workers over and above their weekly wage. That is where the robbery takes place.

The Sunday Express tells us that the “philosophy of this forthright millionaire is summed up as follows by a big American company:—

“America became great by letting Americans become great, giving every man, woman and child a chance to go as far as his energy, productivity and ambition let him. Destroy opportunity for profit and you destroy ambition; destroy ambition and you destroy America.” 

Sir Bernard maintains that the above portentous pronouncement “goes” for Britain as well as America. He should not lose sight of the fact though that Docker Senior gave him a pretty good start, building up investments in a powerful industrial group of companies in the Midlands. However, to quote his own words, “It is ludicrous to force everybody down to a dead level of uniformity.” Sir Bernard may sigh about the Labour Government “soaking” the rich, but he should bear in mind that among other things there is an outsized rearmament bill to be paid, not to mention Korea and Malaya, and as all wars are waged on behalf of the class he represents he must expect to pay the piper when the system he supports calls the tune.

We cannot close, however, without giving him one crumb of comfort.

Perchance when the rearmament programme gets cracking Sir Bernard will gain on the “roundabouts” of the Birmingham Small Arms Company a little of what he loses on the “swings” of taxation. Here's hoping, anyway. It's putrid being down to your last yacht.

F. M. Robins

Party News Briefs (1951)

Party News from the November 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

The resumed Delegate Meeting was held at Holborn Hall on Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning, October 6th and 7th, when all outstanding items were dealt with. Delegates at one time numbered 34. representing 19 branches. Collections taken at the Delegate Meetings and Party meeting amounted to £30.

#    #    #    #

A Party Meeting to discuss Electoral Activity was held on Sunday afternoon, October 7th, at Holborn Hall. Some 250 members were present, many taking part in discussion. It was agreed to endorse the arrangements already in hand to concentrate propaganda in Paddington North and East Ham South during the Election.

#    #    #    #

At the time of going to Press an intensive propaganda drive is being held, particularly in Paddington and East Ham. There are 50,000 Election Manifestoes to be distributed and nearly twice our monthly quota of Socialist Standards are to be sold. Members have plenty of work on hand—and are getting on with it.

#    #    #    #

A very successful indoor meeting was held at Southend-on-Sea on Monday evening, October 15th; a London speaker addressed the meeting. The hall was filled to capacity.

#    #    #    #

Manchester Branch have had a successful summer outdoor season and are making plans to hold a series of indoor meetings during the winter.

#    #    #    #

Indoor meetings throughout the winter are being held by Bloomsbury, Dartford, Hackney and S.W. London Branches apart from the Sunday evening meetings at Head Office. For details of all these meetings see notices on another page of this issue.

#    #    #    #

Head Office Sunday evening meetings are well under way and members and sympathisers are cordially invited.

#    #    #    #

Will all readers in Nottingham please note that a Discussion Group meets at the People’s Hall, Heathcote Street, Nottingham, at 7.45 p.m. on the first and third Wednesdays in each month (i.e., November 7th and 21st). Members and sympathisers are welcome.

Quite a number of propaganda meetings have been held during the summer at Nottingham and there seems no doubt that these have greatly contributed to the formation of this Group as considerable interest in the Party case has been aroused in this area.

Fortnightly outdoor meetings are to be held at Slab Square, Nottingham, on Saturday evenings at 7.30 and Sundays 11.30 a.m. and 7.30 p.m.

Phyllis Howard

Blogger's Note:

Some background information is required with regards to the aforementioned Special Party Meeting on Electoral Activity which was held on October 7th at Holborn Hall. 

The October 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard carried a short notice that a Party Poll had been held on the subject of the Party and Electoral Activity, and there was a majority vote against putting up SPGB candidates at the forthcoming 1951 General Election. The Special Party Meeting took place during the weekend of the Party's Autumn Delegate Meeting, and the subject of the meeting was what activity the Party could do around the forthcoming Election. It was decided that Party members in and around London would concentrate their propaganda efforts in Paddington in West London and East Ham in East London, which were two areas where the Party had put up candidates at the recent 1950 General Election. Two hundred and fifty members attending the Special Meeting was impressive, and should real intent.

The following links give some more background on the Party and the 1950 and 1951 General Elections:

• Nov 1949: From The Eastern Front
• Feb 1950: How will you use your vote?
• Mar 1950: Our Two Election Campaigns 
• Apr 1950: Party News Briefs (See paragraph headed "The Parliamentary Committee")
• May 1950: To the Electors of East Ham
• Oct 1951: Why We Are Not Contesting This Election

SPGB Meetings (1951)

Party News from the November 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Link:

A couple of interesting links which give more background about Eddie Shaw and anarchism in Glasgow during the 1940s and 1950s:

• Anarchism in Glasgow (Interview)
• Not a Life Story, Just a Leaf From It by Robert Lynn

Letter: Shut Up and Shut Out (1974)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Shut Up and Shut Out

At the meeting of the "Hackney Committee Against Racialism”, controlled by the IMG, I explained to the chairman that I wished to explain the Socialist case. Though I was invited, as my name is in the Hackney Council brochure, the chairman stated that I was not to speak. I did not quarrel at all but suggested a speaker from the Socialist Party. "Oh dear no, Tariq Ali is our man.” In brief, red fascists are no different from black fascists.

Recently a poster on the wall at the London School of Economics announced a meeting of IS. I knocked at the door and asked if it was all right to sit and listen. They knew I was a member of the Socialist Party. The answer was "No”. I suppose they’re a secret society.

S. Highams

London N.1

Letter: Ourselves and the CP (1974)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ourselves and the CP

I am writing to protest at your waste of good Socialist space in the S.S. I refer to your continual obsessive carping on the misguided thinking of the CP in comparison to yours. Surely, with all the futile waste, almost criminal of the capitalist system, this includes state capitalism masquerading as communism, you could leave the CP to its usual smearers in the Labour and Conservative parties. After all there must be something wrong with the CP to warrant this continuous smearing — apart from yours.

A member of the CP can never expect honours from the establishment while still an active member. In order to attain these he must leave and get control of a Union if possible, and duckshove his way to the top, to manipulate its business in capitalism’s favour. A case in point is the ETU where three communists with the help of the present Lord Feather secured controlling positions in that key Union. One became Sir Leslie Cannon — if that was any consolation to him. The establishment know how to reward working-class treachery in their favour.

J. Maryon

Hornchurch.

Reply

We have never gone in for the “smearing” of other political parties. Our criticisms are always based on verifiable fact and never on smear, guilt by association or any of the other tactics employed by capitalist parties.

Our criticism of the so called “Communist" Party is quite different to those used by the Labour and Conservative Parties. We are unique in attacking the CP on the grounds that they are, whatever their proclamations may be, an anti-working class party. The CP advocates not Communism or Socialism (the terms are the same thing although the CP confuse the issue by differentiating them) but State Capitalism.

Nothing that the CP advocates can change the economic position of the working class. When they contest elections they do so on a reform platform talking nonsense such as “The British Road to Socialism” or more nationalization. The suggestion that they want a fundamental change in the basis of society can easily be refuted. For example John Mathews writing in their fortnightly review was full of “criticism” for Labour chancellor Denis Healey’s recent mini-budget because it failed to deal adequately with the problems facing British capitalism. Mathews suggested that Britain should go in for selective import controls, planned investment and that self contradiction in terms “planned trade”. And what did he have to say about capitalism?

  There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the size of the [trade] deficit, and the interest charges to be paid on loans, but no solution — only appeals to make a "national effort”, etc. It needs to be said that the British economy is running down not because of shoddy workmanship, or absenteeism, or any of the pseudo-explanations advanced but because of the economic sabotage of the owners of capital. It is the management of the economy which is at fault, not the economy itself. (Comment August 10, 1974 — emphasis in the original.)

Our unmasking of these political frauds masquerading as revolutionaries is fully justified. The fact that some ex-CPers seek places of privilege and power in the capitalist establishment is not surprising but does not alter the case. Once in power Communists pursue anti-working-class policies. Ken Gill, newly elected to the TUC general council brags that “. . . this mighty Congress has committed itself to wage restraint . . . we hated restraint under Heath but we welcome it under Wilson” (Daily Telegraph 5 September 1974.) 

Need we say more?

Editors.

Letter: Russia and the Abyss (1974)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Russia and the Abyss

The otherwise excellent piece on Russian elections (August Socialist Standard page 133) concludes that 200 collective farm workers and 50 others automatically means 1,000 non-workers. But be careful! Russian classifications are abstruse and devious, many are classified as “Peasants”, several “Intellectuals” (Intelligents) even “Technicians”. I readily agree that it’s all baloney anyway, even a Peasant member of the Supreme Soviet is an “Apparatchik”. Perhaps it’s better to say this, or that we are well aware of Soviet nomenclature.

Secondly with reference to the series on the famous books. Good idea and sure to take. But can we be careful to point to the fallacy of facile comparisons between then and now otherwise we fall right into the Labour Party trap — “There you are how much better now . . .”

So long as we emphasise that in a 1970 world of electronics the “Abyss”, as it was, could no longer exist. Or as we say about The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, many similarities still exist.

The new high-rise flats are an abomination and disaster.

Horatio.

Letter: Joy in Living (1974)

Letters to the Editors from the November 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Joy in Living

Reading the SPGB pamphlet Art, Labour and Socialism persuades me that in his Joy in Labour theory, William Morris’s failure to pose and answer a simple but pertinent question restricted the development of his subject.

He has convinced us of the joy useful labour will give, but why? Surely the joy serves a biological end, and is nature’s reward for the fulfilment of that end. But the primary aim is the perpetuation and improvement of life, of which labour is but an ingredient. Our Joy-in-Labour concept could perhaps be logically amended to Joy in Living.

Denied its expression in wage-labour, the impulse finds a compensating gratification in spurious pleasure drawn from the vast arts, entertainment and sports industry. An industry quite distinct from productive processes, that surely provides overwhelming evidence of alienation. An industry much of which, possibly all eventually, a healthy Socialist society will make obsolete.

One quality this industry seeks to express is vitality: an interesting commentary on the condition of its audience. Much of literary and theatrical fiction is clearly vicarious living. A bogus satisfaction rewards the reader of the popular “Whodunit” in which is exploited a perversion of the evolutionary impulse — effort which should be directed to improving life involving the tackling of problems (“challenge”) is reduced to a trivial mental exercise.

F. C. West

London E.2

Letter: Ideas and Struggle (1989)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ideas and Struggle

Dear Comrades,

I found an old copy of your magazine Socialist Standard at a friend's place. I was very interested to read it and there were several thought-provoking articles.

Have you got anything on Trotskyism? Several of my friends have very nearly joined such parties as the SWP. Militant and the RCP. A few years ago, I was on the periphery of the RCP, but their ruthless party building (and total rejection of real working class issues) turned me off . . . fortunately. I find that the Trotskyists have a very patronising attitude to the working class that I presume results from Lenin's theory that, on their own, workers can only reach a trade union consciousness and thus, hey presto, the need for the guiding light of a revolutionary party—it does not seem to have done that much guiding so far! And what do you think of anarchism? I have occasionally read anarchist papers—some of them are nothing more than liberal rubbish (such as Freedom), but others do have more sense (e.g. Direct Action) in that they emphasise the class rather than the culture!

I must say that I do have my differences with the SPGB analysis, particularly over how socialism will be achieved. I completely agree with you that a majority of the working class needs to be fighting for socialism, but. as Marx said, "ideas change in struggle". To me this means that at any time there is a possibility of real change because in mass struggle the ideas of the working class do change. For example, if the miners strike had spread to other sectors (as it had to in order to avoid defeat), then we might have seen a possible revolution. I think that it is very Leninist to underestimate the abilities and potential of the working class. You say "the democratic conquest of political power”— what about the real power in this society, the economic structure? Thatcher is merely a puppet of the bosses' interests. To talk of revolution in such mild terms makes me think of naivety such as what would you do if there was a military uprising against the new socialist government?

I also think that you emphasise educational activities far too much. I would never deny the importance of propaganda, but getting back to that original quote from Marx: “ideas change in struggle” . . . not through passive book reading. So I would argue that socialists should be fighting back against this rotten system in their own lives in the here and now (for example, agitating for a strike in their workplace, leafletting their community about the Poll Tax and helping to set up Anti-Poll Tax Unions) and supporting all other working class people in their struggles against class society. I think that it is only through such a movement as this that society will be changed—but I am very interested to hear what you have to say

Norman Davis

London, N16

REPLY
1. Yes, as Marx said, ideas change in struggle. But this does not mean to say that ideas change suddenly. In fact, the process of overcoming the overwhelming conditioning of capitalism is itself a long hard struggle. We do not underestimate the potential of the working class, as the Leninists do, when we say that the majority of workers are at present imbued with support for capitalism. There is a great potential for workers to make the transition to understand and want socialism instead, but we would be kidding ourselves and others if we accepted, for example, that if the miners' strike had spread "then we might have seen a possible revolution". The key precondition for a socialist revolution is that a majority should be socialists, fully conscious of their class position and their interests as workers in ending capitalism. If the miners' strike had benefited from greater solidarity amongst other workers, it would have improved the miners' position, and would have been a sign that class consciousness was growing. But that simple condition, of a majority of genuine socialists, still stands as an indispensable precondition for the revolutionary change we seek, and we continue to work with great determination to build up such a majority.

2. Yes, Thatcher is a puppet of the bosses' interests. But political power within capitalism cannot be overestimated—the bosses spend millions through their parties securing and organising political power. In Britain today, the state forces including the military are, as a matter of concrete fact, under the control of a parliamentary government which is given electoral support by the very workers whose interests it opposes. Many on the Left find it hard to face up to the harsh fact that capitalism, in all of its forms, does depend on the acquiescence and/or apathy of a majority of workers themselves. With the growth of a socialist majority, determined to end capitalism, the notion of a military uprising to prevent this is nonsensical. How would such a military force even exist or survive against the solid and hostile opposition of a socialist majority throughout society? The greater degree of class consciousness which that would entail on the part of the majority would make it more than likely that such a military sect would be starved of food, of power and electricity supplies, of uniforms, of weapons and of credibility.

3. You say that "passive book reading” and educational work are not enough on their own, but must be combined with active campaigning, e.g. against the poll tax, or for strikes at work, as, going back once again to Marx, "ideas change in struggle”. It is false to make such a rigid division between passive reading and active action. Reading and learning is itself an activity. Furthermore, the substance and subject matter of what socialists write and read about is, of course, the subject matter of the class struggle itself. And, on the other hand, a lot of so-called radical actions are actually nothing more than feeble attempts to reform and modify capitalism, to dress up oppression in a new guise. But, as far as trade union and strike action are concerned, or democratic efforts by workers to combine and improve (or just maintain) their wages and conditions of work, the Socialist Party fully supports such action. As active members of a whole range of trade unions, many of our members have worked very long and hard at such active struggle. But as a political party standing unequivocally for socialist revolution our role, which we carry out to the best of our abilities, is to put to our fellow workers the most urgent choice facing the entire human race now in 1989: are we. the deprived majority, going to allow the world's resources to remain harmfully in the hands of about 1-5 per cent of the population, or are we at last going to act on our true interests. and organise politically, consciously and democratically for the overthrow of capitalism, and the establishment of world socialism?

Editors.

Letter: Democracy and Votes (1992)

The offending cartoon.

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

Democracy and Votes

Dear Editors.

Your cartoon in the July issue of Socialist Standard really did reach the depths of Stalinist-style amalgam tactics, in its attempt to link anarchism to Stalinism and Nazism. Not only was the cartoon scurrilous, it was also inaccurate as well. Stalin through the Comintern advised the Communist Parties worldwide to use parliamentary tactics, as was so miserably illustrated with the career of the Communist Party of Great Britain. Hitler for his part used parliamentary methods, as did, and still do. other fascist parties, including Mussolini.

You say that anarchists ignore the State. On the contrary, those revolutionary anarchists who have learnt the lessons of history believe that a social revolution must involve the active destruction of the State. There is a big difference between electing MPs and mandating delegates to, for example, a workplace or neighbourhood council. The delegates to these would be decided upon by mass assemblies. and would be mandated and subject to instant recall. Parliamentarians would be under no such control of the masses. What is more alienating under capitalism than to file singly into an election booth once in every five years?

You pay lip service to self organisation and mass action. In reality, in your advocacy of parliament, including the defence of institutions like the Russian Constituent Assembly, you show yourselves as staunch defenders of bourgeois democracy.

Ron Allen, 

Anarchist Communist Federation 

London E1

Reply:
Thanks for the compliment! Yes, we do say that the vote is an important gain and we do say that “bourgeois” democracy, for all its many limitations, provides the best framework for workers to organise themselves without leaders—both to defend their interests under capitalism and to struggle to replace it by the fully democratic society that socialism will be. What are you saying? That it makes no difference whether or not we have the vote? We don’t think you will get very far with that one— Editors.

This Month's Quotation: Karl Marx (1936)

The Front Page quote from the November 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Working Class ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword "The Abolition of the wages system."

Karl Marx

This Month's Quotation.

The quotation in the panel on the front page is taken from “ Value, Price and Profit," by K. Marx.

Notes by the Way: “Daily Express” Gets Into a Tangle (1936)

The Notes by the Way Column from the November 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Daily Express” Gets Into a Tangle

The Daily Express, like other Beaverbrook papers, always refers to the Labour Party as the Socialist Party, just to mislead its readers. The only defence ever offered for the misrepresentation is that whatever, name the Labour Party goes under it is, in fact, the Socialist Party. But read the following from an Express editorial (October 1st, 1936): —

The Daily Express is not the enemy of the Socialist Party, though Mr. Bevin and others profess to think so. The Daily Express, it is true, opposes Socialism, but that is a very different thing. If Mr. Bevin, or Mr. Morrison, or Sir Walter Citrine came to power here the Daily Express would not tremble at those men nor fear their policies.

So the Express calls the Labour Party the Socialist Party because it isn’t a Socialist Party! Now let Beaverbrook lie his way out of the tangle into which he has got himself.

On to Prosperity

Mr. Francis Williams, City Editor of the Daily Herald, promises prosperity because France has “gone off gold,” and “the gold standard is dead ” (Daily Herald, September 28th, 1936). Five years ago Mr. Williams made the same promise as regards Great Britain. But where is prosperity ? Only Mr. Williams knows. The following, from The Daily Telegraph (September 28th, 1936), has a bearing on the point.: —

When eggs were offered to some schoolchildren in Cumberland they did not know how to eat them. They had never had eggs before. Other children at Barnsley, Yorkshire, refused custard, butter and bananas because they were unfamiliar foods.

These instances of the effect of prolonged unemployment were given on Saturday by Mrs. G. R. Evans, a delegate to the National Federation of Class Teachers’ Conference, held at Nottingham. Mr. C. S. Evans, of Rhondda, said that in the area where he taught many of the children were unable to remember their fathers ever having worked and could not tell him even what their fathers’ occupations were.

In his class he had never known fewer than 60 per cent. of the fathers to be unemployed. Only on Fridays, did many of the children get any breakfast at all, and that was because their fathers drew unemployment pay on Thursday.—(Daily Telegraph, September 28th, 1936.) 

When will Mr. Williams learn that capitalism, not any special currency policy, is the cause of working-class poverty ?

Words Worth Remembering

The plain fact is, there is no defence against the horrors of war except peace.

Robert Lynd (News-Chronicle, Sept. 19th, 1936).

If a war occurs, Mr. Lloyd George will doubtless be urging the workers to fight in order to save democracy; but this is what he told a News Chronicle representative: —

If we do not establish peace democracy is doomed, for democracy will never survive another world war.

(News-Chronicle, Sept. 21st.)

A Prophesy of War

Amidst all the current forecasts of war it is interesting to look back at some earlier ones. One paper on June 10th, 1922, prophesied war for certainty, saying that it was only “a matter of time, not even perhaps of years but of months.”

But the war was not the same war that is being prophesied to-day. It was ”war with America, war with America and France.”

The paper was the Communist, June 10th, 1922, official organ of the Communist Party.

The Great War to Create Wars

The great lie of the Great War was that it was a war to end war. By that subtle falsehood the misgivings about the real purpose and cause of the war were swept aside and the blind patriotism of the workers was exploited for the protection of capitalism. Now Mr. Amery, sometime First Lord of the Admiralty, Minister for the Colonies, etc., etc., admits that the war, so far from removing the cause of war, has made the position worse. He was speaking at the annual meeting of the Royal Society of St. George at the Mansion House on April 23rd. (See report in Times, April 24th, 1936.):

Unfortunately a good many people were of the opinion that as we had had one great war it was possible to eliminate the causes of war and patriotism was superfluous. There was, of course, far more to it than that. The process which started in the nineteenth century and continued into the twentieth was accelerated by the War, and the whole growth of national societies inevitably made for closer contacts. We might deplore some of the excesses which their emotions led many people to commit, as shown in Italy, Germany, and Russia, but it was not for us to ignore the intensity of national feeling. If we were to maintain our freedom we had to be strong, and it was the duty of all to widen the influence of our national feelings. (Italics ours.)

Poor Germany!

One of the stories put about by German nationalist propagandists in the years after the War was that the peace treaty had “ruined” Germany and reduced everyone to deplorable depths of poverty. The story was accepted by Labourites in this country and has been adopted by Hitler. It was not, and is not, true. What happened was that many of the German capitalists who had been exceedingly wealthy before the War lost heavily through Germany’s defeat, and some, indeed, were ruined. Others lost their fortunes to new groups of capitalists (Stinnes & Co.) during the years of inflation of the currency. Nevertheless, capitalism continued in Germany without any appreciable change under the Social Democrats and Governments with which they co-operated, and where there is capitalism there will be found contrasts of wealth and poverty. In 1931, for example, there were 40 people in Germany whose property was assessed for purposes of taxation at over 10 million marks each, that is roughly over £500,000.

There were 2,465 with over one million marks (roughly £50,000), 115 with over five million marks (£250,000). These figures from official sources were reproduced in Freiheit organ of the Independent Socialist Party of Germany (June 7th, 1931). As in England and elsewhere, it was the working class who were poor, and Hitler has done nothing to alter that condition of affairs.

He is now talking, as his predecessors did, of dividing up the big estates in East Prussia. The Berlin correspondent of the Daily Telegraph reports (September 2nd, 1936). that it is calculated that in Germany as a whole there are 412 big landowners who hold between them nearly 6,500,000 acres, or enough land to support one million smallholders. Nearly 95 per cent. of all agricultural and forest land in Germany is owned by 22,000 proprietors, that is by less than one per cent. (actually 6 per cent.) of the persons owning land. It remains to be seen how Hitler will fare in handling a problem which brought down other German Governments. Like them he has to face the discontent of the landless on the one side, and the power of landowners and big business on the other.

Douglasites Floored by Facts. The Rise and Fall of Unemployment

Nothing shows up so clearly the failure of Major Douglas and his followers to understand the nature of capitalism as their inability to explain the ups and downs of production and trade. A case in point is their forecast of constantly increasing unemployment. Socialists were not bamboozled in 1931 into the belief that the crisis was any different in kind from all the other crises of capitalism. Socialists were, therefore, able to predict, with confidence, that the increase of unemployment would, in due course, give place to a decrease as capitalist trade and production entered on another phase of expansion. The Douglasites, on the contrary, ignorant of the similar blundering prophecies of their predecessors a century ago, hastened to predict that capitalism would never recover, and that the volume of unemployment would mount continuously without a break. Let us see what events have done to their prophecy.

In its issue of January 25th, 1934, the Douglas journal, New English Weekly, wrote : —

As technology develops, there will be a growing mass of unemployed 20 per cent., 30 per cent., 40 per cent, or more who are deprived of all demand-power, except such as we allow them by way of the dole.

Now let us contrast that prophecy of unemployment increasing from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent., 40 per cent. and more, with the actual happenings, as shown in the Ministry of Labour returns as to the percentages of insured workers unemployed.

January, 1933. ...  23     per cent.

January, 1934. ...         18.6  per cent.

January, 1935. ...  17.7  per cent.

January, 1936. ...         16.3  per cent.

June, 1936. ...      13.1  per cent.

September, 1934. ...     12.4  per cent

In due course capitalism will experience another crash and then the Douglasites, silent as to their past failure, will rush into print, repeating their fallacious theories and prophecies.

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: The First Air-Raiders (1936)

Editorial from the November 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lord Londonderry, the Minister for Air, speaking in the House of Lords on May 22nd, 1935, declared that at the 1932 Disarmament Conference, when total abolition of air forces, or at least of bombing planes, was discussed, he “had the utmost difficulty . . . . amid the public outcry, in preserving the use of the bombing aeroplane even on the frontiers of the Middle East and India " (quoted by Dr. Dalton, M.P., House of Commons, March 9th, 1936. See Hansard, March 9th, column 1922).

Lord Londonderry, in a letter to The Times (December 30th, 1935), has explained that his statement did not mean what at first sight it appears to mean. His explanation was that an international Convention to abolish bombing from the air would be of no value unless it was possible at the same time so to control civil aviation as to make it impossible to convert civil aircraft into bombing planes—in other words that the capitalist States do not for one moment accept each other's pledges as of any account—and, consequently, that it was his duty as Air Minister to take the long view and maintain an efficient air force “with its necessary bombing strength."

It must be said that Lord Londonderry's letter does, not put him in any better light, for the fact remains that dropping bombs on almost defenceless frontier tribes is a fiendish act, whether ordered by a Mussolini, a Lord Londonderry or by the two Labour Governments we have had in this country, and which maintained the doctrine of “continuity" in this matter of bombing.

Those who face the future with fear because of the possibility that an outbreak of war may see foreign bombers destroying the city in which they happen to live should not forget that successive Governments have tolerated the bombing of native tribesmen.

Another thing they should remember is that it was the British, not the Germans, who started the whole business of air-raiding. At least, that was the boast made by an official body in 1917. The following notes are extracts from a lantern lecture entitled “War in the Air,'' issued by the National War Savings Committee and being shown during the year 1917.

Slide 32.—"The Navy's land machines went over to Belgium, and it is to the credit of the R.N.A.S. that the first hostile missiles which fell on German soil were bombs dropped by the R.N.A.S. at Cologne and Dusseldorf. . . ."

Slide 34.—". . . Unfortunately the German advance in Belgium drove our bases so far back it became impossible to reach German towns with the aeroplanes then available.”

Slide 35.—". . . It is interesting to note that these early raids by the R.N.A.S. were the first example of bomb-dropping attacks in any war. . . ." (our italics).

If true, these statements give patriotic Britishers something else to be proud of. We say “if true" because, although given on official authority, cold calculated lying from official quarters was so boundless and impudent during the War that this may just possibly be another example of the latter military art.

When Heinrich Heine wrote nearly a century ago "It is printed, then it is untrue," he might well have been describing any Government Department in any country in time of war.

The Labour Party Conference (1936)

From the November 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party held its thirty-sixth Annual Conference at Edinburgh in October, under a woman Chairman, Mrs. Adamson. The usual complacency which characterises Labour conferences was there, though somewhat shaken by internal criticism. The debate on supporting the National Government's policy of non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War provided one example among many of deep differences inside the Labour Party. A resolution before the Conference asked for endorsement of the Executive's policy of non-intervention. Leaders supported the resolution and leaders opposed it; even members of the Executive, who were responsible for framing it, were unenthusiastic about it. All who spoke expressed their sympathy for the Spanish Government, but non-intervention was regarded as a stern duty. To supply the Spanish Government with arms, it was argued, would divide the nations of Europe into two camps, those supporting the Government and those supporting the rebels. Such a position would be dangerous and likely to lead to a European war. No speaker expressed any doubt that intervention had taken place, and that Italy and Germany had broken the neutrality agreement entered into with the governments of Great Britain, France and Russia, and had sent arms to the rebels. So the fear of war was responsible for the Executive’s decision. “It is no good talking about intervention unless you mean that you are ready to fight, and it may mean having to fight,” said Mr. Grenfell, M.P., who seconded the resolution on behalf of the Executive.

About the help given to the rebels there was no doubt in the minds of the delegates. The Chairman, in her opening address, said: “Unquestionably, the rebel forces have been assisted by the supplies they have received from and through the Fascist powers.” However, non-intervention was the order of the day, and a card vote resulted in the resolution being carried by 1,836,000 to 519,000. (Daily Herald, October 6th.)

Conference Supports, then Opposes, Non-Intervention

Having made the decision that non-intervention was preferable to the risk of war, Conference, in a few days, completely changed its mind. On Thursday, October 8th, two envoys of the Spanish Government appeared on the platform, Senor de Asua, Deputy Speaker of the Spanish Parliament, and Senora de Palencia, Madrid correspondent of the Daily Herald. They received a tumultuous welcome.  

Addressing the delegates, Senor de Asua said : "We have proof and facts that the rebels are getting arms from Germany and Italy —and that is since the non-intervention pact was made.” He further declared that the Balearic Islands were virtually in the hands of Italy, that Italians commanded rebel troops in Majorca, and that rebel warships had Germans among the crews.

Senora de Palencia gave a harrowing account of Government militiamen in the firing-line, armed only with sticks. Of the Moors, who are fighting with the rebels, she also said: “If they take a town or a village, not a woman is respected, not a church is respected." Conference was swept off its feet. Mr. Attlee and Mr. Greenwood were sent to London to interview Mr. Chamberlain, the Deputy Prime Minister, to acquaint him with the “evidence" that the non-intervention pact had been broken by Italy and Germany. The result of the interview was reported to the Conference on the last day of its sitting. Mr. Attlee submitted a long statement, which declared that: —

“The National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, having heard the report of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, together with further documented information that has been placed before it, emphatically declares its conviction that the Fascist powers have broken their pledges of non-intervention, and endorses the demand made by our leaders, that the investigation of the alleged breaches of the Spanish non-intervention agreement should be pressed forward with the utmost speed . . . and in the event of its being found that the agreement has been ineffective . . . the French and British Governments . . . should take steps forthwith to restore to the Spanish Government its right to purchase the arms necessary to maintain the authority of the constitutional Government in Spain. . . ." (Daily Herald, October 11th, 1936.)

Mr. Chamberlain had promised the investigation demanded, so Conference accepted the statement of the National Executive unanimously. The change of mind was amazing. A few days earlier the policy of non-intervention had been endorsed because of the fear that war would result from intervention. Logically the change of mind could only be justified if this fear had proved to be groundless. The opposite was the case; Conference was warned by the leaders of the “risks involved" in the change of policy.

What exactly the Labour Party expected to get by asking for investigation, it is difficult to discover. The British Government is doubtless quite well aware what has been going on, and if there have been violations of the non-intervention agreement, then, as Lord Strabolgi pointed out, the Government’s advisers will know all about it without being told by the Labour Party. Moreover, as the British Government has decided that non-intervention is in line with capitalist interests, then they will doubtless postpone investigations until such time as the facts, being disclosed officially, will no longer embarrass them. The newspapers generally reported that the second decision, to support intervention if investigations showed the allegations against Italy and Germany to be true, put delegates in a much happier mood than the earlier decision. That cannot be doubted. It is not the first time that the odd mixture of political adventurers, sentimentalists, lawyers, and happy but ignorant trade union officials, which make up the Labour Party, has salved its conscience by such a gesture. The foreign policy of the Labour Party has usually been tied to the tail of the Government which happened to be in power, and its Spanish policy has been in line with that tradition. The decision to adopt a “dangerous" policy when there is no longer any danger in it, and when it is useless to the Madrid Government it pretends to help, is typical of political hypocrisy, as rife in the Labour Party as anywhere. Russia has fallen into line with same policy of proposing to help when the time for help has passed.

The Labour Party and Armaments

Conference turned its attention to armaments. The following is part of a resolution moved by Mr. Hugh Dalton on behalf of the Executive: —

That in view of the threatening attitude of dictatorships, which are increasing their armaments at an unprecedented rate, flouting international law, and refusing to co-operate in the work of organising peace, this Conference declares that the armed strength of the countries loyal to the League of Nations must be conditioned by the armed strength of the potential aggressors.

The Conference therefore reaffirms the policy of the Labour Party to maintain such defence forces as are consistent with our country’s responsibility as a member of the League of Nations, the preservation of the people’s rights and liberties, the continuance of democratic institutions, and the observance of international law.—(Daily Herald, October 7th, 1936.) 

Lord Arnold, who was opposed to the resolution, described it as a "masterpiece of inconsistencies, ambiguities and contradictions. . . . France did not care twopence about the League, except insofar as her own interests were concerned. . . . France had been breaking pledges year after year . . . but . . . continued to pay lip service to the League." He claimed that “the resolution meant rearmament, to which Conference was asked to agree in the name of Collective Security, and because of the menace of Fascism, but after the next war there would only be another ‘ism,' new horrors and new dictatorships. . . . Another war would never settle anything."

Mr. Lansbury opposed the resolution because he did not know what it meant. The mover, he argued, had inferred that it meant that the Labour Party would support the Government’s policy of rearmament in Parliament, whilst the seconder had implied the opposite. Mr. Dalton, who moved the resolution, had said : —

“I judge that a Labour Government, if it came to power to-morrow, would have to face the world situation, and I contend it would be compelled to increase British armaments." (Daily Herald, October 7th, 1936.)

Mr. A. Henderson, who seconded, said he was a “confirmed believer in the collective peace system . . .  the past failures of the League of Nations were not due to the failure of the peace systems but to failure to apply it." He mentioned nothing about rearmament. Moreover, he omitted to explain why the failure to apply the peace system was not due to the failure of the League of Nations. Mr. Morrison, supporting the resolution, stated a viewpoint the direct opposite of Mr. Dalton’s. He said ”it did not mean the support of the Government’s national competitive rearmament programme,” and that “it was in no way a departure from the policy which this Party had approved for years past." If that were true it would be difficult to explain why delegates had spent all day airing their disagreements about it. Moreover, Mr. Morrison’s further statement of opinion, that "the totality of armaments of all the peace States, joined together for the positive organisation of peace, must bear relationship to the totality of the arms of the potential aggressors,” is about as clear as the resolution he was supporting. Mr. Morrison is known for his forthright and expressive language, but that statement compares unfavourably with many made by that genius in vacuous phrases, the late and derided leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. Who are the peace States? Who the potential aggressors? Who is going to decide? What capitalist dictatorship or democracy is there that does not proclaim its peaceful intentions? Perhaps Mr. Morrison will deal with the question some time. Brought down to reality and penetrating the vagueness (perhaps intentional), the statement points to pacts in preparation for a future war.

Mr. Attlee, in winding up the. discussion on the resolution, was almost insulting to the intelligence of the delegates. He said there was “nothing in the resolution which bound the Parliamentary Labour Party.” Thus, after a day’s discussion on a resolution which was carried by 1,738,000 votes to 657,000, the resolution was interpreted by the leaders of the Party as meaning (1) support for rearmament, (2) support for the League and Collective Security (Mr. Henderson), (3) the Status Quo (Mr. Morrison), (4) nothing (Mr. Lansbury), and (5) that it was non-committal and gave a free hand to the Parliamentary Labour Party to do what they liked about it (Mr. Attlee). Three cheers for leadership would have completed the irony of that resolution. What is astounding is that a Party which accepts “the risk of War” should be evasive about supporting a policy which provides arms to fight war.

The debate was enlivened by some acrimonious exchanges between the leaders. Mr. Bevin accused Mr. Morrison of the ”worst piece of tightrope walking” he had ever seen at a conference, and Lord Arnold expressed the hope that, in the event of war, “Mr. Noel Baker and the trade union leaders would make for the front line trenches.”

Communist Affiliation Turned Down

The resolution supporting Communist Party affiliation to the Labour Party was defeated by 1,728,000 votes to 592,000. (Daily Herald, October 9th, 1936.) Another, which asked for a “united front of all political bodies which are engaged in working-class propaganda, was defeated by 1,805,000 votes to 435,000. (Daily Herald, October 10th, 1936.)

Reference back of that part of the Executive’s report to Conference, which had declined to put a ban on the acceptance of honours, was carried by 185 votes to 174. This result was received with acclamation. A minor victory for the rank and file, but it is doubtful whether Labour M.P.s and trade union officials will be absent from the honours lists in the future.

Strangely, or perhaps significantly, there was an absence this year of resolutions recommending the nationalisation of this or that industry. What reformist proposals were dealt with were of a minor kind and limited to such proposals as the utilisation of the surplus in the unemployment insurance funds to increase benefits, the abolition of the six-day waiting period for unemployed men and women, the ”rejuvenation” of depressed areas ”by schemes of land reclamation and prevention of coast erosion.” The absence of important issues, apart from those on foreign affairs, was reflected in a petty row on a small matter between Mrs. Gould and Miss Ellen Wilkinson. The latter wanted the Executive to lead the Communist-inspired unemployed march from the depressed areas around Newcastle to London. Mrs. Gould suggested that Miss Wilkinson’s oratory, plus propaganda films, would be more suitable to draw public attention to the misery in the depressed area. Charges of lack of feeling for the unemployed were made by Miss Wilkinson, because Mrs. Gould did not agree with her.

Labour League of Youth in Trouble

The Executive’s recommendations regarding the Labour League of Youth were adopted unanimously. The main recommendations were: —

(a) Disband the National Advisory Committee of the League;

(b) Not convene the Conference of the League next Easter;

(c) Suspend the publication of the New Nation, the journal of the League; and

(d) Age limit to be 21 instead of 25.

The League had made things awkward in wanting to take part in discussing and shaping Party policy. That has been stopped. If the League appears again it will be more in the nature of a Boy Scouts organisation.

Opposition to Trade Union Dominance 

According to reports from Labour quarters, this year’s Conference was the worst in years. There was much dissatisfaction among delegates, particularly those representing the local constituency Labour Parties. One matter in particular, according to Forward (October 7th), caused critical comment: that was the way in which the trade unions, by means of the block vote, can obtain an overwhelming decision even when the majority of delegates from the constituency Labour Parties are opposed to the decision. The block vote means that trades unions affiliated to the Labour Party can vote to the full strength of their members who pay the political levy to the Labour Party. An enormous number of these are not otherwise members of the Party. The Labour League of Youth question was a typical example of the way in which the block vote operated. This was purely a domestic question concerning the Labour Party, and yet, despite the fact that a majority of the constituency party delegates were in favour of a resolution to retain the age for membership of the League of Youth at 25, it was defeated by 1,731,000 votes to 542,000. A meeting of 250 angry constituency delegates was held under the chairmanship of Sir Stafford Cripps after the Conference had closed. The result was that a committee was set up to go into the question of the relationship of the trades unions and the Labour Party. As a result, the Executive Committee will be presented with demands for a number of reforms. The chief demands will be: —

(1) That the election of the constituency party representatives be made only by delegates of the constituency parties.

(2) An alteration in the present basis of representation which would give constituency parties a greater voice in party matters at annual conferences.

(3) That there should be a variation of the present method of card voting.— Forward, October 17th, 1936.)

'Strange that the demand for democracy should be heard in the Labour Party in the 36th year of its existence!

It may be that the Labour Party has passed the peak of its strength, that it will never again be the Government except in coalition with the Liberals or some other capitalist group. The uncertainty and lack of confidence among the leaders at Edinburgh certainly seemed to indicate that they were conscious of this. That arrogant self-assurance in themselves as the saviours of mankind, which characterised conferences in the days before there was the least chance of them becoming the Government, is now completely absent. Each succeeding annual conference exposes more clearly the non-Socialist character of the Labour Party. The result is discontent among numbers of its members, who, because of their lack of understanding, had expected something quite different from the Labour Party when it grew to strength and influence.

The harm the Labour Party has done to the cause of Socialism can only be cleared up by Socialist understanding. That is the task of the Socialist Party.

Harry Waite

Mr. D. N. Pritt and the Russian Trial (1936)

Pamphlet Review from the November 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Pritt has written a pamphlet entitled “The Zinoviev Trial." The purpose of this pamphlet is to refute allegations that the Russian terrorist trial was not conducted fairly and urging that the sixteen executed were, in fact, guilty of the charges. In other words, it is Mr. Pritt's contention that the trial was not in any sense a frame-up.

We do not share Mr. Pritt's view, and there is nothing in his pamphlet that gives us sound reasons for doing so. On the first page he tells us he has studied the whole of the available material and has the advantage of professional training and he feels forgiving towards critics who have had to rely on the very condensed reports that have reached this country. He also adds that he was present at the trial. If by condensed reports Mr. Pritt signifies those like the Russian official report that has been issued, then we would point out that Mr. Pritt's pamphlet adds nothing to our information on the subject.

We will take some of Mr. Pritt's points and examine them as examples of the nature of his defence.

First of all he deals with the abjectness and eagerness of the confessions of Zinoviev and his associates. At the beginning he attempts to explain them on the ground of race. He argues that to us the confessions make curious reading only because we don't do those things. This is surely a curious argument and can just as well be used to defend any enormities committed by the Russian Government itself.

He informs us that his friends in Russia tell him that it is common for prisoners there to plead guilty when the evidence is overwhelming against them, and he adds:—

. . .  I am bound to say, as some confirmation of this assertion, that in conversations I have held in Soviet prisons with accused persons awaiting trial on substantial charges, I have not infrequently been struck by the readiness with which they have stated to me, in the presence of warders, that they are guilty and cannot complain if they are punished. (Page 6.) (Italics ours.)

The above statement in itself is sufficient to put out of court all Mr. Pritt’s psychological arguments (in spite of his professional training), and he evidently has no idea of what people will do when in fear. The suggestion is that prisoners are terrorised into making confessions and he replies that they confessed to him—in the presence of warders! What did he expect them to do?

There is a further point to be noted in Mr. Pritt’s statement. Why were warders present when he interviewed prisoners—was it that they could not trust him or them? Perhaps they were afraid the prisoners might not have confessed if left alone with Mr. Pritt! It would be interesting to know if any foreign journalist or Mr. Pritt had any private interviews with any of the Zinoviev group before or during the trial. And, if not, why not?

In reply to the criticism of the private nature of the preliminary investigations, Mr. Pritt points out that the same procedure is adopted in many European countries. Either he overlooks or does not understand the meaning of his statement on page 2 that Russia is a Socialist country. If this statement were true then Russian procedure should be ahead of the most democratic capitalist countries instead of being behind many of them.

Explaining the paucity of the evidence brought forward at the trial Mr. Pritt argues that as the prisoners pleaded guilty it was only necessary to decide upon the degree of their guilt and, hence, only evidence in this direction was considered. We have already dealt with this point in last month's Socialist Standard, and we only mention it here to bring in the following quotation from the pamphlet: —

One can well imagine that the Soviet Government, so far as concerns the point of view of properly informing foreign criticism, would much have preferred that all or most of the accused should have pleaded not guilty and contested the case. (Page 9.)

This is an excellent example of Mr. Pritt's reasoning. May we ask him what prevented the Soviet Government from giving the evidence in full for the benefit of foreign criticism? Surely it is not suggested that the prisoners would have objected ! Either the statement is a meaningless piece of bluff or else there were serious reasons preventing the bringing forward of the alleged evidence.

On page 10 we have another example of legal reasoning that is a jewel.

To give an example, it was part of the prosecution's case that two of the accused had had a conversation in which a highly incriminating phrase was used; the two accused in question, by no means friendly to one another, each admitted that such a conversation had taken place and that the incriminating words were used, but each of them said that the other was the actual author of the phrase. It does not require much experience in the weighing of evidence to realise that such a circumstance as that offers considerable evidence of the guilt, and considerable reinforcement to the plea of guilty, of either or both of the accused in question.

Surely the conclusion is absurd. Why did the accused admit that a conversation had taken place which only themselves knew about ? (What was the “weight of evidence" that forced this confession?) If the case was framed what better way to make it appear genuine than to introduce trumpery disagreements that did not affect the main charge? If they each said the other used the incriminating words then either or both may be liars. As the accused were alleged to have examined the evidence before the case opened they all knew what was coming forward at the trial. Finally, if it is not known who used the incriminating phrase it is no evidence of the guilt of either.

Yet another example of Mr, Pritt's reasoning powers is contained in the following two quotations. It will be noticed that in the first quotation he asserts that it would be impossible to procure a confession from, or to trick into confessing, men of the calibre of the defendants. In the second quotation he says it would be easy to do so!

If it were the practice of the People’s Commissariat for Home Affairs, which has taken over the staff and the functions of the G.P.U., to extract confessions by false promises of lenient treatment . . . surely no one would be better able to estimate the complete worthlessness of such a promise under the circumstances of this case than the experienced revolutionaries whom I saw in the dock. If, again, it were the practice of this department to attempt to extract confessions by violence . . . no one would be better able than these men to support the violence, and subsequently to expose it before the world in the sure hope of discrediting their enemies and gaining sympathy for themselves. If any trickery or deceit, simple or complicated, were employed in an effort to entrap any of these men into confession, surely they would be better fitted than anyone else on earth to detect and circumvent the plot. (Page 12.)

Such men as the critics suggest that Stalin is, would not have hesitated for a moment; they would have procured a confession, a simple enough task. It only involved a promise of leniency; or some simple trick like telling each of them that the other has confessed. (Page 18.)

In the first quotation it is stated that no one would be better able to withstand violence than the accused. This may be true, but there are forms of torture well known to the Bolsheviks (such as what is called the Chinese and the Ukrainian) which it is doubtful whether anyone could withstand. The threat of the continuance of either would make the present writer confess anything and yearn for the shooting party. Further, if the violence is sufficiently effective to extract a confession, then it is almost certain that the threat of its continuance would be enough to deter any attempts at exposure. Anyhow, to whom would the exposure be made? There were only some foreign journalists, some young Communists and safe Government supporters present at the trial. As Mr. Pritt does not say anything about having interviewed the prisoners we take it that this was not possible. If it was possible, and he did not attempt to interview them, then he is wrong when he says he examined all the available evidence. Mr. Pritt is evidently quite blind to the influence of violence and hence makes such statements as the following: —

Why are we not to assume, of such men as these, that if they said nothing against the Government and against the investigators, and nothing in favour of themselves, it was because there was nothing to be said? (Page 16.)

It is just because they said nothing against the Government, and so forth, that the business points strongly to a frame-up. There are people who, on Mr. Pritt's own admission, held to their policy to the last, and were only forced at the very end to admit complicity in a terrorist attack on officials of a Government they were denouncing. As they had confessed two or three times before, they could hardly be considered “of contrite heart," and yet they give fulsome praise to the opponents who, they know, are going to shoot them! It will take more than Mr. Pritt’s simple views on racial differences to explain that.

On page 17, Mr. Pritt asks indignantly, referring to this "Socialist ” country: —

Is it part of the duty of the judicial authorities to publish reports showing exactly how they have conducted preliminary investigations of which the persons who are at once most interested and best informed, viz., the accused, make no complaint?

But why not publish such reports? Particularly when there is so much suspicion. Further, may we ask if Mr. Pritt knows anything about the methods employed in getting confessions? It is surely a strange thing that there are so many abject confessions, so much purging in Russia, and that when it is suggested that Bukharin, Rakovsky and Radek were implicated, that all of them should so anxiously have screamed for the death penalty on the prisoners. What develops this fearful apprehension in men who were not afraid of methods of the Czarist police? On page 20, Mr. Pritt says that the confessions were the prudent course of clear-headed men. Where does the prudence lie in clearing the path to the grave ?

On page 24, Mr. Pritt speaks of the “genuinely corroborative evidence which . . . can be deduced from the indictment and from such evidence as was brought into court.” Why does he not give us some of it? If the arguments in the pamphlet are intended as such then they do nothing to clear the air.

Referring to a suggestion that a lawyer sometimes might not “pull his weight” for an accused out of fear of the Government, Mr. Pritt writes as follows: —

Whether there is anything in it in the U.S.S.R. or not is, of course, not easy to say; all that I can contribute to its elucidation is that I investigated it with care four years ago, and came to the conclusion that a political defendant had as good a chance of getting reliable council in the U.S.S.R., as anywhere else. . . . I may, of course, have been wrong, although I do not think I was. (Page 32.) (Italics ours.)

Again, this is supposed to be a “Socialist" country, and they stood, at best, no better chance —but he is not sure—he only thinks so!

He also adds that he does not know where in the world a counsel could be found with a command over Russian sufficient to follow such a fast trial full of cross-questioning, etc. Yet, in spite of the difficulties and speed of the trial, Mr. Pritt, who is not a Russian scholar, claims to have been able to follow it closely enough to be convinced of its genuineness!

Towards the end of the pamphlet he makes some remarks on the Russian judicial system, designed to suggest that prisoners have as much chance in a Soviet court as elsewhere: —

The independence of judges and advocates is being constantly increased, and already compares favourably with that prevailing in many European countries. (Page 29-30.) (Italics ours.)

This statement is significant in a sense not intended. Does it mean that now the position compares favourably with, say, Italy, Germany, Poland and Austria?

Every foreign critic who has studied the Soviet legal system has reported that, taken as a whole, it is good and fair; everyone who studies it at all knows that year by year it progresses steadily towards greater facilities for the prisoner, greater independence of judges and counsel, and greater technical efficiency. (Page 30.)

Now let us compare the above with the remarks on the same subject of one who spent years in Russia, wrote considerably about it when there, and was always regarded as a sympathetic observer. The remarks are contained in an article entitled, "Paradise Imagined,” by W. H. Chamberlin, published in The American Mercury for September, 1936. The quotation is a long one, but we think is too interesting to cut:—

But no sketch of the position of the Soviet lawyer is remotely adequate if it fails to show that he is definitely inhibited from performing one of his most useful and honourable functions; the protection of the individual against the injustice of the State. In democratic countries, even in Czarist Russia, lawyers have always been able to undertake this duty.

It would be impossible to point to a single case in recent years in the Soviet Union where a lawyer has offered an outspoken, vigorous defence of a political prisoner. Yet this is not because evidence of grotesque injustice has been lacking. One need only recall the Ramzin sabotage trial of 1930, when two men, Ryabushinsky and Vishnegradsky, were solemnly indicted for conspiring to set up a counter-revolutionary government in Russia years after they had been dead and buried. The outside world roared with laughter when it learned of this illuminating slip. But neither the attorneys for the defence in the farcical trial nor anyone else in the Soviet Courtroom saw fit to mention it.

. . . But it would be simply unthinkable for a Soviet lawyer, assigned to “defend” a political prisoner, to emphasise damaging weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, or to publish in a legal journal a vigorous denunciation of the frequent practice of arbitrary arrest and exile without trial. The immense force for individual security and common decency, the vast bulwark against personal spite and bureaucratic tyranny, represented by an independent judiciary and by lawyers who can put forth their best efforts on behalf of political defendants without fear of being sent to concentration camps, simply do not exist in the Soviet Union. (Page 11.)

This is a far different picture from that presented by Mr. Pritt!

Mr. Pritt claims to have studied all the available evidence, to have been present at the trial, and to be peculiarly fitted by legal training to understand this case, and yet, on page 19, when going over the previous history of the accused, he only mentions one previous occasion on which they were concerned in a terrorist trial, Kameneff is reported as saying: —

I am now before the court for the third time, accused of terrorist intentions. (Final Statement.)

Why has Mr. Pritt failed to mention this third trial ? A letter appeared in the Manchester Guardian of October 7th, which gives us some information on this point. The writer is Anton Ciliga, at one time a member of the Politburo, who left Russia at the end of last year. The following extract from his letter deals with the matter in question: —

Nor was there any mention of a trial which took place between that of the murderer of Kiroff and the recent Moscow trial, at the beginning of the summer of 1936. Not a word about this trial had been allowed, at the time, to appear in the Soviet Press. The charge was of attempted assassination of Stalin; Zinovieff and Kameneff were among the defendants. The case ended with the shooting of two of the defendants, a G.P.U. official and an officer of the Kremlin guard; 36 men were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Kameneff’s term was prolonged to five years, (Zinovieff was acquitted. This whole affair was also left entirely unmentioned in the recent trial. The only indirect reference to it—Kameneff’s statement that he was appearing for the third time, in a proletarion court of justice, on a charge of terrorism—was carefully cut out of the foreign Communist reports.

There is still a host of questionable statements and frail reasoning in Mr. Pritt’s pamphlet, but what we have dealt with should be sufficient to give the reader an idea of the weakness of Mr. Pritt’s case.

Gilmac.