By The Way. (1917)

The By The Way Column from the August 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

The points of view expressed in the papers by those who sit in authority over us are indeed illuminating. On the subject of “alien enemies” some queer things are said. While there are some who advocate the internment of all such persons, others are prepared to let them be at large so long as they can be employed and as a result of this “an Englishman would be released to fight.”

In this connection I recently read that a chairman of a Tribunal asked a baker who raised the question of the difficulty of obtaining labour why he did not employ Germans. The applicant replied by asking whether it was advisable, and said that if the public knew it they would raid the shop. Then with profound wisdom the chairman delivered himself of the following :

“I think it is short-sighted on the part of the public. If a German were employed an Englishman would be released to fight.”—”Evening News,” July 12th, 1917.

* * *

The General Federation of Trade Unions announces a conference to consider the question of soldiers’ and sailors’ pay. “One of the demands is that the minimum net allowance of any British Soldier as from July 1 shall be 3s. per day ; and also that the Government provides and pays from July 1 1917, all allotments to wives and other dependents.”—”Daily News,” July 20th, 1917.

Presumably the General Federation regards 3s. per day as being the trade union rate of wages for one body of workers going forth to slaughter other workers with whom they have no quarrel, whom they have never even met, at the behest and in the interest of their lords and masters. What Lloyd George thinks of this “audacity” I wait to see.

* * *

Mr. F. G. Kellaway, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Munitions, addressed a meeting of the allied engineering trades at Luton a short time ago on the subject of dilution of labour. He also referred to the recent strike and the causes which led up to this event. Deploring the fact that there was a deep-rooted suspicion in the minds of many trade unionists that dilution on private work, once introduced, would not be got rid of, but would remain as a regular practice after the termination of hostilities, he went on to say :

“The proceedings in the House of Commons on the Dilution Bill were not fully reported in the Press, so that the Government’s case for the Bill was only imperfectly brought before the men.

In this connection, I would say that the Government has, in many respects, suffered from the limitations which the shortage of paper has placed on the space which the Press is able to devote to these large questions. I have for a long time held the opinion that the paper shortage has been a serious handicap to the Government in keeping the country fully informed of the considerations which guide their policy.”—”Daily Telegraph,” July 9th, 1917.

Now really this is all swank. The Press and the censor make a studious practice of giving as little space as possible to these questions affecting the conditions of labour of large numbers of workers. In this very issue of the “Daily Telegraph,” which is typical of many others, there are 47½ columns devoted to advertising matter, 2½ columns relating to the money market and market reports, and 34 columns of general information ; therefore out of a total of 84 columns no less than 50 are utilised for advertising purposes. Shortage of paper, forsooth ! Next please.

* * *

A month or two since there appeared in our journal an article dealing with two plays (“Ghosts” and “Damaged Goods”) which were then running at London theatres. The why and the wherefore was then fully dealt with. I return to the subject to quote the following :

“It is a sign of the times that there are now running in London two plays which deal with the subject of venereal disease. Even four years ago such a thing would have seemed impossible, and thirty-six years ago, when “Ghosts” was received with a storm of violent abuse, few could have foreseen how public opinion would change towards it. The reason is mainly to be found in the propaganda world which led to the appointment of the Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases.”— “British Medical Journal,” June 6th, 1917.

* * *

From recent happenings in the House one is reminded of the Pleasant Sunday Afternoon performances and the heart-to-heart talks for men at the local tin Bethel. In the early part of July Mr. Bonar Law made a statement with regard to his duties as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said : “A statement of his that he did not think it was his business to spend his time in trying to save £100 here and £100 there had been held up as very reprehensible, but at a time when we were spending millions daily the functions of a Chancellor of the Exchequer were much better exercised in trying to get a good system of expenditure and in getting the right men to carry out that system than in trying to cut down £100 here and there. . . .

“He certainly would not have taken up the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had not thought he was capable of performing its duties. He had no object in doing so on any other terms.

In the first place he was not fond of work. (Laughter.) For the last twenty-five years at least he had never done any which he could either persuade or pay somebody else to do for him.”

— “Daily Telegraph,” July 7th, 1917.

There’s candour for you. It calls to mind the wag who said that “only fools and horses work.” Working men run the boats and Bonar pockets “divi.” When will we awake from our slumber ?

* * *

On the question of freights and food Mr. Bonar Law made a more significant admission. While he told his audience that he “was really ashamed to make the confession,” and he “thought it was disgraceful that in a time of war any class should be able to make the profits he would describe,” I have not observed that he has endeavoured to obtain absolution by giving these ertra profits to the Lord’s poor, or even to the “heroes broken in our war.” However, it’s never too late to spend—or to buy war loan. Mr. Law continued :

“The sum of money he had invested was £8,100 and, at 5 per cent,. interest that would produce £405 a year. For the year 1915, instead of £405, he received £3,624, and in 1916 he received £3,847. That was not the whole story. One of the steamers in which he was interested had been sold or sunk— he was not sure which. (Laughter.) In that ship he had £200, and after the very handsome dividends he had received he received in liquidation a cheque for a little over £1,000. There was another shipping company in which he had invested £350, and the other day he had received a letter from the owners saying that they were going to make a division of the surplus capital. For the £350 which he had invested he had received a cheque for £1,005.”

—”Daily News,” July 4th, 1917.

This quotation is rather lengthy, but to condense it would be to spoil it. Our masters and their hirelings glibly talk, about “equality o! sacrifice,” and the while are enriching themselves enormously whilst increased hardships are the lot of the majority of the workers. Think it over.

* * *

During the debate on an amendment on the new Franchise Bill Mr. Harold Smith objected to conscientious objectors having a vote. Though he admitted that in the majority of instances the objectors were genuine, a significant admission, although somewhat late—still he would not give them the vote. Another M.P. interrupting

“Asked the hon. member why he was not serving as he was of military age. 

That is a matter for which I shall answer to my own conscience, replied Mr. Harold Smith.”

—”Daily News,” June 27th, 1917.

So you see there is still some unconscious humour left in the world. One conscientious objector (the “Scout,” for instance) is so much beneath the contempt of the patriot (Mr. Harold Smith, for example) that he may not even have a vote to cast for or against another conscientious objector (again it might be Mr. Harold Smith) taking a seat in the House of Commons.

* * *

In the early days of the war the drink question loomed large in many speeches that were then made by the Rt. Hon. David Lloyd George. For every shortcoming of the Government and lack of essential materials wherewith to wage war our old friend “Bung” was blamed. The workers in very truth, according to the Welsh Messiah, were sodden in drink, even as Mr. Philip Snowden had declared some time before. Said the Welsh Rarebit: “Drink is doing more damage in the war than all the German submarines put together.” Then he was prepared to take a pledge of abstinence from the strong drink that was raging, and the newspaper editors, in their usual fawning manner, dished tip a large announcement that the King had also banned alcoholic liquor from the Royal Household. Now a different tale is told. It is inexpedient to deal too drastically with this question.

On this interesting theme, I notice there is another gentleman who is greatly concerned about the workers’ thirst for malt food in liquid form. One, Will Thorne, recently returned from a trip to Russia, has written to the King with regard to the shortage of beer. From a bright, brief, and brotherly reply I notice that Bill has been informed by the King’s Secretary that—

“The question of the shortage of beer, especially during the summer months, is one which demands careful and prompt consideration. I am passing your letter to Lord Rhondda, and adding that the matter is one which the King hopes will be dealt with in a considerate manner.”

Simply marvellous, isn’t it ? Doubtless the question of munitions and ship-building, and kindred problems, have all been satisfactorily solved ere this, and once again we can all join in singing praises to “Beer, beer, glorious beer.”

* * *

In our Declaration of Principles we state that “In society . . . there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle, between those who possess but do not produce, and those who produce but do not possess.” Addressing an assembly at the Aldwych Club recently, Lord Leverhulme, of soap fame, put forward a plea for shorter working hours, advocating a six-hour day and a system of co-partnership. Whether he had been reading the Socialist Standard I cannot say, but at least the truth of the extract quoted above is accepted by him. He informed his hearers that :

“There was no possibility of reconciling the opposing claims of capital and labour. They must be fused. Co-partnership was the solution.”

And again—

“Machinery should be worked twelve hours a day, by two six-hour shifts of workers. Output of material would be increased, and, at the same time, the wear and tear of the human body would be lessened.”—”Daily News,” July 11th, 1917.

One is tempted to ask whether, in those firms where these “opposing claims” are “fused,” the workers carry home as much of the swag as the owners of the factory and the plant necessary for the production of the commodity, and if not why not. And further, if there is any guaranteed continuity of employment. The reply, of course, is obviously in the negative. A study of the co-partnership snare reveals the fact that the wage-slave, no matter what the conditions are which surround his employment, is robbed of his product, and that co-partnery contains all the evils inherent in the capitalist system. The solution of the “opposing claims” is by a triumphant working class obtaining political power and converting these privately owned but socially manipulated means of wealth production into the common property of society for the good of all.

* * *

The trip of a princess to Southend a short while ago has brought to light a good illustration of official ignorance. It will be remembered that on the occasion of this joy ride rumour asserted that a fleet of aeroplanes accompanied the train. At a meeting of munition workers at Plumstead the statement was made in a question addressed to Dr. Addison, asking him if such was the case. He then replied that—

“The question has been considered by the Cabinet and there is not a word of truth in the statement.”

The question was then transferred to the House of Commons. Mr. Macpherson replying stated that “there was not an escort by any aeroplanes of the R.F.C.” Then came a letter from the private Secretary of the Queen to the Mayor of Southend with the significant admission that “Her Royal Highness . . . was greatly interested in the fleet of aeroplanes which escorted the special train during the latter part of the journey.” Finally Mr. Macpherson made another statement in the House on the subject, when he said:

“In a reply he gave on Wednesday he said that no R.F.C. aeroplanes escorted Princess Mary on her visit to Southend, but this answer, he regretted to say, was incorrect. It was given after the usual reference to the R.F.C. and Home Defence Corps. Neither of their authorities was able to find any foundation for the story at the moment.” 

“Daily News,” July 20th, 1917.

Such are the specimens of official replies of the win-the-war government.

* * *

The case of an objector to military service “who was confined in a pit 12 feet below the level of the ground for eleven days and nights in Cleethorpe's Camp and for four days of that time was obliged to stand ankle deep in mud and water,” was recently brought to the notice of the Under Secretary for War. At first the right hon. gentleman was not aware of such a trivial happening as this and would have to make enquiries. Eventually this was done and we read :

“Mr. Macpherson replied that he regretted to say the allegations made were substantially correct. The case arose in the first place because the man was not given the option of a trial by court-martial, but was dealt with summarily by the commanding officer ; and, secondly, because having been awarded detention, he was not committed to a detention Barracks in accordance with the regular practice. . . . The Army Council took a grave view of the action of the authorities responsible and were considering what further action in the matter should be taken.”—”Daily News,” July 20th, 1917.

Now in the light of the foregoing who would not agree that “Kind, kind, and gentle are we” in our treatment of those with whom we disagree ? Even Stanton would have them put out of existence more speedily by having them shot !

* * *

The “Daily News,” in a leaderette of the same date asks : “What evidence does the War Office possess that this ‘irregularity’ is isolated, and that other conscientious objectors in other camps are not being similarly tortured ? In the second place, it would be interesting to hear what punishment has been inflicted on the officers who ordered, sanctioned, or tolerated this abominable cruelty. Military punishments are notoriously severe. What have they amounted to in this case ? The answer will show how far the War Office are sincere in their professed efforts to put down brutalities of this description.”

* * *

The revolting story of the Mesopotamian campaign, brought to light as the result of the work of the commission appointed to enquire into this ghastly military tragedy, emphasised once again the callousness engendered by militarism. To apportion blame to a few individuals is to tinker with the subject. Everyone who shouts for the war stands condemned, jointly and individually, and must shoulder his or her part of the responsibility. No wonder Lloyd George wanted the matter hushed up and says “Get on with the war.”

* * *

The capitulation of Lord Derby before the Select Committee on the Re-examination of rejected men is an admission of the truth of the allegations laid at the door of the War Office with regard to the methods of the military and the medical boards in taking up the halt, the lame and the blind. The transfer of power to a civilian body looks all right on the face of it, but is it merely a case of the doctor discarding a khaki uniform for a civilian garb ?

* * *

A leading article appearing in the “Weekly Dispatch,” June 10th, 1917, dealt at great length with the questions of peace and reconstruction. After pointing out that during the war there had been equality of sacrifice in regard to the risk of loss of life and limb, the writer went on to say that when the demobilisation takes place it would not be on such a large scale as many people now believed. He continued :

“For instance, 5,000,000 soldiers and sailors will not be at once thrown upon the labour market, nor will 3,500,000 munition workers at once lose their employment. The terms of peace may be such as to make it essential for us to maintain large armies and munition factories for many years to come.”

What, then, becomes of the oft-repeated phrase about this being the “war to end war” ? And further, what is to be said of those who are still advocating the “knock-out” blow.

The article goes on to speak of the war which we Socialists are engaged in—the class war. It says :

“We have two separate and distinct wars in progress—one which the-whole nation is waging, and one which has been going on for some years and not one whit less bitter—the war that has been and is still going on is between the employer and employed. 

If we are to be ready for the world peace one day to come, to be ready once more to take up the challenge of the rest of the world, and once more to enter into the great battle for trade, then the peace between the employer and employed must be signed before the peace between the nations now at war.

Let us be under no delusion; there WILL be a temporary lack of employment while we are putting our house in order; there will be a shortage of food for months after the war, as the various governments will require as many ships as are now b«ing used to take back the men to their different destinations; and as for prices, a man must be indeed an optimist if he believes that the cost of essentials will for many years, if ever, return to the 1914 level.”

Here, then, is a frank confession from an inspired source of the benefits held out to the mass of the people for giving their support to capitalist society—hard work for some, unemployment for many others, and semi-starvation for all. Join then with us for its abolition, and institute in its place social co-operation.

* * *

How the satellites of the win-the-war government carry on their recruiting methods is indeed a sorry spectacle. The harrying of the unfit, the halt, the maimed, and the blind is now quite a commonplace feature of militarism (English variety). In spite of all their protestations that such things have been magnified, and that, like the small boys caught sneaking the apples, “we won’t do it again, sir,” many accounts are yet to hand of these outrages on a long-suffering public. A recent one describes the case of a cripple called up for service. It states :

“A farce and an abuse of the process of the court” were the terms in which Mr. Bingley, the magistrate at Marylebone, described the action of the authorities in summoning Horace Ingram as an absentee under the Military Service Act.

It was stated that Ingram had been an invalid from birth, suffered from curvature of the spine, had lain for three years on a steel frame, and was wearing a steel plate in his mouth to enable him to speak properly.

It was a monstrous thing and a great shame, said the magistrate in dismissing the charge, to put such a case in the hands of the police, and the military authorities had not the courtesy to attend in support of the charge.”— “Lloyds Weekly News,” Aug. 5th, 1917.

The fourth year of war finds our masters still in a state of chaos and hard put to it to find sufficient cannon fodder to prosecute the “war of liberty.” When will the Government comb out their friends in the House and the others who have recently discovered that they are engaged in work of national importance ? Hush ! Is it only the working class they want slaughtered ?

The Scout.

Knees bend! (1950)

From the July 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our propaganda activities we often point out that education is subordinated to needs of capitalism.

The vast sums of money spent on universities and education in general are spent, in the main, to ensures steady supply of efficient wage slaves.

Recently, in Glasgow, at a conscientious objector’s court, during a hearing given to a young doctor who was opposed to becoming part of the military machine, evidence was supplied by a Professor McRobert of the Glasgow University, which helps to substantiate our assertions.

The doctor who had registered for military service on first taking up medicine, had changed his views on the army somewhat by the time he had qualified six years later, in, 1950, with the result, he registered as a Conscientious Objector when he became a doctor.

Professor McRobert who was in the court during the hearing made the following comment to the doctor, “If you had not registered for military service you would have been rejected. You kept out another man who would have been willing to do this work ” (Glasgow Evening News, May 1, 1950). When this statement is examined it is obvious that the democracy the tribunals are so fond of reminding C.O.s about, does not exist in the university. An applicant for admission to the medical profession could be most capable in every respect, but unless he bows the knee to the state his entry is barred.

What better proof could be offered against those apologists for capitalism, who say that the clever and the industrious are assured of success and that this wonderful system makes for the survival of the fittest.

BEE VEE

Blogger's Note:

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that 'BEE VEE' was a one off pen-name for Glasgow Branch's Bert Vallar. The giveaway is the quotation from the Glasgow Evening News.

Film Review: Hacksaw Ridge (2025)

Film Review from the March 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hacksaw Ridge is a 2016 film about Desmond Doss, a conscientious objector who served as a U.S. Army medic during the Second World Slaughter. He saved 75 lives during the Battle of Okinawa and became the first conscientious objector to win the Medal of Honour (the U.S. version of the Victoria Cross). The title refers to the cliff the U.S. Army climbed over to attack the Japanese during that battle.

Desmond Doss was a Seventh-Day Adventist (a Christian who believes the sabbath is Saturday instead of Sunday) who decides to join the Army as a combat medic (because he wants to save lives instead of take them). However, his training requires him to learn how to use a rifle, which he refuses to do. His refusal to hold a weapon forms the main conflict of the film. This is a spoiler-free review, so I won’t go into the specific reasons why Doss refuses to hold a weapon (although it’s connected to the 6th biblical commandment of ‘thou shalt not kill’).

Firstly, I must mention that the writing, filmmaking, and acting are all marvellous. The violence in this film is gory, but not too gory. Vince Vaughn gives an especially great performance as the sergeant of Doss’s unit (this is helped by the character being semi-comedic). IMO, the best part of the film is when Doss saves the life of a wounded Japanese soldier, because it shows that he regards the Japanese soldiers as human (and not as the ‘enemy’, contrary to war propaganda).

However, there are three quotations from this film that socialists would take exception to:

1. Early on, Doss’s brother joins the army (to serve in WW2) much to the disappointment of their parents; especially their father who served in the First World Slaughter and lost all his friends in that conflict. In that scene, their mother mentions the 6th commandment to his brother, to which he replies: ‘It’s not killing if it’s a war’.
2. When Doss is explaining to his superior officer why he refuses to hold a weapon (because of the 6th commandment), the latter replies: ‘Most people take that to mean don’t commit murder’.
3. Finally, in that same scene, the superior officer says: ‘What we’re fighting is worse than Satan’. A socialist response to the first two quotations is that killing is killing (it doesn’t matter whether it’s sanctioned by the state or not). With regards to the third quotation, I would understand (in a way) where he was coming from if they were fighting against Nazi Germany, but to call the Japanese worse than Satan is blatant brainwashing.

In conclusion, despite the war propaganda, this is a good film about an incredibly brave man who did the right thing but for the wrong reason.

Matthew Shearn

By the Way: Women’s Sickness in Wartime (1945)

The By The Way Column from the July 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Women’s Sickness in Wartime

A committee headed by Mr. S. Wyatt, D.Sc., working under the Industrial Health Research Board of the Medical Research Council, have made a study of certified sickness absence among 20,000 women in industry. They concluded that: —

“Psychological disorders were most frequent and severe among married women with family responsibilities and among those employed since early in the war. . . . Leaves granted every three months to soldiers stationed in Britain eased the strain for some women, and many remarked that they had never had so many holidays, and doubted whether they could carry on without them.”—(Evening Standard, March 16th.)

They may confidently anticipate a very long holiday very shortly. As their trouble, according to the committee, is largely “psychological” (blessed word), they won’t mind themselves, or their soldier husbands, being on the dole.

“Freedom from Want” (40 per cent. Freedom)

Profits of the Dunlop Rubber Co. for 1944 amounted to £2,615,700.

The dividend on Ordinary stock is maintained at 8 per cent. The profit for 1943 was £2,765,797.

Ever-Ready Co. Net profit £588,935. Final ordinary dividend of 25 per cent. again makes 40 per cent.

Pressed Steel Earnings : after £420,000 for tax net profits up from £180,390 to £195,005. Ordinary dividend maintained at 27½ per cent. by final payment of 17½ per cent.—(Glasgow Evening News, May 16th, 1945).

Another Atrocity Camp

Under the heading “Objectors Camp found” the Evening Standard (April 28th), reports as follows : —

“American troops clearing out a pocket near the city of Wewelburg, miles behind the front, discovered a military installation no one dreamed existed in Nazi Germany—a camp for conscientious objectors.

How many people inhabited the camp is still unknown, for only 41 men survived at the time it was discovered. It was operated by S.S. troops, and also served as a concentration camp and crematorium.”

“Single Out—and Destroy”

A document has come into your correspondent’s hands which could not have been adversely commented on two weeks ago (May 17th). It is Montgomery’s letter to all officers and men in 21st Army Group on non-fraternisation.

Apart from repeating the current fairy story that World War II. broke out because the Peace Conference, after World War I., was “soft,” and the troops of the Armies of Occupation in 1919 were simpletons (“many soldiers were adopted in German households”): it goes on “There are Allied organisations whose work it is to single out, separate and destroy the dangerous elements in German life.” This is almost word for word the formula for the Gestapo, the Ovra, in Italy and the Ogpu in Russia. In other words, it is the time-honoured task of that hated institution—the secret, police. Thus the Ogpu was proclaimed “The Flaming Sword of the Revolution, to destroy its enemies.”

The convenient thing for the secret police which are called the “Security Police” in the British Army is, that they very largely decide who is the “dangerous element.” God help any poor devil with a funny nose, cross eye, crippled leg or some other abnormality which makes him conspicuous—as Marx indicated quoting the reports of British correspondents after the crushing of the Commune of Paris, 1871, unless he has wealthy or high-born German friends.

Thus the British Army has removed the “Gestapo”—and replaced it by the “Fiesepo”—Field Security Police.

Horatio.

Cannon fodder needed (2024)

From the May 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

In The Big Engine, by sci-fi writer Fritz Leiber, the protagonist posits his theory that people were ‘just machines, set to do a certain job and then quietly rust away.’

So no surprise to find a capitalist-supporting politician appealing to the hang ‘em, flog ‘em brigade who begrudges ‘their’ taxes keeping the ‘work-shy’ in supposed idle luxury whilst they themselves resent their wage slavery drudgery.

‘Young jobseekers who repeatedly turn down work should be conscripted for two years’, a Tory MP has said. Richard Drax, a member of the Commons Defence Select Committee, said there is a growing issue with work-shy youngsters: ‘In some cases, particularly among some of the young, they have got to a point where, for whatever reason, they’re not prepared to contribute to our country and to serve their country. If they can’t be encouraged to do that, then maybe we’ve got to a point where they should be told to do so.’

What would, once upon a time, be surprising is that Labour Party politicians, (not even making a pretence at being a working-class party any more), is as evangelistic in its support for the capitalist system and for capitalists.

Not only does capitalism need bodies, to produce and to be exploited, but it also needs cannon fodder.

The ‘war machines’ are becoming more vociferous and more insistent. Many more establishment voices, here and abroad, are ingraining the idea of a forthcoming war – probably with Russia and the necessity to protect the Motherland, ie, capitalist interests, either through voluntary swelling of the military or through compulsion. Understandable if, as an exploited class, you ask, in the manner of the The People’s Front of Judea, what’s the motherland ever done for us?

Richard Drax lays it out plainly – ‘And if they’ve refused three offers of a job, or whatever the number would be, and they say ‘I’m sorry, I’m not doing any of that’, you then say – in which case you must go and do two years in the Armed Forces’ (Daily Express 12 March).

Sir Alex Younger, an ex-head of MI6: ‘Britons have been “infantilised” since the end of the Cold War and the Government should consider having the power to “compel” people to serve’ (MailOnline 5 April).

General Sir Patrick Sanders, the outgoing Chief of the General Staff opined that ‘British citizens should be ‘trained and equipped’ to fight in a potential war with Russia – as Moscow plans on ‘defeating our system and way of life.’ It’s not known if he was pointing his finger Lord Kitchener style when warning that ‘increasing army numbers in preparation for a potential conflict would need to be a ‘whole-of-nation undertaking’.’

SkyNews said the comments are being read as a warning that British men and women should be ready for a call-up to the armed forces if NATO goes to war with Russia. It comes after Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said in a speech earlier that we are ‘moving from a post-war to pre-war world’ and the UK must ensure its ‘entire defence ecosystem is ready’ to defend its homeland.’

The Estonians, no friends of Russia given their history, are also adding fuel to the conflagration. The Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas said in a BBC interview: ‘We have a reserve army of 44,000 people. That would equal for Great Britain around two million people. Two million people who would be ready to defend their country, who know what they have to do’ (Daily Express 4 April).

In Ukraine at the beginning of the year, the former Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine’s army Valerii Zaluzhnyi said that the army needed another 500,000 soldiers: ‘Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has signed a law that will lower the country’s minimum conscription age from 27 to 25, potentially boosting the number of men available to fight Russia’s invasion. A statement published by Parliament upon passing the law in 2023 said it was “inappropriate” that “a significant number of citizens” who were fit for military service could not be called up, despite the present need, under martial law. Martial law also prohibits most men between the ages 18 and 60 from leaving Ukraine, unless they are deemed unfit for military service for health reasons or have an exemption’ (CNN 2 April).

Sensibly following the example of many American young men who, during the Vietnam war, chose to absent themselves from America, many Ukrainians have adopted ‘flight not fight’: ‘Approximately 650,000 Ukrainian men aged 18-60 have left Ukraine for Europe since the start of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022′, BBC Ukraine reported. Citing data provided by Eurostat a report notes over half a million male refugees are currently residing in the 27 EU member states, as well as Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Norway, many of whom are undocumented. In Germany, it is estimated that 100,000 unregistered individuals are residing in the country, while in Austria at least 14,000 Ukrainian men arrived using forged documents or the services of smugglers.

Under martial law, Ukrainian men between the ages of 18–60, with some exceptions, are not allowed to leave the country because they could be called up for military service. As Ukraine faces the challenge of maintaining adequate military personnel, recent reports indicate that nearly 20,000 Ukrainian men have managed to evade conscription, finding various routes to leave the country’ (Kyiv Independent).

John Richards’s song, Don’t Despise The Deserter, about a soldier who is executed by his country, has historical precedents. Three hundred and six British and Commonwealth soldiers were executed by the state in World War One.

‘So I ran from the fighting, and I threw down my gun,

I ran by the moon, and I slept with the sun.

Arrested by government, charged by the king,

To be shot, ’cause I can’t kill in order to bring

Peace to a foreign land.’

Less about peace and more about capitalism.

Don’t let yourself be persuaded to become cannon fodder for the capitalist class.

Dave Coggan

In 1918 they called it peace (1978)

From the November 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are very few people alive who experienced the First World War — the first swift moves of 1914, the settling down into the trenches from the Channel to the border of Switzerland, the mud and the policy of attrition which ground away millions of lives and then the great battles of 1918 and the Armistice, which came sixty years ago this month.

The war opened, on both sides, in a mood of high optimism. The author Henry Williamson, who himself survived much of the fighting, describes the last minutes of peace:

That night I wandered with a cousin to the West End and we heard Big Ben strike the hour. The German Government had not replied. Wild cheers rose on every side.

The troops marched away to cheers and brass bands, the recruiting stations were jammed with eager heroes, it was widely assumed that by Christmas another glorious victory would have been written into the history of British — or German — imperialism. This jingoism was subsequently fed by the official propaganda machines, at their traditional task of making the truth the first casualty in a war. The Germans alleged that any prisoners taken by the Belgians were liable to have their eyes gouged out (and then collected into convenient buckets for war correspondents to see); the Allies were definite that the brutal Prussians were severing children’s hands to prevent them growing up into a new generation of soldiers.

By 1918 the mood had changed, after the experiences of the Somme, Verdun, Passchendaele and the like. The exuberance had given way to grim despair and a conviction that the war would, if not actually last forever, go on for a very long time with the trenches stuck there in the mud swallowing up one generation after another. There was little expectation that the end was so near; in August 1918 Churchill told Haig, the British Commander in Chief, that the “decisive period” of the war was to come in July 1919.

So when the Armistice came it was often greeted with a numb indifference. On the Western Front, exhausted soldiers simply slept through the rain which fell that day. One officer recorded the event in his diary, in less than heroic terms: “November 11 — Armistice with Germany commenced. Weather: Fairly heavy rain”. It was a strange ending to the battles of that year, which had introduced the direct military presence of American capitalism into the affairs of Europe and which had persuaded the German ruling class that they would do better to try to live to fight another day. Their army was allowed to return home in good order, a circumstance which subsequently fuelled the Nazis’ argument that the brave, honest German soldier had been stabbed in the back by the politicians.

Reality

It is impossible to compute anything like an accurate figure for the total losses of the war; one estimate says that 30 millions is too low for all the members of the forces and the civilians who lost their lives. Then there was the massive burden of the wounded — maimed, blinded, gassed or with nerves shattered by the shellfire. Many of these lingered for years, dying gradually over the days of disillusionment in the twenties and the thirties. And there were others, who were not killed or maimed but whose lives were distorted by the loss of someone they depended upon; the wife of a soldier who was killed got 5 shillings (25p.) a week plus ls.6d. (9p.) for each child, which was not far off starvation.

These were the people who, in 1918, were waiting for the promises of verbose politicians to be made good; they had suffered, as they had been told to, and now they were due to experience the better, safer world which their endurance was supposed to build.

Reality was something different. Demobilised servicemen came home to join the dole queue, the Means Test and the insulting rigours of the Not Genuinely Seeking Work Clause. They roamed the streets begging, or tried to live by selling laces in the gutter. They returned from the trenches to the slums — and many of them might hardly have noticed the difference.

It is a pitiful thing to think of, but thousands of these brave men of ours have better homes in the trenches of Flanders than in the sunless alleys of our Motherland.

(Arthur Mee, Lloyd’s News, March 26, 1916).

The bewilderment and despair bore a predictable response. In England the workers turned from Conservative to Labour and back again; there was a questioning of the political system and of the value of parliamentary democracy which on the Continent helped the dictatorships into power. And in 1939, as a fitting climax to Europe’s new Dark Age, the struggle between German capitalism and the rest was resumed.

There are many questions being asked, now, about the First World War but few go to the roots of the matter. Much of the criticism of 1914/18 is laid at the door of stuffy, incompetent generals, who were more worried about the shine on their boots than about the sufferings of the men in the trenches. Or the war is treated as a massive historical accident, which might easily have been avoided by more skilful statesmanship.

These theories are inconsistent with one vital fact. August 1914 was the climax of a long period of the build up of their respective forces by the great powers of European capitalism. The military build up was itself a by-product of the challenge which German capitalism was making to the established dominance of the French and the British.

Socialist Opposition

That dominance was based on the industrial development and the imperial expansion of Britain and France during the 19th. century. German capitalism came comparatively late on the scene and as its industrial power increased it too began to look for expansion. The clash with the powers already in command was unavoidable.

Their victory in 1871 had given the Germans access to the ore of Lorraine; their production of iron and steel quickly outstripped that of Britain. Their mercantile fleet expanded and their ambition to become a new colonial power, with all that that meant in terms of markets and access to sources of raw materials, had to follow. Germany acquired the beginnings of an empire in Africa and, in the Agadir incident in 1911, showed its desire to get a foothold in North Africa. The plan to build a rail link between Berlin and Baghdad opened a way into India and, perhaps, then the Far East.

It was to support these economic ambitions that Germany built up her armed forces. The German Navy threatened to match that of Britain — something the British capitalist class could not accept without contest. Their army became a highly professional force, dedicated to the most efficient and ruthless prosecution of war — which the French ruling class could not accept. In the Schlieffen Plan the Germans laid down their design for the conquest of Western Europe and when it all began it became virtually impossible to turn it back in its tracks .

That war, then, did not appear suddenly out of the mists; it was the predictable outcome of a typical clash of interests in the perpetually feuding world of capitalism. What of those who saw this, who saw that workers were being pressed to fight for their masters’ interests and who stood out against the bully boy patriots who thirsted after the blood of their fellow workers?

From the outset the Socialist Party of Great Britain made our opposition plain:

. . . no interests are at stake justifying the shedding of a single drop of working class blood . . . Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our goodwill and Socialist fraternity, and pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism and the triumph of Socialism.

Opposition to the war was a hazardous stand to take. Objectors, of whatever persuasion, were often given a very rough time:

The Daily Mail wants the names of every known pacifist or active friend of Germany in your city, town or village . . . (Daily Mail, October 25 1917).

There were many examples of the brutal treatment of conscientious objectors, callously justified by Kitchener as “horseplay amongst soldiers”. This excuse illustrated one especially nasty feature of the system of dealing with objectors; all too easily they could be “deemed to have enlisted”, which meant that they were officially regarded as being in the army and subject to military law and discipline, whether they wanted to be or not. Thus if they were shipped to France and continued to disobey orders to put on a uniform they could be — and in many cases were — sentenced to death.

Pledge

In no case were these sentences carried out, although some not uninfluential voices thought they should have been. In the case of political objectors there was an especial disdain. Colonel Wyndham Childs, who as Director of Personal Services — the ‘discipline branch’ of the War Office — was responsible for the treatment of conscientious objectors who, because they were “deemed to have enlisted” were officially in the army, recommended in April 1918:

That it should immediately be made known that conscientious objectors who disobey a lawful command . . . will be tried by General Court Martial and, if sentenced to death by that court, the sentence will be carried out if it appears that their objection is based on political and not religious grounds . . .

For the Socialist Party, propaganda was a difficult, almost impossible, business. Our meetings were broken up, our headquarters raided by the police and our members who were eligible for conscription were either imprisoned or forced to go on the run. Wherever they were — Dartmoor, Wormwood Scrubs or living rough — they continued to put the case against the war which was slaughtering their fellow workers in the cause of their masters and for the society of socialism. When the last shots were fired in 1918, we could look back on our defiant statement of August 1914 as a pledge to our class which we had kept through four desperate years.

In 1918 they called it peace but such has been the history of the world since then that there is hardly any need, now, to draw attention to the cynicism of that claim. The sixty years since 1918 have been of practically unbroken war, somewhere in capitalism, because this social system cannot exist as a harmonious, co-operative human experience. Capitalism is essentially divisive and conflict is basic to its nature.

These facts will not be in the minds of the people who stand at the cenotaphs this November, nor will they be heard in the sermons which are mouthed there. The poppies and the wreaths and the parades will be marking the end of one of capitalism’s bloodiest episodes — one tragic futility celebrated by another.

Ivan

Classic Reprint: At the conscientious objectors tribunal (1964)

A Classic Reprint from the August 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Devine Comedy of the Watford Tribunal

Dramatis Personae

Lord Clarendon – Chairman.

Mister Hudson – Clerk to the Council.

Mister Longley – Draper.

Mister Clarke – House Builder.

Mister Solomon – Photographer.

Mister Gorle – Solicitor, Conscriptionist, Labour Leader and acquainted with the King of the Belgians.

Crowd of N.C.F Men, Comrades, Constables and attendants.

————–

The Bushey and Watford comrades did in the month of March appear before the local Tribunal with the now familiar result.

The chairman was the Lord and the Military Representative, symbolically enough, was on the left hand of the Lord. A Draper sat next to a House Builder and a Solicitor next to a Professional Photographer.

To the right of the Lord’s chosen people were portraits of two old-time councillors done by a Bushey painter, who, when he has no commissions from local legislators, will condescend to paint angels for church windows. These pictures were as interesting to artists as pathology is to humanitarians. No cantankerous sentiment could be detected on their placid faces, for when the local man took up his brushes there was no European War and all the Conscientious Objectors had been robbed of their telescopes and books and burned and decapitated many centuries ago.

But I must not digress now for I am come to the point when the Lord spoke. I had arrogantly suggested on my appeal paper that what was valuable and precious in Art and Science and Literature had emanated from intellectual research; and that militarism either supported or created all those things hostile to a free and secure existence. Before I came to these chosen of the Masters I had suggested that intellectual progress and military pursuits are antagonistic. Then when the Lord asked me if I was a Quaker I saw that my policy and sentiments still remained misunderstood, so I rose to explain that I had accepted the communistic principles of Karl Marx, and consequently believed that the world could not progress towards a beautiful ideal of society or a scientific one until the nations federated on an amiable basis. But while these words were yet unspoken the Solicitor, with prophetic acumen and godly insight, denounced them as “Propaganda”, while the Chairman said he was there to “elicit facts and not listen to speeches”.

This last indiscreet sentence must now pass as ignorance. This is the more lamentable as had it read, “elicit facts and not listen to the evidence” it would have passed with the public, not as bias and illiteracy, but as a decisive, rich, and becoming paradox. I had further evidence to show that the literature of Greece had done more for humanity than the wars of Greece; that Van Tromp, with all his magnificence did not do so much for Holland as Rembrandt and Discartis; that the Spaniards’ best day was not when the Armada was loosened but when Valasquez took up his palette. The Lord waved me down. How could I rise from my insignificance? I only had on my side the lessons of ancient decapitated scientists and charcoal heretics while the Tribunal were greatly inspired and strengthened by the methods of Torquemada. Their actions taught me that the man with estates was in the place of Democracy; the Camera Man in the place of the Artist; the Attorney in the place of the Economist, and the Draper of Bodies in the place of the Humanitarians. Before the Tribunals the appellant with artistic ideas is dismissed, the man with rheumatism postponed, and the wine merchant exempt from military service. Then after having stopped me speaking in my own defence one had the temerity to ask if I objected to bloodshed.

Our comrade Russ sat next before the Tribunal and his case was dealt with in the same clean and aristocratic spirit. They “elicited” genealogical facts about his grandmother and partly forgotten brothers; details which are most valuable to any analysis of scientific ideals or the individual conscience. But while on the side of lineage the examination was most wise and thorough, there are three small points to which the Tribunal was inexcusably indifferent. I admit that a consideration of the forgotten details would in no way have altered the result of the trail, for in all cases the conduct of the Tribunal showed great forethought and preparation. In no instance can I remember a hasty and spontaneous injustice being done to the appellant, for the Socialists were only dismissed after careful consultation with the versatile Labour Leader, while the Religionists were dismissed only after the Chairman’s chat with the Christian member. The first of these three unconsidered trifles in Russ’s case was that he wore a black scarf of crepe-de-chine, which should have been noted by at least one member of the Tribunal for its photographic possibilities; the second, that sometimes in the summer he slept in the open at night, which should have been elicited and condemned by the Builder; the third, that as a Socialist he would not fight in a capitalist war, which should have been considered by all, as in this assertion, all were alike equally implicated and condemned. But if we review the matter with a milder and less intolerant mind we will understand that if Russ did not know what parts of his Marxian economics were a heritage from his grandmother, his own statement of International Faith is, in the ten or twelve eyes of the Tribunal, robbed of half its value. But the trial ended well, for, as he declared he would not do medical work and assist the wounded, the Tribunal considerately gave him non-combatant duties in which he will only have to help the injured.

When our comrade Hudson sat next in the chair the modern God filled his pipe and the Clerk read the appeal. It was a reiteration of the communists’ ideal of Wealth Production. The Lord asked what denomination he belonged to. Now with myself, as I have a pale face, there was some pertinence in the Quaker question, but with Hudson it is different. He is not sickly or peevish; there is not a trace of suffering on his face. It would have been more relevant to have asked the noble Lord if he was the only support his wife had or ask a poet if he sold matches. Our comrade replied that he was an atheist. The Christian Draper sniffed. A man here who would not submit to Kitchener and denied the authority. “You are one of them who resent all kind of control then, eh?” he said. “Not all control”, our comrade replied, “only such as you have.” The Chairman was indignant to hear a youthful idealist give such a retort to a shopkeeper who has sold the best linen within a farthing of a shilling in the town; to a man who has distributed more bibles and advertisements and subscribed to more church organs in a year than the applicant would do in fifty years. In these days of heresy and commerce one can forgive a taunt to God, pass over a slight to Kitchener, but what Chairman of what Tribunal can pass over an Internationalist’s insult to a homely employer. He cautioned our comrade and later dismissed the case.

The next judgement was to be upon our comrade Wilkins. He too was an Internationalist. Had the first been the only one of the day the idea could have been discredited and regarded as isolated Quixotism and futile faith. The poor, bewildered master of the show moreover learned that this Socialist was a Monist. “What is a Monist?” Alas! My Lord, you have given Oxford over to ignominy; the hallowed pile is desecrated. In the past, we were told, much damage and havoc was done with the jaw-bone of an ass, but it was infinitesimal compared with that done to the gray and hoary university with the jaw-bone of our Tribunal Lord. Alas! Poor Chairman, you came, you told me, to “elicit facts” but you remain to complete your education. Although comrade Wilkins explained on his appeal paper that he could more effectively assassinate Rothschild with a new ideal or a new economic law than with an old hatchet—although unlike an Indian God he did not wear a necklace of human bones or a girdle of human skulls, they still enquired whether he was prepared to take life. He replied that he did not believe in the sacredness of the individual existence, only in the sacredness of humanity, and would therefore help to establish Socialism by the ballot if possible but by force if force was essential. “We dismiss your case, Mister Wilkins.” As the lordly judge spoke his loyal mouth pennies to the Escutcheon. “You may appeal to the County Tribunal”, he said. “To the County Press Gang”, our comrade retorted with such truth and emphasis that it became quite inaudible to the Newspaper Correspondent.

There was a long hush. The last of the pearls had been cast before the Tribunal.

The Draper demanded that the room should be cleared of the public. This was assented to by the Labour Leader, and endorsed by the Lord.

No one moved.

Then in this Earthly Paradise the Provincial God’s still, small voice with a slight Oxford accent, said “Let there be police”, and there were police. But this latter day Lord’s behests are not so instantaneously obeyed as formerly, for his wand is only a telephone and his angels wear thick-soled boots.

So there was still time left for further heresy and the “Red Flag” was sung, and just as it ended the Constables entered the room and faced the perplexed Tribunal and those pigment Councillors on the walls, whose pensive eyes are fixed on the distant utopian Watford when each of the ten thousand inhabitants was docile and diligent and none had dreamed of Marxian Economics.

H. M. M.

(Reprinted from the Socialist Standard, May, 1916)

Conscientious Objectors (1943)

From the November 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Stanley Hilton, the Rochdale conscientious objector, who on July 26th was sentenced at his fourth court-martial to two years’ detention, has been released on a ‘suspended sentence.’ . . . Hilton, a Jehovah’s Witness, had spent three years in jail.”—(News Chronicle, October 5, 1943.)

“In this war, as in the last, the position of M.P.s in regard to military service is a difficult and delicate one. The public and even many members of the House of Commons believe that they are legally exempt from the provisions of the National Service Act. This is not so. … A member of the Commons is, by custom, left to decide for himself whether he will serve in the Forces. … In spite of these privileges, some 150 M.P.s are engaged on full-time war service. . . . Rightly the decision is left to the individual conscience.”—(Evening Standard, September 23, 1943.)

Party News (1998)

Party News from the February 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

Former Pupil

When we reviewed The Long Johns by John Bird and John Fortune in the March 1997 Socialist Standard we mentioned that at one time political satirist John Bird had been a member of the Socialist Party. In a recent interview John Bird has himself once again confirmed this. Asked if his political consciousness had been awakened by meeting members of the ruling class at Cambridge University he replied:

"Actually. I was a member of something called the Socialist Party of Great Britain at school for a while. You had to pass an exam, you known. You could not just join" (Evening Standard, 3 December).

India

"GP: Letter 30/11/97 reporting about a scuffle with a Maoist fanatic in a train compartment wherein during a debate he commented that Lenin was an "imposter" in defining Socialism. The enraged Maoist attacked him but immediately resisted by other passengers”—Extract from Minutes of Executive Committee, World Socialist Party (India). 12 December 1997 Meeting.

George Watkins b. 1918 d. 1997

George came into contact with the SPNZ in the detention camp for conscientious objectors during WW2. There C.P. Furey was giving lessons in Marxian economics. The scientific socialism immediately appealed to George who joined the Wellington Branch of the SPNZ in 1950. Active in the party until his death, George convinced many of us of the case for socialism through his enthusiasm, patience, knowledge, writing and teaching abilities; his wonderful wit and humour bringing joy to our lives. George gained a tremendous boost and much hope for the future when the WSP (India) was formed and wrote many letters of encouragement to the Indian party. He will be sadly missed by wife Ngaire, family, and friends.

Donations to the Socialist Party

The Party’s ability to pursue its objectives, energetically and effectively, is prejudiced by lack of funds. We manage on shoestring budgets when, with more resources, we could accomplish so much more.

We invite members and sympathisers to donate money to the Party’s General Fund. Please send donations (cheques and postal orders made payable to "The Socialist Party of Great Britain") or, preferably take out a regular Standing Order in favour of the Party, by writing to the Treasurer, The Socialist Party. 52 Clapham High Street. London SW4 7UN, asking for details and a form.

A Tribunal Judge Clears the Air. (1940)

From the February 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is interesting to learn that the point of view expressed in the January issue of the Socialist Standard, that one’s conscientious convictions, although of a definitely political character, are of equal importance with any other aspect of thought, finds a stout supporter in Judge Davis, of the Southwark Tribunal. He has declared his view to be as follows : —

“Our duty is to judge the sincerity of the conscientious objection.” Such objection may be reached by many roads—religious, humanitarian, or political. It is not our duty to discriminate and, subject to any directions from the Appellate Tribunal, we shall grant exemptions to all types of objectors who convince us that they are conscientious.”

This statement of the position is identical with the case we submitted to the Appellate Court when appearing there on behalf of one of our members. There is, however, one doubtful point in Judge Davis’s statement with which we do not find comfort. We refer to that part of it which runs—”subject to any directions from the Appellate Tribunal.”

We hope that Judge Davis will maintain his present standpoint, whatever the Appellate body may direct to the contrary. To oppose the above accurate and perfectly legal interpretation of “conscientious objection” is to dive into the realms of nonsense, political prejudice, or hard-baked conventional thought.

Robertus.

Notes by the Way: Workers Sacked for their Opinions (1941)

The Notes by the Way Column from the January 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Workers Sacked for their Opinions

A case came before the Court recently in which three workers claimed that it was illegal, under the National Service Act, for their employers (a Co-operative Society!) to sack them merely because they were conscientious objectors. The magistrate, quite properly, confined himself to the legal position, and refused to express any opinion on the action of the Co-operative Society, but his judgment made it clear that not only under that Act, but also at Common Law, it is quite legal for an employer to dismiss his workers because he does not like their opinions.

The following extract from the judgment of the Huddersfield Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr. W. R. Briggs, is taken from The Manchester Guardian (October 29th, 1940): —

 “The evidence was, and he had already found as a fact, that each complainant was dismissed because he was a conscientious objector. No man was bound to employ another of whose opinions or conduct he disapproved, and provided that he gave the proper amount of notice an employer might dismiss his employee for any or no reason.  

  It was possible that there might be employers who would dismiss a man because he was a Conservative or a Communist, a trade unionist or a non-unionist, a Roman Catholic or an atheist. Such action might or might not be reprehensible— he expressed no opinion on that point—but if the proper notice was given it would certainly not be illegal. Similarly in his opinion it was not illegal either at Common Law or under the Act to dismiss an employee because his religious beliefs made him a conscientious objector. For these reasons he was of opinion that the prosecution had failed to establish the commission of any offence and all the summonses would be dismissed.”

The defenders of Capitalism will say, of course, that the wages contract is a free contract between worker and employer, and it is free to the worker to leave because he does not like his employer’s views just as it is open to the employer to dismiss the worker. The notion of equality before the law is nonsense. The worker faces the loss of his livelihood, while the employer is at most slightly inconvenienced if a worker leaves.

The absurdity of the law can be seen from another angle, the activities of the National Institute of Industrial Psychology and similar bodies. For example, in the April, 1940, issue of their journal, “Occupational Psychology,” is a report by two investigators who used various tests to discover why a number of unemployed girls came to be out of work. The investigators studied the “intelligence” of the girls in the light of various intelligence tests (The so called “Dotting Test,” under which “the subject” ims through a slot at a number of paper discs fixed on a rotating plate, is worthy of notice by “Beachcomber”). The investigators and the Institute are no doubt thoroughly reliable, there is no trouble they will not go to, and no field of inquiry is closed to them— well, no field except one. Never on any occasion are they called in by the workers to conduct Dotting Tests or any other tests, on the intelligence, diligence, nervous stability, etc., etc., of the shareholders, directors, or other bosses in the concern. Nowhere do they ever conduct intelligence tests based on the principle that the more intelligent the worker the mere he or she resents the privileged position of the propertied class and the crass stupidity of the present industrial arrangements for which the latter are responsible.

Among all the very clever people who conduct investigations, including all the bright brains known as captains of industry, and the thousands of inventive geniuses, not one can rise to the slight insight and imagination required to see that industry could be (and will be under Socialism) run on a basis which will separate working from getting a living. Every one of them accepts it as a kind of inescapable law of nature that the worker (but not the Capitalist) shall only get a living if and while he can get an employer to approve of him (and his opinions). They fondly imagine, if they ever think about it at all, that unless the threat of the sack is always held over the heads of the workers, work would cease and all would die of starvation. They do not understand the obvious fact that the cult of dislike for work is itself simply a product, on the one side, of the Capitalist’s snobbish contempt for those who have to work because they are propertyless, and on the other, of the workers’ resentment of the conditions under which they have to work. Socialism will have its problems, but this will not be one that will be of dimensions sufficient to cause anyone the slightest disquiet.

* * *

A New World Order for Millionaires

New world orders are all the rage to-day, though some of them do not look very new. On the day that the Press published an account of Mr. Herbert Morrison’s outline of his new world order, the Ministry of Information issued a pronouncement from which it seems that the new order is already in being in the British Empire. When the Ministry claims (Daily Herald, December 12th, 1940) that “This is the only kind of World Order worth having—the only guarantee of security and happiness when the war is over,” they are very optimistic if they think that it will look so attractive to the populations of countries outside the Empire. The Daily Herald wants the Government to issue a statement of war aims, “making it clear that we are fighting for a new kind of world” (December 12th), but at the same time it wants the statement to be one “to which every party subscribes, and which carries the endorsement of the whole Commonwealth.” What sort of statement is it going to be if it fulfils the condition? Plainly, if it has got to be endorsed by the Conservative Party, it will be about as new and attractive as the kind of new world produced after the last war. It will certainly not be the only kind of new world worth having, a Socialist world. In his speech at the Dorchester Hotel, Mr. Morrison wanted an end to social insecurity and of a state of things “where millions go in need while supplies are deliberately kept short, or prices high, so that profits may be safeguarded,” but if the Daily Herald report is correct, he nowhere pointed to the cause, the class division of society. Had he done so, it would certainly not have been possible for one of his audience, Lord Nuffield, to say to the Chairman, Lord Nathan, afterwards, “I agree with every word of the speech—and I am a millionaire.” (Daily Herald, December 12th.) Another sidelight on the meeting was the statement attributed to Mr. Morrison by the Evening Standard (December 12th): ” I want change so big that I do not like to tell you about it.”

* * *

War has a Logic of its Own

Molotov has been reported to have said, recently, that war has a logic of its own. This is something worth considering by anyone who thinks that war can be waged under all kinds of restrictions designed to curb its ferocity. The following passage is taken from General de Gaulle’s “The Army of the Future “: —

  “If war is, in essence, destructive, the ideal of those who wage it remains, none the less, economy, the least massacre with the greatest results; a combination of forces making use of death, suffering and terror in order to attain the goal as quickly as possible, and so put an end to all three.”

As Alexander Werth says, in the Manchester Guardian (December 3rd, 1940): “Except, perhaps, for the last few words, the German Generals would no doubt fully subscribe to these sentiments.”

* * *

Mr, Maurice Webb Makes a Discovery

Mr. Maurice Webb writes articles for the Daily Herald. He shares their political views, and supports the Labour Party policy on war. That is to say, he has for years preached that it was necessary to “stand up to Fascism,” even if that meant waging war against the Fascist countries. He believes that there was no other way of securing peace and Democracy for the world’s workers. He not only held these views, but he took it upon himself, in the columns of the Daily Herald, to teach these things to others, who, in his view, had not grasped the truth about world affairs. Now those who set up as teachers are in effect assuring those who listen to them that they have learned before teaching and have fully considered the consequences of what they say should be done. But Mr. Maurice Webb, it seems, did not do this. It is only now, when the war is well into its second year, that he has begun to notice what war is, and what it does.

At the beginning he was full of that curious belief that we were all very friendly towards the German workers, and that the war was being waged not only for us but also for them. We would, he thought, just strike a blow to remove their oppressors, and then, all free men joined together in amity, we would set the world aright. Only Mr. Webb had quite forgotten to study war, its consequences, and the way it has to be waged. So now he has had a shock. He wrote an article, in the style that his readers adored at Christmas, 1939, only to find that this Christmas his readers, or many of them, have moved on and don’t want that kind of stuff any more. They have been bombed and they think differently.

He still thinks in terms of “Peace without vengeance.” They want vengeance, and plenty of it. In the Daily Herald of December 7th, he reproduces extracts from their letters. For them the German people are snakes in the grass, “and must be ruthlessly exterminated.” Likewise the Japs The German is “a loathsome beast.” Emphatically, “there are no good Germans.” “Grind them down to misery and poverty for a million years.”Wipe the damned lot off the face of the earth.” Poor Mr. Webb says, sadly, “there can be little doubt that the majority of Britons are beginning to nurse very bitter feelings towards the German people.”

Now Mr. Webb is in a quandary. If we are to have permanent peace, there must be no vengeance after the war, but the Allied Statesmen will not be able to succeed in that task, he says, if they have at their backs “hosts of envenomed ‘clean sweepers’ urging them on to suicidal and ruinous policies.” It looks, indeed, as if Mr. Webb is almost convinced already that the kind of peace he says we must have is just the kind of peace his readers decidedly will not accept. They have had a bitter dose of war, and the consequence is just what everyone expected who had seriously taken note of what modern war is and what it does. But Mr. Webb was not one of these. He did not share the Socialist view that war sets in motion all sorts of destructive forces which make it impossible for war to be the kind of benevolent, constructive agent he thought possible.

If Mr. Webb is now learning his lesson and taking a responsible view of things, perhaps he will let us have his second and more useful thoughts. We would like to hear from Mr. Webb what he now thinks about his past notions.

* * *

The Profiteer

Socialists want to see the end of the profit system altogether, and have always thought the popular attitude to what is called “profiteering” an odd one. If it is good and necessary to encourage the making of profit, why try to limit it? Can there be too much of a good thing ?

Logical or not, war always brings a popular outcry against what are called profiteers. But when this war broke out, all the newspapers and politicians were agreed that it would be run on different lines from the last. Never again would there be big increases of prices, and emphatically not the making of big profits.

The following, however, is taken from the Sunday Express (December I5th, 1940): —

  “The food profiteer is among us. He is making a lot of money. Last week hundreds of complaints concerning the swiftly rising prices of all kinds of unrationed food were received by the Food Ministry.

  They alleged unfair distribution of food and “illegal conditions of sale” imposed by some brokers and wholesalers upon shopkeepers.

  Another charge was that fixed price orders were being sidetracked by unscrupulous buyers.

   Lord Woolton, the Minister, has now stated that anyone found imposing “conditions of sale” or buying over the fixed price will be prosecuted. Reports by his investigators will be placed before him to-morrow.

   This much has been established. Huge profits in food are being made by someone, or some group of people, at present unidentified.”

* * *

Who Will Civilise America ? 

Mr. Robert Lynd, in a review of a book called “America, Our Ally,” by H. N. Brailsford, summarises Mr. Brailsford’s views thus: —

 “He advocates the liberation of India as the best way in which to impress America of the sincerity of British professions, and he urges America to throw herself wholeheartedly into the war, to send men as well as money, in order to establish a civilisation that will ensure to all belligerent peoples security and work.—(News-Chronicle, December 2nd, 1940.)

Mr. Lynd finds himself in agreement with the author of the book, but what simplicity lies in their hopes. They assume that India (does this mean the Indian peasant and workers?) will be “liberated” through a change in the relationship of the British Empire. Yet they must know that such a change, even if it meant complete severance, would still leave the mass of Indians enslaved to their own native-born ruling class. Next they assume that a desire to impress American opinion of their sincerity is a factor of vital importance to the British interests that stand for the retention of India. Why should it be? Equally flimsy is their expectation that those who at present control the United States will be concerned with establishing a new and better social order for the benefit of the populations of the European countries at war. Before inviting these rulers of America to put Europe right, Mr. Brailsford might have asked what the same gentlemen have done to America. In a recent issue of the Daily Telegraph (August 9th, 1940) it was reported from New York that there are in the U.S.A. more than 50 persons whose yearly income is £200,000 or more, and according to the Manchester Guardian (November 21st, 1940) a mere 13 families in that country control as part of their fortunes £540 million worth of securities in 200 of the leading corporations. This information was published in a report by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and the same report disclosed that this colossal wealth represents only a part of the total possessions of the 13 families.

Among the 13 are Fords, with upwards of £120 million; Du Ponts, with over £110 million; and Rockefellers, with £80 million or more. This, be it noted, is after eight years of Roosevelt’s administration.

The necessary accompaniment of this accumulation of American resources in the hands of these and other industrial and financial barons is the existence of extreme poverty in the ranks of the workers, millions of unemployed, widespread undernourishment and all the other evils of capitalist civilisation. One aspect of this has again been brought to light when conscripts were called up under the compulsory military training scheme. According to the New York correspondent of the Daily Telegraph (November 28th, 1940), “much surprise has been caused by the large proportion of men called up …. but rejected by army doctors. Although these men had been passed as physically fit by a medical examiner who assisted the local selective boards, many who are now reporting for duty are being sent home again, principally on the grounds that teeth or eyesight are not up to army standards. It is estimated that rejections are roughly at the rate of one in four . . . .”

Before Mr. Brailsford concluded that the Fords, Du Fonts, Rockefellers and their like are to be the civilisers of Europe, he should have wondered when the American workers are going to begin a little job of civilising at home.

Edgar Hardcastle

Pseudo-Democracy and Dictatorship (1939)

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The lot of the Conscientious Objector is, as usual, no “Bed of Roses.” Witness the bitter facts of the first Birmingham Tribunal. One young wage slave who had the “Downright Impudence” to state his refusal to participate in any of the Government’s ALTERNATIVES was immediately entered for service with the Militia ! What a strange way of Administering Democracy?

All wage slaves are called upon to “Fight for Democracy” in order to preserve their Liberties, yet this self-same “Democracy” forces them into occupations which best serve the interests of the Capitalist “War Machine.” Farewell, Liberties !

Where then is the difference between Dictator­ship and Pseudo-Democracy?

The mistake made by the wage slaves at Birmingham was in Objecting to War only. . . . The REAL Objection should have been AGAINST THE SYSTEM OF SOCIETY which produces Wars and not merely against ONE of the MANY evils of Capitalism.

Russell.

Obituary: Gladys Marie Catt (2008)

Obituary from the April 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Gladys Marie Catt 1918-2008

Marie joined the SPGB in the spring of 1941. The outbreak of war had profoundly disturbed her, along with her family and friends. Her two brothers and her future husband had become conscientious objectors and she became engaged in their struggles to win conscientious objector status. Marie was persuaded about the necessity of socialism partly by the Party’s stand against working-class participation in the war, but also by the forcefulness and clarity of the Party’s speakers at the outdoor meetings held at Lincoln’s Inn Fields and she joined the Palmers Green Branch where she met Sid Catt, her future husband.

In 1957, she, Sid and daughter Jean emigrated to Canada and settled in Toronto. After settling in, they became a contact and propaganda centre for the Socialist Party of Canada. They set about recruiting members, holding discussion forums in their home and speaking at Allen Gardens. By 1964 they had organized the first Party Local east of Winnipeg.

Marie continued her activities for many years. She always spoke forthrightly and passionately in favour of socialism in whatever circumstances she found herself. Her grasp of the meaning of the object and declaration of Principles was thorough. She once wrote of the significance of these Principles to members of the Party:

 “These have remained the sheet anchor for their understanding, proved the strength of their case and their integrity, making it impossible to confuse them with any reformist organization. This Object and Declaration of Principles are as valid today as they were at the time of the inception in 1904 of this unique political party.” 

B.S. (Canada)