The Land and the Labourer (1939)

From the February 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The discontent of the small-capitalist agriculturalists, known as farmers, with the present Government, is finding expression upon the political field. One Independent Conservative candidate threatened to fight a National Liberal nominee in East Norfolk, and only withdrew at the last moment, and similar action is being threatened in other constituencies. At least one influential daily paper, the Daily Express, openly favours them.

In passing, it is interesting to notice how any special section of the property-owning class which desires an alteration in Government policy is prepared to exploit the war-scare. Do the railway companies wish to be rid of century-old restrictions? They profess deep concern for their ability to act efficiently in war-time. Are the farmers out to re-establish century-old restrictions upon foreign imports ? Their appeal is based upon the need for national independence as regards a food supply.

The Government’s policy is an attempt to maintain internal agricultural prices by restricting production by means of a marketing board. The farmers’ grouse is that this policy, so far from helping them, has merely subsidised the distributive concerns. The middleman, as usual, comes in for vituperation. He is, however, fairly safe in the knowledge that both economic conditions and the principles of his class ensure that given quantities of capital receive a proportionate rate of profit. The large scale upon which commerce in agricultural, as in other, products is carried on to-day requires a correspondingly large capital, which accounts to a large degree for the disparity between wholesale and retail prices, of which we hear so much.

Another factor which distresses many farmers is the fact that they were practically compelled by their one-time landlords to buy their farms when prices of land were high as a result of the war-boom. The purchases were made largely on a mortgage basis, with the result that the, farmer found himself out of the frying-pan into the fire. Interest payments took the place of rent. The landlord was replaced by the banker.

Where does the agricultural labourer come in? Each candidate in the East Norfolk election professed concern for him. At that moment, of course, he had a vote, which they wanted; but what do Protection or regulated marketing mean to him ?

He can hardly have any strong, motive for wishing to return to the condition of his ancestors of a hundred years ago, before the repeal of the corn-laws; while his attitude to his calling to-day may be gauged from the fact that no less than 180,000 of his ilk lost their employment during the sixteen years prior to 1937, a rate of decline which still goes on.

Wages boards have failed to prevent this, but there appears to be no lack of people anxious to supply him with yet more boards. For instance, the Labour Party. Their policy is outlined by Lord Addison in a penny pamphlet published eighteen months ago (“Labour's Policy for our Countryside").

As is only to be expected, it advocates “National ownership of land"; but lest some workers should imagine that this will rid them of the burden of landlords and capitalist farmers, let a quotation from page 8 serve: —

  “Fair payment would be made to the present owners. Land would be paid for by the issue of National Securities to the amount of the purchase price justly determined, and the State, which would be guarantor for these National Securities, would acquire the freehold and all other rights in exchange.
   “The Labour Party is opposed to confiscation, and the prejudice which its opponents seek to foster by false accusations on this subject should be disregarded. Many thoughtful men of all parties have long been convinced that National Ownership is the only way by which good cultivators can be freed from the crushing burdens of rent, mortgage interest and other charges. . . .
   “Under Labour Government a farmer who does his work well need have no fear of disturbance.”

What is a farmer’s work? Briefly, it is to fleece his labourers as they do his sheep for him. They plough the fields and scatter the good seed on the land, but it is not to them that the noble Lord refers in his phrase “good cultivators.” The farmer takes the fruits of their labours and sells them for the best price he can get, but the Labour Party do not regard this process as confiscation. Out of his gross profits the farmer meets his “crushing burden” of rent and interest, but any attempt to restore the wealth taken from the workers is opposed by the Labour Party. In their eyes, as in the eyes of Liberals and Tories, such a restoration would be confiscation. Thus do they take the "Soc” out of Socialism.

Instead of Farmer Giles paying his rent to Lord Tomnoddy, he will hand it in to a Government department, which will spend it on an improved Air Force to scare the crows away. His Lordship will, no doubt, spend the interest on his National Security in Switzerland or Monte Carlo, what time labourer Hodge consoles himself with a National Wages Board (see page 12), which is to prescribe a National Minimum Wage.

Thus the essential features of capitalism in agriculture would remain. Such farmers as failed to pay the Minimum Wage, and were discovered, would be prosecuted, no doubt, from time to time, but there is no hint in the Labour Party programme of any danger of them losing their farms over it; and the steady increase in agricultural unemployment going on, Hodge is unlikely to be excessively fussy.

The farmers are promised easier credit, lower rents, guaranteed prices and control of imports; but, apart from the fact that the Labour Party, like their Liberal and Tory rivals, find it easier to make promises than to keep them, none of these proposals show any promise of helping the agricultural workers. It is not because the farmers are poor that the labourers suffer. Volumes have been written, from Professor Thorold Rogers downwards, to show that the height of the farmers prosperity through the centuries was founded upon the deepest degradation.of the workers. 

After the Napoleonic Wars, during which the farmers (along with the landlords, bankers, merchants and manufacturers, stockbrokers and army contractors) had made fortunes, the agricultural workers were semi-paupers, having their wages made up by parish relief.

In 1830, with Protection still in force, their misery was revealed “by the light of blazing corn- stacks,” to quote the expression of one writer of the time (S. Laing, in “National Distress”).

In 1863, in spite of an enormous improvement in agricultural methods and equipment, fed by State subsidies during the previous twenty years, the land-workers were worse fed than convicts, and had to do twice as much work (“Royal Commission’s Report on Penal Servitude”).

Thus experience shows that good conditions for the farmers hold no guarantee for the comfort and security of those who produce their wealth. Their lot, whether under Free Trade or Protection, has been little, if anything, better than starvation. As for the rest of the workers, they are offered food at “fair prices,” as a bait for supporting the Labour Party's scheme.

Here again, experience of a comparatively recent date shows the hollowness of the promise. After the War the general cost of living fell. Did the workers gain? No, wages fell with prices.

Whatever effect upon prices the schemes of the Labour Party may have, the workers cannot afford to place their hopes in them. Their task, so far as their wages are concerned, will still be to use their trade unions as weapons of defence; but a still greater task awaits them, i.e., to free themselves from wage-slavery by making the land and factories, etc., the common property of the whole people.

Eric Boden

Notes By The Way: Compulsory Confessions in Russian Jails. (1939)

The Notes By The Way column from the February 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Compulsory Confessions in Russian Jails.

A recent incident reported from Russia should be noticed by those who scouted the possibility that the prisoners in the political trials of the past few years might have been forced to confess to actions they had not committed. A brief report from Moscow, published by the News Chronicle (January 16th, 1939) reads: —

  Five officials of the Commissariat of Internal Affairs have been shot in the Moldavian Soviet Republic for fabrication of evidence, illegal arrests and extraction of confessions by illegal methods.

A report of the trial, from the Moscow correspondent of the Daily Telegraph (January 3rd), said that one of the specific charges against them was having invented “a counter-revolutionary Fascist youth organisation,” and then, by "criminal methods,” forcing ten local teachers to confess that they belonged to this imaginary organisation. The result was the long imprisonment of the teachers.

All five of the prisoners pleaded “guilty,” but all ”tried to throw the blame on their superiors.”

It looks as if the Russian police and prison system needs some pretty drastic investigation.

“Daily Worker” Misleads its Readers about Russia.

Readers of the Communist Daily Worker might reasonably expect that reliable news about Russia should be a prominent feature of that: paper. Here are two recent examples of what the readers get instead of news.

On January 6th the Daily Worker reported that the Russian soldier’s oath of allegiance had been changed, and explained that the “essential difference between this oath and the pledge previously given is its individual character. In the past, Red army men have taken the oath collectively. From February 23rd every Soviet citizen accepted into the fighting services will pledge himself individually. . . .”

Now read the report published a day earlier by the News Chronicle, from Moscow: —

  Significant changes are contained in the new oath to be taken by the Soviet Army on February 23rd, which is published here to-day.
 The oath aims rather at developing patriotism towards the Soviet Union than towards the international working class.
  Men will pledge their loyalty as citizens of the Soviet Union and not as “sons of the working class.” In addition, the pledge will be made to the Soviet Government and not before “workers of the whole world,” as was the case with their former oath adopted after the revolution.
  Soldiers must swear individually not to spare their blood in national defence.—Reuter and B.U.P.

Did the Daily Worker really think that the “essential difference” was that the oath is now taken individually?—or did the real difference escape their notice because of their own conversion to Communist nationalism?

The second instance was the reporting of the Russian Government’s new regulations about factory discipline and social service benefits.

According to the Daily Worker (December 30th, 1938) the new regulations provide for: —

  Differentiated payment of social insurance benefits in accordance with the worker’s period of employment in a given enterprise. Other advantages are allowed workers and employees who work in a given enterprise for a long period.

The whole report was headed “Soviet Creates New Order of Labour Heroes,” this relating to orders and medals for Labour Valour and “Outstanding Services.”

All very interesting and harmless, but will the reader of the Daily Worker realise from the above that the regulations mean a drastic worsening of the social services? The “differentiated payment of social insurance benefits,” translated into plain English, means, according to Forward (January 21st), that in future the full benefits will not be paid unless a worker has been regularly at work in the same works for a period of six years or more. If he has worked for only two years at the same works his sickness benefit will be cut to half of his wage. For two to three years he gets sixty per cent, and for three to six years eighty per cent.

Maternity benefits are cut from four months to sixty-three days.

Workers who are late for work three times in a month become liable to punishment, in the first instance to be reduced to a less paid job for three months. Workers who leave work or are dismissed for breach of labour discipline are to be ejected from their homes “without being offered alternative accommodation.”

It may be said that the Russian social services are still generous in many respects by comparison with those in many other countries, but that is not the point. What the reader of the Daily Worker is entitled to be told is why a drastic worsening masquerades in carefully chosen phrases which make it appear to be rather an improvement.

Pray, Seats for the Privy Council.

Lord Chancellor Maugham, in a letter to The Times (December 16th, 1938) reveals a cruel state of affairs at meetings of the Privy Council. He writes: —

  Members of the Privy Council who attend His Majesty to pass Orders in Council, do not sit; they stand . . .

Something must be done about it.

The Blessings of Insurance.

The Trust of Insurance Shares, Ltd., in an advertisement in the News Chronicle (January 11th, 1939), show what a wonderful thing insurance is— for the shareholders.

Taking a representative selection of insurance companies' shares, the advertisement states that the average yield to investors has risen steadily from £4 18s. 8d. per cent, in 1913 to £6 0s. 9d. per cent, in 1918, and to £15 15s. l0d. per cent, in 1937.

The investor whose insurance shares were worth £100 in 1913 has seen their value rise almost continuously, so that, in 1937, they could have been sold for £479 10s. 0d.

Sir John Ellerman and the “Daily Herald.”

The Daily Express (January 11th) published the following: —

“Daily Express” Staff Reporter.
  The Socialist Daily Herald may eventually have multi-millionaire Sir John Ellerman and his associates as its controllers.
   At present Odhams Press, Limited, have financial control of the Daily Herald (1929). Limited, by holding fifty-one per cent, of its shares; but control of policy is reserved to the Trade Union Congress.
   Sir William Cox, manager of Sir John’s £40,000,000 fortune, has become a director of Odhams Press, Limited.
   Sir William Cox has bought 480,000 4s. Ordinary- shares in the company for £96,000. Sir John Ellerman already has 10,000 Ordinary shares of his own in the company.
    Between them they, have now acquired a directorship and more than a tenth of the Ordinary shares.
    Sir John Ellerman has lately shown an inclination to take part in the newspaper industry.
   Through Sir William Cox he obtained in 1937 a controlling interest in Illustrated Newspapers, Limited, owners of the Bystander and Tatler.
     Sir William Cox is now joint vice-chairman of that company. Lord Southwood is chairman of both Illustrated Newspapers and Odhams Press.

Another very interesting disclosure from the same source is that the £18,000,000 fortune left by his father to Sir John Ellerman in 1933 has, in the intervening five years, increased to £40,000,000.

Sir John will be able to read from time to time in the Daily Herald that hoary old Liberal-Labour theory that the development of social reforms is whittling away the great fortunes and securing a more equal distribution of wealth. Then he will laugh and grow fatter, and say what a good thing it is for capitalism to have such fallacies kept alive.

Imperialisms: The Japanese Mote and the British Beam.

The Manchester Guardian, in an editorial satirising some Japanese imperialist propaganda, ends on a sarcastic note:—

  Nothing is said about Europe, so perhaps we shall be allowed to keep the Channel Islands for the time being, or at least until Japan is ready for them.

The writer of that, no doubt, genuinely believes that it is outrageous for one small capitalist country off the mainland of Asia to want to overrun Hong-Kong, Shanghai and all of China, thus destroying British possessions and poaching on an Anglo-French-American trade preserve. He should ask Indians and Chinese and Japanese what they think of another small capitalist country off the mainland of Europe which has imperialist interests in every continent and on every ocean on the globe.

Or ask a Spaniard what he thinks of Gibraltar being a British fortress.

Incidentally, it was recently pointed out in the same newspaper that Gibraltar was seized by Britain during a Spanish civil war about 200 years ago. Rather a hard nut for the pro-Franco imperialists who argue that a permanent German-Italian occupation of Spanish territory is not to be feared because the proud Spaniards always throw out foreigners. If the Spaniards succeed in throwing the present invaders out it may whet their appetite for Gib.

Postmaster-General's Joke about State Capitalism. 

Forward (December 24th, 1938) and The Star, from which it quotes, both fell into a trap laid for the Labour M.P.s by the Postmaster-General, Major Tryon. On December 14th, in the House of Commons, there was a debate on nationalisation of the land, on a motion put forward by the Labour Party. When the Labour M.P.s saw that the Government had put up the P.M.G. to reply, they should have suspected that there was some particular reason. Instead, they, and The Star and Forward, thought they had got the Government in a very awkward situation. " Major Tryon," said The Star, “ is the Minister responsible for our nationalised Post Office—the most important nationalised service in the world, and the most efficient, too." But the joke was really on the Labour M.P.s, for Major Tryon wound up his speech by quoting from a speech by the Leader of the Labour Party, who had admitted that "the difficulty is that the Post Office is not an example of Socialism, but of State capitalism."

The Late Lamented Kemal Attaturk.

The French Communist news summary, France Monde (November 12th, 1938), publishes from the Moscow paper, Izvestia, the latter's comment on the death of Kemal Attaturk, the Turkish dictator. Typical passage: "All sincere friends of the independence of Turkey have received with great sadness the news of the death of this eminent statesman. . . . The death ... is a great loss for the Turkish people."

Izvestia credits him with having carried through "a series of important political and cultural reforms which completely transfigured Turkey," and remarks that he was “President of the Republican Popular Party."

What Izvestia does not relate is that this brutal, ambitious and unscrupulous political schemer had to his credit the deliberate sabotage of the growing movement towards Parliamentary Government. The precious “Popular Party," of which he was President, is the Turkish equivalent of Hitler's Totalitarian Nazi Party—no other parties are allowed. The full story is available in "Grey Wolf" (Penguin, 6d.).

This flattery of Kemal shows the real attitude of the Bolshevists towards Parliamentary Government and democracy.

German and British Naval Authorities See Eye to Eye.

In an article on the Anglo-German Naval Pact, Mr. Winston Churchill, himself a former First Lord of the Admiralty, lets in a little light on the mentality of those who control the Navy: —

  When it was pointed out by me that the building by the Germans of a new navy one-third the tonnage of the then antiquated British Fleet would entail the complete rebuilding of the British Fleet, the Admiralty remained quite cool. They welcomed the German construction as a spur and pace-maker, which would procure the necessary funds from the British Government. Thus the Agreement passed smoothly through the House of Commons, and all protests and warnings were unavailing.—(Daily Telegraph, January 12th, 1939.)

These are the people who profess to want disarmament.

Edgar Hardcastle

Letter: Problems of Socialist Administration (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (D. G. D., Clapham) asks the following question: —

  When you have convinced the working class of the futility, as far as they are concerned, of the present system and have also got them to accept the principles of Socialism, you will be in a position to get power. Having got power you will convert the means of production and distribution into the common property of society, and they will be placed under the democratic control of the whole people. My question is this: what form of organisation will you set up to run this country. Will it be based on a Central Government, or on local government, or on a sectional basis? Your speakers, when questioned on this matter, stated that nobody could say what the organisation would be. In regard to details, I agree with this, but surely your party must have some conception of the bare outlines of the form society will take. It is ridiculous to put forward a plan to overthrow the capitalist system and then say to the workers that you’ve got no idea of what you’re going to do after that, but that it will all come out all right in the crash.

Reply.

Our correspondent’s difficulty is one which troubles many who are sympathetically disposed towards Socialism but who feel that some definite plan is required. Much of the difficulty arises, we suggest, out of a mistaken view of the conditions which will exist when the workers take power into their hands. Our correspondent’s final words illustrate this. He thinks of Socialism coming to birth out of conditions of chaos, his actual phrase being “the crash.” This is a mistaken view. Chaos could arise, and does arise, when a minority seizes power and tries to introduce more or less fundamental changes against the wishes of the majority of the population, or when the majority are apathetic and lack understanding of what is being done. But the inauguration of Socialism implies (as our correspondent recognises) the support and understanding of the majority of the population. There can then be no “crash.” The workers will simply carry on with the operation of industry, transport, administration with the elimination of its capitalist features. Changes will be introduced in orderly fashion, as agreed by the workers themselves in co-operation with their fellows in other lands. The basis of industrial organisation and administration will start from the arrangements existing under capitalism at the time of the transformation, and this will present no difficulties because the Socialist movement will already be thoroughly international both in outlook and in practical organisation. As far as the machinery of organisation and administration is concerned, it will be local, regional, national and international, evolving out of existing forms. Railway organisation, for example, would naturally follow the land areas served by the railway systems, but would need to be co-ordinated with local road services, international air services and steamship routes. Postal services would (as now) require both local, national and international organisation. Administration would follow similar forms, doubtless with the utmost variety of modifications to meet local needs in the different continents.

To those who think of the problem against the present background of property interests and national rivalries this presents overwhelming difficulties. To the Socialist, who sees that with the abolition of the capitalist basis the urge towards co-operation is released from its present imprisonment, the problems of Socialism fall into their proper perspective.

Editorial Committee

Answers To Correspondents

J. L. Dingley (Woodford Green). Your two questions have repeatedly been dealt with in the Socialist Standard. See, for example, the issue for 1938.

Editorial Committee

Letter: Another Question about War for Czechoslovakia (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent writes about the article, “Czechoslovakia—The Choice Before Us,” in the October Socialist Standard.

Glasgow

Sir,

In the October Socialist Standard an article dealing with the Czechoslovakian crisis appeared. There are several statements which are not only contradictory to one another, but are obviously inconsistent with the principles of Socialism.

In this article it is stated, and rightly so, that “The job of Socialists at all times is to propagate Socialism.” Again, the writer urges us, "To hasten the day when the British workers, along with the workers of all countries, can drive from power Chamberlain and his foreign capitalist friends and enemies, both Democratic and Fascist, and establish Socialism.”

The author correctly states that the real problem is that of rallying the workers to Socialism, and that “Only Socialism ” is worth struggling for.

I am in complete sympathy and agreement with the above statements, but now we come to those which are not only obviously contradictions, but are gross digressions from the true path of Socialism.

On page 146 it is stated that, if we went to war with Germany “It might be possible to drive out some of the existing dictatorships.” Then the author asks the question, “Would that bring Socialism nearer?” and replies “No.” I disagree on this point. Czechoslovakia, before Hitler's invasion of it, was a country in which there existed comparative freedom of speech with regard to political matters. That is, Socialists in that country were permitted, without fear of harm or persecution, to propagate the ideals of Socialism. This, says the writer, is the bounden duty of Socialists at all times.

How, then, does the writer reconcile this attitude with the one in which he is perfectly content to sit back and do nothing to prevent the ruthless extermination of the Socialist cause in Czechoslovakia by the Nazi hordes. “Socialism is worth lighting for” (so the author says), but he does nothing to stop the Fascist invasion of Czechoslovakia, with its resultant suppression of existing Socialist ideals (which you will grant, must exist, even to a small extent, in that country), therefore the author betrays the cause of Socialism either due to his ignorance or otherwise.

Yours faithfully, 

M. C.

Reply.

The first point to be replied to in our correspondent’s letter is the reference to driving out dictatorships by means of war. Our correspondent has misunderstood what was meant by the statement he refers to. The statement assumed that, as a result of war, some dictatorships (those on the defeated side) might be driven out for the time being, but that would not destroy dictatorship. There would still be the dictatorships on the victorious side, their prestige perhaps even enhanced by victory. It would also not have removed the real cause of dictatorship, which is workers who, in their political ignorance, are "political cannon-fodder for the first Fascist mob-orator.” Defeat in 1918 removed Kaiserism. It was followed by Hitlerism later on.

This brings us to our correspondent’s main point, the possibility, by means of war, of preserving Czechoslovakia, in which “there existed comparative freedom of speech with regard to political matters.”

Our correspondent asks us to be prepared to fight to preserve Czechoslovakia, but does not face up to the fact that at least a large minority, of the workers and peasants in that country were themselves so dissatisfied, because of the evils of capitalism, and so given over to nationalist sentiment, that they were opposed to that point of view and cared little about the advantages of ”comparative freedom of speech.” Instead of being united to maintain Czechoslovakia as it was, they were anxious to join Germany or Hungary, or set up a reactionary autonomous Slovakia or introduce a semi-totalitarian State in the Czech part of the country. Semi-Fascist movements and tendencies were making big headway in Czechoslovakia quite apart from the pro-German sentiments of the majority of Sudeten Germans, as can be seen from the reactionary legislation now being adopted, particularly in Slovakia, including the suppression of the Social-Democratic Party. President Benesh himself is reported to have said that he left the country, not only from fear of the Germans, but also from fear of the Czech semi-Fascists (Evening Standard, October 24th, 1938). Going to war to force German capitalism to keep out of Czechoslovakia, and to force many unwilling populations to remain in, is not work for Socialists. It is to play the part of tools of rival imperialisms. It should be noted that among the political parties claiming to be Socialist, which were represented at an International Conference in Switzerland in September last, which strongly denounced the policy of supporting war for Czechoslovakia, was a party from Czechoslovakia (see The Socialist Standard, October, 1938).

One thing to be remembered, too, is the tremendous consequences of a war to preserve Czechoslovakia, including the probable annihilation of many of the Social-Democrats there, the strengthening of the Government’s hand if victorious, and the removal of many of the democratic amenities we now enjoy—particularly liberty to work for the overthrow of capitalism.

Editorial Committee.

This Month's Quotation: August Bebel (1939)

The Front Page quote from the February 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

  ". . .  if, in the course of this great battle for the emancipation of the human race, we should fall, those now in the rear will step forward.”

August Bebel

Here and There: When Mussolini Would Not Fight (1939)

The Here and There column from the February 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

When Mussolini Would Not Fight.

During the past ten years or so The Socialist Standard has more than once had to debunk the idea, popular with Communists and the daily Press, that Mussolini established the Italian dictatorship in defiance of the State and its armed forces, and with the aid of a few thousand Blackshirt hoodlums. Frank Owen, editor of the Daily Express, in an article, “The March on Rome” (Evening Standard, January 13th, 1939), supports our view and reproduces a statement by Mussolini which has a bearing on the question. Frank Owen refers to the events of 1919, when Italy was demanding the Austro-Hungarian port of Fiume from the Allies, who were then dividing up the spoils of victory. D’Annunzio, the Italian poet and Fascist colleague of Mussolini, led a Fascist march on the port to demand of its Italian military commander, who held it for the Allied Powers, its surrender to Italy. Owen tells us that Mussolini sat tight and, when accused of deserting D'Annunzio, snapped : —

“Revolution will be accomplished with the Army, not against it: with arms, not without them: with trained forces, not with undisciplined mobs called together in the streets."

Which opinion he remembered and acted upon in connection with the miscalled “March on Rome" in 1922.

*    *    *

“What’s Up in Palestine?”

The November issue of Fact is a booklet of ninety pages, crammed with the sort of information which the Socialist looks for when attempting to get behind the appearance of world events. It is called “What's up in Palestine?” and is written by Michael Greenberg. The author analyses the historical, social and industrial background of the conflict between the Arab and Jewish nationalisms and brings clarity to it.

The interest of the British Government in the Palestine Mandate needs very little explaining. Palestine is on the British Empire sea route to India and is therefore of strategical importance, particularly since the political independence of Egypt. An oil pipe-line, which fuels the British Navy, also runs through Palestine. Whatever settlement is the outcome of the present disturbance, it is not likely that British dominance will suffer.

The origin of the present conflict goes back to the setting up of a National Home for the Jews under the protection of the British Government.

After early difficulties, out of which many observers prophesied the failure of. the experiment, Palestine became the scene of a thriving Jewish capitalist industrialism. Between 1919/1938, £80,000,000 of Jewish capital poured in with 300,000 skilled immigrants. The result was intense capitalist agriculture where formerly peasant farming prevailed. The effect was something like the Industrial Revolution through which the Western capitalist countries had passed. Peasant farming began to break up. When it remained it had to enter into cut-throat competition with the efficient and up-to-date Jewish capitalism, which meant a lower standard of living for the peasantry. Former peasant proprietors became landless labourers. At one time there were 200,000 of these dispossessed peasants employed as labourers on public works and by large Jewish firms.

Not unnaturally, the anti-capitalist sentiment of the Arabs takes an anti-Jewish form, and is canalised into support, for Arab nationalism. It may take the Arab worker some years to realise that his real enemy is capitalism in general, and not only the Jewish capitalist in particular. At the moment, another factor complicates the struggle. Thousands of Arab workers, accustomed to a very low standard, enter the labour market in competition with the Jewish workers, and threaten to depress the latter's relatively higher standard of living.

Fact, at sixpence a copy, is usually a sound investment. The November issue is worth that amount many times.

*    *    *

Morals and Football Pools.

It used to be argued that to close the public houses would provoke “revolution." Somewhat exaggerated, perhaps, but nevertheless expressive of the fact that pubs did (before so many other diversions came to engage the worker's interest) provide a means of offsetting the drabness of the worker's working and social life, and of keeping his mind away from political problems. One of the later diversions are the football pools, concerning which the Daily Telegraph recently featured much correspondence from readers, both for and against them. The letter from the managing director of Goodsway Tates, Ltd., claimed for the pools what, in the past, has been claimed by the pubs, politicians and churches. He says (Daily Telegraph, December 10th, 1938): —

  “They have certainly brought interest into many drab lives, and from a political point of view have done much good in keeping the minds of the populace occupied during depressing times and combating Communism than any other factor.”

*    *    *

The Swastika over the Andes.

The current issue of the American journal, The Reader's Digest, contains an article called “The Coming Struggle for Latin America,” which is a condensation of the book of the same name by Carleton Beals. It deals with the penetration of German trade into the countries which make up South America. The extent of the penetration may be judged by the fact that there are one hundred thousand Germans in the Argentine alone. Most of them are there in connection with the interests of German trade. The industries they pursue are hardware, agriculture and electrical machinery, printing, chemical, motor cars and dyes. In Mexico, Chile and Brazil, Germans own the textile factories. In Chile, German munition factories have been established. Throughout the whole continent German capitalists are getting control of copper mines, nickel mines, oil and iron-ore producing land.

In 1933/1936, German trade with Central South America increased by 500 per cent. The imports of munitions from America into Nicaragua were displaced in favour of munitions from Germany and Italy. And recently, Mexico entered into an agreement with Germany to exchange oil for industrial machinery on barter basis. Evidence of a similar penetration by Japanese trading interests is also given.

German, Italian and Japanese influence in South America goes still further afield than trade. Immigrants, workers and trading agents are trained to propagate the doctrines of Nazism and Fascism, to understand the traditions and customs of South Americans, to perpetuate the idea that English and American capitalism is decadent. In this they are assisted by the fact that most of the American States are under dictatorships. That American capitalism is perturbed by these developments is evidenced by President Roosevelt's calling of the Lima Conference for the professed object of exploring the possibility of the mutual defence of the American States from attack, and his violent attacks on Nazism and Fascism. 

The Manchester Guardian, at the time of this conference, stated that the town of Lima was bedecked with thousands of Swastika and Fascist flags, but with only two American flags, one of which flew over the American embassy.

The expansion and development of German, Italian and Japanese capitalism has resulted in a weakening of the world influence of British and American capitalism, and is a threat to their interest s in the world's markets.

It is that clash of interests which is the material basis for the apparent clash between the so-called ideologies of Fascism and Democracy.

Harry Waite

Strife in the West Indies (1939)

Book Review from the February 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Warning from the West Indies by W. M. MacMillan. (Penguin Special, 6d.)

To-Day, when Germany and Italy are demanding colonies, when the British and French governments are holding fast to theirs, and when leaders of all shades—Communist, Labour, Liberal and Conservative—are doing their utmost to make the British workers believe that the British Empire is worth defending with their lives, it is very fitting that these workers, who would bear the brunt of the fighting in the event of war, should know what they would be defending.

Are we not told that it would be inhuman if the British Government handed any of its colonies over to the savagery of the totalitarian governments? Well, it is worth asking how the British colonies are administered, in order to find out if the subject peoples would lose by a change of masters.

An insight into the character of British rule over colonial peoples can be obtained from Mr. W. M. MacMillan’s "Warning from the West Indies.” This book shows the results of imperialism, and should convince all workers that British imperialism is no better than any other.

The title is very apt. Indeed, it is a warning, from the West Indies that British workers would be sacrificing themselves in vain if they backed their Government in a war with another country over colonies.

Though we are well aware that “Home Rule" solves none of the problems of a working class, it is worth noting that "No British Crown colony of other than European population has 'grown up' to attain responsible government ” (p. 26). That fact alone is sufficient to expose the lying assertion that the British are in the colonies to help the natives along the road of progress. It shows, also, how much a capitalist government is interested in fostering democracy. Although the British Government has been ruling some colonies for many generations, Mr. MacMillan is able to make the following observation: "In the West Indies, and in the Empire as a whole, the development of the backward peoples has hardly yet begun" (p. 169).

Until 1838 chattel slavery was carried on in the West Indies. Since the slaves were "emancipated,” their position has changed very little— save that formerly they were fed, clothed and housed by their masters, whilst now they work for wages, and feed, clothe and house themselves as best they can.

“Emancipation,” says Mr. MacMillan, "only meant the substitution of a low wage for the previous outlay on the purchase and maintenance of slaves, besides absolving employers from responsibility" (p. 69). And again : —

“But, in spite of a growing middle class, a large but uncertain proportion of the population are very much where slavery left them" (p. 53).

And that, let it be noted, after a hundred years of “freedom" and “progress” under British rule.

In the towns of the West Indies slums are general (p. 101). Even when the Government launches a housing scheme the houses are beyond the means of the poorer sections of the population. “These remain as they were, crowded in insanitary dwellings, even in the country” (p. 119). The latest Trinidad Commission severely condemned housing conditions.

Incidentally, we agree with Mr. MacMillan when he says, "Bad housing is obviously only part of the familiar problem of poverty and cannot be dealt with in isolation,” and we would urge workers to ask themselves how it is that, wherever capitalism penetrates, slums are to be found.

Unemployment is rife in the West Indies, and provision has had to be made for the indigent poor (p. 95). “In Barbados, in particular, special effort is needed to save the unemployed from starvation. In other islands they can live more easily on friends with small holdings, or, failing these, gather wild produce from the forest." (Italics ours.) This last sentence shows how concerned the British Government is for its subject peoples.

Every island in the West Indies has its beggars. Says MacMillan, “Almost every island is desperately afflicted with beggars of all kinds—'sturdy' beggars a few of them, but many not so sturdy. Especially in the larger islands, where tourist influence is strong, the visitor has to suffer importunate begging from the obviously inadequately employed . . .  a not uncommon salutation is ‘I beg you somet'ing' "(p. 105).

Naturally, with so much poverty and with so many slums, malnutrition and ill-health are widespread. The poor, being inadequately fed, have not the power to resist epidemics. “The school medical officer for Kingston has produced evidence that undernourishment is very general, and that teachers find it prevents many children from working" (p. 123). 

Mr. MacMillan's case is that the malnutrition is due to the fact that there is no variety in the diet, but he says—and note this—“Even if good feeding were available and understood, agricultural wages would not buy it. . . ."

And so we could continue to quote from this book to show that, in these British colonies, conditions are revolting for the poor. And such, fellow workers, is the state of affairs you will be called upon to defend in the event of a war over colonies.

It is not surprising that strikes have broken out among the workers of the West Indies during the last two years. These are but the beginning. Some day, those workers will be lined up with their brothers in other parts of the world, and with them they will demand the end of exploitation, and this will end poverty, slums and malnutrition. They will be demanding the change from capitalism to Socialism.

Clifford Allen

Cripps and the Labour Party (1939)

Editorial from the February 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Political  groups are nowadays two-a-penny. Facing the Tories, National Liberals and National Labour Party, which make up the Chamberlain Government are the opposition Liberals, the Labour Party and its affiliated parties, the Co-operative Party, the I.L.P. and the Communists. Then there is Lloyd George’s Council of Action, the Labour Co-operative joint campaign, the Churchill - Sandys - Atholl  Hundred Thousand" movement, and the latest addition, the Cripps' Manifesto for an alliance of all genuine friends of democracy and opponents of the Chamberlain Government. Sir Stafford Cripps argues that if all the genuine friends of democracy got together, they would be numerous enough to defeat Chamberlain at the next election, but lots of genuine friends have lost no time in telling Cripps that he is a disruptionist, and they will have none of him and his movement. They include the overwhelming majority of members of the Executive Committee of the Labour Party, on which Cripps had a seat, and their denunciation has been backed by Mr. Bevin and other trade union officials. Also, Sir Stafford Cripps will himself have no dealings with a rival group of ”friends of democracy,” the Churchill group; for, says Cripps, in a memorandum to the Labour Party, the object of the Hundred Thousand movement is really “to capture the youth for reactionary imperialism” (Manchester Guardian, January 16th, 1939). He fears that, though this movement has been checked for the moment, some such group, while preaching a ”democratic front," may actually be leading the youth “into what are substantially Fascist paths." Though the Cripps’ group object to Churchill and the rest of the Hundred Thousand movement, they approve the Duchess of Atholl, who is its Acting Chairman.

Naturally, Sir Stafford numbers among his supporters that indefatigable promoter of new parties, Mr. G. D. H. Cole. It would be difficult j to point to any period in the past quarter of a century when Mr. Cole was not founding a new political cult or burying an old one.

Socialism in Cold Storage.

Both the Labour-Co-operative joint campaign to secure the election of a Labour Government and Sir Stafford Cripps' plea for united action have as their ostensible justification the critical nature of the present political situation, particularly the international situation. Both programmes are designed to appeal to non-Socialists, though Cripps is candid about it and the Labour Party is not. Cripps says, frankly, that he proposes to put Socialism into cold storage for the present, and drafts his programme accordingly. The Labour Party offer just the same kind of programme but indignantly deny any abandonment of Socialism. As recently as December 2nd, 1938, the editor of the Daily Herald, Mr. Francis Williams, wrote an article in answer to “people who declare themselves Socialists but who want Socialism to be put into cold storage for the time being.” Mr. Williams, using arguments that have often appeared in The Socialist Standard, maintained that “a great Socialist crusade” is needed to answer Fascism. It would, he said, ”win an immense number of converts,” but such a crusade "can only be harmed by alliance with those who do not share our Socialist beliefs.”

Now the crusade has been launched by the Daily Herald of January 14th, 1939. It has seven points, as follows: “£1 a week pension at 65,” "Work for all at fair wages," ”Plenty of food at fair prices,” ” A fair chance of health for all,” ”A clear policy for peace,” “ Build up our strength,” and " Put Britain's safety first.”

The first four are self-explanatory. Number five proposes linking up with “other peaceful countries," so that the dictators ”will not dare to attack any of us.” Number six means the development of agriculture, industry and transport. The seventh and last means the provision of adequate anti-aircraft protection.

The above new programme is so like all the old ones that it needs little comment. It will be observed that the “Socialist Crusade” has no slightest tinge of Socialism.

Sir Stafford. Cripps (see Manifesto in Manchester Guardian, January 16th) wants his Popular Front to be based on the following points: Effective protection of democracy, collaboration with ”France, Russia, America and other democratic countries," co-operation with the trade unions for advances in wages, etc., higher standards of nutrition, better provision for the unemployed, improved old-age pensions, educational reforms, a policy to deal with unemployment, agricultural reforms, and national control of transport, mining, and the Bank of England.

Socialists will perceive that Sir Stafford’s programme also contains nothing of Socialism, but not because he has put it in cold storage. When he says that the Labour Party should join his proposed Popular Front, but at the same time affirm that it remains “convinced that the only ultimate solution of the national and international difficulties was along the lines of its fullest Socialist program me." Sir Stafford is talking with his tongue in his cheek. He knows, as well as anyone, that the Labour Party was built up on a programme from which Socialism was excluded, and that the exclusion was as necessary to the Labour Party as he recognises it to be necessary for his all-party group. Those who want non-Socialist votes must put forward a reformist programme which will appeal to non-Socialists. Sir Stafford says that in “normal political times" he is all for Socialism and independence, but the present times are not normal. Those who look up his political career will find that times apparently never were normal, for all of his own election campaigns have been fought as a Labour candidate on the usual reformist programme.

The Partnership of Sheep and Wolves.

Behind all these manoeuvrings of the Labour and Co-operative Parties, and Sir Stafford Cripps and his supporters, is the decisive factor that the vast majority of electors are not Socialists. To get a majority the opposition must therefore always make a non-Socialist appeal. As long ago as 1931 it was pointed out in The Socialist Standard that the workers' experience of two Labour Governments had so knocked the gilt off Labourism that it was hard to conceive of any situation in which the Labour Party could ever hope to gain a majority, unless in alliance with the Liberals or other parties or groups. The Labour-Co-operative campaign and the Cripps’ Popular Front are a tardy recognition of this situation. But neither group candidly admits the price that has to be paid to get votes. The Labour Party puts forward a non-Socialist programme and labels it "Socialist Crusade," while Cripps writes glibly of an all-party alliance, in which nobody “would be expected to relinquish any part of their beliefs or programme except for the specific and limited purpose of the present emergency and for the creation of a temporary combination to fight the National Government.”

Fine-sounding phrases, but what is the new Government going to do when it gets into office, except carry on the administration of capitalism? They could not introduce Socialism, even if they wished, because the electorate is opposed to such a course, and the openly capitalist elements have not the slightest intention of putting capitalism in cold storage as their part of the bargain. Nor do they even pretend to have that intention. Like the Duchess of Atholl, who wrote an article on “My Creed" in Reynolds (January 15th, 1939), they desire “to maintain private property as an institution." The Socialist sheep is asked to join in a pact of mutual assistance with the capitalist wolf under the blessed guise of genuine friends of demoracy, but while the sheep is to give up Socialism the wolf carries on in the accustomed way.

Cripps and the Labour Party both talk of “ fair wages." Every capitalist, including the worst sweaters, will hasten to sign on the dotted line to such a nebulous phrase, but it will be noticed that neither the Labour Party nor Cripps embarrasses its potential capitalist supporters by proposing to repeal the 1927 Trades Disputes and Trades Union Act: that would be construed as an unfriendly act by the “genuine friends of democracy," who, in truth, care all about protecting the private proverty institution and nothing at all about fighting Fascism, unless they consider the latter a means to the former.

Neither a Labour Government nor a Popular Front all-party Government would advance Socialism one iota. Nor will they even improve the prospects of democracy. Doomed to fail and disintegrate, like every Government administering capitalism, they may very likely encourage the growth of Fascism among the disappointed electorate.

The Communist International (1939)

Front cover of the 1962 edition.

Book Review from the February 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Communist International," by F. Borkenau. Faber & Faber. 12/6. 442 pages

A by no means insignificant reason for the lamentable condition of the international working-class movement is to be sought in the baneful influence of events in Russia. Hypnotised by its mythical Socialist character, bull-dozed by its offspring, the Communist International, thousands of militant workers have fallen victims to its spell. Fortunately, numbers of workers everywhere, under the hard blows of reality, are beginning to come to their senses. Anything that tends to hasten this process can only be welcomed, and therein lies the importance of this book. Written by a former official of the German Communist Party, it is a painstaking and scrupulous attempt to reveal the origins of Russian Bolshevism and its influence, through the Comintern, on the world Labour movement.

Dr. Borkenau is of the opinion that the Communist International has served three main purposes during its history. In its first years it was “mainly an instrument to bring about revolution"; later it was “mainly an instrument in the Russian factional struggles”; and at the moment it is "mainly an instrument of Russian foreign policy." A safe generalisation, and one not necessarily conflicting with the author’s view, would be that the Comintern at all times was subordinated to the needs, either real or imagined, of the Russian State. For even during its early and "heroic” period, when, possibly, the Soviet leaders did sincerely desire and work for revolution elsewhere, attempts at revolution were always encouraged for the advantage it was thought they would bring to the newly- launched State.

Although the Communist International did not formally come into existence until March, 1919, the Germany of the January of that year was one of the countries where Russian influence first made itself felt. Under the influence of the Russian events and its chief protagonist in Germany, Radek, a small group of militant and romantically-minded workers, known as the Spartacists, rose in armed revolt. Rosa Luxemburg, a member of this group, and those closely associated with her, strongly advised against this senseless act. Inevitably, this heroic, but unbelievedly muddle-headed, attempt to seize power was drowned in blood. One of the tragic aspects of this pitiable farce was the death of Rosa Luxemburg, whose ghastly murder was a great loss to the German working-class movement  in particular, and to the international working class in general. Dr. Borkenau pays a moving tribute, marred only by a colossal piece of masculine conceit, to this truly remarkable woman. The sharp differences between Luxemburg and Lenin, particularly on the question of leadership, where Luxemburg, the Socialist, opposed the essentially bourgeois "Jacobin" revolutionary, Lenin; Luxemburg's critical attitude towards the Russian Revolution; her whole life and work, no less than the manner of her death, make the " Lenin-Liebknecht-Luxemburg” commemoration meetings, and the Communist claim that "Luxemburg" belongs to them, an insult to the memory of one of the finest individuals who ever championed the cause of the working class.

In Hungary, Finland, Germany in 1921 and 1923, and in China in 1927, the tale of intrigue, duplicity, treachery and disastrous incompetence of the Communist International unfolds itself. The description of the fantastic escapades fostered by the self-appointed "revolutionary general staff” would simply be unbelievable were it not for the factual evidence which Dr. Borkenau so abundantly provides. We must content ourselves with selecting as "high spots" the 1921 rising in Germany, and the catastrophe known as the Canton "Soviet" of 1927.

In 1921, Bela Kun, a leading Hungarian Communist, arrived from Russia, where he had witnessed at Kronstadt the bloody suppression by Lenin and Trotsky of the last remnants of Soviet democracy. Convinced of the desperate situation of the Soviet regime, he persuaded the Central Committee of the German Communist Party to stage a rising, the outcome of which he hoped would assist the Soviet Power to maintain itself. Completely isolated from the workers, the Communists sat down to work out the details of the "rising." As the German workers proved completely unresponsive to calls for an armed revolt, it was decided that a little "assistance" would not be misplaced. Hence we have, for example, the Communists of Breslau deciding to start the "Revolution" by blowing up their own party premises, to stage the explosion in the toilet, and, moreover, seriously debating whether to blow up the toilet when occupied or not! Fortunately, commonsense(!) prevailed. The toilet went up in the air without a victim. During this time the Communists also called for a General Strike. But the German workers didn’t want to strike! Were the Communists dismayed! Not a bit of it! They simply mobilised their unemployed members and set them to literally drag the employed workers out of the factories. Paul Levi, one of the few independent spirits connected with the German Communist movement, commenting in a pamphlet, Our Road, on the fist fights between Communist unemployed and the employed workers, stated that: "Even more pathetic reports arrived from Berlin. We learn that it was a terrible  thing to watch how the unemployed, crying loudly at the pain of the thrashings they had received, were thrown out of the factories." Levi was excluded from the party, and although the Communists were subsequently forced to admit the accuracy of his indictment—and this was upheld by Lenin—he was never reinstated.

Already before the senseless attempt to form a "Soviet" at Canton in December, 1927, the Chinese Communists had been bloodily defeated ; by Chiang-Kai-Shek. As Dr. Borkenau says:  "The root of the . . . catastrophe in China lies in this duplicity, in this child-like conviction that your adversary will not understand your intentions, though you express them quite openly, that he will continue to co-operate with you as long as you want it, and allow himself to be overthrown when it suits you." The Chinese Communists thought they could use Chiang; instead he used them, and then mercilessly destroyed them. Stalin, who was for the most part responsible for this disastrous policy of double-dealing, was faced with the criticism of the opposition in Russia. To retrieve his prestige, a German Communist, an unscrupulous, daring and irresponsible careerist by the name of Heinz Neumann, was sent to China, where, with the support of the remnants of armed Chinese Communists, he staged the Canton "Commune." Formed amidst the general indifference of the populace, this " Soviet" lasted 58 hours, important sections of the workers taking up arms against it. At the end of this adventure, a frightful massacre of Communists took place, involving the whole of the Chinese Communist leaders. Only Heinz Neumann escaped. It is perhaps one of the minor ironies of history that Neumann escaped death then, and later, at the hands of Hitler, only to be shot by his Russian "comrades" at Moscow in May, 1937.

Dr. Borkenau supplies what is to us one of the most convincing reasons for the never-ending purges, denunciations, jailings, shootings and persecutidns that have decimated the ranks of many Communist parties, in particular the Russian Party. The Communists, in spite of the lip-service they pay to "objective reality," are, in fact, incorrigible  "subjectivists." If social reality conflicts with what the latest dogma from Moscow says it ought to be—well, so much the worse for reality. Living in a world of their own, perhaps the most dangerous illusion ever held by them is that the working class is simply bursting with revolutionary ardour and only restrained by the nefarious tactics of treacherous Labour leaders. But if the workers do adopt a policy of which the Communists approve, and disaster, nevertheless, results, then the leaders have not fully understood, were not really " Bolshevised," or have misapplied, sabotaged or betrayed the infallible directives given by infallible people in Moscow. Therefore—off

with their heads! If the "workers’ State" has finally been achieved, as in Russia, and, nevertheless, paradise obstinately refuses to make an appearance, are the causes to be sought in a mistaken appraisal of social conditions? Of course not! It must lie the treachery of some of the leaders. Consequently, we have the spectacle of men who have grown old and broken in the services of the Revolution being dragged out from political obscurity and butchered to satisfy the need of a scapegoat.

Perhaps one of tlie most interesting and revealing chapters in this book is the one entitled "The Structure of the Communist Parties." The instability of the membership of the Communist parties is well known, and in Germany it reached such proportions as to justify the use of a technical term, "fluctuation," a term which was subsequently applied to all the non-Russian parties to describe the staggering influx and exit of members. Basing himself on a careful analysis of the available statistical material, Dr. Borkenau concludes that in the German party a nucleus of only five per cent. remained faithful, whatever happened. And since, as he says, "the Germans have a well-justified reputation for the stubbornness with which they stick to allegiances once established,” there is no reason to suppose that any other Communist Party is any better in this respect. The social composition of the parties varies as to the policy pursued, whether "right" or “left." It is a noticeable fact that, in Great Britain, the Communist Party has, at the moment, attracted many who formerly they would have dubbed "middle- class elements." In Spain the process has gone so far that the party there has almost lost its proletarian character.

Summing up, Dr. Borkenau reaches the scathing conclusion that "an iron guard, unshakable, integrating the experience of a generation of revolutionary fighters, is the official ideal of a Communist Party. Shifting masses, imbued with a deep hatred of the old mass organisations and their humdrum activities, but without any stability or fixed conviction of their own, are the reality."

Apart from the fact that the author talks of the specious economic arguments of Karl Marx without in any way attempting to justify such strictures, the book also contains one or two minor inaccuracies. That these latter have been seized on so avidly by Communist apologists, in an attempt to discredit the book as a whole, merely serves to demonstrate the weakness of the Communist case. Dr. Borkenau also asserts that the workers in the majority have hitherto shown no desire for Socialism: a statement with which every Socialist will readily agree. But when he goes on to conclude that they never will do, he assumes the role of a prophet, and we, as Socialists, will do our best to see that, in due course, experience will confound him.

Nevertheless, this remains an extremely valuable book, which all workers ought to read. Propagandists for Socialism will find it invaluable when faced with Communist opposition. As far as members of the Communist Party are concerned, if blind devotion to a myth has not entirely impaired what critical faculties they ever possessed, we can only implore them to get hold of it at all costs. We freely concede that in the ranks of the Communist Party are to be found many workers abounding in enthusiasm, energy, capacity for self-sacrifice, and devotion to a cause which they quite sincerely identify with the cause of the working class. But these very qualities, which could be of inestimable advantage to the working class, are transformed into a veritable curse because of the blind, uncritical, unquestioning devotion to an illusion. This book should go a long way towards dispelling that illusion.

A. H. M.