The Way to Peace. (1940)

From the February 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Phoney” War

The war to-day presents many puzzling features. The absence of big offensives on the front, an unexpected freedom from aerial attacks on big cities, these are factors which must have taken many by surprise. To complete the confusion one need only recall the diplomatic and political manoeuvres during the two or three years prior to the outbreak of the conflict, the pact signed at Munich between Chamberlain and Hitler, the “Anti-Fascist” policy of Stalin and his Yes-men, the Communists. Yet the position is by no means contradictory when a careful analysis on Socialist lines is applied.

We must bear in mind, however, that a complex stage has been reached in the development of World Capitalism, a complexity which is both quantitative and qualitative. History does not repeat itself and 1939 is not 1914; twenty-five years have changed the world, economically and politically, and a similar alignment of forces are yet facing different problems.

Where is this change most clearly marked ? Undoubtedly in the sphere of economics. The productive factors, the means for churning out goods of all kinds, have developed to an extent which can only be realised by those who can grasp the significance of that fundamental antagonism within the present world economic order, the clash between the private or Class ownership of the productive forces and Social production.

What Capitalism Means

The Class nature of ownership is most apparent in the highly-developed parts of the world. In Britain, the U.S.A., France, Germany, Japan, and other smaller countries, the economic cleavage of the population into property-owners and property-less is brought into bold relief by the giant stature of the productive machine. The combines and trusts with their millionaire oligarchies tower unmistakably over the mass of working people, while so-called “middle class” elements are made to look pathetically ridiculous in their attempts to pose as a balance within this vicious social inequality.

In .the more backward countries (particularly those not subjugated by one or the other of the above-mentioned powers) the economic line-up is not so distinct, or assumes a different form. But again there is the contrast between wealth and poverty, and whilst, for example, a country like Russia cannot as yet boast of its millionaires, it hides a poverty perhaps more abject than that of many other European lands. In any case, the more highly-developed countries are a faithful vision of what is yet to come elsewhere.

So here is a world of teeming fertility, of tremendous productivity, of ever greater potentialities, but little of it belongs to those who work on it; the coolie and the peasant, the miner and the clerk, the mechanic and the bricklayer, whatever the colour of their skin or the expression of their tongues, theirs is to work and obey lest even their meagre existence is taken from them. And the grasping hand of a tiny minority holds the colossus of world-production in its possessive clutches.

People who want to understand the modern world and why it erupts periodically into wars must forget the Hitlers and Stalins, the Chamberlains and their ilk, they must tear away the political coverings with their smoke-screens of propaganda. Then they will see the process of production, the only basis of life, the making and growing of food, the milling and the mining, yes, and the moulding of guns. For the class that owns the world does not want to lose it, they quarrel with each other for bigger slices of it, and, finally, they are afraid of having to give it up altogether.

The Empires

It is in this social setting that we have to consider the position of powers in conflict.

Shorn of their political trappings, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, etc., are merely the geographical incarnations of national capitalist enterprises competing with each other for commercial supremacy.

Poland, Czechoslovakia, Finland, the Colonies, and other parts of the European continent, represent so many means to the one end of capitalist production—profits.

What are the essentials required by capitalists in their hunt for profits ?

Firstly, they must have access to raw materials (minerals, oil, etc.).

Secondly, a working class willing to labour for them, and

Thirdly, an entry to markets where they can unload their goods at a profit.

In all three essentials the British and French Empires are a good first and second, whilst Germany is a bad third.

The reasons for this are historical and need not concern us here. Nor need we explain why Russia has been left behind in economic development and is now forced to combine a brutal imperialism with a belated spurt to bring her productive forces in line with capitalist needs.

The purpose of this article is to expose the mercenary nature of this war, which the Allied governments and their supporters claim is being fought for “principles of international justice,” “rights of small nations,” “freedom,” etc., but which Hitler argues is aimed at the “destruction of the German nation,” the “existence of the German people,” or “British self-aggrandisement.”

All of which may be good propaganda with which to get factory-fodder to become cannon-fodder—but what are the facts ?

The expansion of German capitalism on the Continent threatens the nerve-centre of the British Empire—the British Isles.

For centuries it has been British policy to prevent any power or group of powers on the Continent becoming so strong as to dominate Europe, threaten England and her sea routes. Hence the old British policy of the “Balance of Power.”

France, too weak to maintain her position on her own and offering little, if any, commercial rivalry to Britain (for the present, at any rate!) forms Britain’s link with the Continent.

It was German capitalism that menaced British supremacy in 1914, as it does to-day. Because a weak Germany cannot survive in the centre of Europe—it would split into a dozen provincial fragments—German big business welcomed the militaristic nationalism of Adolf Hitler, whose verbal hysteria and brutal excesses against opponents, including Jewish capitalists, fooled the unthinking millions into the belief that here was a heaven-sent saviour who would put an end to the system that meant poverty for them.

As Hermann Rauschnmg shows in his brilliant work, “Germany’s Revolution of Destruction,” the sadist psychology of Nazi-ism, appealing to the worst elements in Germany, the “lumpen-petit-bourgeoisie,” unfortunately only too numerous, was actually acclaimed as “revolutionary.”

The working class everywhere have still to learn that violence in language and method are often used by movements that are most reactionary.

The British capitalists at first welcomed Hitler. Quite a few of “Our Betters” became his open admirers. The growing rapprochement between pre-Hitler Germany and Russia had not pleased our rulers, and they expected that Adolf Hitler, Bolshevik hater No. 1, would put an end to that. For a time it seemed as if they were not to be disappointed. German Communists went to jails or were shot, together with many Jews, Social Democrats and trade unionists.

But a growing section of the British ruling class had come to doubt Hitler’s policy as outlined in his last will and testament, “Mein Kampf.” Supported by the Labour Party and the Communists, they began to shout about the danger to the British Empire. None of them shouted louder than the Communists, who, when it comes to making a noise, always give their pay-masters at Moscow good value for their money.

But the majority of British capitalists still held back, hoping to divert or limit German expansion.

It was the seizure of Czechoslovakia in March, 1939, that finally converted our rulers to the view that German expansion must be stopped by force of arms.

Here is no record of a growing indignation at brutal excesses, or the crushing of small nations, but a policy based purely on the self-interests of British and French world-power, a power acquired by the same forcible aggression practised to-day by Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Japan.

Two main arguments are presented in order to obtain working-class support for this war : —

(1) That the workers’ standard of living is bound up with the maintenance or increase of the national boundaries of their respective countries.

(2) That this war is a struggle against a particularly obnoxious and reactionary regime, whose removal would mean the release and triumph of progressive and democratic ideas.

The obvious reply to the first argument is to point to a number of smaller countries, such as Denmark, Norway or Sweden, whose economic and social level of working-class life compares favourably with that of any other European country, including Britain.

Wages are determined by social and economic factors mainly independent of a country’s size

The French workers did not get higher wages when their masters collared Alsace-Lorraine, nor the Germans less.

The second argument is just as fallacious as the first. But its appeal to the more alert section of the working class makes it more dangerous. We share their hatred for dictators and the cruelties of their oppression.

But the removal of reactionary governments by means of a war does not ensure progress or democracy. For it ignores the mass-mentality that alone can help them to power. Let Hitler be overthrown to-morrow and you are still left with millions of Germans whose minds cannot as yet grasp the advantages of free expression of political views. Bombs and bayonets can never be the means of enlightenment. War does not make Democrats out of Fascists.

Can the War be Stopped?

For all these reasons, the Socialist Party opposes this war, as it opposed the last war, for its butchery, its bestiality and the added hardships it brings to working men and their families, whose struggles for existence are already a crying indictment of a world where the powers of production are only equalled by the powers- of destruction.

The overwhelming majority of the working class do not see things our way, however little enthusiasm they may have for the war. True, there are a number of small movements, who, for various reasons, are opposed to the war. The Fascists, through their kinship with Hitlerism, the Communists, because of their allegiance to Moscow, both proclaim their love for peace to a credulous population. There are pacifists, whose genuine opposition springs from religious or humanitarian grounds, and the I.L.P., who now claim, despite recent overtures to the Labour Party, to be making a Socialist appeal.

There is not the space here to deal with them in detail.

None of them take the stand of the Socialisl Party of Great Britain, whose case is based on an understanding of the social system that causes wars.

Nor can there be any comparison for consistency.

If Hitler or the Allied Powers finally decide on the initiative and turn their war machines on to full blast, it may well be that the masses, goaded into desperation by the horrors and chaos, will revolt and so bring to an end the conflict.

In this country, at any rate, such an event seems very unlikely.

A well-established and experienced ruling class such as ours knows only too well how far they can go without breaking completely the main pillar supporting their social and political structure, the British working class.

Such a revolt is more probable in Germany, where the regime is less stable and may become unpopular with the German capitalists themselves. One thing is certain. Revolt against war itself can have no lasting achievement. The Bolsheviks came to power out of the chaos and discontent caused by the last war and we have lived to see this very Party lead the Russian masses into a new era of aggression and invasion, which may well end in Russia herself being involved in a world conflagration.

The time is past for any half-measures. Capitalism has reached a desperate pass. Since 1918, not a year has gone without bringing to the world further travail in the shape of wars, persecution, mass unemployment, and an economic crisis whose magnitude brought governments toppling from their seats of power.

When in 1931 the world’s Press blared forth that humanity’s dilemma was “over-production”—a crisis of “Too much of everything”—they let the capitalist cat out of the bag.

For here is the clue to the social riddle. The productive forces are the titans whose struggles to free themselves from the chains of capitalist ownership are convulsing society. Social harmony is impossible within the framework of this economic discord.

That is why the attack on War and the War-Makers must be aimed at World Capitalism itself.

The Socialist Movement alone can point the Way to Peace.

Sid Rubin

How can Hitlerism be destroyed? (1940)

From the February 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

That the Nazi Government, or what has come to be known as Hitlerism, is a menace to the peace of the world, is a fact as much recognised by Socialists as by all those who support the war. No Socialist will deny that all the Hitler regime stands for is repugnant and revolting to every ideal which he strives to establish.

The suppression of free expression of opinion, the concentration camp, the racial persecution and exiling of all people arbitrarily deemed out of sympathy with Nazi-ism, the public and private burning of a vast literature on Socialist and scientific subjects, the untold number of outrages committed by the Gestapo, are things indicative of a form of social life (pardon the phrase) which must befoul the finer feelings of all those worthy to be classed as really human.

Intellectual development cannot be where such conditions are prevalent. And where intellectual forces are stifled, real social material well-being is impossible of attainment. There must be no mistake that Socialists hate Hitlerism in a manner beyond question. It stands out to us calling aloud for destruction. But when we have said all this we have but touched the fringe of the problem presented by the existence of the present German Government. That Government, like that of any other throughout the world, owes its origin and maintenance to definite historical and social causes, in which we include such mass ideology as that upon which all governments largely depend for their existence.

Let us begin at the beginning.

The basic condition for the rivalry between modern states is the quest for profit on the part of those who own the means of living, the land, mines, railways and all such resources of the earth as the whole of mankind needs in order to live. The people who own these vital forces of human life are, in broad outline, represented by those who are in control of the machinery of government. Whether such government be democratic or dictatorship in form, the above statement applies with equal force. It cannot be too often stated that the method of government in all capitalist countries is a sort of  by-product of the same general mode of wealth production and distribution. We leave aside for the moment whether the democratic or dictatorship form of the state in capitalist countries is more favourable for working-class expression and development. One point here is, that in democratic Britain, France and America, as in dictatorship Germany and Italy, wealth is produced primarily for profit. Therein is to be found the secret of the world situation in modern times. Profit represents–is in fact–the unpaid labour of the workers. Every worker must realise that after he has spent his energy in producing things for the capitalist, and after all materials and other items have been provided for, there is a surplus above the amount he gets in wages. When this surplus fails to materialise, capitalist production normally ceases. We describe the surplus wealth taken by the capitalist as surplus-value. The worker labours for the capitalist (when he is permitted to do so) for wages, and the capitalist puts him to work to realise the difference between the wages paid and the value of the worker’s product of labour. “It is this sort of exchange”, says Marx, “between capital and labour upon which capitalistic production, or the wages system, is founded, and which must constantly result in reproducing the working man as working man and the capitalist as capitalist.”

The perpetuation and expansion of the capitalist’s pursuit of surplus-value gave rise to the imperialism underlying modern war. For capital to grow to maturity it must break down national boundaries and seek the world for its sphere of activity and gratification. Hence the conflicts between national groups of capitalists represented by their respective governments backed by armed force.

The phrase, “the workshop of the world”, at one time so aptly applied to this country, indicates an ideological landmark, not merely in the economic history and development of England, but also in that of the other leading capitalist powers. Those who were once the customers of “the world’s workshop” became, in the very nature of the capitalist process, its competitors for markets, trade routes, spheres of influence, and the occupation of strategic positions, or the acquisition of raw materials.

Thus arose the intense rivalry of Britain and Germany, which culminated in the war of 1914-1918. The defeat of Germany in that conflict and the imposing of  the Treaty of Versailles upon her paved the way for the war in which we are once more engaged.

One of the chief architects of the Versailles Treaty, Mr Lloyd George, has said of his own part-handiwork:-

I am one of the four upon whom devolved the onerous task of drafting the treaties of 1919 . . . The conditions that were imposed upon Germany were ruthlessly applied to the limit of her endurance. She paid £2,000,000,000 in reparations. We experienced insuperable difficulties in paying £1,000,000,000 to America–and we are a much richer country than Germany.

We stripped her of all her colonies, confiscating her equipment in those vast territories.

We deprived her of part of her home provinces, some of which she had possessed for over 200 years.

We took her great fleet away from her.

We reduced her army of millions to 100,000 men.

We dismantled her fortresses and we deprived her of artillery, tanks, airplays, broke up all the machinery she possessed for re-equipping herself

It is no part of our Socialist work to shed tears over the demilitarising of Germany or any other capitalist state. But as we look back from the time of the termination of the last war, up to date, we are forced to observe the economic and political consequences which called forth the author of Mein Kampf and his gang as the heads of a great state. Hardly had the Versailles Treaty been signed than the then German Government began to plot and scheme to defeat it. Hemmed in as Germany was by strong powers like England and France, there is little cause for surprise that, to quote Mr Lloyd George again:-

“When communities are deprived of the protection of law by selfish and unscrupulous interests they generally find refuge in taking the law into their own hands.”

That the thrusting of the Versailles Treaty upon Germany was in principle no worse than the German or Prussian Treaty imposed upon France in 1871, than that imposed upon Roumania at Bucharest, or that on Russia at Brest-Litovsk, is but begging the question. The real point is that capitalist treaty-making is not only no safeguard against wars, but as a sort of storehouse for their recurrence. And so is Europe, perhaps the whole world, once more on the verge of a gigantic slaughter, blinding and maiming; the approximate end to the whole butchery and destruction being beyond reasonable forecast.

The British Government again drags the workers of this country and its colonies into the battlefields on the plea of resisting aggression, as it did in the last “war to end war”. This time we are to smash Hitlerism, as we were in 1914 incited to destroy the Kaiser and his military caste.

But it is not the Nazi form of government as such that the British ruling class seeks to end, but the policy of Hitler’s regime in aiming at the interests of those who own and control the British Empire. Hitler and his murderous thugs might have raped and persecuted, imprisoned and tortured indefinitely, without as much as a stir from the “Mother of Parliaments”. The sacking and slaughter of Abyssinia, the overrunning of Austria and Czechoslovakia, were as much undisputed acts of aggression as that of Poland, but they evoked the British Government to acts of accommodation rather than conflict. Not until it was certain that  Hitler had designs on the dismemberment of the British Empire were the forces of slaughter released by Great Britain and her ally, France.

If the present war is allowed to run its course until one or other of the combatants is crushed, are we likely to witness, if we are still alive, the downfall of the Nazi form of government in Germany, the restoration of some form of democratic social life in Germany, and the maintenance of what democratic means of expression remain in Europe today? If Chamberlain, Daladier and Company are the spokesmen in setting the seal of defeat on Germany, will they invite the “leaders” of the working-class movement to secure that the German workers be permitted to voice their political and social views, whatever they may be? We know from experience they will do nothing of the kind; it is not a matter in which they are the least bit interested. Therefore, the backing of the “Labour Movement” given to the British and French governments is preposterous.

The working-class movement of Europe, even that part of it which claims the war to be one of Democracy versus Nazi Dictatorship, is no more likely to be consulted at the “funeral” of Hitler than they will be granted their emancipation from wage-slavery by the international capitalist class. The real issue before the working class of the world is one of ending its exploitation and all that such entails.

The present war is most likely to bring in its trail, unless it is stopped by working-class action meanwhile, greater misery than the last war, greater and more intensified exploitation, less freedom to achieve our purpose than we now possess, whichever side is triumphant in the struggle.

The German workers must, it seems, be the means of effecting the downfall of the Nazi system of government.

For ourselves we, as Socialists, would render them any service which would assist in their accomplishing the overthrow of their despotic ruling gang, if only to gain for them the immediate means of being able to give expression to their social and political aspirations without fear of being murdered or placed in a concentration camp.

Until the working-class movement in Germany or anywhere else can gain the means of emerging from underground into the daylight, their chances of finally freeing themselves from capitalism through Socialism are well-nigh hopeless. To assist in the war against Germany is not the way by which this can be accomplished, we should be slaughtering the very people we desire to liberate from the Nazi yoke. Moreover, our action then would assist Hitler and Co. to bury still deeper the opposition to his rule. He would point to the unanimity of feeling here to secure it in Germany. We find no valid reason for the support of this war, as we found none for the last war, which left us, of the Socialist Party, more isolated in our opposition than we are today.

When the war of 1914-1918 was at its worst, when the blood-bath was full to overflowing, we said then:

“Every Socialist must, therefore, wish to see peace established at once to save further maiming and slaughter of our fellow-workers. All those who, on any pretext, or for any supposed reason, wish the war to continue, at once stamp themselves as anti-Socialist, anti-working class, and pro-capitalist.” (Socialist Standard, July 1917.)

Quite frankly, facing the matter realistically, we see no immediate prospect of the workers becoming Socialists in sufficient numbers to come to real grips with the capitalist class in a challenge to the latter’s political power. The talk of a Socialist peace, although supremely desirable and necessary, would therefore seem to be Utopian at the moment. If the working class becomes alive to the realities of  the war issue they will see that their first task is to stop the blood-letting, and finally to gain political power for themselves and establish Socialism throughout the world and thus end all wars.

Robertus.

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.

Editorial: The Coming Struggle for Trade. (1940)

Editorial from the February 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nobody expects a capitalist diplomat or politician to be strictly truthful, any more than that virtue is expected of the manufacturer boosting the sale of his goods with advertising puffs.

Probably, therefore, a considerable proportion of the population, in warring and neutral nations alike, are inclined to be sceptical about promises of a better world after the war; but that scepticism, where it exists, is too often directed only to the untrustworthiness of the men, and not to the utter bankruptcy of the case on which their promises rest. People are still disposed to believe that if the leaders of the nations were better men, “men of goodwill” is the frequent- description, the world of private ownership, profit-making, and competition, could be made to work well in a slightly modified framework of international organisation.

Consider the recent statements of some of the world’s leading figures. Lord Halifax, the Foreign Secretary, speaking at Leeds on January 20th, first showed how worthless are Hitler’s pledges, and then—though he did not use the phrase “balance of power”—set the war in historical perspective with the following : —

“I think it. is certainly true that the instinct of our people has always throughout their history driven them, to resist attempts by any one nation to make itself master of Europe. They have always seen in any such attempt a threat both to their own existence and to the general cause of liberty in Europe. 

Therefore, I say without hesitation that if the British people have been right, as they have been before, in resisting domination by any one Power in Europe, they are doubly so right to-day.” — (DailyTelegraph, January 22nd, 1940.)

Lord Halifax believes, of course, that war for such an object is worth while. He would, he said, “sooner be dead than alive in a world under the heel of Nazi dominance”; but what a prospect for humanity! The kind of situation which calls for war against some Continental would-be master of Europe happened with the Dutch, with the Spaniards, with “that man Napoleon,” with Kaiser Wilhelm, and now once more with the new rulers of Germany. Apart from a few arid phrases, neither Halifax nor any other of the Allied spokesmen has anything to offer which shows how the situation will be prevented from recurring in another ten or twenty years.

Then there is Signor Gayda, spokesman of the allegedly young, virile, Fascist Italy— “neither Capitalist nor Socialist.” In an article in the Sunday Dispatch (January 21st) we find this mouthpiece of Mussolini putting forward an explanation of the war even more superficial and hopeless than the version of Lord Halifax. Gayda—who puts his hand on his heart and pleads for a better, juster Europe—also has a balance of power theory, but a substantially different one. He sees in a “healthy balance of power” the only “real guarantee of peace”; but far from agreeing with Lord Halifax, that Germany upset the healthy balance, he maintains that France and Britain are the disturbing element.

They were, he says, already too powerful before 1914, and the Versailles Treaty “increased instead of diminished the disparity of resources between European nations.” So he sees the present war not as a German challenge to European equilibrium, but as being an inevitable consequence of Versailles. Italy, he says, “is against all systems which give obvious or hidden supremacy to one nation or nations.” She wants, however, to possess “free and fertile space for expansion of the Italian population” and “freedom of life and movement for the Italian nation.” “Movement,” of course, covers the annexation of Abyssinia and Albania, and already Italy, having become “the greatest Balkan Power of Europe,” is threatening war against Russia should the rulers of that country decide that they have rights of expansion in the Balkans after finishing with Finland.

So Signor Gayda, too, has new wars for the world when the present one is over—or before.

From Gayda to his neighbour the Pope is but a short step, even in the realm of political ideas, for the Pope, too, has expressed his views on rebuilding Europe, and the Vatican gave authoritative statements to Mr. Ward Price (Daily Mail, January 22nd). The Pope, in his Christmas speech to the College of Cardinals, denned the requisites of a just and honourable peace as follows :

“1. The right of all nations, great and small, to independence ;

2. The reparation of infringements of this right ;

3. Disarmament, material and spiritual ;

4. Guarantees for the respect of conventions ;

5. Just revision of treaties.”

Here again we see thought moving within the confines of the prison called capitalism, and placing the entire emphasis on good intentions between nations and a recarving of the territories of Europe.

From these men, whose ideas are typical of those of the capitalist statesmen of every country, it is refreshing to go to the matter-of-fact view of the capitalist world held by a Times correspondent who wrote on the subject “Export or Die—(Times, January 17th, 1940). Without wasting time on fine sentiments, he gets down to the proper business of a capitalist gentleman, that of capturing trade. He says that now the Allied fleets are keeping German goods out of South America, this business “will not fall into the lap of British exporters. With every possible encouragement from the U.S. Government, United States firms are keenly competing for the trade.” That is the keynote of his whole warning, the warning that with Germany disposed of, the world scramble for markets will be fiercer than ever.

Brazil, he says, is developing her export industries and supplying textiles, footwear, weighing machines arid cutlery to her South American neighbours. Argentina’s exports of textiles were half as much again in 1938 as in 1937. Chile is trying to sell to U.S.A. goods formerly obtained from Europe.

“Other competition has to be faced in many markets, notably from the factory industries which have been developed in the Empire. Many of them were started in the last war, and have grown in number and variety ever since. . . If oversea imports of finished goods are interrupted further expansion will doubtless take place to the permanent detriment of the export trade of the United Kingdom. Intensification of Italian and Japanese competition, particularly in textiles, is expected.”

His warning is that “if Great Britain is to reap the harvest, or indeed to retain her commercial position, it is essential for the manufacturers, merchants, and Government to unite in a great export effort.”

Here is recognition of one aspect of the brutal truth about the world to-day, democratic or totalitarian, inside the Empire as well as outside. Capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and on cutthroat competition to sell the goods and realise the profit. The war will make the competition of the industrial nations more intense than ever, and not all the schemes and hopes of the statesmen will turn that savage scramble into a better Europe.

“Bear Ye One Another’s Burdens”. (1940)

From the February 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is a clever piece of duplicity used by the ruling class when they require an extra sacrifice from their victims—the working class.

It is usually phrased in some such terms as “let us pull together,” or “let us bear the burdens equally.” There is usually a strong flavour of brotherly love and Christianity about it. And the entry of this country into war brought forth a spate of such sweetness. But an examination of the facts show that such assurances are as hollow as a drum, and are only boomed out for the purpose of enchanting the simpletons who believe them.

Are the capitalists sharing the burdens ? If so, they are having the lion’s share of wealth while those who are conscripted are having the donkey’s share of risk, work and trouble.

Compare a soldier’s wage with the income of the leading lights of business, or of the Church and State, and see then if the, burdens are really being shared. Or compare the amount allotted to soldiers’ and workers’ children and put it against the sum spent on the children of royalty.

This disparity of “sharing” was brought out recently by a question asked in Parliament. Sir John Simon was asked if the old age pension could be increased, as large numbers of pensioners were on the verge of starvation. The reply was to the effect that the country cannot afford it. And yet Simon receives a salary as much as hundreds of pensioners put together. Now the pension is to be increased the increase is hedged about by restrictions and it only occurs after prices have substantially increased. Here we have a typical example of the cold-blooded hypocrisy of the capitalist way of thinking. What was meant was that the ruling class would not afford it. After all, of what use are aged and poverty-stricken workers to the capitalist ? They have already been sucked dry. Away with the nuisances. They shouldn’t have lived so long.

When the old age pension was introduced by a Liberal Government, in which Simon took an active part, it was hailed as a “crown of comfort for the aged.” And hordes of sentimental slobberers and snivelling humbugs of all sorts chanted hosannas in its praise.

The S.P.G.B. pointed out then that it was merely a dodge to save the capitalist the expense of keeping old workers in the workhouse. The few shillings a week given was less than the cost of erecting and maintaining large buildings and staffs. Besides, the old people in receipt of pensions could sponge on their grown-up family, and the burden of old age and poverty could be shared. That is what the capitalist really means by “sharing the burdens together.” It means putting a bit more on the workers.

Only when the means of life are comrnonly owned and controlled by the whole people will it be possible to speak of sharing and bearing one another’s burdens. But then the burdens will be only those imposed by nature. The real burden— a parasite capitalist class—will disappear.

R. Hart

Press Cuttings. (1940)

From the February 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Biblical Injunction.

From a letter to the Daily Telegraph (January 19th, 1940), criticising the Bishop of Birmingham, who had opposed the Blockade because of the Biblical injunction, “If thine enemy hunger, feed him” : —

“Is it permissible to bomb and shell the enemy, to inflict on him death and mutilation and destruction, but not permissible to interfere with his diet? Must the enemy, like the birds in a game preserve, be fattened only for the guns?”

* * *

A Knotty Problem for the Unemployed. 

“Can a man who has a few shillings to spend (having, we may add, taken up his full allowance of certificates and bonds) buy a bottle of champagne, or some other French product in the same category, without compromising the best national economic interests?”

(From a letter to The Times, January 23rd.)

* * *

“Sir, this is Monstrous!”

‘”Now, Sir, this is a monstrous state of affairs. This man is only one of a great multitude. He is being paid at least £8 a week more than he is worth.”

(From a letter to The Times, January 22nd, about an engineer fitter, formerly earning 65s., who, on piece-work, is said to have received £12 a week, not to mention “tea brought to him twice a day.”)

* * *

Where shall we send Tommy to School? !

” . . . It costs £300 a year to send your son to a good school.”

(From an article in the Daily Mail, January 22nd, 1940.)

* * *

She will Meditate on Democracy.

“Mlle. Marie-Louise Pusset, 57-year-old teacher at a girls’ school here, has been sentenced to four months’ imprisonment for attempting to defend Soviet Russia in her classroom.

“The judge declared that the teacher, a former member of the Communist Party, had shown activity favouring the Third International.—Exchange.”

(Evening Standard, January 11th, 1940.)

* * *

“Continual raiding of Germany would provoke retaliatory measures against this country which would use up still more material, as well as strengthen the determination of our people. Raids on Germany would shake the confidence of the people of Germany in Hitler.”

(From a speech of Mr. L. S. Amery, reported in The Times, January 24th, 1940.)

* * *

Unpatriotic Cats.

From an account of Germany by a neutral correspondent (Daily Telegraph, January 19th, 1940): —

“The nation that can eat the least can win the war.”

“German physicians privately express their conviction that the post-war generation will be physically unfit as the result of to-day’s feeding. Even cats refuse to drink the skimmed milk. . . .”

* * *

From The People, January 21st, 1940:—

” Germany’s miracle peasant girl has refused her ration cards because she has no need of food. . . . For the past 12 years she has taken neither food nor drink.”

* * *

Sensitive as Prima Donnas.

What the general said : —

“You’ll soon learn, like Repington did, that we generals are as sensitive as prima donnas!”

(Sunday Express, January 14th, 1940.)

* * *

Did they Listen to Keynes?

“November 14th, 1939: ‘Mr. Keynes, in The Times, urges the Government to introduce a scheme of compulsory savings, repayable after the war.

“January 12th, 1940: Copenhagen correspondent of Daily Telegraph reveals ‘astonishing new details of the desperate plan evolved by Field-Marshal Goenng and Dr. Funk.’

” ‘A most amazing feature’ is that the worker ‘will only receive an official receipt for the confiscated money, which is not redeemable until the war is over.'”

(Daily Telegraph, January 12th.)

* * *

Good Health from H. G. Wells.

“This is war, and this is what it must come to. I would rather bomb the Germans than starve them. In the end it will be quicker, and it will leave the Germans, it may be, in a healthier state of mind.”

(Daily Mail, January 25th, 1940.)

* * *

Not Hitler but the Pacifists.

“‘It is my firm belief, based on good evidence,’ the bishop said, ‘that these people-pacifists is the name they go by—are more responsible than anybody else for the fact that we are once again involved in war.'”

(The Bishop of Grantham, Daily Telegraph,January 15th, 1940.)

* * *

Stalin, the Dancing Master.

“The old peasant woman Anfisa Taraseyeva recollects that ‘Joseph Vissiaronovitch loved to sing, and even more to dance. He was a great master of dancing and taught the young people to dance.

‘ When asked to dance he would enter the circle at jog-trot, halt for a moment, shake his head and shoulders, clap his hands and cry out, “Let go, like lightning,” dancing with such fervour that he raised a whirlwind of dust.

‘He was some master at dancing; and could not see enough of it!'”

(Daily Worker, December 23rd, 1939.)

* * *

War, the Liberator.

It is not too much to say that always every reform that has been introduced since the war is the result of discussions and preparations that started during the war and under its liberating impulse.”

(Manchester Guardian Editorial)

Answers to Correspondents. (1940)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Revolt Against Socialism.

A correspondent sends the following question :

What would happen if the army supported the capitalists in a revolt?

This seems a very great possibility fraught with danger.

Reply.

The question concerning a possible revolt by capitalist sympathisers after Socialists have gained control of the machinery of government is one that has often been dealt with in these columns. Placed in proper perspective it will be seen to be a much less likely and less dangerous possibility than our correspondent considers it to be. If Socialists envisaged the possibility of winning a snatch election on some issue of a temporary and unimportant character (as is the case with elections fought by the reformist parties, such as the Labour Party) then the position would indeed be grave. Our correspondent will, however, see that the position is different when we are dealing with an electoral majority achieved on the straight issue: Socialism versus capitalism. Such a victory presupposes a majority of convinced Socialists among the electors and also it means that the parties supporting capitalism have been slowly and surely undermined, in years of Socialist propaganda and election contests.

It implies also that large numbers of the men in the armed forces themselves (recruited from working-class homes which are by then predominantly Socialist) would have Socialist sympathies.

In those circumstances any individuals contemplating rebellion against the majority would know that the population as a whole was, and the members of the armed forces were, predominantly against them. Moreover, they would be plainly and unmistakably trying to reverse an electoral decision arrived at democratically and constitutionally. Such a rising would be undisguisedly unconstitutional and opposed to the declared convictions of the population. It would be most unlikely, and would be a forlorn movement foredoomed to failure.

Editorial Committee

Socialism and Wages.

A correspondent (P. B., Ilford) asks the following questions: —

1. Do you propose the immediate abolition of the wage system upon gaining power?

2. Won’t we have to compromise at first until everyone has a complete knowledge of Socialism?

3. Does Marx support your view? If so, where ?

4. You say the capitalists will have to work like the rest. How are we to make them without wages of some description?

Reply.

Many of the points raised above were discussed in the Socialist Standard, August, 1936 (“Socialists do Stand for Equality”).

As regards question 4, the position is as follows. In a system of society in which property incomes (incomes from investments, land ownership, etc.) have completely and instantly disappeared, the ex-capitalists will have to obtain food, clothing, shelter, etc., in just the same way as the rest of the community. Some will readily turn to and do their best to fit themselves into the new social arrangements. Assuming that some other individuals are awkward, the majority of the population will have to decide what is the best thing to do in the circumstances. The number of the awkward squad is small and they could probably best be left to their own devices till they realised the unpleasantness for themselves of incurring strong popular disapproval by going against the tide.

Anyway, the whole problem will be a minor matter and the payment of wages does not enter into it.

Editorial Committee

Party News. (1940)

Party News from the February 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our Sixpenny Stunt.

Our “sixpenny stunt” is still in operation. All you have to do is to send a sixpenny postal order to the Literature Secretary, 42, Great Dover Street, together with the address of an interested sympathiser, and we will send him or her the Socialist Standard for three consecutive months. A brief note will accompany the first month’s copy. At the expiration of the three months we shall write again, inviting the new reader to become a subscriber and to read our other published literature.

Price of Pamphlets.

Owing to an alteration of the exchange rate between the pound and the dollar we are compelled to increase the price of the following pamphlets imported from U.S.A.

The new prices are: —

“Bolshevism,” 1s. 6d. post free.

“State and Socialist Revolution,” 1s. 7d. post free.

“Reform or Revolution,” 1s. 7d. post free.

Appeal from Party Funds Organiser.

Under war-time conditions, with increased costs and difficulties in the way of normal activities, the Party is in need of funds. Members who are in arrear with dues are asked to pay up. Debts for literature should be cleared off, and members and sympathisers are invited to make donations to Party funds.

Party Funds Organiser.

This Month's Quotation: R. H. Tawney (1940)

The Front Page quote from the February 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “The exploitation of the weak by the powerful, organized for purposes of economic gain, buttressed by imposing systems of law, and screened by decorous draperies of virtuous sentiment and resounding rhetoric, has been a permanent feature in the life of most communities that the world has yet seen.”

R. H. Tawney

This Month’s Quotation

The passage quoted on the cover is from R. H Tawney’s “Religion and the Rise of Capitalism.' (Pelican Books. 6d. Page 252.)

Socialism and Snob Values (1940)

From the February 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain’s task of Socialist education necessitates destructive criticism of ideas prejudicial to the ready acceptance by the workers of the Socialist case; and in this regard a few words might be profitably said upon snobbery, which is very prevalent among the black-coated sections of the working class.

It can easily be understood that those workers who are snobbish and who value differences in economic status are not eager to undertake an unbiassed examination of the Socialist case, because they find the principle of equality, implicit in Socialism, repugnant to the differences they cherish in class and rank.

In relation to unemployment, the snobbish outlook of to-day bears an interesting parallel to the outlook of the Puritan moralist of the Reformation period. Just as the Puritan harshly condemned unfortunate vagrants as idle, worthless fellows, and deprecated the relief afforded to them by alms-givers, so to-day the snobbish black-coated worker despises the unemployed. Already penalised by being unable to find buyers for their labour-power, the unemployed suffer an additional penalty by being stigmatised at the hands of their snobbish fellow-workers. 

In his belief in snob values, the black-coated worker fails to recognise that workers are displaced from industry by machinery and other economic forces, and he is loath to discard the fatuous notion that unemployment is attributable to laziness and personal deficiencies.

Similarly, the snobbish “intellectual” worker, warped in his judgments by excessive self-esteem, entirely disregards the important economic functions performed by manual workers, and looks down upon them as his “inferiors.” The distinctions he draws between “brain” and manual workers are purely arbitrary, as no clearly-defined line of demarcation exists between the expenditure of mental energy and that of physical energy. He overlooks the fact that the relative differences in the extent to which skilled and unskilled workers expend their mental and physical capacities are differences of degree and not of kind.

To regard productive occupations, without which society would perish, as occupations to be ashamed of is the height of absurdity. Opprobrium which the “refeened” attach to working in a factory or in a mine arises from a ridiculous scale of values. When analysed, such values are revealed to be based upon a fawning adulation of conceptions held by the ruling class. Bearing upon this point, let us consider for a moment the capitalist’s opinion of the workers.

The wealthy capitalist, in his arrogance and in his ignorance of social science, regards the bricklayer, the carpenter, the plumber, and, in fact, all workers, as unquestionably his natural inferiors; and snobbish black-coated workers, in ape-like imitation of their capitalist masters, assume accents, cultivate manners, and adopt fashions in dress, all for the purpose of marking themselves off from the “workers,” the assumption being that they (the snobs) do not belong to the working class.

The way a person obtains his or her living determines to what class he or she belongs; and all those who, by virtue of having no part in the ownership of the means of production, are compelled to sell their labour-power to obtain the means of sustenance are members of the working class.

By the same standards of judgment to which we have referred, personal worth is measured in monetary terms. Personal merits—physical, mental, or moral—even if they are not discounted, when viewed in the light of snob values, are of secondary importance. What is of primary importance is a person’s bank balance and social position: his qualifications are merely incidental; and this kind of evaluation is in complete accord with a social system in which inequalities are viewed as the eternal order of things.

Mean subservience to wealth and social position is characteristic of that kind of mentality we have been discussing. Those possessing this type of mind classify society according to income into a multitude of classes. They think that a worker earning £6 per week is twice as good as another earning £3, and the one receiving £3 is, in turn, thought to be better than one in receipt of 30s.

It is, however, gratifying to Socialists to notice signs of interest being displayed by black-coated workers in social problems, and that gradually their snobbish notions are being discarded. The black-coated worker is induced by the economic distress he sees around him and by the insecurity, from which he himself is not immune, to direct his attention to the necessity of creating a new social order.

The advancement of professional and clerical workers towards the adoption of Socialism as the remedy for social evils is proportionate to the retreat of snobbishness and ideas that obstruct such advancement. Economic conditions will result in the dissolution of the conceptions of class distinction and conceptions of “betters” and “inferiors.” Unemployment, insecurity, bad housing, and undernourishment, must inevitably disillusion, not only black-coated workers, but all sections of the working class. Having cast off their illusions, the majority of workers will begin to think on rational lines about their economic status. Then, and only then, will it become glaringly apparent to the working class that Socialism is the only solution to the evils that afflict it. The deep-rooted inferiority complex possessed by many workers regarding their social status will also disappear with the growth of their political understanding.

To impregnate the minds of the workers with Socialist ideas is to engender in them a detestation of boot-licking and cap-touching. The Socialist exhorts them to admire pride and independence, as qualities so necessary in the struggle for emancipation. Grovelling and lickspittling are vices to be abhorred by a class struggling to free itself from the fetters of wage-slavery. And it is because capitalists demand a degree of subservience from black-coated workers, who tend to be sensitive to the indignities and superciliousness they endure at the hands of their masters, that they will revolt against capitalism and seek an alternative.

V. J. Berry

Obituary: Death of Comrade A. Jacobs (1940)

Obituary from the February 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

One more of the oldest members of the Party has passed away, in the person of Comrade A. Jacobs.

Very early in his working life he became interested in the struggles of the working class. As a young man he lived in Edmonton, then a rising suburb of North London.

By occupation a cigar maker, he had to make the journey daily to Battersea, in South London, having to rise early every morning to reach the workshop.

With ever-increasing numbers of workers on the platform, and few trains to take them, a fight constantly ensued between them to get into the train.

Soon the workers were aroused into agitating for increased trains and workmen's facilities for cheap fares. Meetings were held, and into these Comrade Jacobs flung himself with zeal.

One morning he was arrested on Liverpool Street Station and charged with disturbing the peace. His trial took place at the Guildhall, and he was defended by Mr. Thompson, at that time Editor of Reynolds News, and acquitted.

He was an active member of the Cigar Makers Union and served on their executive committee. Then he became interested in the propaganda of the old Social Democratic Federation and eventually joined them.

At about this period of his life he experienced considerable unemployment and, with a young family, suffered chronic privation and want.

Very shortly after the formation of  the S.P.G.B. he became convinced of the soundness of the Party’s principles and policy, and decided to join the Party following his resignation from the S.D.F.

For many years he was an enthusiastic worker and spoke at four, five and six meetings a week, very frequently addressing two meetings on Sundays.

He was a loyal and fearless exponent of Socialism, allowing nothing to deter him.

Following the outbreak of the war in 1914 he never hesitated to hold meetings in Victoria Park, East London, notwithstanding hostile demonstrations by workers and interested persons at every meeting he addressed.

When “peace” was declared he threw himself with redoubled energy once more into the struggle for Socialism, and only gave up in recent years, owing to advancing age and decline in his health.

He became almost an institution on the meeting place in Victoria Park, for he seldom missed a meeting on Sundays during many years.

The Party has produced many great workers in its cause, but few gave more ungrudgingly than our old comrade..

He died in his 70th year, leaving a widow in poor health and approaching blindness to mourn his passing.

C. F. C.

The Balkans and the Black International (1940)

From the February 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

The curtain will soon be going down on the first act of the International Tragedy; the second will commence with the spring. So far the pace has been slow, the actors have not been sure of their lines, but we may expect the show to become more lively as the performers become more familiar with their parts.

The Balkans are looked upon as the setting of the next episode, though circumstances may induce the producers to suddenly change their minds. Russia certainly did not anticipate the delay in her "Santa Claus" operations to which she has been compelled to submit, and her frantic efforts to extricate herself clearly indicate she has an engagement elsewhere which she wants to fulfil on time.

Roumania is the country in possession of certain raw materials that are indispensable to Germany at present, and it is said that a railway is being cut through Russian Poland in order that the goods required may be more readily obtained; the fact that Russia allows Germany to do this is proof positive that Stalin realises that it will be detrimental to the interests of the Bureaucracy of Russia should Hitler lose the war.

The prevailing idea, previous to the outbreak, was that “Communism" was making headway in Germany. The purges undertaken by the Moscow Pontiff caused many to believe that Nazism was not going to be tolerated in the “only Socialist country in the world" but now, when the breeze of reality has blown away the smoke screen we perceive that Russia has been Nazified; Germany is to be called upon to teach the wage- slaves of Slavdom how to dance rapidly enough to keep in step with the modern exploiting mechanism: - Truly the “Marxism” of Moscow produces weird and wonderful results never dreamed of in our Socialist philosophy.

Future historians will define Russian “Communism” as a religion, the religion of Pan Slavism. To the “Communist" there is no God but Lenin, and Stalin is his prophet. The movement in Russia is analogous to that of Mohammed.

No heresy is tolerated. Whatever the Prophet decrees is law to the faithful, and whatever he says is true, even though the world at large may perceive it to be false. The function of Mohammedanism was to unite the Arab tribes and compel them to abide by a certain rule of conduct: the function of Russian “Communism" is to unite the Slavs and lead them against those who are not of the faith; the economic urge is the material need of Russia, and this is stimulated by the imperial aspirations of her bureaucracy.

The Roman Catholic Hierarchy have from the first realised the facts of the situation and taken steps to combat what they knew to be a menace to their Church. When the Treaty of Montreux (Britain, Turkey and France) placed Italy at a disadvantage in comparison with France, and, together with Britain’s agreement with Egypt, bottled Mussolini up in the Mediterranean, the Church pointed out to the latter where the real danger lay; the Italian army went to Spain, not only to strike at France, but also at Russia. The banner of the hammer and sickle does not deceive the black-international; it has for centuries had to combat the machinations of its Eastern rival, the Greek Church; as of old the pair come to grips in the Balkans.

The Roman Catholics will have the backing of Roosevelt, though not necessarily of his successor. This is one of the reasons why the election now pending in the United States is so important.

The New Deal was supported by the Catholics and opposed by powerful capitalist interests; the old Church believes in reforms; it expresses the religion of feudalism; it holds that the worker should be content to occupy the position in which God hath placed him, but believes that his bodily needs should be satisfied.

The unsuccessful outcome of the New Deal may have been to some extent due to the antagonism of vested interests, but it is interesting to note that big business in the land of Uncle Sam was not opposed to the hand Mussolini played in Spain. The cross-currents of capitalism are confusing; it is only by the application of the principles of Socialism that they can be traced and their propelling force exposed.

The rise of the Totalitarian States has made trade by barter possible between certain countries, to the delight of some nationalist leaders and the dismay of International Finance. When the imports and exports of a nation are rigidly controlled by its government, whatever is done in the way of trade is of political importance. The struggle going on between the rival groups of exploiters now assume an open political form; the industrial barons, like the feudal barons of old, are taking the field against one another. Capitalism demands they shall kill each other off.

Mussolini, who now represents all those interests in which the ruling class of Italy are involved, backed by the Pope, will move swiftly if Russia threatens Roumania. Hungary will line up alongside the Duce, and so will the Catholic Croats of Jugoslavia. Turkey, although of the faith of Islam, will also take her stand against the enemies of Catholic Poland, but the Serbian elements are still doubtful, and so is Bulgaria. It is said that King Carol and Prince Paul have made a deal, and that Bulgaria is being wooed by Turkey, and if success smiles on the banners of Britain and France we may expect the Balkans, including Greece, to take a position, of hostility to Russia and Germany.

The current issue of the Economist places the position before its readers in the following manner: —

“On his return to Turkey, the Secretary-General of the Turkish Foreign Office, M. Menemenjoglu, announced that financial agreements signed in London and Paris made available a credit for the purchase of armaments to the value of £25 millions, gold to the value of £15 millions, and another £3,500,000 in the form of a commercial loan. Interest payments are to be made against goods, including Turkish tobacco; and beyond this there are arrangements whereby Great Britain and France will buy up fixed quantities of surplus products whose normal market is Germany, Turkish clearing debts will also be liquidated. The transfer of these large sums should be proof positive to Turkey and her neighbours that Britain and France are taking the war far more resolutely than they took the peace; and their announcement at a moment when Turkey is suffering from the effects of great national disasters is a particularly happy touch. Turkey’s value as an ally needs no advertisement, but it is a natural consequence to the granting of these necessary credits that the Turkish Government should feel itself on stronger diplomatic ground in the Balkans. On his way home, M. Menemenjoglu stayed two days in Sofia—the initiative is understood to have been Turkish—and exchanged with King Boris and the Bulgarian Prime Minister conversations that were much more than formal. The statement issued later was taken on internal evidence—though the method of expression was customarily circuitous—to mean that Turkey and Bulgaria were now in substantial agreement on foreign policy; and that, in turn, would appear to mean that the rulers of Bulgaria intend to hold themselves free of German or Soviet influence. Add to this important conclusion the Italian Government’s willingness to help in bringing Hungary and Roumania together, and the latter meeting (confidently reported, though officially denied) between King Carol and Prince Paul, and the Balkan outlook becomes almost temperate. But over-confidence would be an error. Berlin has yet to have its say.”

The Economist is justified in curbing those who tend to be too optimistic.

Hitler is not yet defeated, by any means, even in the Balkans, and Russia can still depend upon the loyalty of her Slav brethren. Britain and France apparently have a great economic advantage, but appearances should not be taken at their face value. The United States in this war demands cash for goods supplied, because Britain fell down on her debts to Uncle Sam. The screws will begin to tighten shortly, and something may rip; the wage-slave is feeling the pinch already, and although our masters may think him blind, as well as dumb, unless the writer is mistaken, they are in for a great surprise.

Should the United States fail to renew the trade agreement with Japan, or refuse to consider drawing up a new one, Japan, Russia and Germany may be driven together.

The longer the war lasts the more complicated and involved will the system become; the difficulties that prevent capitalism from sailing on an even keel are insurmountable; the ship of profit is already listing badly and there is rough weather ahead.

Let those who are struggling for the establishment of a new society based on Socialist principles be of good cheer, the troubles of our masters are our opportunities. We place before the world the only practical proposition that can now be entertained—the common ownership of the means of life and the establishment of production solely for use in place of production for sale. The ruling class, one and all, say they won’t entertain the idea. History says we must. And, what is more, act upon it.

Charles Lestor