Notes by the Way: Keir Hardie and the Liberals. (1932)

The Notes by the Way Column from the April 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Keir Hardie and the Liberals.

For years we pointed out that the late Keir Hardie never had an understanding of Socialism and was merely a Liberal. It is amusing to read that at a Conference of the Union of University Liberal Societies at Cambridge, a Liberal proposed that Keir Hardie should be recognised as one of them. A resolution was passed welcoming the formation of a new Radical Party, and the mover, a Mr. E. G. Sollieu, said :

“The new Party should have a left-centre inclination, and should be founded on the teaching of Keir Hardie.” (“Daily Herald,” March 23rd, 1932.)

The I.L.P. and other “left-centre Liberals” will have to bestir themselves to prevent this body-snatching.

* * *

Mr. Herbert Morrison evades the issue. 

The “Clarion” makes entertaining reading for those who wish to study the Labour Party “intellectuals” at play. A quarrel has been going on as to whether state capitalism as it exists in the Post Office is more or less socialistic than State capitalism as it exists in public utility corporations. One group stands firmly by Nationalisation, while the other group denounces this as being a nineteenth century idea, now replaced by the “new Socialism” of public utility corporations. Belonging to the public utility group is Major Attlee, former P.M.G., and advocate of a public utility for the Post Office. He admits that the Post Office (so long praised by him and his Party as being an instance of Socialism) is “the outstanding example of collective capitalism” (“New Statesman,” November 7th, 1931). Mr. Herbert Morrison is also a public utility advocate. In the “Clarion” (February, 1932) he argues, with his.tongue in his cheek, that his London Passenger Transport Bill (which guaranteed their property rights to the shareholders), is Socialism, because the shareholders would no longer have the legal right of control that they now possess. Mr. Morrison knows quite well that Socialism involves social ownership of the means of life, and that the exchange of one kind of share for another kind does not deprive the capitalist of his ownership, and is not Socialism.

All the same he knows how to sling a pretty brick in controversy. Having been told by a defender of the Post Office that a man is a Socialist or not a Socialist and that nationalisation is Socialism, Mr. Morrison replies (“Clarion” March) by pointing out that the S.P.G.B. would laugh in the face of anyone who made such a statement, and would say that such a man “is not a Socialist at all, but a mere advocate of State capitalism.”

This is true enough. But Mr. Morrison did not add that the Socialist’s objections to public utilities are precisely the same as his objections to nationalisation.

What we would like to have from Mr. Morrison is his defence of public utility capitalism against the case for Socialism.

* * *

Labour Government in action. 

The theory on which the Labour Party and I.L.P. were built up is that the spectacle of a Labour Government at work so impresses and enthuses the workers that they go on to ask for more and more “Labour” reforms of capitalism. On February 27th the Labour Party M.P.’s and candidates held a meeting to inquire into the actions of the late Labour Government. Reynolds’s Illustrated News, the Co-operative-Labour paper, reporting the meeting, says:—

“One or two speakers made a feeble and timid attempt to justify the record of the late Labour Government.” (Reynolds’s, 28th Feb.)

In other words, instead of celebrating the successful application of their theory, nobody could be found to put up a plausible defence of it.

* * *

The shrinking I.L.P.

In the six years since February 1926 the I.L.P. has lost 422 branches, almost 40 per cent. of the total. The Reports to Annual Conferences give the following total number of branches in February of the years mentioned :—

1926 1,075

1929    746

1930    748

1931    712

1932    653

It was in this situation that the I.L.P. at its Easter Conference had to decide for or against continuing affiliation with the Labour Party. Would the happy days of Parliamentary seats and Governmental Office be brought back again by remaining inside, or had the time now come for the I.L.P. to exploit working-class discontent independently? The way of the reformist vote-catcher is sometimes hard.

* * *

What will Maxton do now? 

The I.L.P. Conference delegates had before them three proposals, one for continued affiliation with the Labour Party, one for disaffiliation and a third for “conditional affiliation.” Disaffiliation was rejected by 183 votes to 144, affiliation was rejected by 214 votes to 98, and the third proposal—typical of the I.L.P. in dodging the issue—was adopted by 250 votes to 53. The resolution calls for a revision of the Standing Orders of the Labour Party and it may be assumed that the I.L.P. will remain inside. The position now is that the I.L.P. repudiates the Standing Orders, but several of its members who stood as Labour candidates at the election have accepted them, including David Kirkwood, M.P., and Mr. E. F. Wise. And what now becomes of the recent assertions by Maxton, Buchanan, and others that for reasons other than the Standing Orders it is impossible for Socialists to remain inside the Labour Party ? Doubtless they will not find it difficult to swallow their words—they have had much practice at this.

One piece of information given by the Chairman of the I.L.P., Mr. Fenner Brockway, deserves to be placed on record. The I.L.P. used to be satisfied with the Labour Party reform programme. Then a few years ago it announced that the old programme had been proved inadequate and that a new reform programme, miscalled “Socialism in Our Time,” was the only adequate programme. Now Mr. Brockway in his address from the Chair (see Daily Herald, March 28th) admits that the I.L.P. is a reformist party and that its “Socialism in Our Time” is useless. He said that, in view of the present depression,

“the gradualism of the Labour Party became pathetically inadequate; even the method of Socialism in our time became inadequate. It means that our policy must become revolutionary instead of reformist.”

And then the Conference, as if to show the hollowness of the pretence that the reformist policy is going to be dropped, voted for continued affiliation with the Labour Party, although Brockway, Maxton and others know full well that there is no place for revolutionary Labour Party Socialism inside the Labour Party.

* * *

Mr. James Douglas trips up.

It is one of the pet arguments of the journalists who serve the master class by attacking Socialism, that only capitalism can give the rewards necessary to encourage literary geniuses to do their best work. Mr. James Douglas momentarily forgot himself in an article in the Daily Express (March 5th), in which he admitted that the money incentive has had an opposite effect.

“Another book I long to write is a philosophy of literary avarice. It is a base passion which has not been thoroughly explored, even by Balzac or Bennett. The influence of avarice on literature has never been analysed. 

Avarice has destroyed more men of genius than drink or indolence. Avarice corrupts the mind. Genius without avarice is as rare as beauty without vanity.”

* * *

Why the armed forces exist.

Early in February there were rumours in Eastern Europe of various Governments massing troops for war. One of the rumours said that Poland was mobilising troops on the German frontier in Upper Silesia. This, to the newspapers was a “disturbing” rumour. But re-assurance soon came. The troops were not for the purpose of threatening the German capitalists, but for the purpose of dealing with a strike which was likely to break out. (News-Chronicle, February (5th.)

Needless to say the Polish Government was not sending troops to intimidate the employers, but to keep the workers in subjection.

* * *

Trotsky's view of Russia's future.

In an interview given to the New York Times, and republished in The Militant (New York, March 12th), Trotsky stated his views on the Five-Year Plan and the future of the Socialist movement.

“Question: Do you believe that the development of the Five-Year Plan has strengthened or weakened the possibility of building socialism in Soviet Russia alone without co-operation along similar lines in the rest of Europe ?

Answer : This raises the question about socialism in a single country. The inevitability of socialism flows historically from the fact that the present productive forces of humanity have become incompatible not only with the private property in the means of production but also with present national boundaries, especially in Europe. Just as mediaeval particularism hindered the development of capitalism in its youth, so now at the peak of its development capitalism is strangling in the limits set by the national States. Socialism cannot confine productive forces in the Procrustean bed of national States. The Socialist economy will develop on the basis of an international division of labour, the mighty foundations of which have been laid down by capitalism. The Soviet industrial construction is, in my view, a part of a future European, Asiatic and worldwide Socialistic structure, and not an independent national whole.

Question : Will Soviet Russia be compelled to come to some sort of a compromise with Western capitalism, assuming that she may not be able to pursue a Socialist policy single-handed? What form would such a compromise assume?

Answer : The “compromise” between the Soviet and the capitalist systems is not a question of the future but of the present. It is already a fact to-day, although not a very stable one. How will the interrelations between the isolated Soviet Union and world capitalism develop? Here a concrete prophecy is not easy to make, but in general I should cast the following horoscope: European capitalism is far nearer to a Socialist revolution than the Soviet Union is to a national Socialist society.”

Trotsky’s recognition of the impossibility of Socialism in Russia in the near future is late but interesting. Mr. H. G. Wells has also discovered at last that the talk of Communism in Russia is “absurd,” and that the existing system there is “State Capitalism” (Daily Telegraph, February 24th).

Edgar Hardcastle

The Cynicism of Capitalism: 1. Come and exploit our Africans (1972)

From the October 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always made clear that nationalism, whether in Africa, Israel, Ireland or wherever, is a snare and a delusion for the working class of the country concerned. National independence may well be a good thing for the native capitalist class who are naturally concerned at seeing the fruits of the exploitation of the local working class going into the pockets of the British Imperialists or whoever the alien ruling class might be. But for workers to risk imprisonment or even death in a struggle for independence which will ensure for them nothing more than the joy of being exploited by their very own capitalists instead of foreign ones is clearly the height of folly.

A rather lurid light on this subject has recently been displayed in an advertisement in The Guardian by the Nigerian Government:

People are earning

HUGE PROFITS

in Nigeria


Huge domestic market of 55 millions


Abundant manpower is available at a rate
as low as 7 U.S. cents an hour.

You can get your investment back in
less than 3 years.

It should be pointed out that the words Huge Profits are printed in gigantic capitals in the advert, and are repeated at the end — People are earning huge profits in Nigeria: why don’t YOU ! The word “people” is itself a misleading term beloved of capitalist propagandists. It made nice capital, for example, when Nigeria was part of the British Empire, for the national capitalists to appeal to the Nigerian workers: People of Nigeria, fight to throw out the British Imperialist Exploiters. But nobody can be deceived by the present rallying-cry in the advert. The “people” who are “earning” these huge profits are not the African workers. They are earning something less. 7 cents an hour, in fact.

So the Nigerian government is setting out to get British capitalists to come and exploit African workers. Which means, of course, that a lot of these workers are going to find themselves in the ironical position of once again being exploited by the same white capitalists from whom they had fought and won their alleged independence. It is not sure, what with devaluations of the pound and revaluations of the dollar, exactly what 7 cents is worth these days but a tanner (two-and-a-half new pence to younger readers) would be somewhere near it. “In less than three years” gives an effective rate of exploitation to show a net return on capital of between 30 and 40 per cent, per annum. That’s really mouth-watering exploitation — far better than you would find in England or America. Or far worse, of course. Depending on whether you are a worker or a capitalist. That makes all the difference. Black or white clearly makes none.

Naked and unashamed, the Nigerian capitalists are boasting to Guardian readers (those poor devils who are fed each day on a diet of anti-racialism as though that were the only cause that mattered and anti-South-Africanism as though the natives of that unhappy land were living on even less than a tanner an hour) about what shockingly low wages they are getting away with. These are the people that the other people, the Nigerian workers, have put in power. “Come and exploit our blacks. They are the cheapest wage-slaves you can get.” We are not saying that the wage-slaves were better off under British rule. It is clear that they could hardly have been worse off. Even the worst capitalists must pay wages sufficient to live on. And they could hardly live on less than 7 miserable U.S. cents. And it is doubtful if such brutally cynical advertising would have happened. British capitalists are a bit too sophisticated to advertise “Our workers are paid less than other wage-slaves”. It certainly adds insult to injury to know that your exploiters are actually boasting about your slavery in the columns of the world’s leading do-gooder paper, god help us.

One wonders what that old do-gooder, the Labour peer Lord Fenner Brockway, thinks of the result of his efforts on behalf of African nationalism. No-one was more scathing in days gone by about the Socialist Party’s contention that nationalism was nothing to do with Socialism and was a trap for the working class. Brockway and the other leading Labourites of those days were all great friends of people like Nkrumah, Banda and Kenyatta. All of whom, when in power, have treated the African workers to an adaptation of the Biblical phrase: the British rules you with whips, we will rule you with scorpions. Which of course did not stop Brockway and other lefties from supporting people like Nkrumah who could fairly be described as Black Hitlers in the making (and the last little phrase would be omitted by the victims of the Nkrumah dictatorship which Brockway upheld).

Only a couple of years ago, the Nigerian government which had achieved independence had a spot of bother. It seems that some of their fellow black capitalists who lived in a part of the country they called Biafra wanted independence from their own black capitalist brothers. There was a lot of oil in the Port Harcourt area where they came from and they didn’t see why they should share the swag with the other black capitalists in Lagos. So there was another little fracas which resulted in hundreds of thousands of Africans, Nigerians and Biafran workers and their wives and children, being caught in a most murderous bloodbath or starved to death. But it seems that this was independence that the Labourites didn’t approve of. You see, these were the days of the Wilson government, and the fake socialists who were then managing British capitalism preferred to pay ball with the Nigerian government because this was in the interests of British Business (as a searing article in, of all places, The Guardian made clear when it was all over). And now that Nigerian independence has been finally won and defended against black and white alike, the net result of all the suffering and carnage is that African workers get a tanner an hour.

L. E. Weidberg

Points for Propagandists. (1930)

From the June 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Labour cannot improve Capitalism.

Mr. Herbert Tracey, the Labour Party’s Chief Election Agent, denies the claim made by his own party that conditions can be materially improved in this system. These are his words :—

“The workers are not getting a larger share of the national wealth. Under Capitalism the proportionate division of the national product cannot be materially altered ; the existing system secretes millionaires and paupers as the liver secretes bile.” (Daily Herald, April 16)

* * *

Who owns Great Britain?

The nonsense talked by all defenders of this system, from Tory to Labour, about the wealth of the workers, is completely smashed by the statement of Sir Leo Chiozza Money, the Labour-Liberal statistician. In the New Leader of April 11, he states :

“Twenty-five years have elapsed since first, in “Riches and Poverty,” I drew attention to the astonishing facts as to the distribution of property revealed by the collection of Death Duties. The facts are not less surprising to-day. In a quarter of a century very little progress has been made in securing a more equitable distribution of land and capital.

The nation, as a going concern, is still, for the most part, owned by a handful of people so small that, if they all left the country, the population would roundly remain unaltered. “

And he further says :

“It is equally true that, taking Great Britain as a whole, about 6 per cent. of its families possess nearly 70 per cent. of its land and capital.”

* * *

Nationalisation and unemployment.

How improved methods of transport affect post office workers in Scotland is shown by the report of the Scottish Council of the Postal Workers’ Union : —

“It is stated on the authority of official reports that during the last five years 1,700 full-time positions have been cancelled in Scotland as against an increase of 800 part-time positions. The reduction in the number of employees is attributed to the increasing use of motor vehicles in the conveyance of mails, which has made many rural postmen and auxiliary workers unnecessary. 

The union are suggesting a reduction in the working week with a view to the avoidance of unemployment in the service.”(Glasgow Evening Times, April 14.)

* * *

The cheapness of "Labour" Reforms. 

How Labour’s reforms save the property-owners money is shown in the following-from the I.L.P, paper, Forward:

“The change over of the unemployed from parish relief to unemployment benefit, as a result of the Labour Government’s new Unemployment Insurance Act, will save Glasgow Ratepayers £7400,000 a year, equal to 9d. off the Rates. Seven thousand men who have been receiving parish relief in Glasgow have been transferred to unemployment benefit through the new Act renewing their eligibility.” (Forward, April 12.)

* * *

The Revolutionary I.L.P. !

Unemployment relief should be a national charge, say both Winston Churchill and the I.L.P.

“That was the view of the I.L.P. in 1911 when Lloyd George framed his Unemployment Insurance Act. It is still the view of the I.L.P. The I.L.P. agitators of that time are the Government to-day, and it is left to Winston Churchill, the political adventurer with the adaptable mind, to express the I.L.P. point of view on unemployment relief.” (Forward, April 12.)

* * *

Humanizing Socialism !

I.L.P. object to Marx.

Mr. Fenner Brockway, the mouthpiece of the I.L.P., tells us in the Daily Herald (Jan. 22) that 20 years ago he read the American Socialist papers every week, and of them he says :

“They seemed to aim at making Socialism as difficult and forbidding as possible. The theories of the class struggle, the economic interpretation of history and surplus value were elaborated in detail, and their acceptance in entirety was made the test of Socialist conviction. 

I remember discussing this characteristic of American Socialism with Keir Hardie. He told me that before the formation of the I.L.P. British Socialism had been advocated in a similar way. The result was that the working-class was unmoved; it was left cold by the hard materialism, the dogmatic intolerance, and Continental phraseology in which Socialism was expressed.”

So Keir Hardie, who ridiculed the class war idea, and got his economics from Jesus, founded the I.L.P., with its sentimental appeal for social reform and a “humanized” capitalism, and support of capitalist parties.

Mr. Fenner Brockway reviews a book called the “Socialism of Our Times,” published by the “League of Industrial Democracy” (New York, 50 cents). This is a symposium by various writers who provide advice on “adapting” Socialism to the needs of the U.S.A.

Judging from the quotations, it is a collection of intellectual essays on everything except Socialism.

Mr. Brockway naturally commends the book, and quotes Mr. Harold Laski’s suggestions :

“The first step must be to awaken the American people to a sense of the positive character of the State. America still regards the State negatively, as we did in this country before the Labour Party entered Parliament. It does not recognise that the State has any responsibility for the unemployed, the sick, the widows, and the aged. Laski urges, therefore, that, the first need is to advocate unemployment and health insurance and old age and widows’ pensions, plus municipal ownership, taxation for social purposes, and Court and Parliamentary reform. In this way he believes a mental attitude will be created in the public for bigger Socialist reforms.”

* * *

Paralysing Socialism.

So Prof. Laski’s suggestion for “Americanizing” Socialism is to demand bigger reforms. What a Socialist Reform is, he doesn’t say. Seeing that all reforms are to be passed by the Capitalist Government—obviously they can’t be Socialist.

No suggestion is made that the workers should be taught Socialism, so that reforms will not be needed, but Socialism can be established.

The State is to be used by the worker to improve conditions under Capitalism ! The State, however, is a machine used under Capitalism to maintain private ownership and to repress the workers. The only use the State will be to a Socialist working-class is to capture it for the purpose of ending this system.

The workers of U.S.A. are advised by Mr. Laski to fight for the social reform legislation Mr. Lloyd George passed under Liberal Party rule.

This late professor of Harvard University understands the problem so little that he advises the workers in the most advanced industrial country to press for the paltry reforms that Germany had under Bismarck, and that England has suffered for many years.

Miss Jessie Wallace Hughan, another contributor to the book, says :

“American Socialism was imported by foreign-born doctrinaires. ’Gene Debs did much to humanise it, but it has still to be Americanised ‘from the pain economy to the pleasure economy, from the phraseology of the European labourer with nothing to lose but his chains to that of the American worker with his demands for a Ford and a radio.’”

American conditions are so different, she would have you believe, that the worker there has something to lose—and demands a radio and a Ford car. But how is it that both this writer and Mr. Laski advocate that the American workers demand all kinds of pensions, “doles,” and many other reforms similar to those we have in Europe, where “the labourer has nothing to lose but his chains”? The very reform agitation they favour gives the lie to the alleged differences in the condition of labour between U.S.A. and Europe.

Humanizing Socialism—Mr. Brockway calls his article. It should have been entitled—”Socialism” without Socialists— an I.L.P, beef stew !

* * *

Canadian Communists.

The Communist Party is as Reformist abroad as it is here. In Toronto Municipal Elections they are running candidates on a programme which covers everything except Communism. Their immediate demands according to their official organ, The Worker (Toronto, Dec. 21) include :

• “Unemployed relief of £5 per week to married men and £3 to single men.
• An Unemployed Insurance Act.
• Seven-hour day and 5-day week and 2 weeks’ holiday with pay.
• No night work for women and all those under 18 years of age.
• 2s. l1d. per hour for municipal employees.
• Abolition of property qualification for voters.
• Town Planning Scheme to pay union rates.
• Revision of taxation to benefit the workers.
• Free speech assemblage and Press.”

That’s how they build up Communist support in Canada.

* * *

More “Direct Action”?

“American Socialism or Labor Unions contra Company Unions,” by Robert Clausen, 409, East Fifth Street, Los Angeles. Price 35 cents.

This pamphlet, sent to us for review, is evidently the work of an ex S.L.P. member.

The writer claims that the S.L.P. have given up De Leon’s main idea, viz., reliance upon the economic organization, “taking and holding” the means of life without affiliation to any political party. Mr. Clausen does not deal with the weakness of De Leon’s position. In several articles in the Socialist Standard, our Comrade Jacomb showed that the S.L.P. had committed suicide politically by advocating that the workers give their undivided attention to economic organization.

The author of this pamphlet criticises both the “direct action” I.W.W. and also the industrial unions formed by employers for the harmless organization of their workers. These latter are called Company Unions in U.S.A., and their counterpart has grown up here since the General Strike.

Mr. Clausen’s pamphlet is a poor presentation of his views, but his chief idea is economic organization of labour, to take the means of production out of the hands of Capital.

He does not show how this can be done. Neither could De Leon or the S.L.P. Mr. Clausen supports Marx’s economics, but nowhere did Marx rely upon economic organization. Marx said that the first step was to capture political power (Communist Manifesto). The S.L.P. have not been able to deal with our case against their “direct action” policy, and so they remain silent on this, their special nostrum.

Perhaps Mr. Clausen would like to explain how economic organizations can “come into possession.”

* * *

“The Making of Socialists.”

“Why I doubt that the I.L.P. is a Socialist organization” was the title of a lecture given to the I.L.P. in North St. Pancras on March 6th by E. C. Fairchild. 

“He did not think the policy of social reform adopted by the Labour Party had any real connection with Socialism, and thought that the I.L.P. was making the fatal mistake of trying to outbid the Labour Party in reform measures, instead of concentrating on the making of Socialists.” (New Leader.)

The title of Mr. Fairchild’s lecture implies that he isn’t sure about the I.L.P. His doubts would not exist if he examined the I.L.P’s. position. It is inside the Labour Party, because that is where the jobs and popularity are. Its members run as Labour Party candidates because that is the way to get elected—and it’s election they want, not Socialism. The programme of rationalisation and reform gets millions of votes—advocating Socialism wouldn’t. The real crime of the I.L.P. and Labour Party is not merely their reform programme, but the assistance they give to keep power in the hands of the Capitalist Class.

Mr. Fairchild belonged to the Social Democratic Federation before the War, and in defence of their reform policy, wrote a pamphlet explaining that reforms and palliatives were the weapons of working class struggle.

In a series of articles in the Socialist Standard, our Comrade Jacomb analysed the reform nostrums of Mr. Fairchild. Since then the latter left the S.D.F. and joined the I.L.P., who had more reforms in their programme than the S.D.F. And now he is at Ruskin College as a teacher.

Before Mr. Fairchild started his wanderings in the reform wilderness, there was the Socialist Party of Great Britain in existence, and it still exists for the object of making Socialists and establishing Socialism.

* * *

Shaw v. Marx.

“And do not forget that the Marxian dream of a world-wide proletarian revolution, though it is not now practical politics, may yet upset all our conceptions of international relations. The Reformation did not seem practical in the Middle Ages; but it happened for all that.”

Thus spoke Bernard Shaw in an interview in the Sunday Observer (March 23}. It may suit Shaw to portray Marx’s idea as a dream, but the Capitalist Class don’t spend their time and money fighting dreams. They are busy with every weapon, from miseducation to repression, to try and prevent an end coming to their system. No wonder they are so full of praise for Labour Leaders like Thomas and Labour Politicians like MacDonald, who turn working class discontent into support of Capitalism. Lord Balfour, who has just “gone to heaven,” said that Social Reform was the antidote to Socialism. Shaw and the Labour Party support the antidote, while the very development of Capitalism makes Socialism inevitable.

* * *

The worker in America. 

“If the depression continues for another three months the situation will become seriously acute. The American working man has not been accustomed to saving. He has no reserves, and all his luxuries and household goods have been purchased out of income. If he is out of employment, then he will not be able to meet his instalments, and the companies that are keyed up to mass production will find that the percentage of production necessary to make large profits will be reduced to such an extent that there will not even be small profits—there will be considerable losses.”

Thus writes the City Editor of the Sunday Express (March 23), on his return from America. This Capitalist paper explodes the myth about the prosperity of the American worker with his “home” and motor car—”bought” on the hire system. The effects of mass production in America should teach the worker here that “greater output” in the most advanced country makes the workers’ position more insecure than ever.

* * *

Labour bombs.

Mr. Fred. Montague (Under Minister for Air) is opposed to materialism—in philosophy. As a Labour Minister under the Capitalist system, however, he is a staunch materialist, and strongly defended spending nearly 18 millions on the Air Force, an increase of nearly a million on last year. The modern weapons of war are taking the form of more air forces, so this spiritual Air Minister brings in larger air estimates.

So the Labour Government is keeping up the pace for bombing planes and all the other deadly weapons of this Capitalist world.

* * *

Lloyd George “Behind” the I.L.P.

“Mr. Lloyd George’s article in the Daily Express this week strongly reinforces the I.L.P. policy, so closely associated with F. W. Jowett’s name.” These are the words of the New Leader—the I.L.P. paper. What better evidence of the I.L. P. ‘s Socialism can you have?—Mr. Lloyd George “reinforces I.L.P. policy.” Perhaps that is Lloyd George’s thanks to the I.L.P. for so long supporting his Budget and other Reform campaigns !

* * *

A Communist Programme.

(1) Feeding all school children.

(2) Unemployed men on slack time to be relieved from paying rates.

(3) A school holiday on May 1st.

(4) Joint action by unemployed and employed to force these demands.

This is the Communist Party programme in Fifeshire (Daily Worker, March 14).

That is what they call uniting the workers for Revolution. The workers are to join together—not fighting for Socialism, but fighting for a school holiday on May 1st, etc.

Did the Third International spend large sums to develop such powerful Revolutionaries ?

C.

Reform or Revolution? (1942)

From the May 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Workers Will Decide

Changes are needed ! For the present, at any rate, everybody seems to agree on that point. Charters, New World Orders, schemes for post-war improvement of this and that—with these the worker is regaled to convince him that this time he will not be forgotten when “peace” returns.

We ask the workers to consider carefully these questions: What kind of a change is it going to be? Is it to be only the reform of present-day society, capitalism? This is the kind of change the capitalist class and their supporters envisage. Or will the workers act in their own interest, and perform the revolutionary act of abolishing capitalism and establishing Socialism?

We ask the workers these questions because the nature of the change society undergoes will depend upon their choice. This is a point too frequently forgotten in these days when the world has so many so-called “great men.” Yes, the choice rests with the working-class. If they want reforms, mere modifications of capitalism which will still leave them fundamentally in the same position as they occupy to-day, they can have them. On the other hand, should they decide to have done once and for all with capitalism, its private property, profits and privileges for the few and its wage-slavery and poverty for the vast majority, there is no one who can prevent them. Let those who doubt this remember that the Nazis succeeded in gaining power in Germany because the majority of German workers had become either antagonistic to the Social Democrats and Communists and were impressed by the promises of the Nazis or else they had become apathetic and were ready to give the new party a chance. Another proof that the working-class can decide the nature of society is amply afforded by the present war. This has been called a war of propaganda. And, indeed, propaganda is poured out ad nauseum by the belligerent governments to keep their respective workers in the fighting mood. The ruling class realise that without the support of their workers he war could not be prosecuted.

The lesson is plain, therefore; in highly developed capitalist countries the workers, the bulk of the population, can decide how society is going to be changed. Should the workers support plans for the reform of capitalism? Or should they take matters into their own hands, abolish the present system, and establish Socialism?

The Weakness of Reformism

Since capitalism came into existence, it has had its many evils. Moreover, these evils have weighed heavily upon the mass of the people, upon those who do the work, the working-class. Hurriedly constructed hovels, unemployment for some and excessive toil for others, malnutrition—these are just a few of the evils that capitalism generates and which must be borne by the working-class only. Not for the rich employing class are these evils, for they all spring from the poverty which afflicts those who must work.

Now for many years, in fact since the early days of capitalism, efforts have been made to make the lot of the worker more bearable, to ease the chafing of his chains. The reformists who busy themselves with this task start with the assumption that capitalism will remain. Any changes they advocate are to be brought about within the framework of capitalism. This is the essence of reformism. Capital and wage-labour, the two bases of capitalism, they leave fundamentally untouched. They do not seek to eradicate these roots of capitalism. They merely try to lessen the pains inflicted on society by the capitalism system.

Herein lies the weakness of reformism.

Capitalism cannot be so modified by reform measures that it becomes “the best of possible worlds” for the working-class. All reformist efforts to solve the fundamental problems of the workers are bound to fail. An analysis of capitalism will show why this is so.

Capitalism, it must be understood, is a system of society organised so as to provide profit to the owners of industry, the capitalist class. To do this, the wage-worker is set to work, and what he produces belongs to the employers, the capitalists. The wage-worker is given back, in the form of wages, only a portion of what he produces ; the rest, the surplus, the capitalist owner retains. Thus is the worker exploited and kept on the poverty line, for the portion he receives as wages is just about sufficient to keep him fit enough to perform his particular job and reproduce his kind—future wage-slaves for the service of the capitalist class. Hence the worker is born poor, he lives his life in poverty and dies still poor.

Frequently, to increase his profit (part of the surplus we spoke of), or to compete more successfully in the markets of the world, the capitalist cuts down his production costs. Then he seeks to enforce wage reductions, or he may replace workmen by labour-saving machinery or by adopting a new technique. Moreover, the growth of the unemployment problem has been particularly favourable to the capitalist class in its attack upon the workers’ standard of living, for as soon as there is a reserve army of unemployed workers, the keeping down of wages becomes a more simple matter for the owners of industry, since the workers compete with each other for jobs.

The motive power of capitalism being the lust for profit, any wage increases won by the workers are, if possible, offset by the employing class, for wage increases mean an attack on profits. Hence wage increases are usually the signal for the introduction of more labour saving devices, of more machinery. Thus, very frequently, more production is squeezed out of fewer workers. The exploitation of the worker becomes more intense.

From the foregoing brief examination of capitalism we can see why reformists must fail to solve the workers’ problems. Whatever reforms are introduced, so long as the present system remains, the following evils will persist: —

1. The bulk of what the workers produce will be taken from them.
2. They will be kept on or near the poverty line, and will be thus forced to continue in a slave position, dependent on the capitalist class for a living. They will still stand in need of doles, old age pensions and all the other accessories of poverty.

Just one other point about the weakness of reformism. It is an important point. Often reforms carried to improve the lot of the worker prove but of short duration. Should they be of inconvenience to the capitalist class in whose interests present-day society operates, they are, as soon as a favourable opportunity arises, either abandoned altogether or modified to the disadvantage of the workers. All that is necessary is for an industrial crisis or a war to arise—and both these come crashing in on us with regularity—and years of effort for reform measures are as nothing. Then we must say good-bye to the reforms “for the time being,” or at least the reforms are drastically altered. It will suffice if we remind the reader of the crisis 1929-31 with all its cuts. The impermanence of reforms, therefore, is a fundamental weakness of the reformist position.

The lesson the S.P.G.B. has learnt from all this is that the ills afflicting the working-class are due to capitalism, with its profit-making motive.

How Reformists Help the Workers

We have just shown why the Socialist Party of Great Britain is opposed to refornism. But we have heard it uttered that the Labour Party ought not to be so opposed because really it does not support capitalism. We shall see how much truth there is in this assertion by examining recent writings of a Labour M.P. He is Mr. Tom Smith, M.P. for Normanton,, not one of the “big shots,” but just an ordinary Labour Member, whose outlook is typical ol his colleagues.

Mr. Tom Smith championed the cause of the farm workers in their demand for a minimum wage of three pounds a week, and spoke on their behalf in the House of Commons.

Recently, in a letter to The Dairy Farmer (January, 1942), Mr. Smith wrote as follows about his efforts for the agricultural workers: —

“With regard to wages, I am proud to feel that I have been of some little assistance in securing the £3 per week minimum. I have felt for a long time that the agricultural worker never had the recognition that his services warranted, and I am hoping to see the day when conditions in the countryside, both in regard to housing, education and other social amenities, will be vastly improved.”

No doubt the average worker who has not reached an understanding of his position in society and who, in consequence, is too ready to take “the short view” and accept appearances for facts, is moved to exclaim: ” Good old Tom!” and support the Labour Party, the party to which Mr. Smith belongs.

Not so the Socialist. He cannot enthuse when L.P.-ers (or any other people) make efforts to obtain immediate improvements for the workers.

It is not because he objects to an improvement in the condition of the working-class that the Socialist adopts this attitude. It is, as we have already shown earlier in this article, because he maintains that such efforts, even if successful, do too little to eradicate the numerous and ghastly evils of capitalism. The problems confronting the working-class are too big to be remedied by reforms of the existing system.

The S.P.G.B. opposes Mr. Tom Smith (and his colleagues) for this very reason. Let us return to his letter in The Dairy Farmer and see how he wishes to retain the capitalist system. The following quotations should be carefully studied by all those who believe the Labour Party is out for a new form of society. Mr. Smith writes: —

1. “With regard to the future of agriculture, The action of the Ministry of Agriculture in announcing more security of tenure for the farmers; the assurance that planning can take place till at least the 1945 harvest . . . are steps in the right direction.”
2. “In my opinion, if this question of distribution were tackled as it ought to be tackled, I see no reason why the producer shouldn’t have a reasonable price without unduly burdening the consumer in the urban districts ” (our emphasis).

From these quotations, it is obvious that Mr. Tom Smith, while concerned to help the land worker, cannot envisage the removal of the system which robs and enslaves the workers. He accepts the preservation of private property; he wants “reasonable prices” and presumably “reasonable” profits.

Mr. Smith, like most reformists, is therefore in this position: he wants to improve the lot of the worker (we do give him credit for this) and yet is prepared to help preserve the very system which causes so much suffering to the worker. And let us emphasise that Mr. Smith is just a typical example of other reformists.

The Socialist, on the other hand, must point out on all occasions that if the present system is maintained with its problems of wages, profits, prices, currency, etc., poverty will always be the workers’ reward.

What Should The Worker Do ?

Because no salvation is possible for the worker under capitalism, we of the S.P.G.B. are out to abolish it and to replace it by Socialism. We aim at nothing less, because we know nothing less will satisfy the needs of the class to which we belong. It is also for this reason that we are opposed to all other parties, all of which, at the most, aim merely at modifications of present-day society.

The workers should study Socialism. That is the first step towards their salvation. We are confident that a little study will convince them that only by going to the root of their problems can their position be permanently improved. They will realise the need for abandoning reform movements. They will realise the need for revolutionary action, for replacing capitalism by Socialism, that is by a society wherein there will be no private property, no profit making and no wages. Socialism is, in fact, a social system wherein the means of life belong to all society and wherein, consequently, production is carried on to satisfy the needs of society. Socialism, having no “ulterior motive,” will make unnecessary the present-day strivings for “a living wage” (which still leaves the workers robbed of the bulk of what they produce). Let the worker, then, change his motto. With Marx, we say, “Instead of the Conservative motto, ‘A fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work !’ they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, ‘Abolition of the wages system !’ ”

A Word of Warning

The Socialist Party of Great Britain stands for the revolutionary transformation of society. Because of this and because history has proved that a party for revolution cannot be built up on reform programmes, the S.P.G.B. does not seek to win support by advocating reforms.

We do not expect, therefore, to gain the support of people still unconvinced of the need for Socialism—nor do we desire to be supported by non-Socialists. Until the majority desire and are prepared to organise for the specific job of establishing Socialism, the achievement of the new society is an impossibility. Our task now then is, to propagate Socialist principles, to make Socialists. Non-Socialists, people interested in the reform of capitalism, would hamper us in that job.

Then, again, as Leibnecht showed long ago in his “No Compromise,” once a revolutionary party begins to compromise with capitalism and is willing to help in its administration and reform, such a party is doomed as a weapon for Socialism. It ceases to be revolutionary.

The reason for this is plain to see. Once a party adopts reform programmes, it appeals to many kinds of people who are anything but Socialist. The result is that the Socialists are swamped, and Socialism is pushed further and further into the background on the party programme; Socialism ceases to be the object of the party.

Workers desiring Socialism should, therefore, remember these things and study the case of the S.P.G.B.. They should refuse to give their support to any party which, while claiming to be Socialist, fights elections on a reformist programme. Such parties could not introduce Socialism even if they won power. Their mandate would be for the reform of capitalism, not for Socialism.

This is one of the reasons the I.L.P. cannot stand for Socialism. When one of its members, Fenner Brockway, stood as a candidate at the Lancaster election last October, it was admitted in the New Leader (October 25th, 1941) that his advocacy of certain reforms had won him support. Still interested in votes rather than in Socialism, Fenner Brockway is “fighting” the Cardiff election. In his election address he has expressed his sympathy with Welsh Nationalism (see New Leader, April 11th, 1942).

It should be obvious that such parties as the I.L.P. which use plenty of revolutionary jargon but which have suitable reform programmes ready for time and place cannot bring to an end the workers’ wage-slavery. Socialism alone will do that, and such parties are merely reformist.

Let the workers, then, reject reformism, and embrace revolution. Let them cease to spend their forces on reformist futilities. Let them concentrate their strength in the S.P.G.B.—the weapon for Socialism that will not falter.

Clifford Allen

Labour Party and Immigration (1965)

From the June 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

High-flown phrases about "the brotherhood of man” fall thickly from the lips of the Capitalist politician, and perhaps some of them are sincere, at least some of the time. Fenner Brockway, until last October the Labour M.P. for Eton & Slough, tried and failed no less than seven times to interest the Commons in a bill to outlaw racial discrimination. "When a child is born", he said with a note of Christian piety on December 13th, 1961, “ it is not its physical form or the pigment of its skin which makes it sacred—it is the spiritual life, the personality within ”,

The precise meaning of those words is a matter for discussion, but what is undeniable is the anxiety of Mr. Brockway and other M.P s over the growing signs of racial friction in Britain. However, it is one thing to condemn racialism, but quite another to deal with it effectively in a world of private property, where antagonisms and prejudices of all sorts are fostered. In any case, whatever Mr. Brockway’s opinions may have been, he was a Labourite and cannot escape responsibility for his party's actions over the question of racialism and immigration control.

Indeed, despite fierce Labour opposition to the Commonwealth Immigration Bill in 1962 (and we shall come to that later), it may not be generally remembered that it was two Labour members, H. Hynd (Accrington) and M. Lipton (Brixton) who over four years before (on April 3rd, 1958) had said in the Common that “. . . the time has come for reconsideration of the arrangement whereby British subjects from other parts of the Commonwealth are allowed to enter this country without restriction ”. At that time, it was the Tory spokesman, Miss P. Hornsby-Smith, who resisted their motion and reminded the freedom lovers of the Labour benches of the part coloured workers had played in taking jobs rejected by whites:

Anyone who uses public transport in our big cities, will know that they have filled a very great gap in staff and . . . have done a very good job.

But as she also had to admit, the heavy demand for labour was easing, and coloured workers were finding it more difficult to find employment than before. Here we can detect one of the economic pressures which made the question politically explosive in the early sixties, and perhaps cost the Labour Party three constituencies in 1964-5.

It was convenient for the Macmillan government that so many people seemed to forget that housing and employment problems existed long before coloured immigrants set foot here in any numbers. The Tories saw the issue as a political godsend, among other things an opportunity to deflect criticism of their own failures to solve these problems onto the innocent shoulders of the coloured minority. And despite their assurances to the contrary, the subsequent Immigration Bill was far from colour-blind in its provisions. The Tories were in fact pandering to the worst prejudices of public opinion and, by using a minority as a scapegoat, were taking crafty advantage of racist sentiment without incurring the stigma usually attached to it.

Here it was that the Labour opposition under Gaitskell committed a first class tactical blunder in assuming that it was still enough to label a party racialist to condemn in in the eyes of the public. Conditions in British politics were changing, but Gaitskell showed little awareness of this when commenting on the Queen’s speech on October 31st, 1961:

. . . whatever hon. Members opposite may say, whatever the Home Secretary may say . . . this will be regarded very largely throughout the world as the imposition of a colour bar over here.... To impose restrictions is a very grave step indeed, and , one that I personally hope the Government will not, when they come to it, actually take.

This bitter and unqualified attack was resumed the following day by George Brown. He threw the words of the Tory Cyril Osborne into the Government’s face (“This is a white man’s country and I want it to remain so ”), and ended by saying:

The proposal to take these powers is not really to solve the difficulties and the real consequences of the proposal is to give themselves gn alibi for what they are refusing to do, whether for brown, black or white.. . . The casual way in which this is dealt with is a gross reflection on H.M. Ministers, and if the house were easily to accept it, it would be on the house.

It is old news now, that the government’s measure was passed in the teeth of fierce labour opposition, something which was to cost Gordon-Walker his seat at Smethwick three years later. By then, however, Labour policy under Wilson’s leadership hail undergone a right-about-face on the issue. Forgotten were Gaitskell’s words (“ immigration from the Commonwealth has been of economic benefit to us.”) for the new leader was wily enough to see that the old stand was a positive vote loser.

So the 1964 Labour manifesto talked of retaining the very measure of which they had been so scornful, and indeed since their return to power, Labour have actually tightened control at all points of entry. Of course, they are at one with their Tory sparring partners in denying any racial bias, but in the light of this, the words of their home secretary, Sir Frank Soskice, have a strange ring. In a Commons debate on Match 23rd, he resisted any extension to the law because:

I should have to ask you to give these powers to be used against Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders, against all members of the old Commonwealth countries as well as the new. They would have to be operated against visitors and students, from all these countries with complete impartiality.

True, the Labour government have since introduced a bill outlawing racial discrimination in certain spheres, but this is as much a question of public order as anything else. Statesmen can learn from the mistakes of their counterparts elsewhere and British capitalism cannot afford another Selma or Little Rock in Smethwick or Brixton.

However, even if immigration restrictions achieve their purpose, there are almost a million coloured workers in Britain and they are here to stay. They will have children and their numbers will swell. They will suffer the same problems as their white brothers, but with the added indignity of resentment and prejudice which no law enactment can cure. The coloured vole will also increase and this is something which no Labour or Tory politician will be able to ignore when trying to keep the situation in check.

They have all pandered to ignorance and bigotry in the furtherance of their vote catching—racially prejudiced workers are always impressed by government restrictive measures against minorities—but the boot may not always be on the same foot. The present set-up could conceivably produce an offspring in the shape of mounting coloured resentment against while workers in the future; already some ugly signs of this are appearing elsewhere in the world. But whatever happens, it should be interesting to watch Labour and Tory antics as the drama is played out. and should prove as instructive a lesson in political tightrope walking as we have ever seen.

Eddie Critchfield

It's that "Great Man" idea again (1957)

From the June 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the earliest times of recorded history up to the present age, the idea of the “great man,” “the superman" has captured the imagination of the crowd. Stroll along any of the main highways of the world’s big cities and we are confronted with statues of every conceivable size erected in remembrance of these "great men.” But, like everything else, the worship of this “great man” idea has been done to death. There was Jesus Christ for example, supposedly crucified, dead and buried, but three days afterwards (so is the legend) popped back to life again. God had sent him. “He was the son of God.” And no man can, according to the Christians, surpass Christ. He was, and remains, the greatest of them all.

Of course this is all very childish now to those adults who have made any attempt to understand the historic origins of life—humanity and all its heirs and relations. Why has this “great man” idea been so carefully fostered through the ages? It is hard for the rationally minded to believe that it is a “carry over” from early man’s cave dwelling origins, a memory and worship for the departed chief warrior, high priest.

Even if it be conceded that recollection of the deeds of these great men have been a source of inspiration— for a time—in the main it has been one of the biggest contributory causes of the worshippers overlooking their own miserable plight.

We are prompted to record these few odds and ends about the “great man idea” because of what the Manchester Guardian recently described as “the long and occasionally acrimonious struggle to perpetuate the memory of Keir Hardie in Parliament’s own small Valhalla of statutory. . ." The origin of Keir Hardie’s fame is associated with the fact that he entered Parliament wearing a cap, a severe blow to the respectability and propriety which had been enjoyed by that assembly for generations. It is often murmured even now that it undermined for a decade respect for political tradition. But what’s in a hat or a cap for that matter. Has not the recently resigned Prime Minister set the fashion in head gear, inspiring many and otherwise very humbler members of the community to appear less humble—and correspondingly more respectable. There have been others, Baldwin with his pipe, Joseph Chamberlain with his eye glass and orchids; the world's “big chum" with his big cigars and last, and by no means least, the Welsh miner who once coloured the pages of history by recording on a particular occasion his detestation of vermin!

All these incidents are of course quite trifling, but we would ask in all seriousness whether the cause of Socialism owes anything to whatever Keir Hardie ever said, whether with cap or bareheaded. Suffice it to say that the Keir Hardie Memorial Committee has been struggling for so many years to get the House of Commons to accept "a fine golden gleaming bust . . ." (but without that cap) to adorn those sacred precincts of the House of Commons. Lord Samuel, speaking on the occasion, is reported to have said . . . “Keir Hardie’s cap struck a discordant note. It made us feel slightly uncomfortable. It was meant to make us feel uncomfortable.” Mr. Gaitskell made his tribute at the occasion, saying, ". . . Far more than any other man, Keir Hardie had founded the Labour Party. His Socialism was idealistic in character, drawing more from Methodism, from Robert Burns, than from men like Karl Marx!”

Seriously we ask, what do Mr. Fenner Brockway, chairman of the Keir Hardie Memorial Committee, and Mr. Gaitskell, the old Etonian, really think about such odds and ends, which takes the mind back to the times of Moses, to the primordial past, leaving the story still untold of the manner and ways in which Capitalism still enfolds the life of the worker, with its slums, its homeless millions the world over. May we ask these two sentimentally saturated and posing politicians whether working class understanding of Capitalism as the cause and Socialism as the remedy for the existing ghastly lot suffered by the working class has been advanced one tittle? Or is it perhaps a vain hope which excites both these two political “show offs” to be “the bust of a to-morrow!” Who knows and who cares? Is not this the land of cant and humbug and can political humbuggery go lower?

O.C.I.

Editorial: The Communist Party and I.L.P. Unity. (1926)

Editorial from the March 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The alleged revolutionary nature of the Communist Party can be seen by the article of the Acting Secretary of the C.P. (Robert Stewart) in the Sunday Worker for January 17. He refers to the “recent offer (which is still open) to co-operate with the I.L.P. in a campaign on such points as 100 per cent. trades unionism, a living wage, and nationalisation of mines.” If these two parties can find common ground in such work, which leaves capitalism safe and sound, there is no reason why they should not unite. We suggest they should call the United Party—the Political Patchers Alliance. One of the final pleas of Mr. Stewart is pathetic.

He says : “Surely, if Mr. Brockway finds it possible to co-operate with (say, Mr. R. MacDonald, Mr. J. H. Thomas, or Mr. Will Thorne from each of which he differs widely in matters of theory, his co-operation with the Communists should be equally possible.”

Certainly ! Why not !

Here and There: Is Hitler a Socialist? (1939)

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

Is Hitler a Socialist?

A good deal of our time as a propagandist organisation has unfortunately had to be devoted to denouncing false ideas about Socialism as well as to explaining what Socialism really means. This has led us to strong criticisms of the Labour Party and other parties claiming to be working-class parties, which have very frequently been grossly misunderstood. Our position is a simple one regarding these parties. It is, briefly, that they do not stand for Socialism, that is to say, the common ownership by the whole of society of the means and instruments of production and distribution, and their democratic control by and in the interests of all. Some supporters of the Labour Party and others bristle like Christians rebuked for lack of faith when the position is stated thus. Yet that is the position. And the evidence of Labour Party programmes, newspapers and conferences provide overwhelming evidence of the fact. Worse—many thousands who describe themselves as Socialists have so vague an idea as to what Socialism means that they would not, so to speak, recognise it if they saw it. In a recent issue we commented on the report from Labour sources that the Nazi movement gained considerable support among workers in S.E. Europe because of Hitler’s skilful exploitation of anti-capitalist phraseology and the fact that his movement describes itself as National Socialist. The danger to the working-class movement through lack of sound knowledge, as in this example, should need little emphasis. Moreover, when that lack of knowledge is evident in quarters where “leadership” is looked for from the less informed, the danger can have tragic results. Witness Hamilton Fyfe in Reynolds’s (October 15th, 1939):-

  “Suppose Hitler were to make his National Socialism a reality ? Rudolf Hess, who is his closest friend, declared in public the other day that the Fuehrer would rather go Bolshevik than yield to the democracies. Was it a knowledge of this thought in Hitler’s mind which impelled Thyssen, the once-powerful German capitalist, to bolt when war began? He is now in Switzerland, I believe.

  Hitler has certainly shaken off the capitalist yoke. He climbed to power on the willing backs of financiers and industrialists. They thought they could keep him in order by threatening, if he defied them, to withdraw their shoulders and let him down. But, when he felt himself strong enough, he stamped on them; it was they who found themselves in the mud. Will he take the further step of finishing them off by making the Reich Socialist ?

  By doing this he would set up a strong claim to the assistance of Russia in a war against the capitalist Powers (Britain, France, Italy).”

Observe the reasoning: “Hitler has certainly thrown off the capitalist yoke.” (Note the emphasis, certainly.) Observe the process culminating in the view that Hitler would have “a strong claim to the assistance of Russia in a war against the capitalist Powers (Britain, France, Italy).”

How much further need such reasoning go before it justifies a holy “Socialist” war against capitalism. It is tragic to reflect this comes from one of the “profound” minds which influence the Labour Party following. Yet it bears out our lifelong case against the Labour Party—that State ownership or State control is not Socialism. And that is what Mr. Hamilton Fyfe sees in both Germany and Russia, hence, in his mind, the ease with which they might come together.

Such ideas, such men, are dangerous.

* * *

A New Role for the Communists

An interesting item of news from the war zone:—

   “Communists are coming to the fore again all over Germany, according to reports received from Swiss sources.

   Goering, Hess, Funk are backing them feeling that victory against the Allies cannot be achieved without their aid.

    Nazi speakers are now allowed to proclaim publicly that radical reforms to bring Germany into line with Russia are being prepared. All capitalism will be suppressed.

  The revived Communist Party is being renamed ‘the Popular Party’.”—(Evening Standard, October 21st, 1939.)

It may not be true. Nevertheless it could be true: in which case it would illustrate how small the real differences are between Germany and Russia. “All capitalism will be suppressed” would mean no more than centralisation in the hands of the State of the means of production on Russian lines. The move might deceive German workers for a time, but they would more than likely suspect it to be an astute move by the German Government to arrest criticism and discontent with the war. Anti-capitalist propaganda is likely to have unpleasant results for German capitalism later on.

* * *

Sour Grapes

The Daily Herald (October 10th, 1939) quotes from the Italian newspaper, Corriere Padano, the following: —

  “Voroshilov (Soviet Defence Commissar) and his companions, like all carrion in Bolshevik Russia, do not interest us in the slightest.

  We refuse a grain of esteem or an ounce of sympathy to the Bolsheviks, who are models of gross bestiality—living monsters who are serving the most infamous undertaking of human deceit, cruelty and degradation ever recorded.”

“Bolshevism” is about as popular with the Italian capitalist class at the moment as it will be with the German capitalist class later. The explanation, of course, has nothing whatever to do with the “ideological” differences of Fascism, Bolshevism or Nazism, but the clash of national interests.

Russia’s expansion into Poland has perhaps to a large extent neutralised the influence of Italy in the Balkans.

* * *

Long Live Poland—Communist Version

From Humanité, August 30th, 1936.

“LONG LIVE POLAND !”

By MAURICE THOREZ, 

Gen. Secretary of the C.P. of France.

  “Arriving in Paris this morning is General Rydz-Srnigly, Inspector-General of the Polish Army, and the most powerful man in his country. General Rydz-Smigly was the disciple and the comrade in arms of Marshal Pilsudski, founder of an independent Poland, who chose him to continue his work, and before dying commanded that “all the State functionaries, from the President of the Council downwards, were to render him respect and obedience. …” Although the interior regime in Poland is far from being a liberal democracy, and also General Rydz-Smigly once occupied Kiev, and defended Warsaw against the Red Army, we are none the less happy in saluting this morning France’s eminent guest. . . . Communists and Republicans consider that the continued independence of Poland is a guarantee of Peace in our troubled and anguished Europe. Deeply concerned regarding the future of our own country, attached passionately to the cause of peace, we observe with sympathy the efforts of the Polish people, who wish to preserve the independence of their country. . . .

We above all desire—and this is our reply to those who libel our Communist Party by maintaining that we are favourable to a “sacred war of the democracies against Fascism”—that Franco-Polish friendship should be guaranteed in order to preserve world peace, whatever may be the interior regime in Poland, that Poland which is, and must remain, independent.

And that is why this morning, in the name of the working people, in the name of the Communists in France, saluting the arrival of General Rydz-Smigly, we cry with all our heart “Long Live Poland.”

And now Poland has been “liberated” with the assistance of the Russian armies. Far from being “independent,” that country is now under the mutual “protection” of the German and Russian Governments. Socialists are not shocked. It is all in the dirty game of capitalist politics. If we register any feelings at all about the business it is only in bitter protest that the name of Socialism has been dragged into it by the Communists.

There is only one independence that is in line with working-class interests, and that is the independence which flows from the overthrow of their masters—the capitalist class.

Poland, as an independent State, was a product of the last war, the result of the collapse of three great Empires, by which it was previously surrounded. By the very nature of capitalist development its position as an “independent” State became difficult when those Empires regained their old strength. It may re-emerge again if and when the capitalist States which surround are too weak to resist it. And so the old game goes on, a game which has parallels in other parts of Europe and the capitalist world. A game which holds no interest for the workers and leaves unsolved the fundamental problems of working-class life, poverty and wage-slavery. Whichever capitalists dominate in Europe or elsewhere, those problems remain.

Socialists criticise the Communists and Russia because the latter has entered the capitalist cockpit.

Socialists aim at working-class independence, and instead of taking sides in the quarrels of the capitalists, work for the ending of capitalism.

* * *

Mr. Brockway and Socialism

Mr. Brockway, in the New Leader, tells his readers that he wrote “to the Webbs for contributions to the ‘N.L.’ symposium on the war.” He received a reply from Mrs. Webb, in which she excused herself on the grounds of “old age.”

Mr. Brockway comments thus: “They may feel blacked-out by age, but not even war will black out their Socialist work.”

Can we take it, Mr. Brockway, that the hoary Fabianism for which the Webbs stood and for which you express your appreciation as “Socialist work,” can be used as a measure of the “Socialism” the I.L.P. stands for?

Harry Waite

Running Commentary: A saint or a menace? (1988)

The Running Commentary column from the June 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard 

A saint or a menace?

Words which did not appear in the many tear-stained obituaries for Fenner Brockway, who died last month, were "hypocrite" and "dangerous". According to his admirers, Brockway was a saintly man who longed for a world where everyone — employer or employee — basked in the ecstacy of mutual prosperity; where there was absolute equality between one and another; where all nations, suddenly seized with insight into the futility of war, disposed of all their armed forces and weapons and resorted instead to the quieter, cheaper method of settling their differences though civilised discussion around the conference table.

Anyone who persists in these types of fantasies, in face of all the evidence to disprove that capitalism is basically a sane system, which with a change of heart, could be made to run in everyone’s interests, should be derided. Instead, they are liable to be deeply respected — especially after they die. The obituaries for them don't just regret their death but do so with a touch of wonder and guilt, that the world was so stupid not to heed the teachings of the departed saint.

Brockway was a prime example of this. An ardent, lifelong campaigner for peace, a conscientious objector who suffered imprisonment during the First World War, he was also a prominent member of the Labour Party which so ardently supported both World War One and Two and almost every other occasion when British capitalism needed its working class to take arms, to be killed and to kill their fellow workers. This veteran marcher for CND was an MP supporting a government which was emphatically opposed to dismantling the British nuclear armoury and was an ardent proponent of nuclear power stations. This champion of the dispossessed supported a party which, when in government, fought to keep the living standards of British workers in check, to the benefit of British capitalists. Finally, this man who stood for equality, a life-long opponent of the House of Lords, ended his days sitting on its benches, ennobled as Lord Brockway.

There are many ways of describing such inconsistencies of behaviour but hypocritical is to the point. But is it fair also to say that Brockway was dangerous?

People like Brockway are part of the very tradition of the Labour Party. Although their professed principles, which excite such admiration, should lead them to oppose the party they are among its most steadfast supporters. Whatever anguished twists Labour’s record requires of them, they are equal to the situation; they cling stubbornly to the party no matter what offences it commits against working class interests.

The effect of this is to persuade many people that at heart the Labour Party is not really as we experience it; its inner conscience, personified by members like Brockway, is pure and one day will take over the entire party. So workers continue to vote Labour — for capitalism with all that means in terms of human repression, poverty and suffering. Like any dangerous hypocrite. Brockway had a lot to answer for.

Rough stuff

Hijackers are in the forefront of that exclusive group of people whose actions are certain to provoke one of Thatcher's famous rages or to set Reagan's autocue whirring out the folksy platitudes. No words are too strong to condemn them; they are cowardly, subversive. indiscriminate outlaws who take no heed of the values of civilised society.

In fact, hijackers often personify many of the qualities which Thatcher and Reagan profess to admire in themselves — like sacrificial devotion to their cause, courage in the face of overwhelming odds, a ruthless will to carry out their mission not for their own benefit but for that of their comrades-in-arms. When the media tell us that the SAS or the Royal Marines have behaved in that way Thatcher is quick to praise them and to win a little electoral advantage at the same time but when the same qualities are in evidence from the "enemy" they are somehow transformed from the stuff of Boys' Own Paper into excerpts from the nastiest of video nasties.

The hijackers consider themselves to be at war with bigger, more impressive powers. In such a situation guerilla actions are the customary tactic and among these the hijack is now established as effective. Those who condemn it do so on the implication that war can be a civilised affair, fought to a kind of Queensberry Rules so that everyone who gets killed or wounded can take solace from the fact that it all happened in the most considerate and ordered fashion.

What virtue is there in the notion that something as viciously destructive and anti-human as war would be more bearable if all the participants kept to a set of rules? It would be futile to search for a state whose record in this respect is unblemished. Every one has its intelligence organisation — a spying. assassinating, dirty tricks department who have the utmost contempt for any "rules". We are allowed to know very little about these shadowy bodies but what we do know is that their speciality is not the metaphorical pre-fight handshake but the knee in the groin, the gouge of the eye.

The British and American ruling classes and their state machines are among the leading exponents of these tactics and when they are exposed in this they are unashamed, they make no apology for conforming to the needs of capitalism's persistent and worldwide conflicts.

So the indignation about the hijackers is bogus. There is no such thing as a legitimacy of war. Rather than pursue such fanciful mirages workers should stand aside from the brutal cynicism of it all, to ask how to abolish war itself.

Take your turn

Britain’s doctors are clearly worried about nuclear war. Perhaps they suspect the fragility of the premise of official advise about getting yourself to hospital if you have been injured by the bomb — that the medical profession will magically be immune to its effects.

However there is nothing like forward planning and the British Medical Association has recently issued some guidelines about who should be treated, and who left to die, in a nuclear holocaust (the government, not surprisingly, have been reluctant to grasp this particular hot potato).

These are some of the guidelines: readers are advised to keep them handy, so that they can make sure of their place in the queue for treatment after the bomb goes off. Burn or blast casualties will not get priority if they have also suffered from radiation; thickness bums over more than 15 per cent of the body means that you will almost certainly be abandoned to die; no time is likely to be spent on cardio respiratory resuscitation; the elderly will have the lowest priority and anyone over 60 suffering from burns will not get fluid replacement. Finally, if you have an injured limb which in normal conditions you would expect to be treated and cured, you may find that in the post-nuclear world it is simply hacked off, to save time.

It is a searing comment on this society, that trained doctors and nurses should have to give their attention to so grisly a business. But it is all too close to reality; the BMA estimates that about half the population of this country — 28 million people — will be wiped out in a nuclear conflict with six million more seriously injured. And. as we know, the bombs are still there, waiting in their silos and submarines and aircraft, to wipe out millions if ever the powers of capitalism decide that that is the only way of sorting out their rivalries.

The BMA document makes another illuminating point. Priority in treatment will also be given on the basis of ability, knowledge and social usefulness. And who comes out tops in this? Stockbrokers? Aristocrats? Merchant bankers? Well no — these heroes and heroines of capitalism come a long way down the list. Up at the top will be carpenters, plumbers, stonemasons — and the people who run hospital generators.

This is a comment, not just on nuclear war but on who are the really indispensable people in society, on the values and rewards of capitalism and how they hold back human progress.

Handy hints

Are you well off? Are you about to cash in — if you have not already done so — on the immense Thatcher-planned bonanza of productivity and prosperity? A lot of government propoganda says that you are. What do the facts say?

The latest figures available showing the level of "official" poverty — too bad if yours is unofficial — say that in 1983 nearly 16½ million people, which is about 30 per cent of the population, were struggling along on an income of 140 per cent of what was then the Supplementary Benefit level. The statistics covering 1985 have not yet been published; it is whispered in the poverty lobby that when they do come out it will be to show a sunnier picture, not because poverty has become less harsh but because the government has redefined it.

Does it matter, if you're among the officially poor? Money isn't everything, after all. According to a medical study for 1987 the kind of poverty which comes with unemployment coincides with men being 40 per cent more likely to die of all cancers, 75 per cent more likely to die of lung cancer and twice as likely to commit suicide. Of course, that could be coincidence ... A study by Peter Townsend and others suggests a clear link between serious deprivation and higher mortality. Last year the British Medical Association, which is not famous for being subversive, drew attention to the surveys which show how children whose parents are chronically unemployed tend to be stunted.

The Department of Health and Social Security, perhaps under the impression that this was living up to its title, recently issued some advice to the poor. "Don't shop when you're hungry", the ministry urged their claimants. "You may be tempted to buy more than you need". This is exactly the kind of humiliation experienced by out-of-work people in the 1930s which, the experts assure us, would never happen again, now that we live in the age of enlightenment. Nearer reality was a comment from someone who is not unemployed, a mother of four who works as a shop assistant, in the Observer of 17 April: "I was brought up poor. I never thought it would go on for ever, on to my children and maybe now their children's children".

For the working class poverty does go on. blighting the lives of one generation after another. Mass unemployment is a factor which harshly worsens a condition which will be with us for as long as this social system is allowed to endure — and so will the humiliation which goes with the deepest kind of poverty, when useful people are of no account because they are redundant to the drive for profit.