Notes by the Way: The Fabians and the House of Lords (1957)

The Notes by the Way Column from the February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Fabians and the House of Lords

In the Socialist Standard for February, 1907, was an article about the Fabians which opened with a quotation:—

“ The government of the future will be by experts and we, naturally, want to be the experts."

This little gem had been spoken by Mr. H. Snell, of the Fabian Society.

The writer in the Socialist Standard had appropriate comments to make on this typically Fabian proposal for running other people's lives. He began:—

"So now you know, if you did not before, what the Fabian Society are after. Their ‘Socialism’ is government by bureau, and ‘naturally’ (sweet word) they want to be the bureaucrats. ‘Naturally’ they want the plums. ‘‘Naturally’’ they want to sit in the seats of authority and arrange things for the benefit (naturally for the benefit) of the other and somewhat lower orders who do the mere producing."

Our writer hit the nail on the head when he said the Fabians aimed to occupy the seats of authority and in the course of time many of them had their little hour in the Labour Governments, where they showed that their “superior brains” could no more cope with the chaos of Capitalism than could those they affected to despise, the political aristocrats and the business men.

One of the “reforms” supported by the Fabians was the abolition of the House of Lords. They came to be glad that they hadn't succeeded because it was to be a final refuge for a number of Fabians, including Sidney Webb (who wrote the Fabian tract demanding abolition of the Lords), and Attlee, and of course Mr. Snell, who became Lord Snell of Plumstead in 1931 just about the time two million unemployed were wondering how their Fabian trained leader had managed to get things in such a mess.

Macmillan Must Go!

If we were Labour or Communist vote-catchers we would be campaigning for “Macmillan Must Go!" and telling anyone silly enough to believe it, how successful we had been with our last campaign for u Eden Must Go!"

Since the S.P.G.B. was formed in 1904 there have been ten such campaigns for getting rid of a no-good Prime Minister. There have been rather more than ten governments because some of them, after being pushed, pulled or squeezed out have managed to get back again. When we survey the list we marvel at the rich variety. Scots, English, Welsh, and half-American (Churchill); spell-binders like Lloyd-George, and others who didn’t know how to gild the lilies of oratory; philosophical types like Balfour and Asquith and "plain, blunt men" like Baldwin;; semi-Pacifists and war-mongers; business men and professional politicians; the relatively poor and the passing rich; religionists and agnostics; aristocrats and commoners; Tory, Liberal, and Labour.

There are the differences: What of the similarities? They have all had a strange belief that the country was very lucky to have them at the helm. They have all come in generously promising how much better they will make life for the people and have all gone out little lamented.

And what difference has it made in the one thing that ought to be of paramount concern to the workers, the question of establishing Socialism in place of Capitalism? Just no difference at all. That job has yet to be done and it won't matter in the least whether the next Prime Minister who tries to administer Capitalism is Mr. G., or Mr. B., Mr. X or Mr. Y.

“Why We Left the Communist Party”

A group calling themselves the Nottingham Marxist Group, has issued an eight-page leaflet under the above title. As a criticism of the leaders of the British Communist Party from the standpoint of members whose confidence was first shaken by the dethronement of Stalin and then shattered by the Russian Army's onslaught on the Hungarian workers, it is effective enough. But that is all it is. In no way does it justify the claim that the group are Marxist in outlook. Indeed the limited range of their criticism clearly shows that they are not. Their case is against “the politically and morally bankrupt leaders of the Communist Party," but not against the idea of leadership and if it were not for their view that it is in practice impossible to change the leadership they would he working for new leaders in place of the old. They fail to see that a Socialist Party has no use or place for leaders.

They condemn various comparatively recent consequences of dictatorship in Russia and Hungary, but nowhere do they show an understanding of the fact that Socialism is incompatible with dictatorship. They do not explain how it was that they accepted the dictatorship and only woke up to some of its inevitable consequences at a late stage. Above all they do not square their claim to be Marxist with their tacit acceptance of the absurd belief that the Russian dictatorship is Socialism. This ought to have been the central theme of their declaration because every criticism they make stems from the fact that the social organisation in Russia and Hungary is and always has been Capitalism. They do now see that Socialism cannot be imposed by force and they quote from an American Communist journal:—“Socialism . . .  could not be imposed on a country by those means”; but they do not face up to the truth that that was the original, impossible, aim of the Communist group that seized power in Russia, and that dictatorship and a police state were the inevitable outcome of that attempt It was then that the Russian Communists “betrayed” the principles of Socialism, not at some later date, as the pamphlet would have us believe, when the “cult of leadership” was carried to such lengths as to endanger the stability of the dictatorship itself.

The Not-so-Stupid Tory Capitalists

The Hon. William Douglas-Home, writer of successful plays and unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate standing on one occasion as a “Progressive Independent," and on another as “Atlantic Charter" candidate, wrote to the Observer (3 January, 1957) advising the Tories to apply in foreign politics the policy they have used so well at home. He described the latter as follows:—

“. . . they never seem to realise that a controlled withdrawal is precisely what they have conducted with considerable skill in domestic policy since the industrial revolution, and that to this policy, and to this policy alone, they owe their survival. Whereas any attempt to preserve the status quo would have resulted in either their total extinction or a revolution, or both.”

Strikes by Hungarian Workers

On January 13 the Russian imposed government of their Hungarian colony announced a new decree imposing the death penalty for a number of acts, many of which would in most countries be regarded as normal trade union and political activities.

The Manchester Guardian (January 14), quoting B.U.P. and Reuter despatches from Budapest, had the following:—

"The death penalty was introduced in Hungary today for anyone calling a strike, damaging factory machinery, or committing  'any kind of offence directed against the State.’ The death sentence could be ordered for distributing leaflets, or for entering a government factory without permission, according to the new regulations, announced in a supplementary paragraph to the martial law declared in December."

The News Chronicle and other newspapers gave similar versions. Only the Daily Worker (January 14) managed to twist this new decree almost out of recognition. They left out the reference to strikes and reported it as:—

“ Death sentences may be imposed on people who ‘ sabotage or interfere in any way with public utilities and other essential enterprises'. "

But if the Hungarian workers in Hungary may now be hanged for striking, Hungarian refugees in Britain have shocked a lot of people by refusing jobs offered to them and by coming out on strike. The Sunday Despatch (January 16) reported:—

"Eighteen refugees walked out of their jobs at St Albans because they were dissatisfied with their pay. They were receiving an average of £7 a week as cooks, waiters, carpenters and farm workers. Mr. G. P. Bannister, manager of the Employment Exchange at St. Albans, said: ’They expected £14 or £15 a week. Most of them want to go to America or Canada'. "

This sort of conduct will get the Hungarians disliked by the employers and before we know where we are we shall hear the Hungarians denounced as unwelcome agitators. Being spirited in demanding the right to strike in Budapest is not at all the same as continuing to behave like that here.

But British workers ought to be delighted that the refugees do not intend to become a source of cheap and servile labour. And if the incident makes British workers more assertive in trying to raise their wages so much the better.

Exodus to Canada

And while the Hungarians pour in the Britishers pour out as fast as they can, Canada-bound for preference. Rhona Churchill, in the Daily Mail (January 8, 1957), made inquiries and these are her conclusions:—

“ Emigrant applications at Canada’s London and Liverpool offices have now reached 20,000 a week.

John Bull Taxpayer has had enough.

Emigration figures had been falling off. Then suddenly the Butler austerity Budget of October, 1955, doubled the numbers, calling at Canadian immigration offices, the Macmillan squeeze Budget of April, 1956, trebled them, and Suez, with its promise of more Budget austerity three months from now, increased them sixfold.

A quarter of a million Britons, tired of being told for ten austere years: ’Belt-tightening today means prosperity tomorrow,' and, finding that tomorrow never comes, are now actively organising their escape, believing that Britain has no sound financial future to offer their children."

But while the exasperated British workers flee from the rigours of “Welfare State" Capitalism to seek paradise in Canada the Canadian Railwaymen were on strike because they too have grievances against their “free enterprise” Capitalism.

Profits and the Ugly Head of Politics

For a century or more business men, stock exchange speculators and economists have recurrently dreamed of a beautiful world in which Capitalism would function “naturally” without being disturbed by politics. The latest is Mr. A. G. Jenkins, City Editor of the Empire News (January 3,1957).

’’So much for the short-term view. Dividend limitation, nationalisation, confiscation and many other 'ations’ loom ahead when politics rears its ugly head, and for the moment this may discourage buyers of industrial ordinary shares."

Mr. Jenkins thinks Capitalism would be nicer without the serpent of politics and other “ations.” He should think again. If there were no political machine to be controlled by the politicians bent on keeping Capitalism going, our class divided society would disintegrate. One “ation” would, indeed, be taken away, but Mr. Jenkins would not be pleased for it is “exploitation," and if there were no exploitation of one class by another there would be no rent, interest or profit, no Stock Exchange, and no City Editors.

Over in Bombay the great Indian iron and steel concern of the Tata Company knows better. They don’t want to rule out politics; on the contrary they have just appealed successfully to the High Court for the right to make contributions to political party funds.

"Mr. Justice Tendolkar allowed a petition by the company for confirmation of alteration in its memorandum enabling it to make such contributions. He said that expenditure by way of donations to political parties could in the long run be economic.

”The petition said the company was at present carrying out a Rs. 750m. (£57m.) expansion programme and any further expansion would depend on Government approval. The company’s prosperity was therefore bound up with the policy of the party in power.”

(Financial Times, 12th January, 1957). 

The Indian Capitalists, who used the nationalist movement to establish themselves as a Capitalist India, learned all the tricks and devices of Capitalist rule practised by the British ruling class.

The Communists and the S.P.G.B.

Letters written to the Daily Worker by members of the S.P.G.B. have been refused publication recently. This is not in itself surprising but the reason given deserves comment. A letter from the Editor, J. R. Campbell (October 10, 1956) included the following:—

“It is true that the Daily Worker does not propose to publish letters dealing with insignificant political bodies like the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Our space is precious and we have to devote it to more important questions.” 

We can imagine the indignation of the Communists if, say the Daily Herald were to give the same reason for not publishing their letters. And of course we can guess that J. R. Campbell (responsible recently for the suppression of reports from Budapest by its own correspondent) may have other reasons for not wanting the Marxist case against his party to be put before his readers.

One small point about Campbell’s letter is that he addressed the S.P.G.B. member as “Dear Friend” and ended it “with best wishes.”

Another letter (January 7, 1957), this time signed “with all good wishes” by the Assistant Editor of the Daily Worker, Mick Bennett, informed our member that “the role and influence of the S.P.G.B. has declined over the years largely because of its conscious deliberate policy of remaining a small sect devoted largely to the theory that until all the working class have been sufficiently educated in Marxism they will not be able to get rid of Capitalism.”

This implies that the S.P.G.B. used to have more influence and was therefore worthy of the notice of Communists but, except on very rare occasions, the Communist Party has always maintained the policy of ignoring the S.P.G.B. and declining debates. But the official reason given for this in the early days was that there was no time or place for discussion because revolution, here and in the world generally, was "just around the corner.” Privately members of the C.P.G.B. were advised to keep away from discussion with the S.P.G.B.

Bennett's letter (in the last sentence quoted above) re-iterates the Communist’s case that Capitalism could be got rid of in speedier ways than by building up a movement of Socialists. What a pity we can't have from him his explanation of the total failure of Communist governments in Russia, Hungary and elsewhere, to get rid of Capitalism and introduce Socialism.

Brotherly Love from a Christian

A reader sends us an article by Pastor W. W. Kirkby. published in the Elim Evangel (December 8, 1956), called “Ambitious Russia,” which sets out to describe the imperialist aims of the Russian Government; including, so the writer says, the conquest of Israel as a main objective.

It is full of the common misconceptions about the social system in Russia (the writer of the article thinks it is Communism and that Marx was responsible for it), and about the driving force behind the Russian Imperialism (the writer naturally fails to recognise that it is like the imperialism of the rest of the Capitalist powers).

One interesting item is an alleged quotation from Karl Marx in which he is made to say that as “loving my neighbour” has not changed the world, “let us see what hatred can do.” (No source is given).

But just to show how different the Christian and his God are the article ends:—

“Four thousand years ago God declared to Abraham, the father of the faithful: 'I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.'

. . . That principle has been carried out right down the years, and in the future God’s curse is to fall upon atheistic and ambitious Russia.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Notes by the Way: The Purchasing Power of the Pound (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the October 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Purchasing Power of the Pound

At the T.U. Congress, in order to lead the delegates away from the policy of repudiating “wage-freezing” and pressing for higher wages, members of the General Council laid emphasis on the idea that lower prices would be more advantageous than higher wages. Mr. Arthur Deakin crystallised the view in the remark “I want to see £1 buy a pound’s worth of goods.” (Daily Express, 10/9/48.) Accurately speaking, the statement doesn’t mean anything, because what a £1 will buy is “a pound’s worth of goods” ; it can’t be anything else. The delegates, however, knew what he meant. It was a way of saying that he wants prices to stop rising and if possible he wants them to be reduced. Many workers think the same but what they have in mind is that they would like to see prices back to the level of 1939, or better still back to 1914, but without any fall in wages. If they kept the present level of wages and could spend them on goods at the much lower 1914 price level they would indeed have got something. It will, however, not happen, and the Government has never even suggested that they have any hope of seeing it happen. If prices came down by half, wages would soon follow, closely enough.

If the question is asked why are prices so much higher than in 1914 the greater part of the increase is easy to explain though the explanation is overlooked by many people.

In 1914, and again from 1925 to 1931, the British pound represented a certain weight of gold (113 grains of fine gold) and it was kept at that level automatically because, by law, Bank of England notes were convertible into gold or gold into notes. The American dollar also represented a fixed amount of gold, and the relationship of the weight of gold in the pound and dollar respectively was such that one pound equalled about 4.86 dollars. Now there is no convertibility of the pound into gold but, by agreement between the two governments, the pound is fixed at 4.03 dollars instead of the former 4.86 dollars. Also, since 1914, the dollar has been devalued and it too represents a smaller weight of gold than formerly; 59 per cent. of what it was in 1914.

The effect of these two changes taken together (i.e. that the dollar represents less gold, and that the pound represents fewer dollars) is that the pound now represents just under half the weight of gold it represented in 1914.

If we assumed that the value of gold itself had kept unchanged and therefore one ounce of gold would buy as much as in 1914. the effect of reducing the weight of gold represented by the Pound to one-half of what it used to be would naturally be that the pound would purchase only half as much as it did in 1914. There have been other factors also at work but by comparison with this they are of relatively small importance.

Incidentally it is worth noticing that those who believe that “we are no longer on the gold standard” are very wide of the mark.

* * *

The Russian Concentration Camps

Two exiled opponents of the Stalin Regime, Dallin and Nicolaevsky, wrote “Forced Labour in Soviet Russia,” giving a terrible picture of the conditions they allege exist in the Russian concentration camps. In our February issue we published a comment made by the Manchester Guardian in which the editor, while questioning some statements, accepted the description as convincing evidence of the inhumanity of the system of forced labour imposed on political and other prisoners. The Communists and their supporters deny the truth of the allegations. The Anglo-Russian News Bulletin (June 28th) published a review of “Forced Labour in Soviet Russia” by Mr. Rothstein, who is Lecturer on Soviet Institutions at the University of London School of Slavonic and East European Studies. Because Mr. Rothstein is presumably familiar with conditions in Russia, and able to obtain whatever information the Russian Government makes available, his review is interesting—but chiefly for what it does not say. He argues that the book contains contradictory statements and figures, that the authors are weak on arithmetic, that their estimates of the numbers in the camps could not be correct, that they make some statements “without a shred of evidence,” that they are guilty of distortions and malicious gossip and so on. The obvious intention of this line of attack is to cast such doubts on the reliability of Dallin and Nicolaevsky that the reader will conclude that he cannot believe anything they say. But before coming to any such conclusion it is necessary to notice that Mr. Rothstein stops short just at the point where he should be telling us something positive. We naturally expect him to tell us that there are no forced labour camps, or alternatively, give us some evidence that conditions in them are not inhuman. Why this silence on the part of Mr. Rothstein? Can it be that this “authority” on Soviet Institutions does not know about the institution of forced labour?

Further examination raises other doubts about Mr. Rothstein. He starts off by dismissing the whole book as being “largely a rehash of what Mr. Dallin . . . was writing in 1921, with some recent ‘documentation’ which will not stand up to serious analysis.” Later he brushes aside charges about contingents of forced labour raised since 1930 from the collective farms. Then he ridicules the idea that forced labour could have been used for the purpose of accumulating gold, on the ground that in the years 1934-1938 Russian foreign trade showed a huge favourable balance ”and therefore did not depend in the least on such accumulation.” The whole trend of Mr. Rothstein’s phrasing is to convey that at no time, from 1921 onwards, were the charges true. Unfortunately for him, those admirers of the Soviet regime, Sidney and Beatrice Webb in their “Soviet Communism” admitted and deplored the existence of concentration camps in which political prisoners, and peasants who resisted being forced into collective farms were “set to hard labour in return for a bare subsistence.” The Webbs were often eulogised by the Communists and as recently as 13th July, 1948, the Daily Worker praised their “power of objective observation and judgment” shown in another book on Russia. This is what the Webbs wrote in “Soviet Communism” (1937 edition, p.581) about one of the concentration camps :

“The miseries of a rigorous climate were aggravated by a cruel administration by brutal jailers, in which every kind of torment seems to have been employed.”

The matter was placed beyond question by the fact, as related by the Webbs, that after an outcry outside Russia, an official inquiry took place by the Russian authorities which resulted in the shooting or dismissal of many of the jailers. The camps were reorganised, but even then, said the Webbs, “the conditions, we fear, continued to be inhuman” (p.584).

So it seems that although Mr. Rothstein scoffs at the charges they were so well-founded up to 1937 that they convinced the Webbs.

About gold production Mr. Rothstein’s curious argument can be shown from official Russian figures to be entirely wrong. He argues that it cannot be true that forced labour was needed for gold production, because Russia at that time, 1934-1938, had no need of gold for foreign trade. Mr. Rothstein should tell this to the Russian Government, they would he surprised. In the Moscow publication “U.S.S.R. in Construction” (May, 1937) it is shown that gold production in Russia was rising at a stupendous rate during the years in question. Whereas in 1934 production was 157 per cent. above the 1930 level, by 1930 it had reached 340 per cent. above 1930.

So much for Mr. Rothstein. As his implied denial of the existence of forced labour camps in the years before 1937 is found to be worthless it is not unreasonable to be very suspicious about anything he says of present conditions.

* * *

What Nationalisation does for Tilling’s Shareholders

Thomas Tilling, the bus and road transport firm, with an issued capital of £4,420,000, have agreed to sell out to the Government for £25 million, and the purchase price ”will be paid in Transport stock, or cash, or partly in one form and partly in the other.” (Daily Mail, 9/9/48.)

A year ago the Company’s £1 shares were selling at 53s. 3d. When negotiations began they jumped to 75s. 3d., and when the agreement was announced they rose to nearly £6. As the City Editor of the Daily Express remarks (9/9/48), “For shareholders—State ownership with a smile.”

The Daily Herald’s City Editor (10/9/48) writes: 

“The generous purchase price of £24,800,000 offered by the Transport Commission for Tillings road transport and haulage interests started a boom in bus shares in the Stock Exchange yesterday. Prices soared to high record levels which added about £10,000,000 to market values.” 

The Daily Mail (9/9/48) still thought, however, that it was a hard bargain for the company and that the price agreed upon "is probably well below the real value.”

The company will still continue in business as it has other interests in addition to those sold to the Government.

* * *

The Law says it is preposterous

A man who took seriously the statement that under nationalisation the railways become “our” property was fined £1, with 15 guineas costs. He had refused to leave Kings Cross Station and was charged with trespassing. The magistrate said:

“The proposition that the railways are now nationalised and that any member of the public is entitled to go on their property and cannot be requested to leave is really a preposterous one and one that cannot be accepted for a moment.” Star (18/9/48).

* * *

The Lucky Tories

The following report of a speech by Mr. Cyril Osborne, Conservative M.P. for Louth, at Castle Donington on Saturday, 11th September, was published in the Star (12/9/48) :

“Fate has played a dirty trick on the Socialists. They have come to power just at the worst time; instead of being able to give everybody more the war has so impoverished us that they are compelled to force austerity down our throats. Soon they will have to enforce industrial discipline, harsher than the Tories ever dared in pre-war days. It will be bitter medicine for their supporters, but it will do them good. The Conservatives are lucky to be out of office during these days of bitter pill-taking, and the nation should be grateful to the Socialists for having provided such a willing doctor in Sir Stafford Cripps to administer such unpalatable medicine.”

Mr. Osborne here says that impoverishment due to war compelled the Labour Government, to do as they have done; but this certainly won’t prevent the Tories from trying to catch votes at the next election by laying the blame on the Labour Government and claiming that it would have been better under the Tories. We also remember that under long years of Tory Government there was always some excuse to hand to explain working class poverty and unemployment and we never remember any Tory Government that gave anything to the workers.

The truth is that capitalism run by Tories and capitalism run by the Labour Party are both unlucky for the workers.

* * *

Communist Defence of Russian Dictatorship

In the Daily Worker (24/8/48) Mr. J. R. Campbell answered a letter from a correspondent who wrote pointing out that Russia is “without democracy, without the right of criticism, ruled by a single party. You call this freedom. I call it slavery.”

In his lengthy reply Mr. Campbell does everything except meet the real criticism, which is that the Russian workers are forbidden by law to form political parties of their own choice. Unless they are members of the Communist Party they cannot belong to any political party. At elections, unless they want to vote for the candidate approved by the Communist Party, all they could do would be to vote against him; they are prevented from running opposition candidates. The membership of the Communist Party is only a very small minority of the population, and the overwhelming majority are not in a political party and cannot be.

What Mr. Campbell does is to argue as if the critics of the dictatorship are concerned solely with the right to form avowedly capitalist parties. He confines his statement to giving reasons why the workers in Russia do not need parties of the “capitalist opposition.” It may look to Mr. Campbell that this is a clever way of dodging the issue, but it only lands him in another awkward spot. The Russian Government doesn’t have to forbid the formation of capitalist parties like the Liberals and Tories unless there are in Russia people who want to form such parties. Now who would want to form capitalist parties in Russia today? and why would they want to form them? Obviously the capitalists would want to form parties of their own ; but are there capitalists in Russia? Here Mr. Campbell is in a dilemma. For the purpose of claiming that Socialism has been established in Russia he would have to maintain that there are no capitalists there; but in order to justify forbidding them to form political parties he would have to maintain that they do exist.

If he plumps for the former position and denies the existence of capitalists in Russia, then he is left to explain that it is some other groups of people who want to form capitalist parties and have to be prevented. So we have to assume that it is peasants or workers, who, knowing all the benefits of life in the Soviet paradise nevertheless want to organise Liberal or Tory capitalist parties and would do so if the law did not forbid it.

Having thus got himself into difficulties by pretending that it is only capitalist parties that are illegal in Russia perhaps Mr. Campbell will try to find time to deal with the real question which is why the workers are forcibly prevented from forming their own political parties; and how this can be squared with the claim that it is democratic.

Incidentally Mr. Campbell should take his courage in both hands and offer to tell British workers why he thinks it would be good for them, too, if they were allowed to belong to a political party only by permission of the Executive Committee of the C.P.G.B. and be thrown into concentration camps if they objected.

Edgar Hardcastle

Finance and Industry: Russian Gold Policy (1960)

The Finance and Industry Column from the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Russian Gold Policy.

From time to time writers in financial journals speculate about the amount of gold produced in Russian mines and stored away in their equivalent of the American Fort Knox. They also wonder why the Russian Government sometimes appears as seller of gold in world bullion markets but for the most part seems reluctant to let it go. One suggestion has been that Russian costs of producing gold are very high and that they are holding it back in the hope (shared also by South African gold producers) that some day the American Government will raise its buying price for gold from the present 35 Dollars an ounce to perhaps 50 Dollars.

Mr. Paul Einzig in a letter to The Times (7/7/59) asked for more evidence about Russian high costs of production of gold, and pointed out that in any event gold used by the Russian Government to buy goods abroad is being used more profitably than when it is hidden away in Russian bank vaults. His conclusion was that the Russian Government “is determined to hoard a large gold stock for the sake of the economic and political power the possession of such a reserve entails.”

It is certainly true that if the Russian authorities have hopes of building up the Rouble to be a world currency, as universally acceptable as the Dollar, they will need gold on a scale comparable to the reserves in U.S.A. Gold is still the indispensable basis of Capitalist international trade, universally acceptable and of great importance in war to obtain materials from abroad.

As to the amount of gold produced in Russia, it is generally accepted that Russia is second only to South Africa. As long ago as 1937 an official Russian government publication (U.S.S.R. in Construction) claimed that output had increased four and a half times in the previous six years. It was, they said, needed “ to build up Socialism.”

In 1934 Stalin told the Communist Party Congress:

We shall use money for a long time to come, right up to the time when the first stage of Communism, i.e., the Socialist stage of development, has been completed.

Much earlier still, Stalin’s predecessor, Lenin, had improved on Sir Thomas More’s 16th Century notion of using gold to pave the streets, by saying that when they conquered power on a world scale they would use gold “for making public lavatories in the streets of the great cities of the world.” Such statements must seem very remote today to Russia’s army of gold miners.

And Russian Diamonds.

Russia also has a prosperous and expanding diamond industry. Not so long ago the great South African diamond group, De Beers Diamond Corporation, was reported to be worried over the prospect “That the mounting Soviet production would be sold abroad cheaper than the De Beers gems and industrial stones.” (Daily Mail, 19/1/60.)

As the Soviet News Agency Tass had reported that Russian diamond production was being enormously increased this threat was not one to be treated lightly, but in January came the news that Russia had linked up with De Beers and in future “All Russia’s diamonds sold to the West will be marketed through the London offices of the Diamond Corporation.” (Daily Mail, 19/1/60.) This was indeed good news for South African and other diamond interests.

De Beer’s already controlled nine-tenths of world sales of diamonds and the link up with Russia had the effect of sending up De Beer’s shares on the Stock Exchange.

Diamonds were firm with De Beers sparkling on the news that it has signed a marketing agreement with Russia. (Evening Standard, 19/1/60.)

Making the Pound Honest.

While the Russian Government may be preparing to make the Rouble into a world currency one problem of British capitalism is to prevent the paper pound from slipping any further than it has already. In 1925 it was equivalent to 4.86 dollars. Since then it has declined first to 4 and then to 2.8 dollars, and the Dollar itself has had its gold content reduced to about half.

Probably nobody expects the pound to recover lost ground, but certainly the Government and the Opposition are now united in holding that it should not be allowed to drop further: which is quite a change from the Labour Party’s attitude in the nineteen thirties. Then they welcomed it as a supposed release from the tyranny of the bankers.

The last time there was a risk of further devaluation, in 1957, Mr. Richard Crossman, Labour M.P., wrote:

Mr. Gaitskell and his Shadow Chancellor, Mr. Harold Wilson, are just as determined as Mr. Thomeycroft to save the pound. (Daily Mirror, 24/9/57.)

It would be a pity to forget that the British Communist Party was also worried about British capitalism’s pound. In a Daily Worker article, “The only way to Make an Honest Pound,” J. R. Campbell urged expanded production and wrote of this country:

It is being left behind in the race to increase productive capacity—a fact that is more likely to undermine the pound than any other thing. (Daily Worker, 16/10/57.)

Traps for the Small Investor.

The passage of time brings strange reversals of attitude in political parties concerned with running capitalism. At one time, when the Labour Party was planning wholesale nationalisation, it would not have occurred to a Labour newspaper to advise its readers to buy ordinary shares in companies. They might have been advised to put their savings into a Savings Bank, or to buy some Government security. But since then many small investors who had the misfortune to put their savings into 2½ per cent. Treasury Stock when Dalton was Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer have seen the price fall from £100 to £45; and the Government has again declined to do anything about it.

So now the belief is spreading that small investors would do better to buy company shares, either directly or through Unit Trusts, and Reynolds News (6/3/60) suggests that co-operative societies and trade unions should form their own unit trusts for investment in ordinary shares.

The writer in Reynolds News (“Scorpio”) thinks this would enable workers to share in the rising profits of industry. If he thinks that profits only rise and never fall he had better think again, but even if it were true, how will this remedy the problem he sets out to solve, that in this country “one-third of the population has no measurable property; one person in every 100 owns nearly as much as the other 99 ”?

Another echo of far off days comes in an article by W. J. Brown, who years ago was a Labour M.P. always in a hurry to get the Party’s programme put into operation. Then the Labour Party believed in “soaking the rich ” and supported a steeply rising tax on incomes. Now Mr. Brown, who long ago left the Labour Party, is campaigning for the abolition of Surtax, or, failing abolition, at least the raising of the level of which it is payable, from £2,000 a year to £8,000.

Edgar Hardcastle

Communist Commotion (1957)

From the June 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

“FREE HARICH, SACK HARRY,” painted with true Communist zeal in large white letters on the roadway greeted the faithful as they entered Hammersmith Town Hall over the Easter week-end to receive their annual dose of dogma from the cardinals of King Street, and to indulge in some public confessions of political sins. This slogan was not a rabble-rousing challenge to strike fear into the hearts of Yankee capitalists or warmongering Tories; it was directed not outwards, but inwards, to the heart of the Workers’ Mass Party itself. Harich is the young intellectual imprisoned by the East German government, and guess who Harry is? Yes, none other than Cardinal Harry Pollitt. Alas! we confidently predict that this slogan will have as little effect in altering the status quo as others which have appeared on walls from time to time to enliven the working-class scene have had (e.g., “Hands off Guatemala,” “End Eden’s War,” “Chuck The Tories Out,” etc.). Harry is still there, and so, presumably, is Harich – but in a different place.

The irreverent slogan was, however, a sign of a definite air of revolt which hung over the proceedings, a revolt which, if not quite amounting to “ruthless self-criticism,” was at least an indication of a fairly advanced state of political masochism. Cardinal J. Gollan, the Party secretary, had to announce that 7,000 of the faithful had left the flock during the preceding year: others were all too ready to voice their doubts, especially about the Russian intervention in Hungary. One delegate remarked that in 22 years he had never known a Congress that had such a ‘type of discussion getting down to it.'” (Observer, 21/4/57). The college of cardinals, including Gollan, Matthews, Mahon and Pollitt, struggled manfully with incantations and holy writ to exorcise the devils of heresy.

Representatives of the Labour press were excluded from the conference. Could this be because Mr. Peter Fryer (who resigned from the Daily Worker over the treatment of his reports from Hungary and who was later expelled from the C.P.) was the would-be representative for Tribune?

Hungary

Although the hierarchy’s policy obtained an “overwhelming majority” of votes in its support from the Congress, there were some rather frank things said about the Russian intervention in Hungary. For instance, Mr. J. McLoughlin, the famous Dagenham campanologist, was most vociferous: “Don’t dig your heads in the sand,” he said “and ignore Hungary. Terrible things have happened.” And, he added, in a final fling at the platform, “I want to come to the next Congress and see at least a partially new front bench – not the Dutt-Pollitt-what’s-his-name axis.” (Observer, 21/4/57.) Tut, tut, John. flattery will get you nowhere.

J. McLachlan (Scotland); “The Daily Worker told us that there was black counter-revolution in Hungary, but, in fact, there were popular demonstrations against a bureaucratic regime,” he said. “I agree that these were used by reactionary forces, and I agree that the final intervention by Soviet forces was necessary. But terrible mistakes had been made by the Soviet and Hungarian leaders and we should condemn those mistakes at this ingress.” (Daily Worker, 22/4/57.)

Another outspoken critic was Mr. Brian Behan. “At meeting of the executive,” said Brian Behan, “he had moved an amendment that they should dissociate themselves from the crimes of the Hungarian Communist Party. but this had not been printed in the Daily Worker. He had been told that this was due to a technical error (!) and accepted this, but he believed that his amendment should have been reported to Congress.” (Daily Worker, 20/4/57.) Readers who may be prematurely rejoicing at the thought of free speech pervading the upper layers of the Communist hierarchy will no doubt be saddened to learn that Mr. Behan did not gain a place on the new executive: the above statement, and others we shall be reporting later in this article, may offer slight clues as e cause of his unfortunate political demise.

Mr. Fryer was not permitted to put his case before Congress, but copies of a speech he would have made were distributed. A portion of this speech (reported in the Manchester Guardian of 22/4/57) is most revealing, and is worth reproducing here: “You can cross out my name from the membership list with a stroke of the pen. But you cannot cross out the truth about Hungary with a stroke of the pen. The truth about Hungary is known perfectly well to many of you who will vote for the rejection of my appeal. In the privacy of his office J. R. Campbell (editor of the Daily Worker) speaks of Kadar as a puppet. I am expelled for blazoning abroad what Campbell knows to be the truth.”

The Bomb, and Conscription

Male Communists are capable of making some monumentally fatuous remarks, but it takes a female Communist (Comrade Frances Silcocks, from Yorkshire) to reach the ultimate low in fatuity. After dilating on the struggle of working-class women against the horrors of the H-bomb, this Diana of the barricades said: “Now we are told that the Soviet Union is testing the bomb, and we are asked what we say about that,” she said. “We are opposed to tests in any country, including the Soviet Union. But what is the Soviet Union to do? Is it to sit on the fence until we throw bombs at them and they have none to throw back?” (Daily Worker, 20/4/57.) Certainly not, Comrade Frances, we hero mothers of the Communist Party would consider it an honour and a privilege to be liquidated by a real, class-conscious, Soviet H-bomb.

“There was a short, sharp debate on conscription. By 321 votes to 135 Congress defeated a proposal that the Party should fight to end conscription.” (Daily Worker, 22/4/57.) The ubiquitous Mr. McLoughlin also had some words to say on this subject: “The Tory Government had announced a new policy on conscription, but the Communist Party was still committed to it. Why?” he asked. “Perhaps because the Russians have got conscription.” “Don’t be provocative,” called out a delegate. (Daily Worker, 20/4/57.)

Democracy

The election of the executive committee was democratic in the extreme; 42 members were “recommended” for election, and, would you believe it, “a party spokesman said . . . that there would be 42 members on the new executive.” (Manchester Guardian, 20/4/57.) How convenient! As we mentioned before, careless talk cost Mr. Behan his seat on the band-wagon.

Lest we appear too harsh on the comrades, we should mention that they stage-managed quite a nice little show of “democracy” during the congress. The minority formulation in the draft revised text of The British Road to Socialism relating to “fraternal relations between Socialist Britain and the countries of the British Empire” received a majority of votes over the majority (executive committee) version. However, we defy anyone to show us any fundamental difference between the two drafts as reported on the front page of the Daily Worker of 22/4/57. The debate was, as the immortal bard said, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

A final indication of the degree of democracy which pervaded the congress is that 57 general resolutions submitted by branches were not discussed, and “before delegates had seen them they were asked to agree to remit them to the National Executive, and in the end they did so.” (Manchester Guardian, 23/4/57.)

“Revisionism”

Cardinal Gollan admirably defined this fine old Bolshevik euphemism for criticism of official party policy in his weighty address to his flock (Daily Worker, 20/4/57). “We use the word ‘revisionist’ advisedly, not as a bit of name-calling, but to describe objective tendencies. These were the contributions attacking the essential basis of the Party, democratic centralism and its leading role.” He later said (Daily Worker, 22/4/57): “Lenin and the Bolsheviks had to fight revisionists all their lives.” Exactly; the modern disciples of Pope Lenin have to carry on the good fight – no wonder they don’t have any time to discuss Socialism.

Another outspoken delegate was Professor Hyman Levy, who denied that the loss of 7,000 members was due to “revisionism,” “but to the attitude of the leaders to events in Russia and Eastern Europe.” (Manchester Guardian, 22/4/57.) Professor Levy “challenged his chairman, Mr. Harry Pollitt, to explain his silence about ‘a gangsterism’ in the Soviet Union. How often has Harry Pollitt been told about this? How often has he told people to keep their mouths shut?” Need we add that Professor Levy’s utterances were nowhere reported in the pages of the Daily Worker! Much prominence was, however, given to a “reply” by Andrew Rothstein, a reply deeply embedded in party dogma. (Daily Worker, 23/4/57).

Kerala

The recent coming to power of a “communist” government in the State of Kerala in India received much plaudits from the assembled comrades. Cardinal George Matthews said (Daily Worker, 22/4/57): “The victory of the Communist Party of India in the State of Kerala is a portent of far-reaching political developments which will take place among the teeming millions of India.” No one outside the Communist Party phantasy world, however, will be surprised to learn that business in Kerala continues much as before, on sound capitalist lines, and the revolutionary Communist ministers’ ” deeds and sayings in one single day are too bourgeois for words,” according to Miss Taya Zinkin in the Manchester Guardian (24/4/57). ‘She continues: “The Chief Minister attended Acharya Vinoba Bhave’s prayer meeting yesterday, bought a copy of his book on the Gita (Hinduism’s Bible), and asked for an autograph of India’s walking saint . . . Meanwhile the Health Minister, Mr. R. A. Menon . . . told the Palghat Poor Home Society that the beggar problem must be solved by private institutions because the Government can do very little,” etc.

“The British Road to Socialism”

Some heretic voices were even raised against this blueprint for revolution (1957 version, with all the latest tactical amendments and deletions to match the day-today, struggle. E. & O.E.). A genuine, old-fashioned kind of Bolshevik is T. Connor who “opposed the draft as a revisionist (ouch; that word again) programme, and he was fighting for a return to revolutionary Socialism. He moved an amendment calling for the formation of workers’ councils and councils of action through which power would be seized.” (Daily Worker, 22/4/57.) Cardinal J. R. Campbell rebutted this idea, evocative as it is of sterner, ruder, Bolshevik days. “The amendment put forward by Huyton, suggesting that workers’ councils and councils of action would elect a Socialist Government, proposed to substitute for the pure milk of Marxism the skimmed milk of Trotskyism,” he said. (Laughter). May we remind the reverend Cardinal and all the sheep who laughed so heartily at his witticism, that once upon a time “councils of action,” “workers’ councils,” “united fronts,” etc., were all the rage on the revolutionary front. For instance, a circular issued by the “Red International of Labour Unions” came into our hands (Socialist Standard, March 1923) before the word “Trotskyism” (one of the foulest swear-words in the Communist vocabulary) was invented. This circular advocated the concentration of “all available strength” by the formation of “councils of action through the medium of conference composed of delegates from trades councils, trade union branches, and district committees, working class local and national political organisations, unemployed organisations, co-operative societies and guilds.” Stick that in your milk and skim it, Campbell. Cardinal Campbell opposed the nationalisation of certain types of land, not because it is not Socialism, but because “it would also lead to endless complications pushing masses of people on to the wrong side of the class struggle.” (Daily Worker, 22/4/57). Yes, but which side? With true revolutionary zeal the good Cardinal also opposed the policy of “no compensation,” because it “would alarm those we are seeking to neutralise, would create the maximum opposition and make most difficult a peaceful transition.”

To prove that the female of the Communist species is more deadly than the male, Mrs. Gwen Shield moved an amendment to reject the draft’s proposal to compensate former owners of nationalised industries. “She wanted them to get only the opportunity to work and when prevented by physical incapacity to get National Insurance benefits.” (Daily Worker, 22/4/57). Good news for all you capitalists!

What of the Future?

Thousands of members have left the Communist Party during the past year, and many more may do so after this year’s conference, which has conclusively proved the party hierarchy’s refusal to budge one inch from its rigid pro-Russian line. But the “hard core” will carry on, for, in Cardinal Pollitt’s own words, “We all owe everything to the party, whatever we do and whatever our job” (Daily Worker, 23/4/57).

Professor Levy summed up the Communist Party’s political influence thus: “The working class of this country have constantly rejected the Communist Party,” he said. “You keep on talking as if you were the leading group.” (Manchester Guardian, 22/4/57). Whatever future party line the diehards adopt in following the tortuous changes in the policy of the Russian ruling class, it will inevitably be anti-working-class and anti-Socialist. The Communist Party’s past history has been a chapter of misrepresentation, trickery, deceit and humbug. Its future is likely to be no different.

Michael La Touche

Editorial: The Interesting Case of Peter Fryer (1956)

Editorial from the December 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Fryer is the Communist journalist who was sent by the Daily Worker to Budapest to report what was going on. Now Mr. Fryer has resigned from the Daily Worker (but not from the Communist Party) because he discovered that h was sent there not to report what he saw, but to cover up for the Russian Government. He sent three despatches and he subsequently told Mr. Colin Lawson, a Daily Express correspondent, whom he met in Budapest, what happened to them. (Published as an interview in Daily Express, 17th November).

The first despatch ("a straightforward account of what I had seen as soon as I arrived . . . on the night of October 20th,") was not used at all. The second despatch was an interview between Fryer and another Communist. Mr. Coutts. who had been in Budapest for three years as Editor of World Youth. This despatch "was cut, and cut ruthlessly," for the first edition of the Daily Worker. Members of the staff protested, and some of the cuts were restored in a later edition.

The third despatch was not published at all. It was suppressed by the Editor, J. R. Campbell, "who had that day returned from Moscow." He not only suppressed it, but "refused to let other members of the staff read it."

The Daily Worker never admits that it is under Communist control. It claims that it is the only paper "owned by its readers," but Mr. Fryer discloses that while Campbell was away in Moscow his "stand in" was Mr. George Matthews, assistant secretary of the Communist Party (It was he who cut the second despatch).

Mr. Fryer, in the interview with Colin Lawson, expressed the following views:

"I take the view that the Soviet action in Hungary was a crime and a tragic blunder, both from the Soviet point of view and from the point of view of the whole international working class."

He denies the Communist Party argument that the Hungarian workers backed the Russian action.

"If the Soviet intervention was necessary to put down counter-revolution, how is it to be explained that some of the fiercest resistance of all was in the working-class districts of Ujpest and Csepel?"

(Incidentally, as late as 17th November, the Daily Worker was still reporting broadcast appeals by the new Hungarian government to the workers to end their strike, aimed, as the Worker admits, to enforce "the reinstatement of Mr. Nagy, the former Premier, and the withdrawal of Soviet troops.")

One last quotation from Mr. Fryer:

"I should say that the rising against what I would describe as the so-called Communist government of Hungary was supported by 99 per cent. of the people, including a great number of the ordinary honest rank and file members of the Communist Party. Nobody wanted the Russians to stay. Nobody wanted the secret police. They were sick and tired of both of them."

Editorial: The Communists and Beveridge (1943)

Editorial from the January 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Communist Party is giving its support to the Beveridge scheme, subject to certain amendments. This has, however, not entirely pleased the readers of the Daily Worker. In their issue of December 22, 1942, J. R. Campbell confessed that the attitude of the Communist Party paper "perplexes a number of our readers, who ask us whether this system of benefits represents our ideal of a new world." Campbell answers that it does not represent the ideal, but that the report, "if it becomes law, would be a definite improvement on the existing chaotic muddle in the social services. Why not support it?"

To a reader who asks why not consider instead ways and means of ending the capitalist system, Campbell replies that "he is presenting an unreal alternative."

The gist of the argument is expressed in the following passage from Campbell's article: -

Will we get nearer to Socialism if we stand aside from the struggle around the Report and indulge in Socialist propaganda? On the contrary, we will only reduce our propaganda to impotence. Surely no reader is suggesting that we should organise a campaign to force the Coalition Government to introduce Socialism? Or that we should forget the war and go out on a campaign for the overthrow of the Government, which could only divide the British people, prolong the war, and reduce the chances of Socialism to zero.

One comment on the above is that made by the Manchester Guardian: - "There in a nutshell is the political philosophy of the Fabian, of the once-despised reformist, of every Socialist member of the Labour Party." - (Manchester Guardian, December 24, 1942.)

Also the reader to whom Campbell addressed his question about the war might have recalled that it is not so long ago that the Communist Party was quite ready to call off what it called "an Imperialist war, like the war of 1914." The Daily Worker of October 4, 1939, said :-

We are against the continuance of the war. We demand that negotiations be immediately opened for the establishment of peace in Europe.

And the Communist Party wholly approved the People's Convention demand for the overthrow of the Government and the setting up of a People's Government, which in the words of D. N. Pritt, K.C., M.P., "would know that its first duty to the people was to secure the earliest possible termination of hostilities by a peace that was neither one of conquest nor of capitulation, but a peace that safeguarded the interests of the peoples and enabled them to build a new world without war and economic crises." - ("Forward to a People's Government," published by the People's Convention Committee, D. N. Pritt, page 12.)