“Money Must Go”: Letter from the authors (1946)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

The authors of “Money Must Go” write the following letter about the review published in our July issue : —

Dear Comrades,

We were pleased to see the review of our book, “Money Must Go,” in the July issue of the Socialist Standard. May we draw attention to several statements made by the reviewer, L.J., which might give a wrong impression?

(1) The book is not intended to be “an attempt to simplify some of the fundamental ideas on Socialism,” if by this is meant the critical analysis of Capitalism, etc., which is the basis of Scientific Socialism and constitutes the bulk of its teaching. It is intended to suggest to the Socialist propagandist a different mode of approach to the problem of interesting workers in fundamental social change. It does this by (a) giving a general picture of Socialist society in order to induce interest in Socialism as a practical project; and (b) by emphasising the moneyless character of that society, which factor sharply demarcates the Socialist aim from those of all pseudo-socialist factions. On the other hand it provides a means of implanting the idea of Socialism as a working system of society in the mind of the non-socialist without using “that blessed word.” We are of the opinion that the word “Socialism” has become so debased through constant use by reformist organisations and “political tricksters” that the use of the word can well be delayed until the idea has sunk in. For the use of the term “World Commonwealth” we have a precedent in the Socialist Standard of May, 1922.

(2) We think that the charge of “over-insistence that money is ‘the root of all evil'” is unjustified. This dictum is referred to but once (p. 15), and there we merely point out that such an idea was current about a hundred years ago. We do refer to the ownership of the means of wealth production by a small minority as the cause of the poverty of the majority (p. 7) and to the class division of society as the source of social evils (p. 13). Neither do we “make a direct attack on money” nor propose its simple abolition. We advocate, and in this book supply a positive approach to the idea of a world without money and in which goods are produced solely for use and/or free distribution as an alternative to the present system of production for profit (p. 16). That with the achievement of such a system the means of production would simultaneously become commonly owned by the whole of the community is implied in unorthodox fashion on page 17. Nevertheless, the statement at the top of page 17 (incompletely quoted by L.J.) is quite true. A statement of the same nature which accords with L.J.’s version is given on page 132. We have found that this approach induces interest, whereas the use of the economic and more precise terminology does not. Interest precedes desire. Workers can themselves easily see the possibilities of life in such a world organisation. It is so simple to visualise a world in which all capable of working take their part in the world’s work and in which all the goods produced are distributed to stores and warehouses from which the people will take according to their needs without payment of any kind. True, money is a medium of exchange. Then surely if there is to be no exchange there will be no need for a medium of exchange. Is not this as simple to understand as the four characteristics of capitalism, given by L.J. ?

(3) We do not define Socialism—we explain it. We conceive it as a system of society. On page 25, and again on the back cover, we concisely sum up the essential characteristics of a Moneyless World Commonwealth. The term “common ownership” may be precise in meaning to those who know what it really means. This did not prevent the Common Wealth Party from using it—to mean something quite different.

(4) To most workers the State appears as an abstraction, an intangible power above society, but controlling it and manifesting itself through the individuals that compose it. Similarly the “heavy hand of ‘the law,'” referred to by L.J. To them, more concrete is the heavy hand of the policeman, and later, the heavier hand of the gaoler. As a “public power of coercion” we do explain the State adequately on page 121.

(5) We deny our “misreading of the class struggle.” In its first and present phase the class struggle is only over the question of the division of the workers’ product. The “wages, hours of labour, conditions of work, etc.,” referred to by L.J. are essentially aspects of this. There is hardly as yet a “political struggle over the ownership of the means of wealth production.” That is yet to come, and we show its necessity in Chapter 18.

(6) “Clarity is essential in explaining Socialism.” We do that. But almost all Socialist propaganda is devoted to explaining capitalism and neglects to explain the features of Socialism as an alternative system of society. It is that we deplore, and we have tried to show how this shortcoming can be made good. The important question directed to Socialist propagandists to-day is, “How will Socialism work?”, and this should be seized upon as a potent means of agitation. Explaining capitalism can well come later.

(7) “Confusion plays into the hands of those who defend capitalism.” Again true. And it is for this reason we avoid the use of those precise terms, “capitalism,” ”working class,” “Socialism,” “class struggle.” In spite of their precision in use by Socialists these words have been and still are used by every confusionist party claiming working-class support. Every schoolboy “knows” what Socialism means—so does the Evening Standard ! Precise terms can be used by opponents to spread confusion. We have found mental pictures more useful for our purpose.

(8) “The word Commonwealth is not synonymous with Socialism.” In “Money Must Go!” we do not once refer to “Commonwealth” alone; always to “World Commonwealth,” and at least once in each chapter we add the adjective “Moneyless.” The comment that “its use by all sorts of political tricksters should have warned the writer of its vague and confusing character” therefore does not apply to “World Commonwealth.” The comment as it stands can be applied aptly to the word “Socialism.” Even Hitler used it !

Fraternally,

PHILOREN.

Philo—

—Ren.

Reply:

“Philoren” has swopped horses. In his preface to “Money Must Go” he says that the “main purpose” and the “only justification” for the book is that he is sure that the “great mass of the people” will accept the ideal of World Commonwealth, “would they but take the trouble of understanding the barest essentials of the idea.” His suggestion that it was intended to show Socialist propagandists a different “approach” is only an afterthought. We are answering paragraphs 1, 3, 7 and 8 in one section as they deal largely with the same subject matter.

He does not deny that he avoids using definite terms; on the contrary, he states, “Precise terms can be used by opponents to spread confusion.” Is that a good reason for substituting confusing and vague terms in place of words that have a definite meaning? Why do political parties which serve capitalist interests use such words as “the people” or “the Commonwealth”? Simply because they are vague, abstract and indefinite terms. In 1940-41 a “People’s Convention” was organised, which demanded a “People’s Peace”; others described the war as a “people’s war”; an ex-Liberal formed a “Commonwealth Party,” while apologists refer to the Empire as the “British Commonwealth of Nations”; many other instances could be given of this use of abstract Language, which hides more than it reveals. That “Philoren” had to go to a Socialist Standard of 24 years ago to find the term “World Commonwealth” is a sign that it has fallen out of use with Socialists, while it is increasingly used by non-socialists. Socialism is clear enough without using the ponderous “Moneyless World Commonwealth.” If others use the name of Socialism to spread confusion, that is all the greater reason for us to insist on its real meaning and to increase our efforts to get it understood by workers. The task of doing “long and persistent” educational work cannot be evaded by dropping scientific methods and using the slovenly jargon of our enemies.

(2) If words mean anything, then we are right in saying that “Philoren” insists on money being the cause of social problems. He describes the present system as a “money-based system.” On page 96 he says, “Think of all the misery, the worry and the illness all caused by these funny pieces of metal,” while later, we are told that, “In a sense woman is doubly enslaved—to man and to money” (page 99). We showed that money is not the basis of capitalism and he has not troubled to answer that point. He claims that he refers to the class division as the source of social evils (page 13), but, as a matter of fact, it is the “ever-widening division of the people into rich and poor” that he states gives rise to social problems; a view held by the Labour Party and other reformists who seek to narrow the gulf between rich and poor. “Philoren” knows that nothing was omitted from the quotation from Page 17, which altered its meaning.

(4) Because, it is claimed, most workers regard the State as an “abstraction,” are we to call it that? A feeble reason to give for an incorrect view. The explanation on Page 121 is not adequate but most sketchy. He merely deals with the State as a deterrent to “crime” ; its function as a power holding in check the disruptive force of class struggles is not touched upon.

(5) Because the working class is not class conscious in the sense of understanding the full implications and significance of the class struggle, “Philoren” assumes that the “present phase” of the struggle is only over wages, etc. This, we repeat, is a misreading of the class struggle. The class struggle exists, otherwise how could a political party whose purpose is to end the private ownership of the means of wealth production come into existence? What is the Socialist Party but the expression of the class struggle on the political field. He states that he advocates political action in Chapter 18, but it is after suggesting political action that he refers to the class struggle as “no more” than a struggle over a “bone.” In any case, to state that political action is “yet to come” is simply ignoring the existence and activities of the S.P.G.B.

(6) Both here and in the latter part of section 2 (Workers can themselves easily . . . without payment of any kind) he shows that he is nothing more than an Utopian Socialist. He wants us to cut down our criticism of the ugly economic system under which we live and draw up beautiful schemes of the new society in the hope that they will attract workers. Many Utopian Socialists did this in the past and their beautiful schemes are infantile in relation to modern conditions. Not merely that; Socialists are not building a “brave new world” from any “blue prints”; they have, in the words of Marx, “to set free the elements of the new society with which the old bourgeois society itself is pregnant.” Capitalism fetters the free production of goods—and it is through explaining the nature of those fetters, the economic laws of capitalism, that we create amongst workers the desire to break those fetters. The problems that face workers are the problems of capitalism, and we concentrate on explaining capitalism in order to pave the way to Socialist understanding. Workers who understand capitalism, generally desire and work for Socialism; they want no fanciful dreams to stimulate them to play their part in ending the hideous reality of capitalism.

L. J.

"Money Must Go": A Review (1946)

Book Review from the July 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have been asked to review a booklet, “Money Must Go” (Published by J. Phillips, 203, Lordship Lane, N.17. Price 2s. 6d.). The subject matter is dealt with in the form of conversations between “Professor” and “George.” It is a genuine attempt to simplify some of the fundamental ideas on Socialism, although the writer, instead of using the word “Socialism,” uses the vague term “World Commonwealth.” Some of the ideas are all right, but we haven’t the space to deal with them here. There are, however, weaknesses, due to the over-insistence that money is “the root of all evil.”

The writer apparently holds the view that it is easier to make Socialists by a direct attack on money than by a direct attack on Capitalism. We do not hold this view. In our experience it is most difficult for workers to see that it is possible to produce and distribute wealth without the use of money, unless they have some knowledge of the elementary facts of capitalist production. Most workers regard money simply as a means of exchange, and nothing in this book will remove that idea. Money is a means of exchange, but, as gold in its metallic form, it is also a commodity, and it will be abolished as money only when commodity production is abolished. The expression “a money-based world” is repeatedly used, and if it is intended as a simple definition of capitalism it gives a wrong impression. Money is not peculiar to capitalism, nor is it the basis of capitalism. The essential characteristics of capitalism are: (a) Private ownership of the means of production and distribution ; b) a dispossessed or propertyless working class; (c) the production of goods for sale (commodities) ; (d) large-scale industrial production. These elementary facts can be grasped by any worker and cannot be easily simplified without becoming meaningless. The term “money-based world” is meaningless.

Another difficulty is the mixture of right and wrong ideas in the book. It is slated that “the abolition of money alone would solve no problems” (page 16), but on the next page we read, ” . . . . since money would not exist …. no person could say that he owned a share …. in the people’s means of production. In fact, all the world’s means of production would, then belong to the people of the world.” In this passage it is clearly implied that it is the abolition of money that will lead to common ownership. The correct position is that when the means of wealth production and distribution are commonly owned and democratically controlled there will be no exchange of goods and the need for money disappears. On both these pages efforts are made to define Socialism, but somehow the author leaves out the term “common ownership.” Also, while he states that every form of slavery will disappear, he fails to state that the present form of slavery is wage-slavery.

There are also serious theoretical errors. The, State is called an “abstraction” (page 120). This will appear strange to those who have felt the “heavy hand” of the law. The State is the public power of coercion used by the dominant class against the subject class. Later he explains, the “civil war” raging in society as a struggle over the goods produced by the workers. He says, “This war — or perhaps more accurately — this struggle is nothing more than a conflict between two dogs for the same bone” (our emphasis). The bone is the wealth produced by the workers. This is a misreading of the class struggle. In the industrial field the class struggle is a struggle over wages, hours of labour, conditions of work, etc., but it is something more than that; it is a political struggle over the ownership of the means of wealth production.

If the purpose of the book was to present a simple statement of the Socialist case, it is by no means a success. Subjects can be so over-simplified that they lose meaning. We can be sparing with words, but we cannot be sparing with sound definitions and clearly understood terms. Clarity is essential in explaining Socialism. Confusion plays into the hands of those who defend capitalism. It is strange, therefore, that, the writer avoids using such precise terms as “capitalism,” “working class,” “Socialism,” “class struggle,” but uses vague words such as “the people ” and the “World Commonwealth.” The word Commonwealth is not synonymous with Socialism. Its use by all sorts of political tricksters should have warned the writer of its vague and confusing character.

L. J.

Blogger's Note:

An excerpt from Money Must Go was reprinted in the World Socialist No.4 Winter (1985-86).

A PDF of the book is available over at Libcom.

A call to bolster capitalism: Cripps appeals to the workers (1945)

From the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The problem that affects the working-class is one of poverty. It is not one of trade, good or bad. Poverty presses upon them almost as relentlessly in times of good trade as in times of trade depression. Times of prosperity are never enjoyed by workers although they read of them. What is the cause of poverty ? The private ownership of the means of wealth production. Those who own can compel workers to accept wages so low that they are barely able to restore their energies and rear families. The surplus produced by the workers above their wages is the source of the vast incomes of the capitalist class; this surplus is unpaid labour. The total product of society is divided between the workers who produce it and the capitalists who own it. There is no other participant in the division of wealth. Nothing stands between the workers and the abundance they produce but capitalist ownership. Poverty can be ended when wealth is produced solely for use and freely distributed. That 'means that we have to end production for sale and profit; in short we have to end capitalism.

There are some who give other reasons for working-class poverty and offer other plans for dealing with it. Either they have no understanding of capitalism or they have an interest in maintaining it. Sir Stafford Cripps falls into one of these two camps Before the election he stated, for the Labour Party, "the comfort of the people is the A.1 priority." Now he intends to set up a triple alliance — Trade Unions Employers and Government. — who will plan to bring "British competitive industries to the highest pitch of efficiency."—Daily Herald, September 10th, 1945. For "comfort”? No, the priority is the export trade. In his speech outlining the plan Cripps suggested that it will be difficult for people to realise that by going short now "they are in fact making sure of better and far more stable standards for the future.” What a stale feeble doctrine.' We will paraphrase it, "Put up with your poverty a little longer and shortly. —The Kingdom of Heaven." Really, Sir Stafford ought to be ashamed of himself. Isn’t he able to do better than this? Of course, this ruse has been used very successfully for decades. In 1931 the National Government used it and they obtained 14,000,000 votes. A slight variation in Germany was known as “guns before butter.' How amazing that a famous Labour leader should formulate "markets before butter,” or, what amounts to the same thing.

It is interesting to see how we are to reach this paradise; "there will be an obligation upon the workers to give of their best,” and should some agitating socialist murmur, "oh—big profits,”—that scalawag is already answered, "not for the sake of the owner's profits but for the sake of our national economic survival and prosperity." The thinking worker will realise by now that as he has to go short in the national interest and we have already shown that there are only two classes in the nation, that "national survival or prosperity” is synonymous with capitalist prosperity.

In fact, it is quite easy to see this if we examine another part of this great cali. Cripps says that the Trade Union movement "must also take in the question of markets and consumer interests.” Who is this consumer whose interest is of equal or perhaps of more importance, than the workers' wages and conditions? In the first part of this article we showed that wealth is shared by two classes only. The consumers in society are the working class and the capitalist class. If workers forego their own interests in favour of someone else, that someone else is the capitalist class, however high-sounding the words that mask their sordid interest.

Let us look more closely at the matter. We know from experience that high or low prices matter little to workers in the long run; but what of the capitalist? They are not only private consumers., but as industrialists they buy the means of production. They have to build factories, buy plant, tools and the raw materials necessary to the production of other commodities. The value of the plant and the raw materials is transferred piecemeal into the new products. The only additional value is the new labour that has been put into production. But they cannot obtain this additional value—the source of their profits—until the goods are sold. They are forced therefore to cheapen their products in order to compete in the market. This they achieve by making workers work harder, by using labour-saving machinery and by obtaining cheaper raw materials. We will give an example. Behind the agitation for more efficient coal production lies the hard economic fact that its cost as a raw material is embodied in the cost of the new or finished products. Mr. R. Summers, Chairman of J. Summers, Ltd., stated at their annual general meeting that critics of the steel industry did not fully appreciate that as the price of coal was more than double that of 1939 it had a serious adverse effect on the price of steel. —Economist, June' 9th, 1945. He was aware of the need for lower prices, “to compete in the export markets of the world,” but he emphasised,, “that everything possible must be done to lower the cost of vital raw materials.” The capitalist aim behind the struggle for lower prices is quite clear; it enables a quicker sale of products and a quicker realisation of profits.

But does Cripps' aim differ in any way from this? His aim also is to obtain lower prices and capture markets. He calls upon workers to. “give of their best.” To whom? To those who exploit them. Where will the working-class come in during the process of labour-saving? Some will clock in at the factory gates to work harder than ever before while the displaced and unnecessary workers will show their cards at the Labour Exchange. All will remain in poverty.

Cripps made one or two statements that should be noted. He warned the trade unions that; “the whole reputation of the Trade Union movement will be at stake.” and that the Government will be advised by the three party group (Triple Alliance) as to what, “ compulsions are required to see that the minimum plan is implemented.” The compulsion will be required for, “a few recalcitrant and non-co-operative members.” What does he mean by this? This is funny language from a leader of the party that only seven weeks before (July 26th) was hailing the “dawn of a new day.” This is the language of capitalism in extremity. Does Cripps intend to resemble Dr. Ley? Certainly this plan bears no resemblance to Socialism. Incidentally, it is an indication of the childish imbecility of the I.L.P. that their comment on the plan was “The Stafford Cripps plan to establish committees representing Government, employers and the workmen .... must be judged on how far the Government is really putting through a socialist plan.”—New Leader, September 15th, 1945.

The Daily Herald, described this speech of Cripps as a “great call” to the Unions. True, a cull to bolster capitalism. Three years ago Cripps visited India with proposals which were rejected. Nehru’s comment was biting; “ From our side there are going to be no approaches to the British Government, for we know that whoever comes from there speaks the same accent as of old: and treats us the same way”—Reuter, April 15th, 1942. Quoted in Forward May 2nd, 1942 (our italics).

Consider the truth of those last few words: "treats us. the same way.” . The ideas of Sir Stafford Cripps, by virtue of his position in the Labour Party,, command respect among many workers. They should examine him as critically as Nehru did. It may be claimed that he is sincere, but that is of no avail. In his pose as a Socialist he is hindering the Socialist movement by cluttering up the path of Socialist propaganda with his misconceptions and delusions.

We have always known that he is not a Socialist and now we will give him this advice. Drop your pose as a defender of working-class interests. Your job is to patch up capitalism; stick to your last.

L. J.

New Leagues for Old (1945)

From the March 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The only political organisation in this country to consistently hold and propagate the view, during the peace interval 1919-1939, that the League of Nations would inevitably fail in its professed purpose ot preventing war was the S.P.G.B. We knew that peace would not come merely from the setting up of “right” machinery, nor would war come because we may lack this machinery. We knew that, given the capitalist system, with the competitive struggle for markets and its conflicts over spheres of influence, etc., war was inevitable. As a result of our analysis we did not welcome the League in an exultant mood—our attitude was sceptical. We asked this question : —

“Is this pact an admission that the League is a mere phantasm, a spineless, parchment entity which can have no power or influence in the real world—the world of strife for economic interests?” (Socialist Standard, July, 1919.)

The question posed by us was answered during the next twenty years. Workers, however, did not question the League as we did; they took an opposite view. They believed in the League and its work, and they supported parties that “stood by the League.” Thousands of sincere and earnest workers devoted their time and energy building up the organisation which they thought would help to establish peace. Probably the supreme effort of the League of Nations Union was the organisation of the Peace Ballot in 1935. 12,000,000 voting papers were issued and over 11,500,000 people voted on the questions asked. One of the questions was: “Do you consider that if a nation insists on attacking another, the other nations should combine to compel it to stop by, if necessary, military measures?” 6,784,368 voted in favour of military measures and 2,351,981 voted against. Most of the remainder abstained. Our masters were, however, not disturbed. Fifteen years of “peace” talk from the League had brought this result—that given certain conditions a majority of the workers were willing to fight. When the story of the Ballot was written, Viscount Cecil added a chapter in which he said:—

“Nor must we forget that a second object of the Ballot was to convey to foreign countries the assurance that the British people stood firmly behind the League . . .  in recent years too many people have been ready to suggest that, contrary to the best traditions of their history, the British people would not be ready to fulfil their obligations under the covenant; that they would never be ready to risk their money, and less their lives, in the repression of lawless breaches of international peace. It is satisfactory to know that there is no justification for such a slander on our people. By immense majorities they have declared themselves ready to restrain an aggressor by economic action and, with more reluctance and by smaller but still important majorities, to follow this up, if necessary, by military measures.” (“The Peace Ballot,” page 62. Gollancz.)

The way was now clear to ruling-class representatives. They had useful information to guide them. War under the auspices of the League would gain the support of the working class. Few politicians failed in their week-end “perorations” for peace to speak strongly in favour of collective security and the League. But our rulers were not alone in speaking like this; the Labour leaders excelled at it. At week-end meetings, divisional meetings and conferences workers were told that it was essential that we stood by our “obligations under the covenant.” They who for years had advocated disarmament were now demanding strong action by the League (action which obviously required arms), claiming that this was the way to ensure peace. So belligerent did Labour leaders become that Miss Ellen Wilkinson was moved to remonstrate:—

“Is the Labour Party leadership trying to commit the Party to suicide? Must they always make the same kind of mistakes? For ten years they have been the head and front of the peace and disarmament movement. In the eleventh hour they clamour for sanctions that if meant seriously will lead to war. . . . There are even innocents who imagine that we can close the Suez Canal without an immediate state of war ! British Labour leaders have been trapped by cleverer men than themselves into sharing responsibility for a possible war, in the conduct and on the terms of settlement of which they in all likelihood will have no say whatever.“ (The Plebs, October, 1935.) .

The flood of pro-League and anti-aggressor propaganda could have but one ending. When it was considered necessary war was declared on Germany.

The League had failed to prevent war. Workers who had toiled hard for the League, imagining that it was an answer to international conflicts, had toiled in vain. The prize of peace was not theirs—the prize of working-class support for war was their masters’. The League had fulfilled that purpose. Thus were we justified in the view we had held for twenty years.

Now the League is starting again, only with a different name. The “peace-loving” nations have held a conference at Dumbarton Oaks and issued various proposals for a new organisation, the “United Nations Organistion.” Should this unity break, they want disputes between adherent members to be settled amicably. It is intended to have a “serviceable set of teeth” to deal with recalcitrant or aggressor nations, it is to have a Military Staff Committee, a sort of United Nations General Staff. Its armed strength is to be contributed by the various members. Will the British ruling class hand over the Navy ? In the old League any member charged as an aggressor was not allowed to vote on the matter in dispute; Russia proposes that such member should have this right. The Economist was right when it described it as a blood-brother to the old League. What are the chances of this League succeeding where the last League failed?

First, will the war end with the causes that gave rise to the war being swept away ? Recently Turkey became a “benevolent collaborator” of the British Empire. This prompted Mr. Hore-Belisha, M.P., to write a short survey of Turkish history showing the importance of the Dardanelles and Constantinople to the British Empire. He mentioned how in 1878 Britain agreed to defend the Asiatic dominions of the Turkish Sultan by force of arms because they feared the proximity of Russia to Constantinople. He also pointed out that as the Straits of Dardanelles are as vital an interest to-day as a hundred years ago, they must be kept in friendly hands. (News of the World, August 6th, 1944.) Two months later, when Greece was invaded by the Allied forces, Belisha stressed that just as Britain, as an island, had to prevent the domination of the Low Countries, so was it necessary, as an Empire, to prevent the domination of Greece. (News of the World, October 15th, 1944.) (He did not show how these matters are vital to the working class in these affairs, so “vital” to British interest, the working class is neither considered nor consulted.)

What will happen should Russia become an “aggressor” in these parts? Who will settle the disputes then? Does anyone imagine that the British ruling class will allow such matters to be settled outside their jurisdiction? Will they await an “impartial” and perhaps unfavourable verdict from other capitalist powers ? Also, who will settle the present dispute between the Russian and the Polish rulers? So we could continue enumerating the problems that the League may and will have to face, but “enough is a feast,” so we will leave them the task. The problems still remain because the causes of war are not removed. When the capitalists are faced with threats to their interests they will not stop to consider the “rights” or “justice” of the case. They will not forfeit their “right” to act in their own interests. They will move to defend these, “with the League or against the League.” As a force for peace this new organisation promises to be as innocuous as the old.

It has been said that we must see that the new organisation has “a serviceable set of teeth.” We want workers to get their teeth into the problem. What is to be their attitude ? Let them ask themselves this question : Is the next twenty years to be a mere interval between wars? We will answer, “Yes, unless workers show a considerable advance in Socialist understanding.” Capitalist Leagues and organisations exist to maintain that which now exists—capitalism. Those who help to maintain capitalism are helping to maintain a “cellarful of explosives.” Has the Labour Party any alternative to this prospect? During a debate on foreign affairs, Mr. A. Greenwood stated, “We yield to none in our admiration of the British Commonwealth and Empire.” (Official report, House of Commons, 25.5.44.) If in the future areas in close proximity to Empire bases or routes are attacked, the Labour Party will join in the struggle to defend those areas.

Socialists alone have an alternative. It is not sufficient to work simply for peace. Our task is to work for a new social order where, because articles will be produced solely for use, conflicts such as those we are now witnessing will become things of the past. Not new Leagues for old, but Socialism is the solution.

Lew Jones

Pollitt Forgets the Past (1944)

From the September 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Pollitt has written a pamphlet on Communist policy in answer to questions asked by a Mr. Duxbury, who describes himself as an “adherent” of the Communist Party. The questioner explains that while he has always tried to understand why Communist policy has suddenly changed, he finds it difficult when “he has to tell people the opposite to that which he has been drumming at them for months.” He comments, aptly enough : “They think—’this fellow is a lunatic.' ” Now, however, Earl Browder’s statement that “Capitalism and socialism have now found a way to peaceful co-existence in the same world” has “knocked the wind out of us.”

His enquiries are met with the fatuous assertion that “the general line of our Communist policy has been proved correct in the course of experience on every major political issue since the foundation of our Party in 1920,” page 6. Correct in what respect? We could, if we wished, examine in detail the contradictory and confusing policies of the Communist Party in those 24 years; it will suffice to mention one issue only. Possibly P.ollitt has forgotten the desperate efforts of the C.P. to keep its policy in line with the rapid changes of Russian foreign policy in the autumn of 1939— we all try to forget nightmares. The Communist Party declared support for the war on September 2nd, 1939 (before it started !—they were eager), but on October 7th they issued a manifesto opposing it because they discovered that it was an “unjust” war. Twenty-one months later they supported the war again. At last it was a “just” war; Russia was fighting in it.

Such major changes cannot be dismissed as merely incidental to their “correct” policy. The truth is that the Communist Party has one aim, and that is support of Russian State capitalism. When Russian interests demand it, Communist policy will change overnight regardless of working-class interests. Perhaps these changes have been beneficial to Russia; if so, Pollitt can claim that their policy has been correct, but it has been a correct policy for Russian capitalism, not for the working class. Socialists do not boast that their policy has been beneficial to capitalist interest. They are concerned with working-class interests only—the Communist Party is not.

In his explanation of Earl Browder’s dissolution of the American Communist Party and his support of Roosevelt, Pollitt says that with a Democratic President peaceful cooperation between Russia, Britain and the U.S.A. is guaranteed. Even were it possible to guarantee peace (and we emphasise that it is not possible), this policy means the support of men who intend to administer capitalism in one form or the other. The Communists are pledged to support the continued exploitation of the working class; no excuse will hide that fact.

One or two points in the questioner’s letter deserve comment. He wants to rally the millions who desire Socialism but will not listen to it if it were preached for 100 years. He wants Socialism before he is 30, and he continues : “I want to catch the fastest bus. Lenin would have made great decisions here.” After advocating unity between the Communist Party and the Common Wealth Party, he says : “The only thing that I can see is Unite and sweep capitalism to hell out of it by vigorous political action.” We want Socialism as quickly as possible, but we know that there is only one fast way—the correct way. These who are merely in a hurry but have little or no understanding of the Socialist case have followed many paths—paths that have led anywhere but to Socialism. Lenin, who is mentioned, was one who wanted to get Socialism quickly. He constantly urged his colleagues to insurrection and emphasised the need for seizing power even with a minority. He also repudiated the need for working-class understanding with the plea that it would take 500 years (Socialist Standard, May, 1921).

Lenin and the Bolsheviks achieved power and made their great decisions; but did they establish Socialism ? Of course not. The economic conditions were not ripe in Russia, but even in a modern industrial system Socialism will not be the outcome of any “great” decisions by leaders or parties. Those in a hurry must realise that Socialism will make headway only when workers are willing to listen to and discuss the Socialist case. Pollitt talks of “unity” so that a division in the “Labour and progressive vote” can be avoided. The Socialist wants votes for Socialisjn. and knows that when the workers want Socialism they will unite and take political action, hostile to all “progressive” or “reactionary” capitalist parties.

Finally, Pollitt says “that the Party is growing, that its meetings, . . . its members are the envy of every political organisation in the country.” Is that so? Do people envy “lunatics”?

Lew Jones

Compromise leads to Catastrophe (1944)

From the April 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nothing that has occurred in working-class history has weakened our view that the most important task to-day is that of making Socialists. We cannot have Socialism until a majority of the workers are Socialists, also as Socialist knowledge animates large numbers of the workers, so will recede the possibility of dictatorship and war. The alternative task to propagating Socialism is that of advocating reformist policies and getting support from workers on the basis of those reforms. Having obtained support, the reformist parties have the task of administering capitalism, a task which immediately brings them into conflict with working-class interests, however sincere their efforts. The Labour Governments of 1924 and 1929 discovered this, but they “heeded not the warning,” and in 1940 some of their leaders joined the Government at the invitation of the ruling class. Inevitably disputes have arisen over reforms, and during many recent debates Labour M.P.s have criticised the seemingly complacent or compromising attitude of these leaders. Mr. Morrison, for example, was described as a “backstair, Tammany-Hall politician” during the debate on Workmen’s Compensation.

Mr. Woodburn, Labour M.P., is seldom amongst the critics. His articles appear in “Forward” defending the Labour Party chiefly on the grounds that they are engaging in the practical politics of to-day and they are obtaining some improvements for workers; and if some of the concessions are smaller than Mr. Woodburn would like them to be, he still supports them because of “quarter of a loaf being better than none.” So is the proverbial crumb. A dispute in “Forward” finished with Mr. Woodburn chiding those whom he calls “the romantic school of Socialists,” who “people the world with villains called capitalists and heroic martyrs called workers.” Actually, and we are indebted to Mr. Woodburn for reviving this profound truth, “there are good and bad in all classes” (“Forward,” October 9, 1943). We are not following him into the ethics of the social classes: we are faced with a serious problem. How can the working-class establish Socialism ? Let us first glance at the economic division in society.

The people in the world are divided into two classes : the capitalist class, who own the means of producing wealth, and who live on the surplus value derived from this ownership; and the working class, who are compelled, in order to live, to sell their energies to the owners for wages. Between these classes there is a class struggle which manifests itself both on the industrial and political fields. Politically it is a struggle over the ownership of the means of wealth production. This is a revolutionary struggle. When Woodburn commends the work of Bevin, Morrison and “others under Clem Attlee” for “creating new methods of running social life” as though these new methods were a development towards Socialism, and infers (without definitely saying so) that the alternative to these activities is catastrophic change, he is merely supporting popular misconceptions of Socialism and revolution. He states : “Socialism is not a catastrophic change from capitalism, but a development out of and on the basis of capitalism. Capitalism is indeed the mother of Socialism. . . . Socialism is approaching us every day in economic development.” (“Forward,” October 9, 1943). In the same issue he commends working with those who are Liberals and Tories—we are not to spurn them because of their label as “our aim is to make Socialists not enemies of our opponents.”

The Labour leaders are not in the Cabinet to establish Socialism; they were allowed in to help in the work of prosecuting the war. Their help in the task of conscripting workers is invaluable to the capitalists; Conservative ministers would have been unable to put into operation so easily such measures as the Essential Work Order and other restrictive orders. These are new methods of coercing the worker, methods of tieing him to his job—in short, they are new methods of running capitalism. They have brought a degree of security to the worker—convict security. Mr. Woodburn, of course, knows that. Where are the Socialist measures or achievements of the Labour leaders? There have been various reforms, approved by a Cabinet predominantly Conservative, such as the Catering Bill and the Pensions Bill and other measures which will alleviate some distress. They are reforms considered to be necessary for the smooth running of capitalism. They have effected no general improvement in working-class life; the capitalism that we knew in 1939, with its slums, poverty, miserable pensions and doles, still persists.

Merely to state that Socialism is approaching, without any clue as to the nature of the change to Socialism, except that it is not catastrophic, is valueless; it conveys nothing to the reader. Two of the necessary conditions for Socialism are a socially-operated, highly-developed industrial system and a working-class capable of controlling and running the system. In this sense, in every country in the world, including Nazi Germany, we are approaching Socialism, but the change to Socialism requires something more than that. It requires a working-class that understands and desires Socialism, and organises politically for the conquest of political power in order to establish Socialism. Having gained political power, they will effect a change in the basis of society from private to common ownership of the means of producing wealth. This is not catastrophic, but it is not simply a progressive economic development from capitalism; it is a revolutionary change in the basis of society.

Past experience has shown that the danger of catastrophe arises from collaborating with the representatives of the ruling class. Bewildered by the broken promises of the Labour parties and their changes in policy, workers have been swept into support of reactionary movements. In 1931, after two and a half years of Labour Government, millions of workers registered their opposition to what they falsely imagined to be Socialism, and voted into power a Government that openly advocated severe wage-cuts and economies. In Germany the Social Democrats had held power or participated in coalition governments for 15 years. In 1933 the Nazis and their allies were voted into power; the reformist efforts of the Social Democrats had the effect of making Nazis. The considered opinion of a small group of German workers, who in 1933 secretly published a book, “Neu Beginnen,” is worth recording: —

“The disappointment of the workers in their own organisations is the fundamental cause of their indifference and inactivity in face of the Fascist advance and even of the partial sympathy which they show towards it.” (Page 36, “Socialism’s New Start,” N.C.L.C. Translation.)

Compromise and reforms had brought, not Socialism, but “National Socialism.” Working with the German counterparts to our Liberals and Tories had not made them Socialists, it had not even brought lasting support from their own members. Bitter experience had shown these workers the truth, that “repeated and disgraceful failures of these parties (the Socialist Labour organisations),” had led to indifference and even opposition to Socialist ideas. These failures were inevitable—capitalism cannot be run in the interest of the workers—but the opposition to Socialist ideas is not inevitable.

The contrasts of wealth and poverty impress workers and make them ready to discuss and accept the Socialist solution. We claim that in order to make them Socialists it is necessary to show most clearly the difference between reforms of capitalism and revolution. History has shown that our claim is true. Workers ignore the class struggle at their peril; no compromise should be their guide in the difficult situations that war and peace have yet to bring.

L. J.

The Coal Crisis, Conscription and the Future (1943)

From the November 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Between 1920 and 1939 a serious situation existed for the miners; poverty, unemployment, ill-health and fatalities were constant and recurring features of their lives. They marched to London, their leaders addressed meetings of protest demanding that something be done. Nothing was done by the Government except in 1931 when the meagre dole was cut on the grounds of “economy” and “equality of sacrifice” (with the sanction of the majority of the Labour Government) : a marked difference from the feverish activity now shown by the Government and its spokesmen, when faced with a serious coal shortage. There were no newspaper appeals then nor any broadcasts calling men to volunteer for this “honourable and vital work.” There existed no need to entreat or flatter workers—in fact, when miners sought to improve their working conditions or prevent a lowering of these conditions, abuse was the weapon used against them by the mineowners or their apologists. The miners’ leaders have been referred to as “Arrogant, bellicose, stubborn to the verge of stupidity” (page 96. “The Coal Problem,” 1936, by J, Dickie, formerly Liberal National M.P. for Consett).

During the last two years another serious situation has developed, but this time the Government is seeking maximum production for war purposes, as coal production has failed to reach the figures estimated to be necessary. The severe winters of 1940 and 1941 exposed an acute coal shortage, and quickly the Government’s past policy received caustic criticism. The Economist stated : “It was assumed, far too easily, that, for the duration of the war, supply would be in excess of demand. Miners below the age of 30 were recruited into the Forces, and pits were assisted to close down. This is where the failure of foresight occurred.” (11/4/42). The national press demanded the return of skilled miners from the Armed Forces. Some were returned, but insufficient to stem the fall in production. Then in September, 1942, a district bonus scheme was instituted, which it was hoped would stimulate the miner to emulate the Russian Stakhanov. A weekly standard tonnage based on previous output, was fixed for each district and those districts reaching at least 1 per cent. above this, target qualify for bonuses. While this had some initial success, only a few districts have regularly qualified for bonus, and in recent months production has again declined.

It is this latest decline that has led to widespread accusations of indiscipline and absenteeism, and a call for speedier disciplinary action against the “culprits.” The Daily Telegraph, in a series of articles, suggested that the decline arose from “The pervading indiscipline which is at the root of the trouble”; and while the Economist states that this is not the main factor, it calls for “speedier and more direct measures to deal with offenders” (26/6/43). Previously it had pointed out that: “The main reasons for the decline in productivity . . . are probably the increasing age composition of the labour force . . . and the wastage of trained men.” (15/5/43).

We will not deal here with the charges of absenteeism and indiscipline, except to put on record the careful analysis by the Minister of Fuel, Major G. Ll. George, in the House of Commons : —

“Many Members may not know, however, that the number of absences reported each year involving absence for three days or more is between 150,000 and 160,000—that is, on an average, one man in four suffers injury involving absence of three days or more at least once in the year. There are in a year 135,000 cases involving absence for eight days or more. The industry has a very high rate of occupational sickness, while the miner is more prone than people in most other industries to rheumatism.” (House of Commons report, 23/6/43.)

Those who criticise the miners rarely use this information—they are interested only in the “avoidable” absentee figures (4½ per cent.) given by the Minister of Fuel. Analysis and truth, they are not primarily concerned with—abuse is good enough when threatening the “indisciplined” wage-slave of the mine.

One of the chief factors in the crisis is the fact that coal, like all other commodities, is produced not solely for use but for profit, and will not be produced unless the owners consider that there is a reasonable chance of profit. After June 1940 production was curtailed because the markets of France and Italy were closed to Britain. Many of the pits that supplied these markets either worked short time or closed down. The reservation age of the miners was raised, miners went to other industries or faced once more the crisis they had known for 20 years—unemployment. Again there was too much coal in Britain, and as it could not be sold it was not produced. That this curtailment of production in 1940 is the basis of the present crisis in the industry is contended by Mr. D. Grenfell, M.P. (former Parliamentary Secretary for Mines), who in the House of Commons stated recently : —

“We had more than enough men. We had more than enough production. Pits were closing down and our men were standing idle just over three years ago. . . . There was no shortage. … I warned everybody concerned that we would want these idle pits brought into production; that we should not disperse the men who were standing idle.” (House of Commons report, 23/6/43.)

Note the Labour Leader enunciating the expedient of keeping the unemployed in reserve until production can start again. Another factor is that some coal-owners are concentrating on the poorer seams and are leaving the better seams until the end of the war, or until more favourable selling conditions prevail. This has been denied, but the statement of Mr. T. Fraser, Labour M.P. for Hamilton, indicated that this practice does exist : —

“Men and materials are being directed to this mine but in such small quantity as to ensure the coal will not be in production for some time to come, but will probably be in time for a competitive market after the war. We have two other cases of mine-driving that we allege have been deliberately impeded for years so that good quality, good selling seams may be reached at another time.” (Forward, 31/7/43.)

Even in war the interests of particular groups of capitalists will cut across the interest of the capitalists as a class. Profit is the motive of capitalism—patriotism is for the miners only.

With the recognition that little increase can be expected from the present labour force, the Government have made proposals to attract others to the industry. Mr. Bevin at the Miners’ Federation Conference (20/7/43) and Major LI. George in Parliament (29/7/43) suggested conscripting lads of 16—18 for the mines. This has been met with some opposition, and it has not yet been proceeded with. Few of those who opposed the proposed measure realised that the 70,000 lads between the ages of 14—18 who worked in the mines in pre-war days (1938) were also conscripts, hunger-conscripts. Their property-less position, their poverty and the social conditions around them forced them into the mines. To-day they are able to find work less dangerous and arduous than coal-hewing, so Mr. Bevin is preparing to drive them back to the mine.

Recently a campaign for 30,000 volunteers has been launched; Mr. Bevin has spoken on the radio extolling the industry, and Trade Union leaders promised their help in boosting this campaign. But a blow has been struck that may sever the miners’ leaders from the intended “boost.” The decision of the National Tribunal on miners’ wages to award young miners wages considerably below those demanded was received by Mr. W. Lawther, President of the Miners’ Federation, with “angry amazement.” Mr. Lawther decided, in view of this decision, to cancel his intended broadcast in support of the campaign (Daily Herald, 7/9/43).

May we ask Mr. Lawther the question, “Upon what premises or promises did you lend your aid to this campaign ?” The miners have had lock-outs, wage-cuts and broken promises for 20 years, and this latest “award” is by no means the “unkindest cut.” The events of the past did not prevent labour leaders from co-operating with the ruling class in its handling of labour problems, did not prevent them from popularising the Essential Work Order; in other words, despite the lessons of the past, the labour leaders gave unstinted support to the ruling class to enable them to conscript and regiment members of the working class in the defence of capitalist interests. Where is the difference in principle that precludes co-operation now? Three years ago ample opportunity existed to force concessions from the capitalists; instead, sacrifices were asked from the workers on the plea of “national unity.” We would suggest that it is a little late to bemoan a “disgraceful award.”

Like all other capitalist industry, mining has no joyous and hopeful future for its workers. Mr. Grenfell in the Daily Herald (3/5/43) says, “there should be co-operation between managements and workers. . . . The miner must be allowed to take part in the day-to-day production of the pits. Our pits can be made to work better. . . .” His intention is to secure for the miners “better living and working conditions.” How the proposals will improve conditions is not shown. Apparently it is believed that increased production is the key to improved conditions. A glance at some production figures related to the average wages earned will explode the idea that working-class prosperity is dependent upon output.

 Year Coal produced per man. Average wage 

1920 (10 day’s stoppage) 187 tons £4 6s 11

1922 217 tons £2 8s 1d

1932 255 tons £2 2s 1d

— (Appendices IV. and VI., “The Coal Problem.” Dickie.)

In an article on the “Coal Question,” the Economist took a similar view to Mr. Grenfell, stressing the need for more men now, and arguing that in the first stage after the war 850.000—900,000 may be needed to supply Europe with coal. But in the second stage :—

“Europe’s coalfields will return to full work again ; . . . . Then the British coal industry operating with a contracted labour force (say of 600,000) will have to stand on its own feet in competition with other coal-producing countries, and rely on productivity rather than on abundant labour.” (7/8/43.)

What will happen to the 300,000 excluded from the “contracted” labour force? On this the Economist remains silent. Their simple solution to the coal problem is more mechanisation, improved efficiency and unified national control. The Secretary of a South Wales Miners’ Federation lodge showed what mechanisation means to the miner : “Mechanisation employed from a profit motive has made mining into an inferno of dust—the horror of dust sweeping into your lungs until they are solid lumps and you die slowly and painfully.” (Reynolds News, 5/9/43.) More mechanisation—more silicosis.

We can see that the future that capitalism offers to the miners is poverty, high incidence of silicosis, nystagmus (the eye disease prevalent in the mines) fatal accidents at the rate of 1,000 a year, and increasing unemployment. The perpetuation of capitalism means the perpetuation of these evils. The reforms advocated would leave capitalism intact, while nationalisation and public ownership are only different forms of capitalist ownership. The miner’s problem cannot be solved in isolation—it can be solved only when the workers unite for Socialism. Common ownership of the means of wealth production is the only solution of the workers problems. Our message to the miners and all other workers is to study the Socialist case and organise politically for the capture of the political machinery in order to establish Socialism. That alone will ensure the workers’ future.

Lew Jones

A Glance at San Francisco (1945)

From the June 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Allies meet at San Francisco as 26 years ago they met at Versailles. In 1914 they said that they went to war, not for any “territorial aims” or “aggrandisement," but for the purpose of making the world democratic and peaceful. As they had met at Versailles to discuss and arrange peace, it was disquieting to read Keynes' “Economic Consequences of the Peace” of the disputes that raged between the Allies during the Conference. Within nine months of the Armistice the myth of a democratic and peaceful world was shattered). Clemenceau, the French Premier, referred to some of the other diplomats as “jackals.” They met in the Hall of Mirrors—Clemenceau was old, perhaps blind. The “jackals” have met again, different men, but with the same principle and policy to guide them—the retention of the present social order. Workers hoped that Versailles spelled peace. It was a tragedy that they pinned their hopes to their muster’s activities then—it will be a farce if they hope for peace from the ramshackle conference at San Francisco.

This conference starts where the Versailles conference finished. Already there are disputes between the victorious powers. Germany is not merely defeated; her cities are heaps of rubble, her factories and workshops destroyed and millions of her capable workers slaughtered. The German capitalists cannot regain their strength for many years. Who stands therefore in the path of peaceful settlement? We remember Mr. A. Greenwood broadcasting the evening war was declared (3/9/39): “But with clear consciences, we shall know that we are fighting the last war for final peace and liberty.” Does Mr. Greenwood think that this promise will be realised? What are the views of other observers on this question? General Smuts has stated that “If San Francisco fails then I see nothing but stark disaster before mankind."—(Manchester Guardian Weekly, April 13th, '45). Later in San Francisco he said: "Our race has reached the limit of human endurance: If we fail here the world may be psychologically shocked beyond repair."—(Daily Herald, April 23rd, 1945). Mr. Emrys Hughes after examining the League of Nations and asking if this Conference will take steps to end imperialist rivalries, declares that: “If it does not it will just be the beginning of the Old Geneva farce all over in an American setting with the peoples of the world being betrayed again.”—(Forward, April 21st, 1945). Have we to accept these conclusions as correct? Here we have two persons, both well-informed on political matters, speaking from different political viewpoints, but both emphatic that a San Francisco failure spells disaster or betrayal for the human race. Both are making an error, although Hughes' error is largely confined to his conclusion. It is an error that arises from an inability to understand the causes of war and their removal.

The world is divided into two classes—those who own, the capitalist class, and those who are property-less, the working-class. The capitalist live on income derived from ownership and the workers live on wages obtained by selling their energies. The income of the capitalists arises from unpaid labour of the workers and exists in the form of rent, interest and profit. This income cannot be obtained until the goods produced by the workers are sold. Control of markets, sources of raw materials,, spheres of influence and control of strategic military areas are among the factors essential in the competitive struggle between capitalist powers. The struggle is fierce and although disputes are settled sometimes by diplomatic means, ultimately the decision rests on the weight of the armed forces of the rival powers. Force is the final arbiter. Where do workers stand in this trade struggle? America, a “creditor” nation, a victor in the last War had 25,000,000 workers existing on relief in 1932/33. Victory or defeat will leave the working class in poverty so they have no fundamental concern in the. decisions at this conference. The conference is to settle capitalist differences and its failures and successes alike will leave working-class problems unsolved. It will fail to ensure peace as it will not remove the cause of war —capitalism. It is useless for the purpose of uniting mankind. Does this mean that we accept the despairing attitude of Smuts and Hughes? Before dealing with that let us touch on the immediate post-war period of 1919.

When the last war ended widespread discontent with war existed amongst workers in the Army and in industry. After the efforts they had made to win the war they were condemned to poverty and unemployment. Here was the time for a clear statement of the Socialist case and concentrated propaganda for Socialism. But the Labour and Communist Parties scorned the idea of Socialist propaganda and jeered at our insistence on the need for Socialist understanding. They guided the healthy discontent of workers into political activities harmless to the capitalist system, but dangerous to the working-class. Little did the speakers of these organisations, who said that the immediate problems of 1932 onwards was to prevent war by supporting the League of Nations and collective security, think that within a few years they would have helped thousands of workers into an early grave in a world war. Their policies led inevitably to that result. Their efforts made workers easy prey to the war propaganda of capitalism. Now, having learned nothing from the dismal failure of their pre-war policies, they are repeating those efforts by boosting new “peace” machinery that will fail in its avowed object. Have they any guarantee that the incorrect policies of 1919-39 can become the correct policies for 1945? Of course not; the truth is that they can no longer separate themselves from the policies of the capitalist parties.

Workers need not accept the blind and stupid policies of the Labour leaders; they can hammer out a policy independent of the capitalist parties. That is why we do not accept the conclusions of either Smuts or Hughes that the failure of a few capitalist diplomats spells disaster for mankind or betrayal for the workers. The strength of the capitalists rests on the political ignorance of the working-class. Growing socialist knowledge amongst workers will rob the capitalists of their strength. When large numbers of workers understand that whether they are British, German, American, Japanese, they have a common interest in the abolition of capitalism, the capitalist diplomats will be unable to threaten war in the defence of capitalist interests.

The immediate task is to make Socialists and the conditions for propaganda have never been more favourable. After the most devastating war in history, capitalism is still torn with dissension and struggle. It is as useful to write in dust as to work for peace on a capitalist basis. The way to prevent war is to establish Socialism. Let us not bow our heads and complain of betrayal; let us organise together for the establishment of an International society—Socialism.

Lew Jones