Voice From The Back: Worldwide genocide (2001)

The Voice From The Back Column from the October 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Worldwide genocide

Under the headline “Scientists to probe worldwide genocide” The Observer gives yet more proof about how awful modern capitalism is. “The world’s first centre for the investigation of genocide is to be set up by British scientists with experience of working with some of the most appaling war crimes of modern times. The International Forensic Centre of Excellence for the Investigation of Genocide (Inforce) will use expertise gained in excavating mass graves in the Balkan conflict to provide independent evidence of war crimes and state-sponsored killing from across the world … The new centre, which could be up and running by the end of next year, plans to investigate atrocities in Sierra Leone, Central Africa and Indonesia. It is estimated that about 170 million people have been murdered by their own governments in the past century.” A hundred years of political reformism, thousands of “peace” conferences and this is what capitalism produces. Inside a socialist system we will have no need for an organisation called The International Forensic Centre of Excellence for the Investigation of Genocide. Who knows? We may even have one called The Global Centre for the Understanding of Diverse Cultures.

Sour notes

Rupert Murdoch’s Times has been sponsoring a long running campaign against the British government adopting the Euro currency. Now it seems they have another reason to be anti-Euro – it offends their aesthetic sense. “The euro banknotes are stark, bland and dead. With no recognisable building and no friendly humanity, they look as though they have been designed by committee, as they have … The design principle could not differ more from those of the pound. On the £20 note an imposing portrait of the Queen dominates. Flip it over and there is Sir Edward Elgar, with Worcester Cathedral in the background. There is nothing so bold on the euro notes.” The Times, 31 August. But all those lovers of bits of paper depicting parasites and monuments to outmoded institutions should not despair. Inside socialism you would still be able to see them in the Museum of Ancient Artifacts alongside such displays as the flint axe and the suit of armour. Who knows, it may even be housed in Worcester Cathedral.

Freedom of the press

Shock, Horror, Probe, Startling Revelations and all the other stupid cliches of the media. The Guardian of 6 September astonished us all with its findings. “Rupert Murdoch’s influence over editorial policy at his most prestigious British title, the Times, is so great that journalists are censored by executives frightened of offending their proprietor, according to a former member of the paper’s foreign staff. In a stinging attack in the London Evening Standard Mr Kiley wrote that Mr Murdoch’s friendship with Ariel Sharon, Israel’s prime minister, and Mr Murdoch’s extensive Israeli investments led executives to extensively rewrite copy.” Of course, the proprietors of The Guardian never interfere in the dissemination of truth. That is why you often see articles in that journal attacking private property and advocating World Socialism. Don’t you?

Another brilliant ‘Marxist’

The Socialist Party has always insisted that China and Russia were never socialist, had nothing to do with Marxism and were in fact examples of state capitalism. The recent antics of the Chinese leadership show how correct we were. This piece of nonsense was reported in The Guardian (13 September) under the heading “China’s leader tries to wed Marx and Blair”. “President Jiang Zemin of China has stolen the mantle from the late Mao Zedong in a new press campaign that suggests he is a brilliant Marxist as well as a great leader. Mr. Jiang has made a “new contribution” to Marxist theory which should be studied throughout the country, the Communist party’s official newspaper, People’s Daily, said this week. And according to Hong Kong reports of a recent top level conference, Mr. Jiang and his supporters now wish to study the experience of European social democracy: “Many in our party believe that the Third Way is not such a bad idea,” a party theorist, Yan Shuhan, told Asiaweek magazine, referring to the credo with which Tony Blair is most identified.”

A mad, mad world

Amidst the millions of words pumped out by the media on the hijacked aircraft carnage in the USA, the following short letter in the Guardian (13 September) contained probably the wisest. “Shortly after 3pm British time, as the events in the US were unfolding, BBC News began analysing how the situation would affect share prices – surely yet more proof, as if any were needed, of what a sick world we live in.”

Those war books! (1952)

From the August 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

If one studies the large illustrated histories of the first and second World Wars, it becomes obvious that there are many differences in the propaganda, ideas and methods of the various capitalist governments. These changes in putting out their “War Propaganda" probably took origin in the fact that the working class had in the meantime learnt a thing or two.

If we refer to the well known “ Illustrated ” of the First World War (the Great War as it was called), edited by H. W. Wilson, who incidentally also edited “Japan Fights for Freedom,” and “ Following the Flag to Pretoria,” the recognised histories of the Russo-Japanese and Boer Wars respectively, we find that flag waving was a dominant factor, with God, King, and Country closely wrapped up with the flags. Apparently these things made a far greater impression on the people than during the Second World War, for in Sir John Hammerton’s "History of the Second World War", this flag waving type of propaganda is given little scope, and God scarcely gets a mention. Even the Germans thought fit to drop their famous motto of the First War “ Gott mit uns ” after the Almighty had so badly let them down in the first round.

The German propaganda differed little in the two wars so far as flag waving intensity was concerned, while the Russian propaganda stuff merely had to replace the "Divine Little Father” by Infallible Uncle Joe!

The dominant idea in these history books of the First War, was that the Kaiser was ambitious, and at a later stage that he was mad. Many photos of him had the caption that he was looking obviously old and tired and suffering from war strain. Such words occurred early in 1915. The awkward point which the ruling class had to skirt around was that our own Royalty were German in origin and close blood relations with the Kaiser, who incidentally was born in Buckingham Palace and narrowly missed becoming King of England. This ticklish point did not arise in the Second War and it was easy to get at Hitler because he was, like so many members of the working class, once a corporal. Indeed such propaganda was slung at Napoleon by the bucketful. But don’t worry there is plenty of time for the ruling class to discover one day that Stalin was once a bank robber, not to mention the murderer of the "Old Guard.”

In the first World War Books, great play was made on the “devilish zeppelin raids,” for deliberately dropping bombs on women and children—an innovation in those days, whilst in the Second War, raids on civilians and towns, although met with by an outcry at first (Rotterdam, Coventry, etc.), were soon taken as a matter of course, and dealt with by “If you bomb our towns, we will bomb yours.” This principle followed along the lines of Baldwin when he declared (about 1935), that there was no defence against the bombing aeroplane, so the only thing to do was to bomb as many of the enemy’s towns as he did of yours. In other words, to concentrate on attack and destruction at all costs, and to justify your actions afterwards.

When both wars were over we learnt through these semi-official books the experiences of different countries in getting men to fight, and how nearly each side came to open revolt. In the spring of 1918 there were big revolts among the French troops during the critical German offensive, and British troops had to take over to check what would have an immediate disaster to the allies. In the second war Rumanian troops under German leadership were thrust mercilessly against the Russians with such enormous losses, causing sporadic revolts, that their use had to be discontinued because the Nazis had to devote so much time to driving them on that it was not worth it. It was the Rumanians who put down Soviet Hungary under Bela Kun, and Czech armies who marched right across Russia and had to be helped out by allied forces in Vladivostock.

The horrors of gas warfare were made the object of great play in the First War books, but in those of the Second, received only a casual mention in comparison. True in this case preparation beforehand did what was required.

One obvious difference in die two wars was due to the introduction of the Radio. Each nation poured out its stuff in as many languages as it could. The B.B.C. was in some respects well up to all the tricks, and not only encouraged listening to German stations, but actually on one occasion at least, re-broadcast one of Hitler's speeches while it was going on, doubtlessly without his permission. True, very few could understand a word of it, except the thousands of refugees, but it probably had its intended influence on the “democratic propaganda” on which the B.B.C. prided itself.

The Germans were confronted with many difficulties in the radio direction and had told so many lies about events abroad that they had to make it a punishable offence if foreign broadcasts were listened to. But the B.B.C. were well in advance of this by a special station “Atlantic” that broadcast news and views along with gramophone records and "letters from home," to German soldiers at the fronts. The news bulletins were such that they showed that a few more German planes were lost and a few more prisoners captured than Allied, while the pretence to be a German station was kept up very successfully.

The Russfcui rulers were even more scared than were those of the Germans, and went so far as to call in all the radio sets (Kravchencko “I chose Freedom”) thereby permitting only the massive state and factory sets for workers to listen to their beloved leaders.

The B.B.Cs. motto, “When nations can speak to one another there will be no wars," seems to have fallen into disuse. Perhaps it is because there are other causes of war than those arising from being unable to speak to one another.

Those cruder methods of working up hatred such as the “ Corpse factory," Babies being stuck on the end of bayonets" “Women with their breasts cut off,” “ Crucified Canadians,” or even the “ Angel of Mons ” all of First War origin, made no appearance in the Second War, although similar things are alleged to have been put out on the German side in both wars. In the Second war no Russians were seen arriving in England with snow on their boots. Bolsheviks and Commu-Nazis became over night heroes and before the last shots of the Second War were fired, the Soviet heroes became once again Bolsheviks and Commu-Nazis, Red Fascists, and with the same ruthless dictatorship regime with all its spying, secret police and rigid propaganda as that formerly existing in Germany. In other words we had an ally whose political system consisted of those very evils which Chamberlain told us we were fighting against.

Do the workers notice all these things, or some of them ? Naturally it doesn’t all stick, if it did our mission would be largely fulfilled. The fact that the ruling class was compelled to modify its propaganda to the extent in which it did in the Second War, is sufficient indication that they are not too sure of themselves and of how the workers are going to take it all. In the event of another world war they will have an even more difficult task to deal with, that of having to live down two world wars, and finding fresh excuses for why they can't get their system to work harmoniously.

Horace Jarvis.

This Interesting World (1943)

From the December 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Turkey in the War?

Newspapers these days make interesting reading. An example is an article by the “diplomatic correspondent” of the News Chronicle (5/11 13), who presumably gets his cue from the Foreign Office. Many moons ago it was stated that Turkey is “Britain’s formal military ally,” but despite this the Turkish Government have taken no active part in the war. It is to be presumed that the Turkish Government would prefer to keep clear of either side in the conflict, but small nations, in a world of big capitalist powers, are not the masters of their fate which they would like to be. After the Moscow Conference, Mr. Eden, on his way home, had an interview in Cairo with the Turkish foreign minister, and the News Chronicle purports to show what might have been discussed. The article states that “Russia thinks that Turkey should abandon her neutrality,” while the “diplomatic correspondent” states that in view of the victories now being achieved by the allies “Turkish statesmen must naturally be reviewing present Turkish policy in the light of future probabilities” and “the weight of any influence she could exert in the settlement of problems in which she has an interest will be in direct ratio to the contribution she has made towards bringing peace about.” What this curious diplomatic verbiage really means is : “Join in with us now, and you shall have a slice of the cake.” It also seems to indicate the suggestion of a threat. If Turkey does join in—on the right side—it will be just one more dictatorship fighting for “democracy.” Turkey has a one-party system of government similar to that of Russia.

* * *

The Sergeant Wants His

The same issue of the News Chronicle contains a report of a discussion in the House of Commons regarding a Sergeant, serving in India, who was told by his former employers that they could not guarantee to take him back after the war. Mr. Bevin, Minister of Labour, admitted that the firm had not committed any legal offence, and stated that he had communicated with them, but that they had shown no desire to change their attitude. Mr. Bevin’s comment was—”I must express my astonishment at their stupidity in not realising the effect such a letter must have on its recipient and my condemnation of their apparent disregard of any considerations other than those directly affecting their own interests.” It will be observed that Mr. Bevin was concerned that a letter should have been written which might disturb the man’s “morale.” It is to be presumed that other employers, at any rate, will make a note of this. Even if they are unable to take back workers after the war, at least do not tell them so !

* * *

Food, Work and Home

Mr, Churchill, however, does realise the necessity of keeping up the fighting man’s “morale,” and in his recent speech in the Mansion House, he said (News Chronicle, 10/11/43):—

“I regard it as a definite part of the duty and responsibility of this National Government to have it set about a vast and practical scheme to make sure that in the years immediately following the war there will be food, work and home for all. 

“No airy visions, no party doctrines or party prejudices or vested interests shall stand in the way of the simple duty of providing before the end of the war for food, work and home. Each plan must be prepared now during the war, and must come into action—just like when war breaks out general mobilisation is declared—as soon as victory is won.”

Either Mr. Churchill is or is not aware of how capitalism works, but despite any guarantees, however sincere they may be, of security after the war, capitalism just won’t provide it—not even if Mr. Churchill still heads the British Government. Capitalism is based upon the ownership of the factories, mines, railways, etc., by the capitalist class, and upon the production of goods and services for profit. No profit, no work, is a constant factor in capitalism, and when goods have been produced so that markets are glutted, and no further outlets can be found, the necessary consequence is that the factories, etc., will be closed or put on short time until the markets revive again. Factory owners will not employ workers to produce goods when those goods cannot be sold at a profit.

* * *

£1,250 Millions in Six Minutes

Another paragraph in the News Chronicle of November 5 reports the voting in the House of Commons of another £1,250.000,000 for carrying on the war. This huge sum, it is stated, was voted in six minutes. Most of this money will be raised either by taxation of the British capitalist class or by loans from that class. When the war is over we wonder whether unemployment relief will be voted for with the same alacrity and on the same generous scale.

R. Milborne

Twenty Years On ! (1942)

From the November 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

We live in times of revolutionary change. The Second World War predicted by Socialists is now three years old. The tank, the bomber and the long-range submarine are re-drafting the political map of the world. Colossal forces, employing war engines that would have amazed Jules Verne himself, are deciding which group are to control the world’s wealth.

World-famous organisations have been swept into limbo. Dictators have appeared as heaven-sent “leaders” of war-like nations. Politicians, statesmen of long standing, have performed miracles of agility. One-time conscientious objectors become Ministers of Home Security. Strike leaders, Ministers of Labour; leaders of “Socialist Leagues,” who desired to utilise war time to “overthrow capitalism,” Deputy Prime Ministers.

Overnight, when Russia was drawn in, “the enigma, wrapped in mystery” became a “brave and noble ally.” Now Communism (so-called) so far from making a nation “abject and miserable in peace and beaten and humiliated in war,” is the explanation of the Red Army’s courage.

Oh ! unhappy politicians ! who sent a hundred thousand uniforms and greatcoats as well as arms, ammunition and guns, tanks and aeroplanes to Finland for use against Russia in 1940. Oh! unfortunate Sir Walter ! who proved how much superior Finnish democracy is to Russian dictatorship in his “My Finnish Diary.” With what alacrity they have run the Red Flag of Russia up on public buildings (except the Bank of England).

The Socialist, who keeps a cool head and sticks to plain facts, is hotly denounced by Communists. Large numbers of workers, knowing little about the subject, feel the effects of twenty years’ propaganda of “Socialism” in Russia. Once again the Communist Party is able to delude a fair number of temporary dupes, on the grounds that second fronts may speedily terminate the war, and usher in some social improvements. For this is now, they say, a war between Socialist Workers’ Russia and Capitalist Fascist Germany.

How utterly different this is from every anticipation of all Communists of the past, from Lenin downwards, is quite unknown to these latter-day converts.

Still further proof of the complete correctness of the Socialist Party’s stand on the Russian upheaval, its definition of the Russian system, and the present impossibility of Socialism there, is supplied by one of the best-known ex-Communist leaders, Mr. J. T. Murphy, in his autobiographical account of some twenty years’ activity, fifteen of which were spent as a Communist International official.—(“New Horizons.”)

Amid the reams of paper, gallons of ink, and tons of lead used in printing thousands of books on Russia, the short, plain, straight statements appearing in the Socialist Standard in 1918, 1919, and especially in 1920, stand out like the proverbial searchlight, casting a brilliant beam through a cloud of murky confusion.

More astounding still, twenty-two years later, when each and every party has performed a somersault, the Socialist Party statement does not require alteration.

The time will surely come when the obscure, self-taught, proletarian contributor to the Socialist Standard, “J.F.”, [Jack Fitzgerald] will receive due recognition for the merit of his remarkable analysis of the Russian revolutionary drama and the realisation of his clear firm anticipations.

Writing in the Socialist Standard for 1920 on the Russian Dictatorship, he declared : —

“This controversy (between Kautsky and Lenin), along with the events that have taken place since it occurred, adds considerable evidence of the correctness of the deduction we drew from the situation in 1918.

In the midst of the special conditions and chaos caused by the war, when the old exploiting regime had broken down and the new exploiting class were too weak to take hold of power, a small but resolute minority seized the political machinery and took control of affairs. The mass of the workers in Russia are not Socialists, neither do they understand the principles of Socialism, nor desire to see Socialism established. . . .

. . . . rule by a minority—even a Marxist minority—is not Socialism. Not until the instruments and methods of production have reached the stage of large machinery and mass organisation is it possible for social production to develop. . . When the workers. . . reach. . . an understanding of their slave position, and decide to supplement social production by social ownership, through the seizure of political power, then, and not till then, will Socialism be established.

The Bolsheviks may try to save as much of their system as possible, but the events will prove the correctness of Marx’s views on the failure of attempts to jump the stages in social evolution. 

Their failure, however, will not be all disaster. They will have shown the workers of the world that the capitalist class is a useless and parasitic class in modern society.— (“Socialist Standard,” July, 1920.)

Did the Bolsheviks base their hopes on a Western rising. Let J. T. Murphy, delegate to the 1920 Congress of the Communist International, testify, writing in 1941 :

“It is as certain as anything can be that the delegates who arrived in Moscow in 1920 were too emotionally overwhelmed to estimate calmly . . . The World Revolution had begun and it would quickly sweep Europe.

Zinoviev concluded his speech in Moscow with these words: ‘I happened to say (a year ago) somewhat enthusiastically that after one year we shall forget there had been a struggle for a Soviet Government. We were over-enthusiastic, indeed it is likely that we shall require two or even three years before the whole of Europe becomes Soviet.'”

Murphy, after explaining the circumstances of the day, goes on : 

“The Russian revolution was victorious but the European revolution was in retreat. These things did not stand out clearly before us. We thought of ourselves as the centre of the revolution which would spread wave on wave. We were playing leap-frog with history and did not know it.”

One may ask whether any party in history has been so absolutely right, when so many others have been completely wrong.

Even to-day, Mr. Murphy, after admitting twenty years of mistakes, still persists in them, and devotes his time to footling antics with “Popular Fronts” and “People’s Fronts,” now so rapidly discredited.

He recounts how, at the Conference of the short-lived “Socialist League” before the war, “Sir Stafford Cripps ‘swept the Conference’ and secured a unanimous vote.”

“He argued that we would have nothing to do with a war led by a capitalist government, and stated that the issue before us was ‘ War or Socialism.’ Our job was first and foremost to get rid of the capitalist government.”

To-day that same Cripps is Deputy Prime Minister of the capitalist government.

The most politically backward elements of the working-class are now pro-Russian. This experience will justify the prophesy of the Socialist Standard in 1920.

“When the workers awaken to an understanding of their class position . . . and begin to fight the class-war consciously in numbers that count, the rule of the Russian Bolsheviks will be a splendid lesson . . . on the ability of the working-class to manage its own affairs. It will have done its share in shortening and lessening the birth-pangs of Socialism.”

Horatio.

Notes by the Way: Gandhi and the Millionaires (1942)

The Notes by the Way Column from the September 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Gandhi and the Millionaires

At the time of Gandhi’s arrest several British newspapers made much of the close association between Congress leaders and wealthy Indian capitalists. The “Daily Express” had the following : —

“Just as ten years ago German industrialists decided to finance Hitler for their own ends, so to-day it is largely the great Indian capitalists who stand behind Congress.

Men like the Birla brothers, great mill owners, and Walchand Hirachand, chairman of the £1,700,000 Scindia Steam Navigation Company, see India freed from British control, as the industrialists’ paradise, with high tariff walls. Some rich Congressmen would like to do a business deal with Japan, too. It is against such tendencies that two new leaders have now sprung up, who are putting Congress through the greatest crisis of its career.” (“Daily Express,” August 6th, 1942.)

The “Evening Standard” (August 4th) said :

“There was surely never a quainter contrast in political associates than that between Gandhi and his host for the Bombay meeting of Congress, Ghanshyam Das Birla, the millionaire of big business. . . . Now and then their friendship has been criticised by Indian Socialists.”

This is fair comment. A political movement which claims to represent the interests of Indian workers and peasants has got to explain why it receives financial support from Indian big business, the exploiters of the Indian toilers; but why does this apply only in India; why not nearer home ? What about big business influence in British political parties ? And why should Indian workers be impressed by advice from millionaire controlled British newspapers, or from politicians who likewise find their close associates in the ranks of the captains of industry?

* * *

Are Bishops More Honest? 

The Bishop of Liverpool, advocating whipping for juvenile law breakers, says : “There is no doubt that since the last war the standard of honesty in Britain has been steadily going down.” (“Evening News,” August 19th.) In accordance with the biblical precept, “If any would not work, neither should he eat,” it is certainly dishonest of our investing class to live at the expense of the workers, but Dr. David is probably being rather unfair to his fellow Church dignitaries if he suggests that they, along with boys who rob orchards, are becoming more dishonest. Did not the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who were the biggest mining royalty owners in the country, willy-nilly suffer a reduction of revenue of about £120,000 a year when coal royalties were vested in the Coal Commission ? And observe how the Church has become more sensitive to criticisms about its slum property, and has sold it, according to the Archbishop of Canterbury (“News Chronicle,” August 13th, 1942). And all done without, so far as we have heard, a single Bishop being flogged.

* * *

G. B. Shaw and the Indian Riots

There must be heart-searching among Labour Party adherents who have so long supported Indian nationalism against what they said was a needlessly repressive policy of British Governments, that while Labour leaders are in the Government strong measures against national rioters are again being used. The following are two items in the “Daily Express” (August 20th, 1942) :—

“A Cawnpore man has been sentenced to 20 whip lashes and two years’ hard labour for damaging Government property and causing damage by fire. This is probably the first whipping ordered in India under the new regulations. A new order issued in New Delhi empowers Provincial Governments to set up special courts to try certain offences in event of emergency, and to impose collective fines in areas where offences “prejudicial to safety” occur.”—Reuter, B.U.P.

G. B. Shaw, asked to send a message to an India League demonstration in this country, is reported by the “Evening Standard” as follows : —

“The second (blunder) was the Flogging Bill, which seemed so natural to Ministers educated at Eton that they could not see how it could shock all Europe, including Adolf Hitler.”

At whom is the gibe intended? Mr. Amery went to Harrow, Sir Stafford Cripps to Winchester, and Mr. Attlee to Haileybury, and they are the three most closely concerned with India to-day.” (“Evening Standard,” August 25th.)

* * *

An Echo of the Russian Purge

At the time of the Russian trials in 1938 there was much discussion about the prisoners’ confessions, ranging from Major-General Sir Wyndham Childs, who wrote : “Those who guessed the application of a new and terrible drug were not far wrong” (“John Bull,” March 19th, 1938), to the uncritical believers in things Bolshevist who were prepared to accept everything. When the latter read in their newspapers in July of this year that the Russian People’s Commissarfor the Navy had sent a message “to Mr. Alexander, First Lord of the Admiralty, in reply to a Red Navy Day message” (“Evening Standard,

” July 29th, 1942), did it call up some recollection in their minds? Do they remember Zelensky’s confession? Here is one of the passages from the Official Report published by the Russian Government: “The President: Your testimony contains the phrase: “To come to an understanding with these leaders for possible assistance in the event of an uprising against the Soviet power.” Do you confirm this or not?

Zelensky: I do.

The President: How did you endeavour to utilize this?

Zelensky: At a meeting with a certain Alexander . . .

The President: Who is this Alexander?

Zelensky: The leader of the British Co-operative Party, which is affiliated with the Labour Party. (Page 338.)

According to the Official Report of Zelensky’s “confession,” Mr. Alexander is supposed to have said he would welcome a Right Government, and that the Cooperative Movement could guarantee such credits and assistance as was granted to the Soviet Government during the time of the embargo.

Rakovsky, in his confession, also implicated Mr. Alexander. Rakovsky got twenty years’ imprisonment and Zelensky was sentenced to be shot, while Mr. Alexander, who said that the confessions about him were baseleses, is now Ruler of the Kings’ Navee, receiving greetings from the Russian Government.

* * *

Bolshevist Books for British Bairns

War brings about strange happenings. What must be the thoughts of staunch Conservatives who for years persecuted teachers, suspected of Communist leanings, when they read about the new policy of the Board of Education? Under the heading, “Stalin’s text-books for British School Children,” the “Daily Express” (August 25th, 1942) reported that the Board of Education have sent out to schools a list of 40 books recommended for teachers Among them are “Selected Works of Lenin,” and Stalin’s “Foundations of Leninism.”

And a month earlier the R.A F. had been dropping copies of Stalin’s May Day Order in the Rhineland and Central Germany (“Daily Mail,” July 23rd, 1942).

* * *

The Upper 100,000

We have heard a lot lately about the nearly extinct rich, bled white by taxation. Comprehensive figures about income and taxation have been published by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (House of Commons Reports, July 23rd, 1942). Among other things it is possible to find out from the figures how many people there are with incomes exceeding £2,000 a year, how much tax they pay now, and how much tax they paid in 1938-39. The figures have been analysed in the “Economist” (August 1st, 1942), and they show that there are 105,000 persons whose income is more than £2,000 a year, including 100 with more than £100,000 a year each. These figures relate to total income before income tax and surtax have been deducted. Consequently they hide the harrowing facts that, in the words of the “Manchester Guardian” (July 31st, 1942), “tax has become crushing” above the £2,000 a year level. Here is the bitter truth about these crushed souls : —

“In 1938-39 the 105,1000 persons with incomes above £2,000 a year had an average income, after paying tax, of £3,150 per head, but ” the war . . . has reduced their average net income, after tax, from £3,150 to £1,950.” (“Times,” July 27th, 1942.)

They used to jog along on an average of £60 a week after paying tax, and just managed to make ends meet; now all they have for food, clothing and shelter is an average of £37 10s. a week ! In the words of the “Manchester Guardian,” “There are still 105,000 people with gross incomes of over £2,000 a year, but their average net income after tax is only £1,950 ” (July 31st, 1942) (our italics). One wonders why this sobbing city editor headed his article, “Rich and Poor”; “Poor and Poor” or “Poor Workers and Poorer Surtax Payers” would have been more seemly. Now that they are down and out, he ought not to have added insult to injury. His final words are : —

“There cannot be more than a few hundred persons left with a net income of £5,000 a year.”

* * *

Postcript on Mr. Bevin

Mr. Bevin’s statement that at the end of the war “the rentier, comfortably living on interest, would certainly be gone.” brought swift, if indirect, repudiation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Kingsley Wood. On July 30th, Rear-Admiral Beamish asked a question in the House of Commons plainly directed against Mr. Bevin, though he was not mentioned : —

“LOANS (SECURITY).

READ-ADMIRAL BEAMISH asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to encourage thrift and to allay doubts that have arisen in the minds of those who direct and subscribe to the War Savings Campaign, he will again make it clear that those who lend money to the State and rentier people living on interest can look to the future without fears for their loans or their interest ?

SIR K. WOOD: Loans to the State will be honoured without exception or qualification. The State is not directly responsible for private loans, but its the declared policy of His Majesty’s Government to maintain public confidence in the credit structure of the country, and no action of any kind is contemplated which would interfere with the rights of creditors in respect of private loans.” (House of Commons Debates, July 30th, 1942.)

On Sunday, August 2nd, the reply was given wide publicity by being included in the news on the wireless. Before his statement was repudiated Mr. Bevin’s words had caused consternation in various circles. Anxious investors wrote to the newspapers and to their banks and financial advisers, the War Savings Organisation felt that it was distinctly discouraging to their campaign, and many letters on the subject were published in newspaper correspondence columns. Among the latter was one from Sir Rowland Evans, published by the “Daily Telegraph,” which provided us with the entertaining spectacle of a defender of capitalism quoting Bolshevist Russia against Mr. Bevin’s alarming views : —

To the Editor of “The Daily Telegraph.” 

Sir,—According to his recent speech, Mr. Ernest Bevin welcomes the prospect of there being no “rentier people living on interest” at the end of the war. Apparently he disapproves of the principle of interest on capital as he does of the motive of profit.

But Mr. Bevin’s Socialist friends in this country need not be discouraged by his ethics in this matter from taking up War Loan or buying Savings Certificates, or have any qualms of conscience in receiving interest on their capital thus invested, for their fellow war-workers in Soviet Russia have been doing the same thing—and on quite a big scale. For example, as early as 1937 the Soviet Government floated a Defence Loan of 4,000,000,000 roubles, bearing interest at 4 per cent., redeemable in 1957.—Yours faithfully, (“Daily Telegraph,” July 24th.)

Edgar Hardcastle

Straws: Brummagen Ware. (1941)

The Straws Column from the November 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Brummagen Ware.

The Bishop of Birmingham, on Sunday, September 28th, opened his mouth and taught them, saying: “The destruction of wealth would make the whole community poorer.” If the last war is any guide, there will still be an ample share of surplus value produced to provide high living (not in the “spiritual” sense, My Lord) for the privileged few. The dear Bishop then solemnly announced that in the present war “workers were becoming small capitalists.”

* * * *

Cant and Cantor.

Dr. E. W. Barnes often manages to be merely silly; he should take a refresher course from the Archbishop of Canterbury to learn the ignoble art of bowing in the House of Rimmon, and apologising for it in specious phrases. “We may well be proud of our new Ally. . . . We have something to learn from Russia . . . they have something to learn from us” (6.10.41). How does he square this with the “orthodox” religious view that the present conflict is essentially to fight for Christian ideals ?

* * * *

Soviet “Equality”

The reverend dodger must be well aware that Soviet “planning of economic resources for the good of the whole community” has not obviated the great gulf in material conditions between peasant and proletarian on the one hand and “high-ups” of the Communist Party ruling caste on the other. The S.P.G.B. will be pleased to furnish irreproachable evidence on the point should His Grace desire information. Sez you !

* * * *

Oliver and Bumble.

Compare the following statements occurring in the same issue of the Daily Herald (17.10.41): “Beaverbrook cannot make the tanks himself. That only the workers can do; it is on the workers and their constant eagerness of toil that he relies.”

“Almost impossible to contemplate.” Sir Walter Womersley’s reply to demand for flat rate increase in Service men’s allowances. “Impossible even to contemplate,” when the worker in field, factory, or ghastly battle area asks (all too modestly, alas) for an extra allowance of the skilly ladled out to him by National Bums and Bumbles.

* * * *

War Tipsters.

Lord Acton’s historical essays are always worth reading; they are studded with common sense remarks, as, for instance, “there is an undefinable quantity in military genius which makes the event uncertain.” An excellent piece of implied advice to war tipsters of all shades and all parties.

* * * *

Golden Nobs and Clay Feet.

Harold Laski is a knowing card; his eulogy of our “beloved leader” in Reynold’s of October 19th beats the ordinary method of “damning with faint praise” by sizable lengths. “Of Mr. Churchill’s immense popularity there can be no question.” He has paid tribute to the Prime Minister’s “eloquence,” etc., etc. But “the conviction is growing that he does not grasp the economic and social issues of the time,” and much more in the same key.

Augustus Snellgrove

Editorial: A Few Words on the Atlantic Charter (1941)

Editorial from the October 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Atlantic Charter drafted by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill lays down the principles of the post-war international settlement as viewed by the U.S.A. and Britain. It has now received the general support of Russia and of the small Powers allied against Germany. It suggests obvious comparisons with the attempt to settle world affairs after the last war and with the scheme the German Government has put forward for enforcement if they are the victors. If it were as easy to dispose of awkward problems as it is to draft fine sounding proclamations we could perhaps agree about the superiority of the Atlantic Charter over the Versailles settlement and over the German plan. There is this to be said for the Atlantic Charter, that it is phrased in terms which do not envisage dividing up the spoils of world trade for the benefit of the victors. In Point 4 it pledges Great Britain and the U.S.A. that they will endeavour, “with due respect for their existing obligations” (more about this later) “to further enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.”

This has been compared with the third of President Wilson’s 14 points drafted in 1918, which promised similar equality of trade conditions, but only “among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.” In other words, Germany and her allies were in effect barred.

Similarly it may be compared with the plan for world settlement recently elaborated by one of the leading Nazi economists, Werner Daitz. This was summarised in the Times (September 10th, 1941); under this plan the world is to be divided into six groups, the East-Asiatic, the Indo-Malay, the European, the African, the North American and the South American. The European, which is to take in all Western Russia and Great Britain, is to be under German dominance and according to Daitz it will have complete control over Africa, and there is to be no nonsense of equal trading conditions: —

“Europe will exercise a dominating power over the world. She will need much less food and raw materials from oversea than heretofore, but she will remain the greatest selling market for the countries producing rawstuffs. Consequently, she will be able to dictate the terms on which she buys. What will happen to Australia if Germany refuses her wool ? Or to the Argentine if she declines her beef ? Or to the United States if she will have no cotton? Europe will be able to use the fact that she is the world’s greatest consumer and the world’s intensest centre of industrial production as a political lever to control the other Lebensraume.”

Promise and Performance

But while the words and sentiments differ, what about the prospect of fulfilment? It will not be forgotten that when President Wilson had been disposed of other men and other interests actually dominated the settlement, and paid not even lip-service to the liberal sentiments expressed by Wilson in others of his 14 Points.

Already there has been questioning about that innocent little clause in the Atlantic Charter which reads: “With due respect for their existing obligations.” At the meeting of the nine allied Governments held in London, on September 24th, the representative of the Dutch Government raised objection and said “it was the view of his Government that this reservation might diminish the beneficial effect of the whole clause.”—(News-Chronicle, September 25th, 1941.)

The City Editor of the same journal supported the Dutch Government’s protest though pointing out that that Government too is asking preferential treatment for its own interest. He added: —

“Politicians, business men and leading civil servants are already busily engaged in explaining away Point 4. Some of them are even reported to have argued with scant tact; in the United States that we must maintain exchange control and trade bilateralism as permanent features of our economic set-up, since we “cannot afford” to do without them.

Bilateralism is the system of trade which says, “I won’t buy from you unless you buy as much from me.” That system is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with the equal access principle, which says, “I submit to no conditions from those to whom I sell and impose no conditions on those from whom I buy.”

If Point 4 of the Atlantic Charter means anything at all, it means adherence to the latter, “multilateral,” system of trade, and it is disquieting to find even distinguished economists setting at defiance both our signature to the Atlantic Charter and the most elementary doctrines of their own science”.— (News Chronicle, September 25th, 1941.)

So already it is plain that Clause 4 is going to have a rough passage and if its opponents have their way, to quote the News-Chronicle, “all that in practice is likely to be left of a fine principle is a fine phrase.”

Who will Slay the Capitalist Giants?

All the emphasis in the Atlantic Charter is laid on the relations between nations, but what about the great capitalist combines at home? The Atlantic Charter sees the need to protect the small nations against dominance by the larger ones if they are to trade and have access to raw materials on equal terms. But if capitalism is to continue, as Roosevelt and Churchill take for granted that it will, how is this to be done? How will they deal with the great capitalist concerns like Unilever, Imperial Chemical Industries and similar concerns in other lands? Who is going to slay these giant international semi-monopolies which are the real dominators of world trade? What is the use of saying that trade is on equal terms, a fair field and no favour, when these octopus organisations are left with their tentacles sprawling across the globe, not to mention the fact that they will naturally seek to use their great influence with governments to advance their interests.

This is the acid test of the talk of putting capitalist trade on a better basis. Is there any intention among the upholders of capitalism of reversing a half century of development towards bigger and bigger monopolies? Some twenty years ago a Labour leader, Mr. J. R. Clynes, said that his party thought it better to have a large number of small capitalists than a small number of large ones. Would Mr. Clynes or any other Labour leader say that to-day? Indeed, how could they when they are committed to a programme of amalgamation and formation of great public utility corporations ?

Is Agriculture to be Destroyed by Cheap Foreign Imports ?

There is another awkward fact to be faced by those who think that fine words about equal trade conditions are a contribution to settling the world’s problems. Are any countries to be allowed to impose protective tariffs or give subsidies to agriculture or other industries in order to save them from bankruptcy in face of a flood of cheaper products from abroad ? The News-Chronicle, true to its free-trade doctrines, says that the Atlantic Charter rules out these practices, as it logically does, but where do the Conservative Party and the Labour Party stand ? The Conservatives and many individuals in the Labour Party are already committed to a policy of protecting agriculture in Britain against a flood of imports from countries able to grow food more cheaply. What do they understand by Clause 4? And if they demand protective measures or subsidies for agriculture how will they object to Germany and other countries following a similar line for various industries ? In short, how will the trade scramble after this war be any different from that before the war’?

Twenty odd years ago the Labour Party had an answer. They were prepared to take the free trade line and let agriculture or any other industry sink or swim without aid. In their 1918 “Labour and the new social order,” they said “we ourselves object to all Protective Customs Tariffs,” and on the question of agriculture they said specifically that nothing must be done which would raise the price of foodstuffs here above the price level of foodstuffs imported from abroad.

They would no doubt give a somewhat different answer now but change is not necessarily progress, and the task of making capitalism work harmoniously is at least as difficult now as it was then. Socialists have no doubt about their attitude. Capitalism cannot be made to work satisfactorily. It must be abolished. Those who think differently, and this includes all those who have hastened to applaud the sentiments of the Atlantic Charter, should at least face up to these problems and decide where they stand.

Think on these things (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Henry Longhurst concludes an article on Douglas Bader (the legless airman) in the Sunday Express (August 17th, 1941), with the following paragraph: —

“I never thought the Germans would get him. I was so convinced that he was destined to be head of Fighter Command in the next war! Maybe he still is (Italics ours.)

The last paragraph in the editorial column of the Evening Standard (August 19th, 1941) commences as follows :—

  “Soviet Russia must never go down. All our own prospects are governed by her endurance.”

On August 21st, 1941, the Evening Standard editorial concluded with the following words : —

  “If the great dam of the Russian armies now holding back the Nazi avalanche should ever fall, a vast darkness and blight would descend on the hopes of all mankind.”

How circumstances change attitudes !

Gilmac.

Where Are We ? (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The war on Russia is the manifestation of the dire straits in which German capitalism finds itself. It is an admission of the eventual success of the British blockade which has forced the swashbuckling gangsters into an Eastern war for essential resources. Stalin is now allied to the Churchill Government, and no longer do we hear of the need for a “People’s” Government. Of course the time-serving Communist Party and its Left Book Club merchants will rally the masses, because, according to Molotov, the Germans are “treacherous dogs” and it is now a workers’ war. In August, 1939, Molotov signed a pact of “friendship.'” with these “treacherous dogs.” She followed this up by war on Finland and the seizure of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and part of Rumania. All this was done on grounds of military defence, at a time when Germany was busy on the Western Front. Russia became the great “appeaser” by repudiating the Norwegian and Belgian consuls and thus officially recognising the Nazi occupation of those countries, even going so far as to recognise the Fifth Column coup of Rashid Ali in Irak.

Now that the Soviet-Nazi pact is ended, will Russia restore the territory gained by that pact to their former “independence”? Will the Communist Party still demand to know Britain’s “war aims” ? And will they still demand “independence” for India?

How their chickens came home to roost. The feather-brained Communists used to say, “Who supplied Hitler?” and they replied: “Chamberlain.” The same question, “Who has since supplied Hitler?” could now be asked, and the answer is— Russia. Now that the Nazis have become “treacherous dogs,” will the Communist Party assure that Russian bombs will only drop on German capitalists and not on German workers ?

Lew.

Suffer Little Children (1943)

From the January 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Children’s Magazine” of May, 1920, affords some interesting reading. “It has shut her out from real knowledge of the world. . . . It has shackled her afresh with a system of government based upon spying, on force, and on secret punishments as bad as in the worst days of the Tsar.” A wealth of accompanying pictures reveal to the young mind such horrors as “Aristocratic women cleaning the streets,” “ Peasant shot at sight for stealing bread.”

Of course, the blessings of Deans and Archbishops has wiped all memories of these things out. What truth was there in the allegations. If true, by what miracle has the Soviet regime transformed itself just at the time when a super gangster crowd is threatening the existence of a smugly reformed Old Times and its Artful Dodger young “Ally”?