Attlee and Bevan: Much Ado About Nothing (1952)

From the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Who shall lead the Labour Party, Attlee or Bevan? Who shall become Prime Minister after the next election, Attlee, or Bevan, Butler or Churchill, Churchill or Eden? A, or B, or C, or D, or E? Who shall administer British capitalism in the critical days ahead, who shall persuade the working class to give capitalism another chance, and another and another? It makes such very little difference to its victims, the working class.

Everybody says that Mr. Bevan is out to get the leadership of the Labour Party—everybody, that is, except Mr. Bevan, who challenges “any journal, magazine or newspaper, or any responsible person to find a single statement on writing of my own to justify that" (Report of speech in Daily Herald, 10/3/1952.)

And why shouldn’t Mr. Bevan want to become leader? He believes that Mr. Attlee's policy is wrong and that his own is right. He claims that his policy truly represents the views of the Labour Party rank and file. He believes in the doctrine of leadership and belongs to a Party which has the officially recognised position of “leader” of the Parliamentary Labour Party, now occupied by Mr. Attlee. Surely Mr. Bevan protests too much, especially in the light of his speech at Cumnock in June of last year, when he protested against the Labour Government’s “ strong tendency . . . .  to take its leaders from the “top drawer of society.'" (Manchester Guardian, 18/6/1951.) He said that what his party needed was leaders who “not only understood Socialism with their heads but knew it with their hearts," men with “guts” and "character." Can it not be that Mr. Bevan had a certain person in mind?

That is an issue between Mr. Bevan and his Party; but what of his idea that the kind of leader the Labour Party has makes an important difference in its policy and actions? The Labour Party has had all sorts of leaders. Perhaps Attlee and some of his colleagues may be described in Mr. Bevan’s phrase as being “from the top drawer," but before Attlee there were many others. There was Keir Hardie, ex-miner; Henderson, ex-ironmoulder; Wardle and Thomas, ex-railwaymen; Adamson, another ex-miner: Clynes. ex-cotton worker; and MacDonald, who had worked on the land, then as pupil-teacher, then warehouse clerk and journalist. There was also the late Ernest Bevin, who had worked on the land, in a restaurant, as a tram conductor and lorry driver, and who perfectly fitted Mr. Bevan’s model of the men of heart, with character and guts. The leaders of the Labour Party base included every type, but the variations have made no difference to the Party. Under all its leaders it has clamoured for reforms of capitalism when out of office and then when in office got bogged down in capitalist crises because that is the fate of all parties that try to run capitalism.

If and when Mr. Bevan becomes Prime Minister it will be just the same story over again, by which time there will be other men of "guts” and “character” proposing to clean up the mess made by Mr. Bevan.

What indeed separates Mr. Bevan from Mr. Attlee (or from Mr. Churchill)?

Mr. Attlee and Mr. Churchill agree that British capitalism must re-arm, and so does Mr. Bevan. “I believe it is necessary to re-arm prudently, in such a fashion that it will not be too much a disturbance to the standard of living . . . ” (Speech at Rugby. Observer, 10/6/1951.)

Or, as his supporter, Mr. Driberg, M.P., wrote in Reynolds News (9/3/1952): “All of us (except the pacifists, whose position is understood and respected) agreed that some re-armament was necessary. We differed on the extent of this re-armament.”

One ironical feature was that Mr. Churchill has admitted that Bevan was right in saying that the Labour Government was pressing on with re-armament faster than was practicable.

Is Mr. Bevan against using the arms in war or against extending the Korean war in certain circumstances? He was, of course, a Minister in the Labour Government that sent troops to Korea, and when asked what he would do if troops in Korea were bombed from airfields in China, he replied:—

   "I would have replied, ‘Tell the Chinese that if they do send aeroplanes from airfields inside China we shall bomb them, but that we are abandoning Chiang Kai-shek’s forces in Formosa.' In other words, pursue peace as well as war." (Speech at Rhymney. Manchester Guardian, 10/3/1952.)

Is Mr. Bevan against conscription, or against the use of troops in industrial disputes? He was a member of the Government for six years while these policies were pursued.

Is Mr. Bevan against capitalism’s instrument for speeding up production, piece-rate systems? By no means, for he was Minister of Labour when his Ministry issued the booklet, “Wage Incentive Schemes” (January, 1951), which urged the extension of such schemes to help exports and re-armament. In the Foreword it was stated by Mr. Bevan’s Ministry:—

  “The need for reduced costs of production and increased output has become even more urgent in face of the unavoidable diversion of a substantial portion of the labour force to the carrying out of the Government’s defence programme.”

Over-riding every other consideration, is Mr. Bevan against Capitalism and for Socialism? Again the answer is no. He calls himself a socialist but has the same muddled conception of what the term means as have all his Labour Party rivals whom he seeks to displace, the conception that Socialism consists of nationalisation and reforms like the Health Service scheme. Thus he could say at the Labour Party Conference in 1950:-

  “Great Britain is not a socialist country. Because we have a socialist government is no evidence that we are a socialist country. We are on the way there, but . . . 80 per cent. of the national economy is still in private hands.  . . . " (Report, page 132.)

Mr. Bevan and all his supporters have proclaimed their hope that their disagreement with Attlee can be healed. All that they demand, in Mr. Bevan’s words, is that the struggle with Toryism shall be vigorously pursued. They disclaim any disagreement with the Labour Party’s principles. In so doing they show themselves to be as unworthy of working-class support as the rest of the Labour Party.

What the working class needs here and in all countries is the abolition of capitalism and inauguration of Socialism. A change of social systems, not a mere change of government from Tory to Labour to try to run capitalism in a slightly different way.

The working class do not need different leaders, but to shed their dependence on leadership.

Supporting Bevan against Attlee or supporting Attlee against Churchill means nothing whatever from the standpoint of Socialism and the interest of the working class.

Mr. Hannen Swaffer, writing in the People (9/3/1952), thinks that Mr. Attlee has shown “six year of brilliant leadership,” but “no longer controls his own side ”; while a Labour M.P., Mr. John Taylor (Forward, 8/3/1952), holds that Bevan “is the greatest orator in Parliament In my view he is more gifted in this respect than Churchill. I never heard Lloyd George, so cannot compare him with his distinguished compatriot.”

Here is indeed a fitting measure of the value of leadership to the working class. Attlee led his followers “brilliantly” for six years, but so lamentable is the condition of the workers at the end of it that they are out of control. According to Mr. Taylor, among the Labour Party rank and file in the country Bevan’s “popularity grows with phenomenal rapidity” —on nothing more substantial than his opposition to the brilliant Attlee!

About Churchill, his brilliance, and the results thereof, we need say nothing. Nor should it be necessary to recall how Lloyd George, the fiery rebel who climbed to power by promising benefits of all kinds to the poverty-stricken workers, left them at the end after the first world war in a state as miserable as when he began.

Now Bevan, perhaps the greatest spouter of them all, gets ready to turn the disillusionment of his Party into a means of raising him to the leadership and Premiership. Workers who ponder over the futility of Labourism as demonstrated under all its leaders will see the folly of it all and refuse to be deluded into giving a new lease of life to capitalism under Aneurin Bevan.

Edgar Hardcastle

Is Stalin a Marxist? (1952)

From the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Barbara Ward in “Policy for the West” has examined most of the wishful projects popularised during the last few years by top-level politicians to deal with the “Russian menace.” She is an economist of some note, one among many who, as Marx said, seek to serve the day to day needs of capitalism. In other words, she is concerned to make capitalism work.

Russia, she thinks, will not start a third world war. She doesn't need to, because according to beliefs which the Communists say they derive from Marx, she has only to wait for the breakdown of western capitalism, in the meantime continuing her policy of aggression on the Korean pattern, sowing discord between the western nations wherever possible, and assisting Communist Parties everywhere to achieve power.

But this idea of the breakdown of capitalism in the west—or anywhere else—does not derive from Marx. Such a contingency was never subscribed to by turn. It does not come within the limits of rational thought. Stalin himself, quite obviously, does not think that capitalism will collapse anywhere, or he would not rely on the system to endure while building an industrial empire to rival America. Whatever her ideology may be, Russia's economy is capitalist with the usual set-up of production for profit and a wage-slave class.

Russia's foreign policy is capitalist—grabbing fresh markets, sources of supply of essential materials, and extending her spheres of influence—like the similar policy in the West.

According to Miss Ward containment of Russia is of first importance in the policy of the West. But this must be effected without disrupting the economy of any of the member states, whose armed forces must be sufficiently strong and mobile to deter aggression at any point in the Russian perimeter. They must have a police system that will render each nation proof against spies and saboteurs. And the backward peoples of the Far East must be won for the West by the investment of western capital for their industrialisation.

Lenin once said that imperialism was the highest phase of capitalism. Russia had reached that phase before the outbreak of world war two. During the war she proved herself equal to any of the allies in military strength; and after victory just as rapacious for annexations and reparations.

A nation can only be judged by its policy and its actions, and Russia's policy, including her suspicious peace campaign is based on her needs as a capitalist state. How then, can Miss Ward have been deceived into the belief that Russia is Socialist or, same thing, Communist?

When Charlie Chaplin ((Daily Herald, 25/9/51), was asked if he was a communist he replied, “Communist? I'm a comic! 1 can't understand Karl Marx so how can I be a communist." Nut unlike Miss Ward who accepts the popular notion that Russia is Marxist because Stalin says so, Chaplin sees something of the reality behind the witch-hunt and goes on "Those men down there, they are mad! mad with the lust for blood/ When they talk about communists I don't mind, but I wish they would be honest. They don't hate communists, they simply hate the men who may take their money away from them.''

That is what the Bolsheviks did in 1917. On achieving power they proclaimed themselves the state, nationalised the means of production and distribution without compensation, and acquired almost complete right of exploitation over the Russian workers in industry.

Had Marx lived to-day he would have dissected Soviet capitalism just as ruthlessly as he did its nineteenth century predecessor in Britain. He would have exposed their "democratic ” constitution as a shallow fraud, just as socialists in half-a-dozen countries have been doing ever since its adoption in 1937.

Miss Ward has several chapters on the economic and financial side of the containment policy. The risk of inflation, she says, must be met by increased production and a readiness not to take advantage of the nation's needs by excessive demands for higher wages.

When discussing trade cycles Miss Ward admits that the west has no more guarantee against slumps than it had in the twenties. She does not explain the cause. Apparently the cause is just as much a mystery as it was throughout the 19th century. But she does think that the regularity of the cycles seems to suggest that they are not dependent on "crop failure or technical change.” Nor, to do her credit, does she attempt to revive the theory of sun spots. As for some innate trend in the system that idea she says, came from the communists, who are also responsible for "the innate contradictions of capitalist society” and "the dialectical necessity that produces slump and boom.” Here, of course, was Miss Ward's chance to expose the Communist explanation, expressed by her with a brevity and crudity that divest it of intelligible meaning.

Instead she evades the question of cause by asking “But is there any agreed explanation of the rhythmical nature of the trade cycle?” Replying to her own question, she says there is, and many economists agree with her that it is a question of demand. "The demand for capital goods or for further investment.” But surely investment implies the existence of markets, people with money ready to buy commodities. A few pages previously she had written "Undersupply is not the typical predicament of modern industrial society. It is the insufficiency and the irregularity of demand.”

It would appear that here the lady has inadvertently stumbled on one of those "innate contradictions of capitalist society” i.e., the inability of those who produce all wealth to buy back more than the amount represented by wages and salaries. And the determination of investors not to invest capital unless assured of safe and adequate returns.

Miss Ward aims to kill two birds with one shot. To do so with success they must both be in the line of fire. Hence, to discredit Marxism the Russian set-up is treated by her as either Marxist or derived from Marx. And the failure of Marxism, she alleges, is demonstrated by the concentration camps, bogus trials and mass executions. "It was from the so-called scientific and dialectical socialism of Marx that the idea of complete state ownership as a ‘cure-all’ of economic evils was derived.” Here, she is careful not to impute the statement to Marx. By devious twists anything can be derived: even Russian imperialism as Stalin has shown by his tortuous record on national independence; while his substitution of “work” for “needs” in the Marx and Engels slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” is a complete reversal of the original meaning, and by itself stamps Russia as capitalist and labour-power as a commodity.

In her reckless denunciation of Marx she writes: 

  “Marx himself and Lenin after him did not talk about planning at all, and had no concrete suggestions for controlling the trade cycle or stabilizing world trade. They simply said dogmatically that if the state owned everything, these problems would not arise.”

Marx regarded trade as the capitalist mechanism of appropriation, and division among themselves, of the wealth produced by the workers. He anticipated that knowledge, progressing on rationalist lines would enable them to understand the acquisitive nature of trade, and the repressive function oi the state. Consequently they would organise to abolish both, substituting their own system of common ownership of the means of production and distribution, and establishing democracy on a basis of equality.

By attributing to Marx the statement “that if the state owned everything these problems would not arise,” she displays her ignorance of Marxism and the real function of the state. Irrespective of its origin, the statement itself is absurd. Ownership by the state, i.e. nationalization, either wholly, as in Russia, or in part, is everywhere dependent on trade.

Under the heading “Faith for Freedom,” Miss Ward sets out to vanquish Marxism, using ancient civilizations as a sample of what to expect under communism. She says “It is the tragedy of Marxist communism that it restores the old fetters of fatality and tyranny.” She sees the capitalist epoch since the industrial revolution as a “breath taking experiment in freedom. . . .  A release from the shackles of tyrannical governments.” “We know from man’s long history that the Western experiment of freedom and responsibility is a flash in the pan, a spark in the longest night, an experiment bounded in space and time, and preceded by aeons of collective servitude.” While Communism, she says, “ is to step back into an older environment, to regress,” etc., etc.

There are many pages of eulogies of capitalism and prophetic warnings of man’s debasement by communism. She has visions of mankind under Communism reduced to the “mentality of bees and ants,” controlled by their environment and tyrannical governments. “Behind the concept of the withering away of the state lies not only the loss of freedom, but the loss of rationality and humanity itself.”

The totalitarian form of government is the nearest approach to Miss Ward’s vision of communism, but it is still capitalism. The Bolsheviks saw its possibilities as an alternative after their failure to establish Socialism. Italy and Germany followed the same pattern. While Hitler prophesied that “National Socialism” could serve capitalism for a thousand years, Truman said that an ideology cannot be fought by armed force, forgetting that they had put paid to “National Socialism” by that very means; making nonsense of Hitler's boast by further nonsense.

The difference between East and West from the workers' viewpoint, is that in the West they are free to organise industrially or politically for their own purposes as a class, while in the East they are circumscribed by the state ideology which it is a crime to question.

But the quarrel between East and West is not over democracy. Nor is it a struggle for Socialism; but a struggle for supremacy in a capitalist world. And whichever side wins the workers will still be wage- slaves, submitting in apathy to the growth of the servile state pictured by Miss Ward, or by taking up the thread of human progress, and challenging the right of a privileged class to dictate the destiny of mankind, become responsible for the establishment of Socialism.

The task of utilising and extending all the advantages that have been achieved under capitalism can only be accomplished by those who understand its technical and scientific parts, those who have built it up by hand and brain, and are responsible for the working of the system from day to day, the only useful class; the working-class. That class has only to learn that it can produce and distribute for society far better without the incubus of trade, and without the repressive actions of class government, by their own democratic organisation. Without these encumbrances they could soon be free from the present nightmare of poverty and atom bombs.

F. Foan

Mr. Aldred — An Explanation (1952)

From the June 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our issue for March we published an article, “Muddled Critic of the S.P.G.B.,” commenting on some remarks about the S.P.G.B. made by Mr. Guy Aldred in his journal “The Word.”

In the April issue of “The Word” Mr. Aldred published our article in full and said that he intends to reply to it in his next issue.

In the meantime, in the April issue, he deals angrily with one passage in our article. Mr. Aldred had earlier written that the attitude of the S.P.G.B. at the 1951 election was “the result of its 1950 experience at the ballot-box.”

To this we replied: —

   "The S.P.G.B. was doing this right from its formation in 1904, which means that it was doing it at the time when Mr. Aldred applied for membership of the S.P.G.B., and in 1928 when he offered to give his support to S.P.G.B. candidates on certain conditions." .

Mr. Aldred says that we have knowingly made false statements, firstly in saying that he applied for membership, and secondly in saying that he did so in 1904. He says he did not apply for membership and that the incident in question did not happen in 1904 but in 1906.

Taking first the question of the year, may we suggest to Mr. Aldred that instead of getting so excited about our alleged mis-statement of the date, he should read again our statement reproduced above. It did not mention the date of the incident. What it aimed to convey was that as the S.P.G.B.’s attitude was the same ever since its formation in 1904, his application, whatever its date, must have been at a time when the S.P.G.B. held that attitude.

Mr. Aldred’s main objection is, however, to the statement that he applied for membership. In referring to this we notice that he does not give his readers his own version of the incident though he refers them to the Socialist Standard of November, 1906, for information contained in letters written by him.

We wrote without looking up the November, 1906 correspondence, and find that in fact Mr. Aldred did not apply for membership at that time. What he did was to write informing us that he was at once resigning from the Social Democratic Federation and wanted a membership form of the S.P.G.B. On the same day he wrote to the S.D.F. a letter spying: “I shall apply to the Socialist Party of Great Britain for membership.”

He followed this up two days later with a letter to the Socialist Standard explaining how, after opposing the ' S.P.G.B. in the past, “ I feel I owe an explanation to your readers for having accepted its principles.”

A fortnight later he wrote again saying that he had decided after all to remain in the S.D.F. “to use the S.D.F. platform for placing before members those revolutionary ideas.”

This last letter also contained the following: — 

  “So far as organised representation is concerned, I will only add that, in my opinion, the S.P.G.B. embodies in its constitution, the best organised expression of class-conscious socialism."

So Mr. Aldred didn’t apply for membership. He agreed with the S.P.G.B., and intended to apply for membership and wrote for a membership form, and then changed his mind and decided to remain in the S.D.F. putting S.P.G.B. views and risking expulsion. But he didn’t apply for membership because having decided to leave the S.D.F. and apply to join the S.P.G.B. he changed his mind again though he still agreed with the S.P.G.B.

We can only wonder why Mr. Aldred makes so much fuss about it

Editorial Committee

A Visit To Lancashire (1952)

From the July 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Very tired, I strolled out of London Road Station, Manchester. Its tall grim buildings lent small contrast to the litter-ridden streets. It was cold, and grime hung to every wall. Not yet 7 a.m., and already the streets were cluttered with people—or are these workers people? Early bent with age, the sickening look of lifelong servitude clouds their faces; old macs, lifeless trousers, and a quick walk; working automatons, fed and kept to make a profit for their bosses.

At that early hour cars were still asleep and their wealthy owners turned weary heads around soft pillows. Crowded buses filled the roads and as if to pack them tight, bicycles long past their age of safety cut everywhere between them.

Later, as my train pulled out of Victoria Station, I realised how little changed was Manchester. There seemed to be small concern about the slump which was gnawing at its guts: 100,000 on short time, 30,000 dismissed.

My next stop was Rochdale, and here the sight was more depressing. I saw groups of men standing on street corners, hands in pockets, wondering “What next? Perhaps we will soon be hearing the old Tory cry: 'these men are lazy, they do not want to work, unemployment will do them good.' ” A local lavatory attendant a little later expressed this view: “They have had their way long enough, now let the bosses have their turn. Most of them don't want to work, that’s why they were sacked first." I was reminded of what Mr. H. Kershaw, Assistant Secretary of the Weavers' Association, said a fortnight ago at a meeting in Stockport: “We don't want something for nothing, we want the right to work." It is the old story returning, the story of the years between the wars.

I saw an old woman turn down a narrow unwelcoming street carrying a parcel. I looked along the road and about thirty yards to the left I saw three balls hanging on the wall arched against all weathers. The old woman turned in the door. I looked over the curtained window, was not satisfied and walked in. Six tired unhappy females were parting with chattels. On the walls were notices: “No females’ clothes accepted." “Medals not wanted," “Watches not accepted unless in working order." Behind the counter was the “philanthropist," his hard lines betraying all that was worst in capitalism.

I made an excuse and walked out, and nearly pushed some bread and jam into a little girl’s face. “You're enjoying yourself' I said. She ignored me. “Your lunch?" I asked. “Yes." “Why eat it in the street?" “ Dad's eating his and there ain't enough, so Mum sent me and Bill out" She turned and ran away.

I went back into the high street and surveyed the crowds. How many of them remember that just two years ago they were being told that never again would there be unemployment, prosperity was assured for at least another ten years? And now, out of the 18 big mills in Stockport, 11 are closed and the rest are working two or three days a week. In the small town of Heywood, 1266 are unemployed. The News Chronicle editorial (10th May) says (referring to Oldham) that out of 38,000 workers 6,000 are unemployed, thousands more are only partly employed and the fully employed comprise mere hundreds. The Manchester Evening Chronicle (14th May) states that hundreds of thousands of shirts are being unloaded on Lancashire retailers at below cost There have been crowded meetings of workers all over the county, demanding that the Government take action and asserting that they will not allow the industry to return to the state it was in the '30s. In Bolton the average number of operatives stopped during the last eight weeks has been 42 per cent. Mr. E. Mella, president of the Oldham Operative Spinners Association, opening a conference at Blackpool on May Day, said that the two weeks holiday with pay had come at an unfortunate time and the per cent. of total earnings which was granted for holiday money would under present conditions be of no use because many workers have been out of work for several weeks, and even if the agreement gave them 20 per cent they would still have no money. Also at this conference of the United Textile Factory Workers Association the secretary said: “We have not seen the worst of the slump; unless something is done to clear the high-priced goods, our industry is faced with a complete shut down for several weeks in the summer."

My next move was to visit a local furniture saleroom, as I wanted to compare prices with London. I considered that owing to the complicated and unique position that second-hand goods hold, their prices would vary very strongly with the law of supply and demand, having no ordinary cost basis behind them to stop them selling below their cost price—they are therefore much more at the mercy of market conditions than new goods. I was proved correct: goods were being sold for a song, the auctioneer was hard pressed to get 5s. for small lots. The audience gasped at some of the ridiculous prices, but with no money they could not buy.

I made trips to Royton and Oldham, but conditions were much the same, the slump was on everyone's lips.

Now I looked at some of the statements being made by our textile experts and economists. Space unfortunately only permits me to quote a few of their recent utterances.

George Hosty, President of the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners Association (the Chronicle, 10/5/52) thinks reduction in costs is the solution.

Mr. A. Knowles, Secretary of Oldham Operative Spinning Association (Oldham Evening Chronicle, 13/5/52) said: “I am satisfied that textile goods are as cheap as they ever will be. I think it is time the public started to buy.”

Liverpool Daily Post (14/5/52) editorial states that in just over a year the price of wool has been halved and instead of retail demand picking up, the commodity has plunged the textile industry into suffering through lack of orders.

Mr. A. Knowles again (Oldham Evening Chronicle, 13/5/52) says that 25 per cent purchase tax cuts are chicken feed.

Manchester Evening News (13/5/52) says that traders consider Butler’s purchase tax cuts would unsettle the market and start further price landslides. The editorial of the same edition says that any concession, however small, must be welcome.

In the face of these contradictions, it is obvious that these people have no idea what the slump is all about, and it is doubtful if they would be interested anyway. They will try the old cures while the depression grows even if its tentacles strangle the whole of the capitalist world.

S. Roseneil

"Death of a Salesman" (1952)

Film Review from the August 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Death of a Salesman, directed by László Benedek (1951)

This film version of the successful play was recently generally released (though not to the main circuits) and is well worth a visit to one of the few cinemas that will show it. Its theme is somewhat different from the conventional Hollywood dramas and it has a social significance that is all too rare in films. It is the story not merely of Willie Loman, ageing merchandise salesman, but of the whole business of buying and selling in a highly competitive society. Usually, screen characters are shown as wholly “good” or “bad” and undergoing no significant change in outlook as a result of what happens to them. For once we see, in this film, recognition of the fact that men are largely made what they are by the sort of environment in which they have to live.

Willie Loman, superbly played by Frederic March, is portrayed as a failure who refuses to believe that he is not the success that he thinks he should be. At sixty-three, having been “on the road” all his working life, he is worn out, more mentally than physically, through having tried to make himself well known, well liked and remembered by his customers. He makes a fetish of the “power of personality” as a factor in business success. He is, in Hollywood jargon, “all mixed up” and is shown as re-living past episodes and talking in his imagination to people he knows. In one scene he wonders if he has brought up his two sons to believe in the right things, and has an imaginary conversation with his dead, but successful, brother about them. Brother Ben, to show that you must be tough to make your fortune in this world, invites one of the boys to take a punch at him, and after a short struggle the boy is on the ground with a cane pointing in his face. Then come words which should haunt the memories of all who have lauded the merits of the scramble for wealth and power—"Never fight fair with a stranger in the jungle."

The film pulls no punches in depicting the sort of behaviour and situations that result from the condition of cut-throat Capitalism, though unfortunately (but not unexpectedly) it does not refer to the system directly. It has presumably been given an “X” certificate (adults only) because of the suicide, and its failure to disguise the prostitute as the usual “barmaid” or “ hostess.” Other touches of realism are the references to the hand-to-mouth existences of the vast majority of people, even in the “prosperous” cities of America. Faced with the problem of meeting the last payments on his car and refrigerator, Willie remarks, “ It seems they make these things so they’re worn out just when you finish making the payments on them.”

Part of the story deals with the efforts of his two sons to earn their hirings on the basis of their father’s teaching about success, and the importance of being well liked as the royal road to it. One of them has had a number of jobs, most recently working on a farm, and is keen to become an executive with the firm for which he once worked as a shipping-clerk. The fatherly advice includes “Don’t tell him you worked on a farm—say you were in business in the West”— typical of the fantasy and deception that abound in the whole business world.

When, having lost his job, Willie makes it obvious that he intends to commit suicide, his uncle tries to talk him out of it by saying that no one is worth anything dead. But Willie, whose life is insured for 20,000 dollars, knows otherwise. At his graveside his uncle says, “Willie was a salesman and as a salesman he traded in dreams." Yet nobody, no matter how accustomed to the almost ritual happy endings, could really believe that with the death of one salesman had died the evil which was the underlying theme of the film.

The purpose of this review is not to prove that such films as “Death of a Salesman” are a form of propaganda for Socialism. Not for one moment does this particular film hold out the prospect of a world in which the necessity to buy and sell would not exist. But it does, at any rate, constitute a powerful criticism of the capitalist way of life and reinforces the arguments of socialists against prolonging it.

Stan.

Racing For Markets (1952)

From the September 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Behind the thrill and excitement of motor racing, lies yet another example of the means used to satisfy the ever growing necessity to maintain and increase export markets. The constant stream of vehicles pouring out of motor factories must be disposed of, and what better advertisement is there for a firm in pursuance of this purpose than to show prowess on the race track. This year’s Le Mans, the 24-hour race for production cars, ended in a triumph for the German Mercedes-Benz Company, and Mr. Robert Raymond, writing in the Picture Post (28th June) has this to say on the matter:

   "The result of the Le Mans 24-hour race comes, unfortunately, not as a shock, but as a confirmation of an uneasiness many thoughtful people feel about the British attitude to motor racing.
   “One can make out a case for the casual and truly amateur British attitude to most sports, but motor racing is more than a sport, it is a business—a big and serious business.
   “And success or failure in an international race has far-reaching effects on one of our biggest export industries.
  “Remembering this, one cannot shrug off Le Mans . . .  After the B.R.M. fiasco this débâcle has done untold damage to our prestige and exports abroad.”

Mr. Raymond has obviously no illusions as to which aspect of motor racing is the most important. The race track, besides being the scene of first-class driving, is also a battle-ground of commerce, where the friendly rivalry of sportsmen is overcast by the dark shadow of the profit motive, producing rivalry of a very different kind, which often ends in disaster, and sometimes—greatest disaster of all—war.

Behind the careering chariot of Capitalism in its race for markets comes the working class, chained by their ignorance to a system which does not and cannot run in their interests, but is only the cause of their troubles. It is time you broke the chain, took the wheel yourselves, and drove all out for Socialism.

It is up to you.

Ian Jones

An American Troopship (1952)

From the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The S.S. “United States,” by crossing the Atlantic in shorter time than any liner previously, became eligible for the Blue Riband trophy.

At both Le Havre and Southampton there were great celebrations.

The accomplishment of this magnificently constructed ship caused pleasure and a feeling of pride to many people, both in this country and abroad. It is therefore understandable that so much interest has been displayed in the performance of the vessel and in the celebrations that followed.

After hearing for so many years of the marvels produced for the purposes of war, it must have been refreshing news to hear of a feat of modem engineering ship construction that the design and building of the “United States”. undoubtedly represents, being produced for apparently purely civilian purposes.

To those who revel in this artless view it would probably come as an awakening draught to know that the planners designed the liner as a troopship.

An article in the July issue of “Readers’ Digest” gives some interesting though sinister facts about this awesome super-liner of steel and aluminium. The warship designing firm of Gibbs & Cox spent over one million dollars from 1944 to 1948 before plans were finally complete.

Two plans for the ship were developed simultaneously, one for a troopship and one for a passenger liner. Whenever the two conflicted the troopship plan was followed. When the Navy wanted special stairways, air ducts, safety doors, control stations, the Navy got them. In one of the smoking rooms the decorators wanted to put some windows looking out to sea over the stern. The Navy objected on the grounds that it would weaken the structure. The decorators then suggested leather panels but the Navy objected on the grounds that these were not fireproof.

With a beam of 101½ feet the “ United States” can squeeze through the Panama Canal, whereas the “Queen Mary” with a beam of 118 feet, cannot.

Her underwater hull remains a secret. By mistake a photo once slipped into a trade magazine, but the edition was destroyed before it was distributed. She was built in a dry dock, not on conventional launching ways. When the guests arrived for the christening, they found that the water bad already been let into the dock so that the lower hull was covered. Her speed and horsepower are also secret.

Her operation is so efficient that she could go from San Francisco to the coast of Asia, drop 14,000 troops with equipment, and return home without refuelling.

The United States Lines put up $28,000,000, the Government $42,000,000.

Although as a liner the ship will carry 2,000 passengers, the plumbing, kitchens and ventilation are built to accommodate 14,000.

Under a socialist system of society this waste of labour on unproductive war equipment schemes will stop, and with it the mental strain that the preparations for war create.

Frank Offord

The Morecambe Labour Party Conference (1952)

From the November 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Morecambe was for the Labour Party less a ground for common political activity than a battleground of warring factions and rival political ambitions. There were a number of casualties.

Among the “casualties” were Mr. Morrison and Mr. Dalton. Both failed to get re-elected to the Labour Party executive. In the executive voting, that doughty working class warrior Mr. Bevan headed the “lists” to a fanfare of cheers and clapping. Others elected to executive posts were those horny handed sons of toil, Messrs. Driberg, Wilson, Mikardo and Crossman, who rode on the Bevan band-wagon.

The two great rival standard bearers were Bevan and Morrison. Bevan’s contribution was never more than a piece of conference tub thumping; Morrison's never less than the slick performance of the accomplished party hack.

Of Mr. Attlee it could hardly be said that the conference was his finest hour. He preferred the somewhat enigmatic role of a political Nero, content to doodle while Morecambe was alight In contrast to Bevan’s frothy utterances his contribution was as flat as last night’s beer.

A spectacle, now a commonplace at Labour Party conferences, was that of ex-ministers reverently touching their political rosaries and dedicating themselves to “socialist ideals.” Then followed the usual attempt to squeeze the quart of socialist ideals into the pint bottle of capitalism.

There was a demand from delegates for more nationalisation and “socialist” measures. Doubtless Mr. Morrison and other Labour leaders are ruefully realising that it is easier for people to learn political nostrums than to unlearn them. These leaders having misinformed workers in the past that nationalisation was the panacea for their problems, now blandly inform them that these problems cannot be automatically solved by the mere transference of industries from private to public ownership. What, according to Mr. Morrison is most important, is not so much that industries should be nationalised but that “they should be efficient.”

For generations Labourites have been reared on the mother’s milk of old time Fabian planning. Now the milk has turned sour. “Planning for planning’s sake” it seems is merely a pipe dream for political opium smokers.

Mr. Morrison and others have now discovered more “prior and urgent” problems than nationalisation. Problems such as trade balances, exports and the need for increased output in order to meet foreign competition successfully especially the German and Japanese variety. These “urgent and prior problems” were just as urgent and prior for Capitalism when Mr. Morrison and other Labour leaders were merely up and coming politicians.

Nevertheless the fact that Labour politicians have discovered some simple economic facts about Capitalism, has, according to sections of the press, elevated them to the status of statesmen.

From the tone of the speeches of ex-ministers in explaining to delegates these simple facts, one might imagine they were addressing children. Listening to the criticism levelled at them on occasions by delegates, they may have thought that there are times when children should be seen and not heard.

Although conference instructed the executive to compile a further list of industries to be nationalised, Mr. Robertson for the United Textile Factory Workers' Association opposed an amendment asking for the nationalisation of the cotton industry. He urged conference "not to embarrass a Labour Government in that way.”

Although Mr. Bevan himself was in favour of more nationalisation, etc., Bevanite Mr. Mikardo in submitting a resolution asking for the building trade to be nationalised, said, “They might find the industry better suited to competitive public enterprise than nationalisation outright." Mrs. Braddock, M.P., reminded conference that "the person who opposed most strongly the nationalisation of the building industry with his usual bad faith was Mr. Bevan, when he was Minister of Health.”

Mr. Morrison touched a new political low when he attempted to make working class political ignorance the whipping boy of the Labour Government’s failure to fulfil its promises. He said “We have got to change the minds and hearts and souls of men and women so that they think in terms of socialist ethics and the old capitalist outlook that millions have, has passed away.”

This is certainly the devil citing scripture for his own purposes with a vengeance. Mr. Morrison’s own contribution to working class understanding is gravely on the debit side of his political balance sheet. Mr. Morrison’s role in the ranks of the working class has been that of a fifth columnist. By plausibly presenting to workers a planned capitalist—as good as socialism —model, he and others like him have obscured and distorted basic working class issues. The work of teaching Socialism has thus been made infinitely harder.

The shadow-play of political rivalry thrown on the Morecambe screen is not a reflection of any basic differences within the Labour Party. Dr. Bevan with his finger on the pulse of working class discontent prescribes bigger doses of nationalisation, Mr. Morrison not to be outdone retorted that “the Labour Party would never rest until it had nationalised all the means of production, distribution and exchange.”

Mr. Bevan wants a smaller armament programme than that laid down by the last Labour Government, yet it was Mr. Bevan himself who piloted Labour's defence programme through the House of Commons. Then he begged people not to "jeer about the armament programme we are putting under way.” He added, “we shall carry it out; we shall fulfil our obligations to our friends and allies.”

Ironically enough, owing to the difficulties which have arisen over balance of payments since the Tories came in, they have been compelled to cut considerably the yearly expenditure on armaments. The “socialist” Bevan is not opposed to war preparation. He only wants to reduce the cost entailed. Incidentally his proposed peace-time expenditure on armaments involves greater sums of money than those spent in peace time by Tory or Liberal Governments.

Mr. Bevan’s militancy is not, as imagined by his supporters, a realistic step forward for the Labour Party but a retreat to its romantic pioneering past. Then, the Labour Party could indulge in pseudo socialist phraseology, with its promise of “changing things nearer to the heart's desire.” It is this vague working class sentiment that Mr. Bevan seeks to tap.

In the good old days of the Labour Party the “Labour Commonwealth” was a distant goal wrapped in mist and obscurity. Nevertheless Labour was on the march! There may have been differences, even dissidents, within the ranks, but the road was accommodatingly broad. Swings to the “left” or "right” made little difference. They were all bound for the same place.

Now they have arrived and the New Jerusalem is but old Babylon writ large. The Welfare State turns out to be the merest Utility Utopia.

“The New Social Era” has all the old working class problems—poverty, insecurity, low wages, high prices and the threat of war. The outward pressure of capitalism produces within the Labour Party its fissions and rifts.

In order to ease off working class political pressure the Labour Party would like to go further. But they have nowhere to go. Because one basic reason for their existence is their claim that they can go one better than the Tories, they have to simulate the semblance if not the reality of being in the vanguard of social progress. The Tories in turn pose as the great stabilising force of British political life. Their appeal to the working class is consequently pitched in a slightly lower key. Their political strategy merely consists of waiting for the inevitable disappointments that result from a term of Labour Government and then adroitly manipulating them for the purpose of winning the next election.

Bevan is merely a symptom of the failure of Labour Party reformism to make a world fit for ordinary men and women to live in. He is the price Labour leaders pay for their political sins. His role in the Labour Party is the old familiar one of today’s rebel being tomorrow’s leader.

The resentment and frustration felt by the Labour rank and file has placed high cards in his hand. Yet even if he succeeds in winning the game against the old leadership he in turn will become vulnerable.

Little wonder that many Labour Party members are acquiring a nostalgia for the past. Truly, for those who pin their hopes on reformism it is always the case —“That it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive.”

Ted Wilmott

Radio Commentary (1952)

From the December 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Book by the fire,” Light Programme, 5 p.m. on K Sundays, during the winter months.

In the “Radio Times” this programme is listed as “a series of weekly talks by Alan Melville about recently published books he has enjoyed, with dramatised illustrations acted by . . ." and here follows a list of the various actors and actresses who are contributing to these epic cameos. The companion programme which runs during the summer months is called “Book in the sun.” These talks are not a straightforward review or criticism of the books mentioned in the programme. They are put forward because they have met with the approval of the speaker, and are supposed to send you galloping off down to the Library. In these circumstances they receive a tremendous degree of publicity which it is difficult to reconcile with the much vaunted policy of the B.B.C., “no advertising.” The books are mostly fiction, a few “Whodunits,” some biographies and true stories of exploration and travel.

On Sunday, 2nd November, this programme touched a new low when Alan Melville brought to our notice a collection of short stories about an Italian priest. Some of the tales, he said, had a certain amount of political significance, which he wanted to avoid. He thereupon related the story of the aforesaid priest and an angel which perched on the spire of his village church. We received the impression that Mr. Melville wholeheartedly approved of the significance and sanctity of these symbols in general and this one in particular.

The second book to earn Mr. Melville’s commendation is written by one of those “pukka Sahibs” to whom we owe so much in “our” far flung Empire. He gives unstinted praise to Mr. Grimble, the modest and diffident chap who goes forth to lead the faltering footsteps of one of those “inferior races.” This officer drops clangers, belittles his own efforts, but “makes out ” in the end. Mr. Melville thinks he is a great guy and “where would the British Empire be if it weren’t for him and others like him? ” The programme concludes with a nauseatingly sentimental scene, acted by the players. To the sound of subdued chanting, a very old native woman of the Islands, gives drooling thanks to the British and this particular officer for ending war between the tribes, thus ensuring for her oodles of grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Since the British have arrived, she says, peace has prevailed.

This must be one of the exceptions that proves the rule, as Great Britain’s record of imperialism and exploitation will testify.

Our hours of relaxation are few, and Mr. Melville’s somewhat corny literary recommendations singularly unattractive.

It has been truly said that one man’s meat is another man’s poison, and the discriminating listener can always resort to the switch. This programme has a certain propaganda value, being a mixture of fact and fiction. Many people unconsciously fail to separate the two when forming their opinions. As the foregoing shows, Mr. Melville is orthodox, mid-Victorian and sentimental. In addition he has an archly humorous method of speaking, a pill which could be digested uncomplainingly if the main dish were a trifle more appetising.

Further to the question of propaganda, it is not possible to assess the influence on the public of books, films and the theatre in formulating their opinions and ideas. The recent drift of the “spy” or “villain” from German to Russian nationality adds up to a gradual conditioning of the people to the idea of war with that nation.

F. M. Robins

The Socialist Labor Party Runs Away. (1930)

From the January 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

In previous issues of The Socialist Standard we have challenged the Weekly People of New York to quote any reference Where Marx made the statement quoted by them on Trade Unionism. Many issues of the People have appeared, but we still wait for an answer. The only attempt made by them to refer to our challenge was in the issue of August 10th, where the National Secretary, Arnold Petersen, spends a column and a quarter on abusing us, but fails to meet the challenge.

The statement which they allege Marx to have made was as follows :—

  Only the Trade Union is capable of setting on foot a true political party of labor and thus raise a bulwark against the power of Capital.

For many years the S.L.P. used this “quotation” to justify their advocacy of an industrial union which could take and hold the means of production. They also used it to support their argument that only an economic organisation could “take and hold” and that a political party was doomed to defeat without an economic organisation ready to supply the “might.”

The S.L.P. say that they got the "quotation" from a magazine which is opposed to Marxism—their only "authority” is a reform journal called The New Yorker Volkzeitung, run by the German section of the social democrats of New York. This was a paper which De Leon never tired of denouncing—but in face of our challenge they fall back on that paper as their authority.

To avoid dealing with our challenge The Weekly People talk about something else.

We quoted “Value, Price & Profit,” to show that Marx had no illusions about Unions being the instrument of emancipation. When dealing there with the limitation of hours of work he said:—

  As to the limitation of the working day in England, as in all other countries, it has never been settled, except by legislative interference. Without the working men’s continuous pressure from without, that interference would never have taken place. But, at all events, the result was not to be attained by private settlement between the working men and the Capitalists. This very necessity of general political action affords the proof that in its merely economic action, Capital is the stronger side.

This quotation amply shows his view of the weakness of economic action. But the S.L.P. say that it only refers to action under Capitalism. If, however, the economic action of the workers is unable to win in the smaller battles under Capitalism how much less could economic action "take and hold” the means of wealth production!

Instead of meeting this point, The Weekly People quote the last few lines of ”Value, Price & Profit,” which tell the Trade Unions that they should use their organised forces “as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class—that is to say, the ultimate abolition of the wages system.”

In their article, The People assert that Marx stated that the economic organisation was the lever of emancipation. Nowhere did Marx make such a statement. The Socialist Party does not deny that the Trade Unions can assist in the struggle, but we hold with Marx that political action is the stronger action. We hold with Marx that the FIRST step in the emancipation of the working class “is to win political power.” (See Communist Manifesto.)

The People's quotation from “Value, Price & Profit,” has no reference whatever to the mare's nest discovered by the S.L.P. —that only the economic organisation can set on foot the political party of Labour.

Adolph Kohn

A Labour Party Promise and a Capitalist Admission. (1930)

From the February 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Tom Shaw, speaking at Wandsworth on December 16th, 1929, gave the following interesting pledge on behalf of the Labour Party: —

  We make no apology for saying that the instant we are powerful enough to do it, poverty shall be abolished.

—(“Evening News,” 17th Dec.) 

The “Evening News,” in an editorial, expressed its doubts about the matter :—

  That is not the maundering of a street-corner spell-binder. It is the considered utterance of Mr. Tom Shaw, one of His Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State in the Labour Government and incidentally the man who once complained piteously that he could not produce a remedy for unemployment “ like rabbits out of a hat.”
  We make no apology for saying that though Mr. Shaw and his friends should be returned to Parliament with no opposition at all poverty will not be abolished. We venture to add that the type of mind that could produce such a statement as Mr. Shaw made at Wandsworth last night will never decrease poverty, let alone abolish it.

We are strongly of the opinion that the “Evening News” is right; we also do not think that the Labour Party will succeed in fulfilling Mr. Shaw’s promise. We are quite certain that poverty will not, and cannot, be abolished under Capitalism, although the administration of the system is in the hands of “Labour” men. But what surprises us is the further admission of the "Evening News” that the problem has not been solved in the U.S.A., which the “Evening News” is always telling us to imitate.

  We might begin by reminding Mr. Shaw that the world has never been without poverty and that in the United States to-day, the richest nation in material wealth that the world has ever known, there is plenty of it—not relative poverty merely, but want and destitution.

Next time we are invited to copy American methods, perhaps the “Evening News” will tell us in what way “want and destitution" in the U.S.A. are preferable to “want and destitution” in the United Kingdom."

Socialism and the Economic "Experts". (1930)

From the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many people to whom Socialist teachings seem unanswerable and in every way satisfactory, are still reluctant to accept the Socialist case because they cannot believe that Capitalist theories can be unsound and yet be accepted by so many clever men, economists, financial and industrial experts, professors, scientists, and so on. They ask us how we can be so confident that we are right when so many apparently great economists say that we are wrong.

Our answer is two-fold. We claim in the first place that the only final test of a theory is that it should explain the facts and not be out of keeping with the facts. So, for example, we can quite confidently assert that the various theories which try to prove that permanent unemployment is impossible are shown to be wrong by the facts of permanent unemployment. Secondly, we ask you to remember that great reputations can be, to a large extent, created out of very little substance and that universities and such places, being dependent on the financial support of Capitalist Governments, wealthy companies, etc., do not shower honours on and give prominent posts to men whose ideas clash violently with the accepted ideas of Capitalism.

When we come to examine the theories of the learned men with whom we are especially concerned, the economists, we find that there are one or two facts which alone should justify the abandonment of that attitude of worshipping their declarations as If they were above criticism. Firstly, we observe that these "great” men rarely agree among themselves; secondly, their inability to give useful advice in practical problems is notorious; and thirdly, they themselves on occasion admit the unsatisfactory nature of their whole body of doctrines.

We give below two quotations which illustrate these points. The first is taken from a review, published in the New Statesman, of a recent book by Professor Edwin Cannan, who is one of the most famous of living economists. The book is his "Review of Economic Theory.” The reviewer calls Professor Cannan the "Economic Socrates,” and says :—

  Let no one, then, go to this Review of Economic Theory in the hope of discovering in it new truth of a positive sort. It may help readers to new truth, but only indirectly, through the exposure of old error. This, however, it achieves with signal success. Professor Cannan has no difficulty at all in proving his case that economic theory has been throughout its life, and is still, in a state of deplorable confusion, and that not only do the text-books talk a great deal of utter nonsense, but even the classical practitioners of the art or science are in a terribly muddled condition. His handling of Marshall is as devastating as his handling of Mill; and his comments on Marshall's living disciples are mostly to the effect that they have made the confusion worse. This is a real service; for economics stand in real need of an iconoclast, and an economic Socrates may well be the indispensable forerunner of an economic Plato. (The New Statesman, Oct. 19, 1929.)

Our next quotation is taken from "The Founders of Political Economy,” by Jan St. Lewinski, D.Ec.Sc., Professor of Political Economy in the University of Lublin, Poland. The book was published in 1922 by P. S. King & Son, Ltd. :—

   The Great War has clearly shown of what little use all our economic knowledge has been where most simple theoretical problems had to be solved. When, for instance, the question if after the war the rate of interest will be high or low became acute, writers began to discuss what capital really is, and each gave a different definition and different solutions of the problem. In Germany economic writers of high standing, as, for instance, the Vice-Chancellor and former Professor of Political Economy at the University of Berlin, Helfferich claimed that Germany can wage war indefinitely because “money remains in the country." They imagined that money expended in financing military operations would return in form of war loans, and that this circle could last for centuries. Almost all economists in Germany believed in the truth of this absurd doctrine, and only the University of Breslau, which was a little doubtful about it, organised an inquiry on the subject.
  All the rich economic literature which had been accumulating for more than a century could not afford a solution of a problem which really belongs to the A B C of our science. Could anything illustrate better the deplorable state of political economy? (Page 167.)

The next time somebody tells you that Socialist theory must be unsound because this or the other professor of economics says so, you may reject that the views of these gentlemen on the subject of Socialism would carry more weight if they had first succeeded in reducing to order the chaotic jumble of theories which make up their own department of study.

Edgar Hardcastle

Socialism and Psychology: An Open Letter to a Critic. (1930)

From the April 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear X,

You ask me what I am doing for the community, and whether I have not underestimated the important differences of type or character in human beings which you consider such a formidable obstacle to the establishment of Socialism. I will try and answer your questions.

In the first place, let me direct your attention to the fact that the “community,” for which you expect me to do something, is sharply divided into two distinct classes, one of which owns the means of living of the other. Do not take my word for this! Professor Clay (I know you are impressed by Professors), a most respectable person, told us, on February 19th, 1925, in the sober columns of the Manchester Guardian, that less than 6 per cent. of the population held four-fifths of the national capital and received nearly half the national income. Just think that over carefully and you will cease to wonder that the majority of people are poor, no matter how hard they toil.

No psychologist has ever yet discovered how to live upon fresh air! He or she always wants food in his or her tummy, clothes to prevent arrest, if nothing else, and a "home” ! And to-day, the means whereby food, clothing and shelter are produced are owned in the main by considerably less than a tenth of the population.

The vast mass of the community feed and breed only by permission of the tiny section which owns the resources (land, factories, machinery, etc.), without which feeding and breeding are impossible to-day; and the conditions upon which this permission is granted are that the propertyless ones shall toil for the profit of those who own and control the means of existence.

The members of the class to which you and I belong surrender the product of their toil to their kind employers, who graciously return to them a sum of money capable of buying back goods to the value of only a fraction of their product. The masterclass (mostly composed of inactive shareholders) are enabled to live in luxury and also amass fresh capital to make still more profit.

This has not always been so. In the Middle Ages the class which attempted to live by trade and money-lending was despised and persecuted by the feudal lords and their vassal land-holders, and condemned by the Church. One day, when you have nothing better to do, you might ask your psychological tutor to explain the curious volte-face on the part of the reformed Church towards the taking of interest. As he believes that the human mind is an independent entity, which develops regardless of material conditions and social environment, I can readily imagine some entertaining mental contortions on his part. To maintain any degree of consistency he will have to maintain that—the Church received a sudden revelation from those "forces” which are hidden so mysteriously somewhere "behind the universe” ! But the above is only one of the many changes in social life and in men's corresponding ideas and customs.

Go far back in history and you will come to a time when neither money nor territory nor chattels but kinship formed the root condition of social organisation, and it is from this misty past that the creatures of religious fancy take their rise.

In those days a few crude tools and weapons were men's only equipment against nature (animal, vegetable and mineral), yet even these represented ages of experiment. Ideas of practical utility were hard to come by and slow in growth, and so, men's wishes outstripped their acts and built up an imaginary world transcending ordinary human limitations wherein men's shades became transfigured into gods. It is from this primitive ignorance of men that the concept of a "soul” (or psyche) was derived. The individual was credited with possessing an immortal shadow or second self, which controlled his body as a man operates any other inert object. “Mind” was held to dominate “matter,” and the “modern” psychologist, who clings tenaciously to this superstition does but proclaim how little, in this respect, he has progressed beyond the savage.

The materialistic Socialist, however, reviewing human history perceives how overwhelming has been the effect of economic development upon the habits of mankind and how, in practice, Christians and other metaphysicians have flown in the face of their avowed doctrines in the pursuit of their material interests.

The ruling classes throughout history have imposed systems of discipline and so-called education upon their subjects which would be meaningless if man’s “soul” controlled man’s behaviour. Is the “immortal” susceptible to training and the environment of the school? But let us return to our boiled beef and carrots!

The class to which you and I belong consists of individuals whose characters are as varied as their physical make-ups. In this respect it does not differ from the master-class nor, indeed, from any class that has ever existed. From this fact it is clear that social position does not rest upon individual character. A man is either a worker or a capitalist, not because he has a peculiar temperament or disposition, but because his environment and history have so determined. To explain the difference between him and others we can only refer to this same environmental history. Try how we will we cannot discover any mysterious entity which decides that certain individuals shall dig coal for a living while others clip coupons. In short, the illusion that “character is destiny” sums up the stupid conceit of the master-class, who childishly fancy that ”God” or “Fate” has blessed them with “superior natures.” They mistake the effect for the cause, and imagine that their privileged position is due to their “culture,” instead of realising that their "culture ” is the fruit of their privileged position in society.

Socialists aim at the foundation of a system based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living. In such a society individuals will continue to vary, but it is in the common necessities of all that social life is rooted. Capitalist society has long since ceased to be consistent with the satisfactory distribution of these necessities. Hence the turmoil of modern social life. The "superior persons” of the master-class will, no doubt, resist the change as long as possible; but every ruling class in history has bitten the dust in due course when economic development has dug its grave. Psychological trickery may delay, it cannot prevent, the slow but sure awakening of the working-class, the class whose mission is to give to capitalism a conclusive exit to the land of shades.

Eric Boden

A Commentary on the Communist Manifesto (1930)

Book Review from the May 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels with an introduction and notes by D. Ryazanoff, Director of the Marx-Engels Institute, Moscow. Published by Martin Lawrence, Bedford Row, London, W.C., 15/-. (Special cheap edition, 6/-, obtainable through this office)

This work is the summary of lectures given in Russia by the head of the Marx-Engels Institute during 1921 and 1922. The book takes the form of a re-translation of the Communist Manifesto into English by Eden and Cedar Paul, and a series of historical and other notes commenting on the persons, events and policies dealt with in the manifesto itself. It includes a chronology of events in the “working class” movements from 1516-1871. The draft of a proposed manifesto for the Communist League by Frederick Engels, and also the Rules and Constitution of the League are reprinted in the book.

Two very interesting articles by Engels on the Communist League and the Revolutionary Movements of 1847, are given for the first time in English. There is also a reprint of a trial number of the Communist Journal of September, 1847, which was to be the London organ of the Workers' Educational Society, a body with whom Marx and Engels were associated.

The New Translation of the Manifesto.

Eden and Cedar Paul’s translation of the Communist manifesto is certainly no improvement on the authorised edition published in England by Reeves, translated by Samuel Moore, and revised by Engels. The language used by the new translators is not as simple and clear as the old. One or two examples will illustrate the curious efforts of the translators to use new and strange words in place of the easier and more popular English of the old translation. The new translation refers to the bourgeoisie and proletariat as “two great and directly contraposed classes,” whereas in the Reeves’ edition we have ”two great classes directly facing each other.” In place of ”political sway” in the Reeves’ edition, Eden and Cedar Paul put “political hegemony.” In the old translation the manifesto refers to the “scattered state of the population,” etc., but the new translation prefers to use such a difficult, ugly word as “fractionisation. ” Where the Reeves’ edition talks of "the abolition of existing property relations," the Pauls say, “pre-existent property relations." In another paragraph we get the formal lawyer-like language, “pre-existent private proprietary securities” to replace “previous securities for, and insurances of individual property.” Where the old translation refers to the wage-labourer, the new one adopts the harder phrase, “the proletarianised worker.” Many similar instances could be quoted to show that the translators have forgotten that this great historic manifesto was written for the working class and that the language should be as simple as possible. In one place where Marx refers to Communism abolishing the bourgeois family, the new translation makes Communism abolish the family!

Ryazanoff, however, is not responsible for the translation. In the Russian edition of his work he used Plechanoff’s translation of the manifesto.

The Commentary on the Manifesto.

The lengthy notes to illustrate and explain characters and events will be very useful for the student. Marx’s “Capital,” and also his “Poverty of Philosophy,” are drawn upon for quotations to help the reader. Engels' “Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844,” is much quoted by Ryazanoff to furnish the historical background of the manifesto in England.

The author of this work states that it is not the commentary on the manifesto that is really needed, but time has not permitted a more suitable work. His view as to what a commentary should be is quite correct and he hopes to be able to write a fuller work in the future. What the student needs is a history of the previous “Communist ” and allied movements and a history of the Early “Socialist ” theories, together with a study of the class struggles prevailing.

The manifesto is a historical work and can be best understood with a knowledge of the social and historical conditions that led up to it. The notes given by Ryazanoff will be useful as an outline.

There are many extracts from little known writings of Marx and Engels now translated for the first time in this book. Some of them on Christianity, Law, etc., will be reproduced in the Socialist Standard as space permits. The famous quotation containing Marx’s phrase, “Religion is the opium of the people,” is given from Marx’s Criticism of Hegel's' “ Philosophy of Rights.”

Proletarian Democracy!

The author comments on the well-known attitude of Marx in the manifesto that the workers must first of all win political supremacy—become the ruling class by winning the battle of democracy. Ryazanoff says this must be understood as “proletarian democracy,” but gives no evidence that Marx, meant anything different from what he said—“democracy.” Winning the battle of democracy in modern times means winning the majority of the population— which is the working class. Marx pointed out at the time in his article on Chartism (quoted in the March Socialist Standard), that the majority of voters in England under manhood suffrage would constitute the mass of the workers who could become politically supreme if they used their votes to do so.

If the workers are to win the battle of democracy and become supreme, then it is obvious that where the working class are the majority of the nation they become supreme by using existing democracy and not waiting till a new society is already established. The statement of the author that “democracy” here means “proletarian democracy” makes nonsense of Marx’s phrase, because the workers have to rise to power before they could (if they wished) disfranchise the capitalists.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Ryazanoff says that though the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” is not used in the Communist manifesto the basis of it is there. He says the phrase was coined after the 1848 revolution in Paris. But he forgets that in none of the many prefaces to the manifesto which Marx and Engels wrote in later years did they use the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat.” In two writings where it was used it was simply used to mean the rule of the working class in a society not ready for Socialism. In a private letter criticising the “free people’s State” Marx once used it and also in the early ’fifties in magazine articles on “Class Struggles in France.” The latter were not published in book form till 1895, long after Marx’s death. And it was in that work where Marx, dealing with the large peasantry and the small working class in France, said that if the workers got power there would be a “dictatorship of the proletariat."

"The Class Struggles in France” is a review of events from 1848-1850, and the views set out there depend upon the conditions of the time. Engels, in his long introduction, shows that minority action and the violent methods, advocated at the time Marx wrote the work, had been proved wrong by history, and that social changes had transformed completely the conditions under which the workers had to struggle. Engels advocates political action and also tells us that a democratic republic affords the best conditions for political success. He did not repeat the advice about dictatorship given by Marx nearly 50 years before. In none of the published works of Marx and Engels did they lay down dictatorship as the object of a working class party. As Engels says (“Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”), the working class seizes the power of the State and at once converts the means of production into social property. Whether we examine the Communist League, the International Working Men’s Association or any other body Marx was identified with; their object was always defined as the capture of political power by the working class.

Long after the Paris Commune of 1871 was over Engels wrote in the preface to Marx’s “Civil War in France (1871),” that in the Paris Commune, with its universal suffrage and democracy, you could see what the dictatorship of the proletariat was like.

Finally, we suggest to the head of the Marx-Engels Institute that the "smash the State" theory which he associates with Marx and Engels has no foundation in the philosophy of Marx and Engels. The most widely read book of Engels, written with the co-operation of Marx against Duhring (“Socialism: Utopian and Scientific"), says:

"The first action undertaken by the State as genuinely representative of society at large, the seizure of the means of production in the name of society at large, is simultaneously its last independent action as a State.” And he goes on to say, “The State is not 'abolished,’ it dies but.” (Ryazanoff translation).

Apart from the matters to which we have drawn attention, the book well deserves reading and will prove worthy of any worker’s, time.

One of its chief drawbacks is that it does not generally deal with the usefulness or otherwise, to-day, of the various measures or policies advocated in the manifesto.

The book is published at 15/-, but working class bodies can have a special edition at 6/-. It really should be published in cheap covers at about 2/-, so that most workers could get it.

Adolph Kohn