Obituary: Death of Comrade E. Wade (1939)

Obituary from the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

We regret to announce the death of Comrade E. Wade, who belonged for 14 years to the Tottenham Branch. He died on Saturday 22nd July at the age of 70, worn out after his hard life. In his earlier years in the Party he was a sailor and preached Socialism at every port of call. At home he was one of those who always attended propaganda meetings, and was a willing helper of the Party in every way within his powers. He will be greatly missed by his Socialist Comrades.

Men of Moscow (1940)

Editorial from the September 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

How the “Daily Worker” reported Molotov's Speech

In the main the Daily Worker gives ample space to reports of important speeches by members of the Russian Government, but on certain subjects the Daily Worker is rather sensitive, and the reports get treated accordingly. One of them is the Bolshevist-Nazi Pact. However they may attempt to excuse the Pact on grounds of power-politics the Communists cannot help feeling that it is inexcusable for those who call them Socialists and friends of the working-class to have friendly dealings with the Nazis.

Below is a report from the Manchester Guardian of Molotov’s references to Russian friendship with Hitler Germany and a “ common understanding ” with Fascist Italy.

  Germany.—The Soviet Pact with Germany was still in force, and all British efforts to weaken it had failed. The pact was not only of economic significance, he said, “but is also an assurance of German security in the East.”
  “We reiterate our opinion that the good neighbourly and friendly relations established between the Soviet and Germany are not based on fortuitous considerations of a transient nature, but on the fundamental interests of both nations.”
   Italy.—“Our relations with Italy have improved of late—an exchange of views has revealed that there is every possibility for our two countries to ensure a common understanding in foreign affairs, and also the grounds for an extension of trade relations.” — (Manchester Guardian, August 2nd.)

Another passage in Molotov’s speech was: —

  Events in Europe, far from reducing the strength of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact, on the contrary emphasised the importance of its existence and further development.—(Manchester Guardian, August 2nd.)

Now compare the above with the Daily Worker's short and uninformative version: —

  In his speech Molotov made it clear that relations with Germany were still good, and based on the interests of the two states. “There is no truth in rumours of friction.” Recently relations with Italy had improved. (Daily Worker, August 2nd.)

Editorial: An Offence to Destroy Food—But only in War-Time (1940)

Editorial from the September 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reviving a practice adopted during the last war, the Government has issued an order under which it is an offence to waste food. Heavy penalties, up to two years' imprisonment and a £500 fine, may be imposed on persons who wilfully or negligently damage or throw away anything “used by man for food or drink other than water," water being already covered by bye-laws. The order also makes it an offence if anyone having control or custody of food fails to take reasonable precautions for its preservation, or if anyone procures a larger quantity than is reasonably required for his purposes, and part becomes unfit for use.

It is recalled that during the last war a woman was fined £20 for giving meat to a St. Bernard dog, while another who fed 14 dogs on bread and milk was fined £5.

This seems all very reasonable. What could be more natural than that it should be illegal to destroy or waste food when there are human beings in need of it. But observe. The order to this effect introduced in the last war ceased when the war ended. No authorities stepped in to fine and imprison the individuals and companies responsible for destroying wheat and coffee, throwing fish back into the sea, feeding milk to pigs, and so on. Indeed, in some countries the destruction of foodstuffs to keep up prices was organised with the active support of State authorities themselves.

There is, indeed, something very unnatural about the social system that permitted such things.

A Tribute from the I.L.P. (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Socialist Party of Great Britain is right in its insistence that Socialism will come, not as the result of impersonal economic processes, not in consequence of the manipulation of the masses by astute demagogues, but only when the majority of the workers consciously desire Socialism.”—(New Leader, March 29th, 1941.)

Birth Control and Unemployment (1942)

From the September 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

“New Generation,” a journal which exists to popularise “the voluntary control of population in all countries,” prints in its July issue criticisms of articles in the June Socialist Standard. The gist of the criticisms is that unemployment is caused by density of population. “New Generation” writes as follows:—

  Let us next remark that unemployment would have been much rifer than it is now if it had not been for birth control. Since 1876 the birth rate has fallen from 36 to 14 per thousand. If unemployment is rife even with a birth rate of 14. what would it have been if the birth rate had remain at 36?

The theory behind this argument is that if the annual increase of population were larger than it is at present, the excess population could not find employment, or alternatively if they did find employment wages would be depressed. The first point of notice is that whereas the population in 1876 was under 36 millions it is now about 48 millions. From which we might deduce, according to the reasoning of the “New Generation,” that the additional 13 million would all be unemployed, or alternatively the wage level would be much lower than it was in 1876. But “New Generation” is not prepared to maintain either of these propositions, as will be seen from their two further statements:—

  There is no reason to believe that unemployment has increased within historical times.

and

 Birth control has not abolished unemployment, but it has enabled both the employed and the unemployed workers to have a far higher standard of life than they could have had if the birth rate had remained where it stood 65 years ago.

The fallacy of the theory of the birth controllers is in supposing that unemployment is a direct result of the size of population in a given area of land, thus ignoring the form of social organisation, capitalism. If their theory were correct how could the big fluctuations' of unemployment be explained, that take place without a material change of population? In June, 1924, registered unemployed numbered about one million. In June, 1932, the figure was not far short of three millions. In June, 1939, it was 1,350,000. It will take more than birth control to explain such fluctuations.

Unemployment actually grows because the capitalist, for the time, cannot sell his products at a profit, and this in turn accompanies a huge glut of products on the market. If, like the “New Generation,” we ignored capitalism and treated unemployment as if it resulted directly from population we could re-write the paragraph quoted at the beginning of this article, as follows:—
 
“Since 1876 the birthrate has fallen from 36 to 14 per thousand. There are therefore far fewer young children who do not compete for jobs themselves and are all the time consuming goods and thus making work for the unemployed. If only we could get back to a birthrate of 36 per thousand how much more work there would be to absorb the unemployed.”

It will be seen that this statement is nearly as absurd as the reverse statement made by the “New Generation.” It is not quite as absurd, however, because in fact capitalism flourishes on waste, as can be seen during this war. The amount of wealth produced for destruction in the form of war material is enormous. Millions have been withdrawn from industry yet simultaneously the production of home grown food has been increased so that now two-thirds of the food is home grown. At the same time there is no longer any unemployment to speak of. Capitalism cannot do this under peace conditions when the amount of employment is determined by the ability of the capitalists to make profits, but given Socialism the energies now devoted to war and waste could be added to the existing production of food, clothing, etc., so that all could live in comfort.

Is it only necessary to add that “New Generation” also ignores the failure of their theory to fit the facts of different countries. They quote Professor Kimble that “more land has usually meant better conditions of life,” and illustrate this by asking “Why is the standard of life so much higher in the U.S.A. than in Germany or Japan ?”

Now it happens to be true that density of population is greater in Germany and Japan than in U.S.A., but it happens that population per square mile is greater in England and Wales than it is in either Germany or Japan. Is then the standard of life lower?

Also they quote Russia as a country where the wage level is low, yet on their theory it ought to be almost the highest of all countries because the population per square mile is only 55 in European Russia and only 8 per square mile in Asiatic Russia; compared with 703 per square mile in England and Wales and 43 per square mile in U.S.A.

It looks as if there is something radically wrong with birth control as a cure for unemployment and poverty.

Edgar Hardcastle

Leadership (1943)

From the September 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the main arguments of the opponents of the S.P.G.B. is that which accuses us of being "dreamers" because we claim that the working class are intelligent enough to establish Socialism without the use of leaders.

In actual fact, Socialists not only deny the necessity of leaders in the Socialist movement but declare that Socialism cannot be established until workers have dispensed with the notion of leadership.

The legend of leadership is as old as society. Throughout the ages, men in their struggle for survival have continually turned to the strongest and the wisest among them for inspiration and courage in their battles with nature and with each other. To-day, however, when all men have access to the knowledge needed for the achievement of Socialism, and the necessities of life are produced in abundance, there is no longer any need for "chieftains" and "kings." The minimum knowledge that a wage slave requires before he is fitted to take his place in the revolutionary struggle is easily obtained, and well within the range of proletarian comprehension.

A worker must know he is poor and why, and he must then find the solution to his economic problems. What does this imply? The knowledge of a Marx, an Engels or a Hegel? Certainly not! and it is sheer impudence and indeed megalomania, when politicians claim that by trusting them, the workers will in consequence become free men. The Socialist Standard has continually attacked and exposed these "pseudo-Socialists," who are among the working class's greatest enemies.

We have stated that the workers must emancipate themselves, and establish the new society, not with the aid of “leaders," but in spite of them!

A worker must know he is poor because he sells his labour power to a master for wages; which at all times are at a subsistence level. He must know that in capitalist society wealth is produced for sale at a profit. He must realise that the capitalists are able to live in abundance because of the poverty of the masses, and that the latter are dispossessed of the goods they produce by masters who in the main take no part in production, but who nevertheless own and control all wealth.

When he assimilates that basic knowledge he will then have the mental equipment to immunise himself to the false slogans mouthed by the so-called political and religious leaders. He will treat with contempt the rogues and fools who said he was too ignorant to know the solution to his own social problems.

The conclusions he will draw are Socialist conclusions, and he will realise the necessity of organising for political action within the ranks of the workers' own party, the S.P.G.B. By capturing control of the State machine, workers will abolish private property, and convert the means of producing wealth into the property of society as a whole. This will end for all time poverty, social degradation and war.

Such, then, is the minimum knowledge that the exploited class need to acquire. With it, Socialism will be something easily understood, enthusiastically acclaimed; and the worker will1 laugh disdainfully at the futile and absurd idea of the "necessity of leaders."

Pibroch.

A Word From William Morris (1944)

From the September 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Now it seems to me that at such a time, when people are not only discontented, but have really conceived a hope of bettering the condition of labour, while at the same time the means towards their end are doubtful; or, rather, when they take the very beginning of the means as an end in itself, that this time when people are excited about Socialism, and when many who know nothing about it think themselves Socialists, is the time of all others to put forward the simple principles of Socialism regardless of the policy of the passing hour.

My readers will understand that in saying this I am speaking for those who are complete Socialists or let us call them Communists. I say for us to make Socialists is the business at present, and at present I do not think we can have any other useful business. Those who are not really Socialists — who are Trades' Unionists, disturbance-breeders, or what not — will do what they are impelled to do, and we cannot help it. At the worst there will be some good in what they do; but we need not and cannot heartily work with them, when we know that their methods are beside the right way.

Our business, I repeat, is the making of Socialists, i.e., convincing people that Socialism is good for them and is possible. When we have enough people of that way of thinking, they will find out what action is necessary for putting their principles in practice. Until we have that mass of opinion, action for a general change that will benefit the whole people is impossible. Have we that body of opinion of any thing like it? Surely not. If we look outside that glamour, that charmed atmosphere of party warfare in which we necessarily move, we shall see this clearly: that though there are a great many who believe it possible to compel their masters by some means or another to behave better to them, and though they are prepared to compel them (by so-called peaceful means, strikes and the like), all but a very small minority are not prepared to do without masters. They do not believe in their own capacity to undertake the management of affairs, and to be responsible for their life in this world. When they are so prepared, then Socialism will be realised; but nothing can push it on a day in advance of that time.

Therefore, I say, make Socialists. We Socialists can do nothing else that is useful, and preaching and teaching is not out of date for that purpose; but rather for those who, like myself, do not believe in State Socialism, it is the only rational means of attaining to the New Order of Things."

(The above is taken from: William Morris, Artist, Writer Socialist, by May Morris, Vol. 11„ p.518., and originally appeared in The Commonweal, November 15th, 1890.)

Confessions of a Labour Leader (1944)

From the September 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Tom Johnston, Labour M.P., says we are better fed during the war than ever before: —

  Nutritionally, we had never been better fed in our history than we were now, Mr. Tom Johnston, Secretary for Scotland, said at Dundee yesterday.
  Despite shortages, other difficulties and the rationing system, everyone for the first time was able to get three meals a day.
  It was tragic that it took the war to ensure that the most necessitous—children and infants—got priorities, fruit juices, and so on. (News Chronicle, August 19th, 1944.)

Mr. Johnston was a supporter of the Labour Government in 1924 and again in 1929-31, and held office under the latter as Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Scotland and Lord Privy Seal. Will he explain why the Labour Governments did not tackle this elementary problem of nutrition?

Editorial: Questions to Mr. Shinwell (1945)

Editorial from the September 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Emanuel Shinwell is Labour M.P. for Seaham and Minister for Fuel and Power in the present Government. He won the seat from the late J. R. MacDonald in 1935 and was re-elected at the recent general election. MacDonald had failed to keep his pledges to the workers. As leader of the Labour Party and head of two Labour Governments (1924, and 1929-31), he had failed to bring the workers the promised improvements in their condition and had not protected them against the slump of 1931 or even against the employers’ onslaughts on their standard of living. MacDonald went over to the Tories and Shinwell turned him out of Seaham in consequence. Now we have a Labour Government with a big majority and Mr. Shinwell backs it and its claims. We know from Mr. Shinwell what the workers have a right to expect from the Labour Government because a year ago he wrote a book in which he let it all out. (“When the Men Come Home,” by E. Shinwell, M.P., published by Gollancz). We cannot reproduce all the things Mr. Shinwell claimed should and could be done, but we can place on record just a few of the outstanding items.

Mr. Shinwell drew up a list of 10 Questions which he urged the workers to put to Tory Candidates in the General Election which he rightly anticipated would not be long deferred. Some of the questions were of the characteristic woolly kind beloved of Labour M.P.s, so framed that they mean anything or nothing, questions that any Tory would have agreed with knowing that they committed him to nothing in particular. Others, however, were definite and unambiguous and of these we select one or two. What could be more appropriate than that Mr. Shinwell’s own questions should be addressed to Mr. Shinwell? We want to know if Mr. Shinwell and his party are prepared to carry out what he demanded Tories should be prepared to carry out. Here they are:—

   “Are you willing to support the principle that any physically and mentally fit individual who fails to make a useful contribution to the work of the community shall not be fed, clothed and housed at the expense of those who do work?” (p. 41-42).

This plainly commits Mr. Shinwell to the abolition of all property incomes. (He makes provision elsewhere in his book for infirm and aged to be adequately supported).

  “Do you approve the payment of a minimum wage to those in employment, and an equal subsistence standard for those for whom work cannot be found, or who will never be able to work by reason of old age, industrial accidents or war wounds?” (p. 42).

Mr. Shinwell made no attempt to hedge on this principle. He explained (page 9) that by minimum wage he meant “a minimum wage a long way above mere subsistence level.” He rejected the Beveridge proposals as “meagre” and as needing revision, and emphasised that his “first great principle” is that every worker “whether employed or not” shall have the right “to minimum wages or allowances that will raise him above the line of annihilating poverty.” (p. 10).

The third of the questions that we shall place on record relates to housing.

   “Are you prepared to support legislation to clean up at once the hideous, sprawling slums of our great cities, and to provide utilitarian, artistic and scientifically-equipped houses accessible to all the families in this country who may require them? " (p. 42).

After enumerating his 10 questions, Mr. Shinwell went on to tell his readers that the answers given by the Tories would convince them “that there is no hope for you so long as the present political set-up in this country continues.” Now we know where Mr. Shinwell would have us believe he stands, and after Mr. Shinwell’s party have been in power for some years we will put Mr. Shinwell’s questions to Mr. Shinwell and ask for plain unequivocal answers. We wonder if Mr. Shinwell will then, like MacDonald, before him, be engaged in explaining why it was not possible to carry out pledges. Perhaps by then a much larger number of workers will have realised that Labourism (the administration of capitalism by a Labour Government) is dead sea fruit, and one of our Socialist Candidates may be knocking at the door in Seaham. 

Editorial: Newspaper Monopoly and the Freedom of the Press (1946)

Editorial from the September 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Herbert Morrison faced with a Conservative demand for inquiry into the Government monopoly over wireless broadcasting, parried with an attack on the newspaper monopolies and with the suggestion of an inquiry into newspaper ownership and the influence of advertisers over newspaper policy. There were also vague hints of doing something to stop misrepresentation in the reporting of news.

About the trend towards monopoly in newspaper ownership there is no lack of information. While the circulation of newspapers increases, the number of separate journals decreases, and more and more of the existing local papers come under centralised ownership and control. An official inquiry in U.S.A. discloses the same trend there. "In 1909 there were about 2,600 daily newspapers with a total circulation of 24,200,000. In 1945 there were only 1,750 papers, but their circulation was 48,400,000” (Manchester Guardian, 20/7/46). The same report comments on the fact that very few towns in U.S.A. now have competing papers, and news gathering is virtually monopolised by three press services.

This development is paralleled in both countries by the growth of monopoly in all fields of industry. It is helped by the great and growing cost of launching new journals and by the fact that no national newspaper can possibly pay its way without a huge income from advertisers. The centralisation of newspaper ownership in the hands of a diminishing number of concerns is inevitable and it is idle to talk of governmental action to turn back the clock and protect the little concerns against the big ones. While there is capitalism, that is while the accumulated wealth .of society is in the hands of a small minority, nothing can prevent the owners of small capital from being more or less at the mercy of big business, and still more, nothing can lessen the disadvantage of a small and poor working-class organisation in its efforts to make its views known.

The question of misrepresentation or of the “conspiracy of silence” in the capitalist Press about the case for Socialism is governed by the same basic facts of capitalism. A Labour Government may think it would be useful to the Labour Party if something could be done to secure more and more truthful presentation of that Party’s case in Conservative newspapers, but the Labour Press is no more concerned with giving publicity to the case for Socialism than are the Conservative or Liberal newspapers. Socialist propaganda gets no better show in the Daily Herald, or on the B.B.C. under Labour government, than in the Daily Express or on the B.B.C. under Conservative government. We have, however, always been well aware of the difficulties we are up against and are not discouraged. Capitalism, despite its newspaper chorus of propaganda, cannot forever disguise its evils from the workers who suffer from them.

Mr. Morrison’s statements provoked discussion about the desirability of legislation to interfere with the freedom of the Press. No matter what may be the motive of such suggestions, we, as Socialists, are not in favour of them. Completely unrestricted expression of opinion and discussion of differences is the way to enlightenment. Restriction, even on the plea of preventing misrepresentation, would not help the workers on the road to Socialism. We are no more enamoured of Labour Government restrictions on their opponents than of a similar policy applied by Conservatives. The end of that road is one-party Press dictatorship, as in Russia.

One hopeful feature in recent years has been the evidence, provided by elections, in this country and U.S.A., that the electors sufficiently mistrust newspaper and wireless propaganda to be less influenced by it than they used to be.

Party News Briefs (1947)

Party News from the September 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Autumn Delegate Meeting will be held at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London, W.C.l, on Sunday, September 28th, commencing at 10.30 a.m. While this is a conference of branch delegates, non-members can attend and see how the democratic principles of the S.P.G.B. work out in practice.

“International Contacts with Parties and Groups Abroad" is the subject of a meeting of party members convened by the Executive Committee being held at the Trade Union Club, Great Newport Street, London, W.C.1, on Sunday, September 14th, at 2 p.m. There will undoubtedly be a lively and interesting discussion and members should keep this date open. Here again non-members may attend, as at all our meetings, and listen to the discussion. As none of our party meetings are secret we shall never be faced with the Labour Party's problem of preventing "leakages." Unlike the Labour Party we have nothing to hide. Question—why does an alleged working-class organisation like the Labour Party try and keep its real aims hidden from the working-class? To us the answer is obvious.

Palmers Green Branch are organising a discussion group on alternate Thursdays from September 4th at the Edmonton Trades Club (at the junction of Fore Street and Silver Street). The meetings commence at 8 p. m. Anyone requiring further information can write to the Secretary of the group, A. W. Poole, 26, Hinton Road, N.18. The branch had their eyes on Lord Woolton with a view to a debate with him. The branch wrote taking exception to some statements recently made by him and challenged him to debate. The Conservative Central Office replied that Woolton was not prepared to debate with us but that they would supply a substitute. This offer has been accepted by the branch, and further developments are now awaited.

Bloomsbury Branch have now held more than a dozen outdoor meetings this season at Warren Street Tube Station. The average audience has been 100, and ten different branch members have made their debut on the outdoor platform at these meetings. Most of the new speakers said afterwards that speaking on the platform was not so difficult as it first appeared. Arrangements are now in hand for the winter series of Sunday evening lectures at the Trade Union Club, Great Newport Street, W.C.l. The St. Pancras Liberals and the St. Pancras Labour party both rejected a challenge to debate, the first on the grounds that they were a “classless party’’ and the second because their “plate was full at the moment." We accept the second but not the first statement.

Camberwell Branch have given half of their branch funds to help pay back a grant made to them by Head Office. Other branches please note and if possible emulate. A Party Funds Committee is now in operation and various ideas for raising funds are being considered. Announcements will be made shortly. An effort to arrange a debate with the Lambeth Communists was refused by them on the ground that the S.P.G.B. is in their opinion "a tiny sect with infinitesimal influence." The real explanation doubtless is that the Communists do not feel too happy about trying to defend themselves publicly against Socialist criticism.

Ealing Branch have had their most active summer season since their formation. They are co-operating with Paddington and Kingston-on-Thames branches in spreading the area covered by our outdoor propaganda meetings in West London and the Kingston areas. Three new stations have been opened where meetings are being held weekly. These are at Heron Court, Richmond (Sunday evenings), Pennard Road, Uxbridge Road, Shepherds Bush (Monday evenings) and opposite Earls Court Station (Thursday evenings). The Saturday evening station at Ealing Green is of course still being very successfully operated. Our efforts at the latter have stimulated correspondence in the local paper on "Who are the real socialists?" The branch are holding an evening social on Saturday, September 27th, at the London Co-operative Society's hall (near South Ealing Station), and will welcome members and sympathisers. The last branch social was a very enjoyable affair, and the branch promise an even better one this time.

Leyton Branch are trying to revive an old outdoor station at the Green Man, Leytonstone. Weekly meetings are being held on Wednesday evenings.

Hackney Branch's Debate with the Trotskyists took place before an audience of about 100, who were mainly supporters of either the party or the Trotskyists. Haston spoke for them and Fenwick for us. After Fenwick had played the socialist searchlight on the Trotskyists’ undigested and unwholesome mixture of pseudo-Marxism, alleged "Leninism," and real milk-and-water reformism, and the meeting terminated, the debate continued in the street outside with about half-a-dozen different groups going it hammer and tongs. The branch have made new members recently and other sympathisers are well on the way. We have a number of very solid supporters at the Victoria Park outdoor station who might very well be in the party. The Finsbury Park Road outdoor station on Sunday evenings has been taken over from Islington branch. Islington are getting the decks clear for an intensive propaganda drive during the bye-election to take place soon in West Islington, where the M.P., F. Montague, caused a vacancy by accepting a peerage. Montague was a stalwart of the Social Democratic Party—the party which dubbed us the "impossibilists," and which claimed to have the quick road to socialism. They obviously must have meant the House of Lords. Hackney branch are making arrangements to book the Bethnal Green Central Library for every Friday evening during the winter. The first meeting will be on October 10th when the General Secretary will speak on "The Jewish Question."

Paddington Branch are having a very successful season at the Hyde Park Sunday meetings. They are also running Thursday evening outdoor meetings at the "Prince of Wales," Harrow Road. They are not letting the good work of the two election campaigns go by the board, and are carrying out weekly canvassing in the North Paddington constituency. Two indoor meetings are booked for September, one at Paddington Town Hall on the 4th, and the other at Harvist Road School, Kensal Rise on the 25th. Should the latter prove successful it will be followed up with further meetings with a view to forming a Willesden branch. A poster parade (possibly through the West End) with the new "Work and Want” party posters is being arranged. Fifty of these posters are on weekly display in the branch’s area.

C. C. Groves, 

General Secretary.

Party News Briefs (1948)

Party News from the September 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Autumn Delegate Meeting takes place on Sunday morning and afternoon, September 26th, at the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London, W.C.1. It will be followed in the evening by a mass rally at the same hall. The Executive Committee’s report on the first six months of 1948 is now in the hands of branches. Among other things it shows that our propaganda has been more extensive during the six months than for a considerable number of years, even including 1945 when we fought a General Election campaign. The Central Organiser considers that the prospects of the party are now brighter than ever before. The sales of the Socialist Standard have also increased recently after a dull period during the winter. We are still, however, facing difficulties owing to a shortage of competent writers for the Socialist Standard. These difficulties may be solved by the Head Office Tutorial Class, which now has a sufficient nucleus of tutors to go ahead as a general introductory class for new members, and as a means of finding out the aptitude of members for speaking, writing and teaching. In the section of the report devoted to overseas contacts the question is raised of socialists living in countries where no socialist parties exist, and who wish to maintain ties with a socialist party. Financially our position is still a difficult one, although it improved at the beginning of the year but deteriorated afterwards. Delegates will probably give this item serious consideration, particularly in view of the Executive Committee’s decision to contest at least one constituency, North Paddington, at the next General Election. The total membership of the party at the end of June was 1,008, yet another increase. The Delegate Meeting will be interesting and stimulating, and we will give a report of it in the November Socialist Standard.


Hackney Branch commence their weekly Friday evening winter lecture course at the Bethnal Green Public Library, Cambridge Heath Road, on October 1st. at 8 o’clock, when A. Turner will speak on “ Our hostility to other parties.” On October 8th C. Groves speaks on “Nationalisation,” and October 15th S. Cash speaks on “ Socialism in our time.”


Islington Branch appeal to all their members to support their outdoor meetings, with which they are having difficulties owing to tack of branch support. The co-operation of members is urgently required.


Two New Branches have just been formed, one at St. Pancras and the other at Fulham. These two areas are ripe for party development and it is gratifying to have party units established there.


“Collected Socialist Pamphlets," the bound volume of party pamphlets is now ready. This is a limited special Library edition, 307 pages, strongly bound in quarter blue calf, with gold lettering along the back. The price is 8s. 6d. nett. It is available to public and university libraries only, and until the supply is exhausted, all librarians who apply for a copy can be supplied. Several public libraries in Lancashire and Yorkshire have already applied for copies. Party members are urged to put this book on the “Suggestion Slips” at their local libraries. Remember the title— “Collected Socialist Pamphlets.” Publishers—The Socialist Party of Great Britain.


A Fuller Report of the Debate with Christopher Hollis (Conservative) at Ealing Town Hall has now been received. H. Young opened the debate by defining a class as a body of people united by a common economic interest: the existence of one class presupposed the existence of at least one other and consequently a conflict of interests or a class struggle.

He wound up his first session by tracing the development of classes and the class struggle and by defining the class division.of society to-day.

Hollis stated that he agreed with Young’s definition of a class.

Although Marx had had some “horse sense” and although his "economic determinism” was fundamentally correct, his psychology was behind the times —Young was stating a case which may have been all very well in 1848 but was hardly applicable to-day: capitalism was now nearly dead, nevertheless it had succeeded during its lifetime, by the development of the world’s productive resources in improving the condition of the working-class and had not, as Marx had predicted, merely increased their misery.

To-day in England, as a result of a diffusion of ownership, there were more capitalists than working men.

The people with real power to-day were not the capitalists, but the rising managerial class, who were neither capitalists nor workers.

One might well ask then, is there not a class-struggle on this basis? The answer he would give was that at present there was not, but that one may develop in the future.

As for the socialist revolution: there was every indication that it would follow the pattern of revolutions in the past—that despite the equalitarian promises of its advocates, a new ruling class would arise from it. Young, in his second period, repeated his definition of classes.

If Hollis was right, and the majority of people were capitalists, there would still be a minority class.

William Beveridge (and many other prominent statisticians agreed with him) had stated that 9 per cent. of the total population owned 91 per cent. of the total wealth—this indicated a vast gulf between two classes in society and this view was sustained by the proof of the large amounts of money left in the wills published daily in the newspapers.

When Marx spoke of the increasing poverty of the workers he was relating their position to that of their masters, poverty and riches being relative, one presupposing the other.

Managers were not capitalists, and capitalists did not need any special capabilities of knowledge to attain their superior social position.

Young wound up his second period by describing Socialism and the means by which it was to be achieved.

Hollis opened his second period by repeating that Marx was an economic determinist.

Society, he said, contained an infinite variety of classes—some people were capitalists and workers in varying degrees.

He did not deny that there were rich and poor but did deny that riches in any way necessarily gave power: a large number of very powerful people were without riches.

There was a conflict between the managerial class and the capitalists—society would undoubtedly change, but not as Marx and the S.P.G.B. envisaged.

Young stated that it was futile for Hollis to look back to past conditions when considering present-day poverty—this did not explain anything nor did it in any way help to solve the problem.

It was very strange that despite the privileged position which Hollis stated to be the lot of the managers, no capitalist wanted to suffer the social fall to a manager, but many managers wanted to rise to capitalists.

Socialism could not be established by a minority, even a Marxist minority: it must be the work of the working-class themselves. Hollis replied that Young had been speaking in the past—his contentions were out of date, since the face of capitalism Had changed.

Marx had not meant relative poverty, but actual poverty.

The main fault with Marxism and the S.P.G.B. case was that one could not solve the problems of 1948 with solutions which were propounded in 1848. Young wound up the debate by pointing out that Hollis had agreed that there was a class-struggle and had now passed on to a discussion of Socialism.

It may be that the face of capitalism had changed, but the ugly body remained the same.

He finished by stressing the necessity for the working-class first understanding and desiring Socialism before that system of society could be established.

Kingston Branch is preparing for a season of winter activity in Malden, Surrey district. The local Labour Party in this area was challenged to debate, but has replied with the usual “no useful purpose would be served by such a debate at the present time.” The success of the outdoor meetings at Castle Street, Kingston, on Saturday evenings has prompted the branch to hold meetings at the same place on Friday evenings. ‘‘The Fountain” at New Malden is now being considered as a further outdoor station as a preliminary to a series of indoor meetings in that locality later in the year.

The Overseas Secretary reports that the recently formed Dublin Socialist Group is progressing very satisfactorily. Meetings held at the hall at 33, Lower Gardiner Street, on Sunday evenings are a stimulating success. The subjects cover a wide range and each meeting is reported, and future ones announced, in the Dublin Evening Mail. Readers of the Socialist Standard in any part of Eire are invited to contact the group through M. Cullen, 34, Lower Buckingham Street, Dublin. We have received a collection of news cuttings taken from Dublin daily and evening papers which show that the group is making itself known in that city.

The International Institute for Social History in Amsterdam, which lost most of its journals and periodicals during the war, is now re-collecting material and is being supplied with Party literature.

Attempts are being made to link up a number of ex-members and friends in Africa in order that their socialist activities may be co-ordinated.

The World Socialist Party of U.S.A. have sent us the report of the 1948 National Conference held in Boston on May 30th and 31st. Some of the problems' discussed by the delegates are problems that beset our own Party or have had to be thrashed out by us in the past. In particular is the ever present problem of maintaining a sufficient financial income to continue socialist activities. The finances of a Socialist Party, dependant upon the shallow pockets of its working-class members and friends, are always a source of headaches.

Another common problem to both our organisations is to find ways and means to increase the circulation of our literature. The W.S.P. conference discussed a number of projects With this object in view, the result of which we may soon see embodied in their journal, “The Western Socialist”

We note with interest that a $1,000 drive is to be instituted in an effort to put their full-time National Organiser back in the field.

Also discussed was the suggestion that some form of organisation be established to embrace socialists who reside in parts of the world where no Socialist Party exists, and who desire to keep in touch with the socialist movement in an organised manner.

Next year's conference venue will be Detroit.

Greetings are sent to all comrades in Great Britain.

C. C. Groves,

General Secretary. 

Ourselves and the Conservatives (1949)

From the September 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Friends of the Labour Party sometimes complain to us that we spend a lot of time attacking the Labour Government. "Why," they ask, "do you not attack the Labour Party less and the Conservatives more?" When they develop their argument it invariably turns out that they do not really mean what they say. They do not want us to attack the Labour Government less, but not at all, and their only positive suggestion is that we should drop Socialist propaganda and help them denounce and destroy the Tory Party. We would certainly like to destroy the Tory Party, and so, perhaps, would some members of the Labour Party, but that does not in the least mean that we and the Labour Party share a common purpose. Some recent political history should make this clear. The Labour Party, between the wars, succeeded in reducing the Liberal Party to an impotent political fragment, but has this weakened capitalism and brought Socialism nearer?

By no means. What it did was to turn the Labour Party from a political wing of the trade unions into a veritable successor of Liberalism, inheriting from them the function of sharing the administration of capitalism with the Tories, and as the Labour Party gains more experience in the corrupting task of running the capitalist system it is evolving further, this time towards Conservatism, trying to steal from them the reputation of being the guardians of the British Colonial Empire, and the sponsors of conscription and big armaments. The gulf between the Labour and Tory programmes is now no greater than was the old division between Liberal and Tory. And it is one of those hotly denied but widely accepted facts of the political situation that if British capitalism comes up against a really acute financial or international crisis Labour and Tory enemies will hasten into each other's arms to save it in a coalition government.

Socialists certainly want to see the Tory Party die, but for a purpose, the purpose of achieving Socialism. Capitalism is the removable evil from which the working class have to rid themselves, Therefore all who defend capitalism are the enemies of the working class. This includes the Labour Party even though their defence of capitalism arises not from a conscious aim, but is forced on them by the fact that they have taken on the administration of capitalism and can do no other than defend it.

Yet there is a difference—though it tends to grow less—between Labour and Tory. The Tory Party began as the defender of landed property, that was its conscious purpose. In the course of time it has become the conscious defender of capitalist property as a whole. The Tory Party only became interested in the working class, in the first place to the extent that working class discontent threatened to upset the system, and later on to the extent that the workers had votes and were therefore potential supporters of Tory candidates. In its essence as the defender of property against the propertyless the Tory Party has never changed. Every move, every reform measure sponsored by them has been designed with the object of strengthening property interests and helping them to power.

Now, with the advent of a Labour Government, and the prospect of its being returned again at the next election, the Tory Party has had to overhaul its machinery, its propaganda and its vote-catching appeals. Now it is the Labour Party that is hampered by having to do the unpopular things that governments of capitalism have to do. Conversely it is now the Tories who in the irresponsibility of opposition are trying to outbid the Labour leaders. Hence —to take one striking example—Mr. Churchill's claim that the Tories are the real friends of the Trade Unions and the workers. Speaking at Wolverhampton on July 23rd, 1949, he said:-—

   "Nothing was clearer than that Nationalisation spelt the doom of trade unionism. That was already the case in all totalitarian states where they were used to make the workers come along as quietly as they will, before the sterner measures of Socialist or Soviet management have to be enforced. Conservatives regarded the trades union movement, which they had always fostered from its earliest days, as a characteristic feature of British life. They believed in collective bargaining and the right to strike." (Daily Telegraph, 25/7/49.)

This latter claim is a travesty of history and the workers will swallow it at their peril. The Tories, as they showed by their handling of the miners and the general strike in 1926, the Trade Disputes Act, 1927, and the callous treatment of the unemployed throughout the 'thirties, will operate capitalism ruthlessly. It is true, indeed, that Russian or British state capitalism offers absolutely no hope to the working class, but neither does the Tory "paternal" capitalism now being propagated in their "Right Road for Britain" and the Tory "Workers' Charter."

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: How Capital Flourishes Under Labour Government (1950)

Editorial from the September 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Forty-five years ago, just after the formation of the S.P.G.B. and just before the formation of the Labour Party, Chiozza Money, a Liberal economist, wrote a book that played a large part in political argument for many years. It was called “Riches and Poverty.” It showed how the country was divided into two classes, the smaller of which monopolised the ownership of property and enjoyed the luxury provided by large incomes. It was nothing new for Socialists but provided statistical backing for the Socialist case. It was also used by the reformist Labour Party; but with a very different purpose. The first Manifesto of the S.P.G.B. declared:—“Society is today divided into two classes with opposing interests, one class owning the means of life and the other nothing but their power to work.” Then, as now, the S.P.G.B. insisted that nothing less than the conversion of the means of production and distribution into the common property of society could achieve emancipation. The Labour Party however promised by means of social reforms, taxation, death duties (and by the now forgotten “capital levy”) to make gradual but increasing inroads into capitalism until, imperceptibly, socialism would be here.

We have had the reforms, the death duties, the increase of income tax and surtax, and three Labour governments, the latest of which has been in power with a Parliamentary majority for over 5 years. And Socialism has not been introduced nor is it in process of being introduced. We still confront the same ruthless, exploiting, war-producing capitalist system. The task of achieving socialism still remains to be done and the method set out in the first publications of the S.P.G.B. is still the only way.

Labour Party supporters will contest the Socialist charge that capitalism has not been essentially changed; but out of the mouths of their own spokesmen the futility of Labourism can be demonstrated. Here are two Labour Party statements on capitalist ownership, the first was made in 1918 and the second in 1949.

The first was made towards the end of the first world war, in the Labour Party’s Report on general policy called “Labour and the New Social Order.”

  "Meanwhile innumerable new private fortunes are being heaped up by those who have taken advantage of the nation's needs; and the one-tenth of the population which owns nine-tenths of the riches of the United Kingdom, far from being made poorer, will find itself, in the aggregate, as a result of the war, drawing in rent and interest and dividends a larger nominal income than ever before.”

(“Labour and the New Social Order” Labour Party 1918, Page 19.)

Every one of those statements could be made again today; in particular the admission about the concentration of wealth in the hands of the small minority.

Let us now take a step forward over 30 years and read the admission made in the House of Commons on 18 May, 1949, by Mr. Glenvil Hall, M.P., Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the Labour Government:—

  “Of the 550,000 people who die each year only 10 per cent. own more than £2,000, but these 10 per cent. between them own 90 per cent, of the total property.” 

So thirty years of change has produced no result whatever. Ninety per cent. of the wealth was owned by 10 per cent. of the population in 1918 and still is.

Of course the Labour Party is again promising to do something about it. Mr. Gaitskell, M.P., who is now Minister of State for Economic Affairs referred to it in March 1949: “Property is still very unequally divided, and that is a problem which has got to be tackled.” (Daily Herald, 9/3/49). He thought that still higher death duties might do the trick but he did not explain why all the earlier increases had failed to do so. Nearly a year later another writer, Mr. Douglas Jay, M.P., who has now replaced Mr. Glenvil Hall as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, made an admission that might help to enlighten him. Speaking at Battersea Mr. Jay said:—“There is little sign that death duties are doing more than holding their own against private accumulation of Wealth.” (Daily Express 17/1/50).

One mysterious belief of Labour Party propagandists has been that nationalisation helps to lessen inequality of wealth. In the past few years the nationalisation schemes have actually worked in the opposite direction. If the mines and railways had not been nationalised the heavy losses made in the years after the war would have drastically slashed the market prices of mining and railways shares and correspondingly reduced the big fortunes invested in those industries. As it is the shareholders, by being compensated with the many hundreds of millions of pounds worth of Government bonds at fixed rates of interest guaranteed by the Government, have been saved from the major part of the loss they would otherwise have suffered. Nationalisation or state capitalism helps to safeguard the wealth of the capitalist class.

Capitalism, which the Labour Party never understood. has made nonsense of their well-intentioned but misconceived programmes. The only cure for capitalism is its abolition. The only road to emancipation is that proclaimed by the S.P.G.B. nearly half a century ago.

Party News Briefs (1951)

Party News from the September 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Summer School will be held at Treetops Holiday Camp, Farley Green, Albury, Surrey, on Saturday and Sunday, 22nd and 23rd September. Full details are obtainable on application to the Social Committee at Head Office.

Bloomsbury Branch will meet weekly at 7.30 from Thursday, September 6th, at the North Room, Conway Hall. Discussions will be held after Branch business, each weekly discussion being opened by a member of the Branch. Comrade Gilmac will speak on the History of the Party for the first three meetings, September 6th, 13th and 20th. (The subject for the 27th September to be announced.)

Donations from Overseas.

The Overseas Secretary wishes to acknowledge the receipt of the following donations to Party Funds:

H. J ., Bermuda, £10 (£8 to Premises Fund and £2 to Overseas Propaganda expenses).

W. G., Rhodesia, £5 (Premises Fund).

J.O.B., South Africa, £1 (Overseas Propaganda expenses).

From Comrades in New Zealand, £17 (New Premises Fund).

Phyllis Howard