In a Nutshell (1998)

From the November 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

1. The resources to produce what we need are owned by the rich 5 percent, while the remaining 95 percent of us do all the work.
2. These two groups, or classes, are always going to be at loggerheads because of it.
3. This dispute will only be settled when we 95 percent organise and abolish class ownership, and run a democratic system of communal ownership instead.
4. When we do this, there will be no further oppression of any sort.
5. But we must do it ourselves, without leaders.
6. Since we can’t fight governments and armies, we must organise to take them over by political means and abolish them along with ownership by the rich.
7. We must oppose any party which wants to keep or reform the present system, no matter how well intentioned.
8. The World Socialist Movement calls upon all workers to organise to do this, in the interests of themselves, their children, and the future of the planet.

50 Years Ago: Austerity for how long, Sir Stafford? (1998)

The 50 Years Ago column from the December 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

The opening words of “Let Us Face the Future,” the Labour Party’s declaration on which the 1945 General Election was fought, were “Victory in War must be followed by a Prosperous Peace.” There was no must about it and the cessation of American lease-lend soon brought the Government face to face with the fact that capitalism has its own way of disposing of election hopes and promises. Since 1945 we have had to make the best of a series of “crises” all of which have been announced by the Government with an air of surprise as if they could not have been foreseen. The workers have been asked to put up with austerity and “work harder” campaigns on the plea that after all they would not last for ever. Now Sir Stafford Cripps has let the cat out of the bag. Speaking at a Press Conference in London on 11th November, he said:

 “We are now and shall be henceforth for as long as we can see into the future, engaged in a competition in overseas markets which demands for our success every economy that efficiency and high productivity can give us. We shall not be able to relapse from this endeavour any more than our competitors in the world markets will. We require a universal and sustained effort . . .” (Italics ours) (Times, 12/11/48.)

So it is as Socialists have always said it must be, an indefinite sentence. For the workers the capitalist treadmill will last for as long as the working class chooses to put up with capitalism.

[From “Notes By The Way”, Socialist Standard, December 1948]

Pinochet and socialism (1998)

From the December 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

The arrest of the Chilean ex-dictator Pinochet in London in October reopened the debate about the overthrow by the armed forces of the Allende government in 1973. At the time Leninists and anarchists trumpeted this as confirmation of their argument that it is not possible to use existing limited, political democracy to abolish capitalism. So it is worth restating why what happened in Chile in 1973 is not relevant to our case that capitalism can be abolished by a democratically-organised socialist majority using already-established elective and representative institutions.

The Chilean experience is not relevant for three basic reasons. First, Allende and the People’s Unity (Unidad Popular) alliance which supported him did not enjoy majority support. Second, Allende and People’s Unity did not stand for socialism but for state capitalism. Third, it was an attempt to improve things within the context of a single country on its own.

In the presidential elections held in September 1970 Allende polled 36 percent of the votes cast, just beating his conservative opponent who got 35 percent while the Christian Democrat candidate got 28 percent. In other words, in a three-way contest Allende won by not much more than the minimum possible—one-third of the votes plus one. Under the constitution then in force in Chile, if no candidate won over 50 percent it was left to Congress to decide. Allende was elected president with the help of the Christian Democrat members of Congress, perfectly constitutionally but without majority support for his programme. So he was in a much weaker position vis-à-vis his opponents than a socialist majority would be.

But the support Allende enjoyed was not for socialism anyway. People’s Unity which he headed was an alliance of the Chilean Socialist Party, the Chilean Communist Party and various smaller leftwing groups. Its short-term aim was to carry out various reforms in favour of workers and peasants within the context of capitalism. Its long-term aim, strongly influenced by the Communist Party and people who thought like them within the Socialist Party (of course the one was no more communist in the proper sense than the other was socialist), was something along the lines of what existed in Russia, i.e. state capitalism. Maybe Russian-style total state capitalism can’t be established by peaceful means, but what relevance has this to establishing socialism?

Finally, socialism cannot be established in just one country. The Allende government could not have established socialism even if it wanted to and had, therefore, no alternative but to run capitalism. However capitalism, as we have always insisted, cannot by its nature be run in the interests of the working class majority. So, like other reformists, Allende was unable to deliver on his promises. Even though elections held in March 1973 showed that the support of a third or so of the population for People’s Unity still held up, discontent grew amongst the two-thirds majority which didn’t support it, the discontent exploited by the government’s opponents, encouraged and helped by the CIA (in pursuit of the US strategic interest not to allow Russian state capitalism to establish another bridgehead besides Cuba in their backyard) and multinationals like ITT (who feared nationalisation without adequate compensation).

By September 1973 the conservative (not to say fascist) minded leaders of the armed forces, led by General Pinochet, decided the time was ripe to stage a coup. The presidential palace was bombarded and Allende killed and a brutal regime the like of which the world had not seen since Franco won the Spanish Civil War was installed. A veritable reign of terror, designed to cow the third of the population who still supported Allende, was unleashed. Thousands of opponents were rounded up, tortured and killed; elective institutions were dissolved and working class organisations banned.

No wonder most people were content to see Pinochet arrested and suffer a few uncomfortable moments, if not end his days in a Spanish jail (Thatcher, who saw a kindred spirit, being a notable exception). But this does not alter the fact that the government Pinochet overthrew had nothing to do with socialism but was a government without majority backing aiming to move towards state capitalism in the context of a world in which two super-powers were struggling for domination. The quite different conditions that will obtain on the eve of socialism—mass support for socialism throughout the world—will be sufficient to deter any suicidal attempt by a latter-day Pinochet to halt the progress of history.

Adam Buick

First Things First (1961)

From the November 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is nothing more that devoted well-meaning people could have done. Over the years they have altered, added and improvised to try to meet the requirements of changing knowledge and needs. But as it stands now. the structure of this early Victorian hospital has outlived itself and what the place really needs is to be pulled down and rebuilt.

Surely, ask the very innocent, that would cost too much money—there isn't enough of it about, you know? And this is echoed by many an "economic expert" who would deny any claim to naiveté.

Not enough money about? Stick your head out of the ward window and watch the giant machines tearing into wet London clay and the skeleton of a flyover taking shape before your eyes. Don't leave the window open too long, though—the drilling, bulldozing and blasting of the great new road development scheme must have a devastating effect on the poor patients. They did think about spending some more money on the scheme, to make it quieter and so easier on the patients' nerves. But in the end they decided that roads come first and sick human beings somewhere after that.

Perhaps many motorists agreed with this decision. Certainly, they grumble enough about the need for new roads and the amount of tax which goes into licences, petrol and so on. Yet they would be wrong to think that the flyovers, underpasses, motorways and the rest are built for their especial benefit and enjoyment.

Let us begin somewhere at the beginning. Our society is based upon private property, which means that a few people own the means of life. This leaves a lot of people who are virtually propertyless. and who therefore have to work for the few owners. In this work they create a surplus which must be sold so that the capitalists can realise their profits. These profits are used by and at the discretion of the international, wealthy ruling class.

This set up raises some tricky problems for the capitalists. Traffic jams prevent profitable goods being moved efficiently; they even stop workers getting to work on time, which means that they might not turn out as much surplus as they should. So traffic jams, in the name of profit, must go.

Again, if motor cars are to be stuck forever in jams and queues, a lot of potential buyers may decide to use some other form of transport. The motor car market is already none too healthy; if there was a developing hardness against the industry's sales jargon there would soon be panic stations in the plushy showrooms. So would there be in the al fresco salons on old bomb sites, where many workers obtain their latest model.

And what about that other great commercial group which has motoring interests clutched to its bosom? What of the oil companies? We all know that the noxious, smelly fluid can overnight turn a flyblown, sandy waste into a world danger spot. It has lined the pockets of shareholders all over the world, and enabled a handful of Eastern potentates to count their wealth in Cadillacs instead of the traditional camels. No need to point out that the oil boys think an efficient road system, with lots of cars using it, is very important.

These are the reasons why the excavators scrunch outside the hospital walls, and why ordinary, decent people think it right to put motor cars higher up the scale of values than sick and ailing human beings.

For sick workers contribute little, or nothing, to the profitability of capitalism. They are, in fact, an expense, which is covered by taxes on property, the National Insurance levy and philanthropy.

Capitalism can be attacked coldly, with fact and arguments on economics, history and the rest. This does not mean that we do not see through the cloying mess of moral standards and human values which capitalism foists on us. It is useless merely to try to be humane; for many an uphill struggle to implement a reform has been followed by capitalism's unhappy knack of encroaching upon the reform, when it clashed with some sectional economic interest.

No, we need a bigger change than that. Something to make human beings free and secure. We'll have roads under Socialism, and we will have sick people too. But both of them will be in their place.

Jack Law

Branch News (1961)

Party News from the November 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Delegate Meeting held at Head Office on Saturday and Sunday, October 7th and 8th. was well attended and proved to be one of the most interesting for some time. The keynote of the discussion was that comrades were anxious to get on with the work of the Party and used the time in discussing how best to serve the Party’s aims. Many interesting ideas were exchanged and there is no doubt that comrades left the meeting with renewed enthusiasm to make even greater efforts to spread the word of Socialism.

We are awaiting the full report of the sales of literature at the Blackpool Labour Party Conference. Our energetic and resourceful new Literature Sales Committee hired a caravan and sped up to Blackpool, where they bombarded the delegation there with literature of the Socialist case. The Committee made these arrangements quickly and efficiently and obtained the EC’s blessing while the work was actually in progress. This Committee is doing excellent work, attending rallies and meetings of other political organisations, apart from seeing that our own meetings are well supplied with literature with well organised sales. They were in force at the Caxton Hall Meeting on October 18th. Details of sales will be given in our next issue, together with the Blackpool report.

Glasgow Branch series of meetings have got off to a good start. These meetings will carry on throughout the winter, and Glaswegians should hasten to get in at the start and so benefit from the continuity of the series dealing with the Sixties.

General propaganda meetings! Many branches have a full programme for the winter. Head Office films are being well attended and debates have been arranged. The meetings list in every issue should be one of the first items for perusal, so that members can tell friends and sympathisers in plenty of time.

Ealing Branch's programme of winter activities really gets under way this month with two lectures, one general and the other theoretical, as well as a film showing. The new meeting room (but the same building) is much more comfortable than the old and is a first-rate place for these activities. Members are asked to make a special effort to be prompt and to note especially the time of the film show (7.45 pm) made necessary because the film lasts almost an hour-and-a-half. The Branch is doing very well. Two new members have been made in recent months as well as several other contacts. Branch members are looking forward to a really successful winter season.

Phyllis Howard

Letter: CND and SPGB (1961)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

I note the news item on page 96 of the June issue and am glad, but not surprised, that CND members figured prominently at the St Pancras Town Hall meeting earlier this year. Many CND members are sincere Socialists. Some are Labour Party members, others belong to the Communist Party and I suspect that there are a few members who carry a Liberal card. However, Mr. Gaitskell and Mr. George Brown have yet to apply for membership.

Parties have been playing at politics for a long time, but now the sands of time are running out. The threat of an universal nuclear war grows daily. CND members are always trying to persuade people that a nuclear war would be the final chapter in the world's history. We are trying to restore sanity to a divided world in which even the USSR finds it necessary to stockpile nuclear weapons. So, of course, does America. Before long, many smaller nations, regardless of their political systems, will possess the secret of thermo-nuclear mass destruction.

All sensible people realise that an international Socialist society, democratically elected in the true sense, is the main political hope for the future, but in order to allow and encourage the forces of the Left, we must ensure that there is a world left in which to preach our propaganda, create a Socialist society; to fulfil basic human rights and thereby do the countless things that are still ignored by various political systems. Moreover, sensible people realise that a capitalist system is a complete contradiction of our aims.

Much more could be said and written about the anomalies of modern society but the contention on page 103 of the July Socialist Standard is disappointingly reactionary in its opposition and condemnation of CND. I would have expected certain elements in the staid Labour Party to believe in patchwork social democracy based on existing values of society, but for the SPGB to adopt an anti-CND stand, can hardly do your cause any good, but will have the effect of ensuring its insularity. If the SPGB succeeds in becoming a museum piece, such as the Labour Party seems destined to become, it will be because of this sort of confused, short-sighted policy.

No organisation which concerns itself with putting right the problems now confronting us, could be justified in maintaining this sort of opposition. I must assume, therefore, that the author of a “Lesson In Futility” (page 103) is not representative of his fellow members. However, the last sentence of his article is obviously faultless.

R. F. G. Radford.

Bristol CND.

Reply:
Let us dear up one point straight away. There arc no Socialists in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. A Socialist wants a new social system based upon the common owncrehip of the means of wealth production and distribution. He is not in favour of capitalism of any sort because be knows that, whatever efforts are made to reform the system, it will continue to produce problems like war with its fearsome weapons.

How do the members of CND line up with this? Mr. Radford, when he writes that he suspects the organisation contains some Liberals, confirms that a member of CND may hold any sort of political views provided he is agreed that wars should not be fought with nuclear weapons. Because of this, CND can only be another organisation which stands for a reformed capitalism; in its case, capitalism in which wars are conducted with what have come to be called "conventional" weapons. No Socialist could belong to such an organisation. There may be many CND members who sincerely think that they are Socialists, but they are not the first to get themselves involved in that particular bit of muddle-headedness.

It is rather late in the day for CND, with its Labour and Liberal members, to tell us that time is getting short. For nearly sixty years the Socialist Party of Great Britain has been explaining the cause of modern war and pointing out that the means of waging war could be expected to become more fearsome as the years went by. But in this we have always been opposed by the very parties which, as Mr. Radford says, have supplied many members of CND. Whilst we have been explaining and opposing capitalism's wars our opponents have been busily fighting them and working to make them more destructive. Who is to blame, if we are now on the brink of " . . . the final chapter in the world s history.”?

But our correspondent has to offer only the old plea that we should drop our work for Socialism until we have sorted out one more of capitalism’s problems. We have heard this plea many times before, from organisations which were worried about unemployment, or Fascism or some other side-effect of capitalism. Indeed, some of these organisations have had the chance to apply their reformist ideas. How have they turned out? Both Labour and Communist governments have built op massive armed forces for their capitalist class and they have made sure that those forces were equipped with enormous stocks of powerful weapons. They have also played their part in keeping the divisions of the capitalist world which Mr. Radford mentions by their export drives, patriotic propaganda and so on. Here is evidence enough to support the Socialist claim that reformist policies are futile.

And why does Mr. Radford say that even “. . . the USSR finds it necessary to stockpile nuclear weapons”? Russia is as much a capitalist nation as any other and cannot be expected to react any differently in face of international competition. Does Mr. Radford think that there is Socialism in Russia? And if he does, do the other “Socialists” in CND agree with him?

It is the reformist organisations which, in their support of capitalism, uphold what our correspondent calls “. . . the existing values of society.” For any social system is inseparable from its values; to support one is to uphold the other. The SPGB hat always stood for the social revolution which will sweep away capitalism and all its false social values.

This will be the complete, only and once-for-all cure for the problems of capitalism. To stand for anything less could mean that we would end up by supporting the very thing which we originally professed to oppose. That is why a one-time pacifist could serve as a Minister of War and why old opponents of the peerage system sometimes end their days in the Home of Lords. It is why people who are now members of CND will, if capitalism requires them to, fight in a nuclear war just as the pacifists of the nineteen thirties took part in the last war.

As far as the last paragraph of Mr. Radford's letter is concerned, we need hardly add that the anti-CND attitude expressed in the article “Lesson In Futility” is representative of the viewpoint of all members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Editorial Committee.

50 Years Ago: Trust Busting in America (1961)

The 50 Years Ago column from the December 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many worthy people have fondly cherished the notion that Roosevelt and his fellow Republicans meant “doing for" the trusts. Our Liberal advertisement sheets have praised him for his "great fight" and accepted him as the enemy of monopoly. But, true to capitalist methods, when something more than mere words and rhetoric is required, he turns round and defends the trusts and ridicules the idea of destroying them. In the current issue of the Outlook, Mr. Roosevelt says:

  "The big business has come to stay and it is futile to expect to return to the old days of laissez-faire. The government must see this and refrain from keeping American industries on tenterhooks and permitting foreign rivals to reap an advantage.”

In the course of his article he denounces the government for interfering with the Steel Trust and calls President Taft's policy a “chaotic" one.

So much for capitalist politicians. When they seek office they tell their poor followers that trusts can be smashed by anti-trust laws. But in the calm of other days the truth so often driven home by Socialists emerges—that combination and concentration of capital is an inevitable result of economic laws. That is the tribute of Theodore Roosevelt to Karl Marx. 

[From the Socialist Standard, December 1911.]

Twenty Five Years After (1961)

Book Review from the December 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Spanish Civil War by Hugh Thomas, Eyre & Spottiswood. 42s.

The Spanish Civil War began 25 years ago and Mr. Hugh Thomas thinks that the time has come when a study could usefully be made of a tragedy which though dwarfed by subsequent world events, nevertheless cost 600,000 lives, including about 100,000 “who may be supposed to have died by murder or summary execution”

He has made a very good job of collecting and presenting information on the complex and fast-moving events of the three-year Civil War. In his 720 pages he carries the reader forward from the election of the Popular Front Government in 1936 to the revolt that faced it soon afterwards; through the military campaigns with their alternating advantage first to one side then the other, to the final collapse of the Republican forces in March, 1939. Six months later the principal governments that had helped or hindered the Republican forces in Spain were involved in the World War—all except Spain itself, under the-victor of the civil war, General Franco.

The League of Nations which had been impotent to do anything about the “local” war was brushed aside by World War II. Yet when that war ended and the United Nations inherited the shabby mantle of the League, Spanish Republican Exiles had still learned so little that they were hoping that the new organisation would dispose of Franco.

It might have been expected that the world war and all that has happened since would have destroyed interest in the Spanish Civil War, but the steady stream of books proves otherwise. It is not the size and destructiveness of the war, but the passions aroused in participants and onlookers alike that make it still memorable. There is also the inevitable speculation about what would have happened if only some politician or party had turned in a different direction at the crucial moment.

It is memorable, too, for the flood of outside volunteers who wanted to help.

Some adventurers were bound to be attracted to Spain in the Civil War, but the majority of the 40,000 volunteers from France, Germany, Britain and U.S.A. and many other countries who joined the International Brigades were men anxious to fight and, if necessary, willing to die, “for democracy and against Fascism.” (Doubtless the same idealistic motives sent Irish and other Catholic volunteers to fight for Franco “in defence of religion").

Many soon became disenchanted when they found that war is not just dying, but living in mud and blood and hardship, and enduring the indignities of army discipline—they were learning again what their fathers who volunteered for war in 1914 could have told them. Mr. Thomas writes of early 1937:

  The volunteers had discovered in battle that “a War of ideas” is much the same as any other conflict. In Spain, or elsewhere, there was confusion of orders, jamming of rifles at the critical moment, uncertainty about the whereabouts of the enemy and of headquarters, desire for cigarettes (or sweet-tasting, things), fatigue, occasional hysteria. . . . From the start, the wilder volunteers had got into trouble with the authorities, if only for drunkenness. But now trouble was incessant. Those who wished to return home were not permitted to do so when they wished. Some complained that they had volunteered on the assumption that they could go home in three months time. Here the principles of a volunteer army conflicted with military needs. (P. 390.)

Some deserted and landed up in military detention camps (“re-education camps") and some were shot as deserters.

But, of course, the war was not won and lost by the volunteers, but by the intervention of foreign governments Germany, Italy and Russia. And the fighting men were to discover then, or alter the war, that governments have reasons of State and of profit that have little to do with the slogans and speeches about democracy and religion. 

The Anarcho-Syndicalists and others on the Republican side, who quarrelled bitterly with the Communists, were particularly incensed because Russian military aid had to be paid for; partly with the £63 million of Spanish gold that was early sent to Russia for safe keeping.

Mr. Thomas dismisses as unreal the charge that the Russians "cheated” the Republicans of the money, but concedes (p. 310) “that Russia drove a hard bargain for her goods. In addition to the gold, Spanish raw materials were despatched to Russia in bulk.”

Typical of the beliefs of Spanish critics of Russia was a statement published in London in 1941 by their Anarchist friends, in a pamphlet The Russian Myth:

  No arms or food were sent to Spain before the end of October—three months after Franco had rebelled. Immediate payment in gold was insisted upon by Stalin for such arms as were sent.

The writer of the pamphlet went on to contrast Stalin's insistence on cash down, with “Hitler and Mussolini, who gave Franco long-term credits—still in part unredeemed." He was quite wrong; German Capitalism might bait the hook with long-term credits, but not out of charity; only because a really big fish was to be caught, Spanish mineral wealth. It was German aid that was finally decisive in the autumn of 1938, but the price exacted for the arms “was German participation in all the important iron ore projects in Spain. In return for this rich prize Germany committed enough war material to Spain to tip the balance finally towards the Nationalists” (p. 612).

Mr. Thomas notes that in August, 1936, after German military help had already reached the Republican Government’s enemies in Spain, the Government was trying to buy war planes in Germany (p. 235). There is no evidence to show that Germany considered supplying the planes. If they had been in doubt they would have been duly influenced by the fact that the mineral wealth they were after in Spain was in Franco-controlled provinces.

Apart from foreign intervention with war material, troops, planes and pilots, and naval action, Mr. Thomas contrasts Franco's success in getting a high degree of unity among his supporters with the way the Republican Government was "terribly hampered by the disputes between the parties who supported it" (p. 611). He goes on:

  One excuse might be that all the parties felt so strongly about their own policies that defeat itself seemed preferable to a surrender of the purity of their individual views. It would perhaps be more truthful to say that no one was able to forge a real unity out of the Republican warring tribes as Franco and Serrano Suner were able to do among the Nationalists. (P.611.)

Failing to get aid from the West the Spanish Government had to rely more and more on Russia and the Communists —which only increased the division in its own ranks.

In April, 1939, the National Committee representing the Spanish Confederation of Labour (Anarcho-Syndicalist), the Anarchists and some other bodies published a statement, Three Years of Struggle in Spain, giving their version of events and the reason for failure. The virulence of their charges against Russia and the Russian-directed Spanish Communists shows that Mr. Thomas has understated the impossibility of Republican Unity. The National Committee bluntly declared, on the strength of their experiences in the just-ended civil war:

  Neither in war nor revolution has anti-fascist Spain had a worse enemy than Stalinism. . . . What unity did the Communist Party expect or attempt to establish? None whatever—Agents of the U.S.S.R. murdered thousands of non-Stalinist Comrades who had come to Spain and joined the International Brigades. . . .

They accused the Communists of almost every crime that they had charged against Franco, plus desertion and cowardice. They still half-believed that, but for the Communists, they would have won against Franco and his allies.

Along with evidence on which the reader can base an opinion, Mr. Thomas sums up his own by saying that most of the governments were using the opportunity of the Spanish conflict to test out weapons and study tactics for future use in larger wars. This included Republican France, and it was Léon Blum who at his trial in 1942 spoke of the Spanish war as a “test for French aviation material” (p. 615). Of course, Germany, Russia and Italy were exploiting the same opportunity, though it is one of the ironies of the situation that most of the observers appear to have drawn the wrong lessons or failed to profit by the right ones. The exceptions were the Italians and Yugoslavs who learned a lot about the kind of war the Partisans were to carry on later in both countries.

Other than that, the intervening and non-intervening governments were thinking about alignments and manoeuvring for position for the threatening world war. Each government, however, seems to have been hesitant about pushing intervention so far as to provoke that war immediately.

When the Spanish democrats complained about the governments of Britain, France, Russia and U.S.A. not being prepared to take all measures to save Republican Spain “for the sake of democracy," they were forgetting that all Capitalist groups (Russia included) are motivated by the same kind of economic and strategic interests: deciding policy on the basis of ideologies is not to be expected of any of them. If any Republicans still held this illusion in the Spring of 1939 when the Republican armies collapsed they had only to wait six months to see Germans and Russians who had been warring in Spain for three years, hobnobbing together to celebrate the Stalin-Hitler pact of friendship.

But though all the other Powers were sooner or later caught up in World War II, Franco reversed the roles—he was willing to give aid to Germany, at a price, but he was not drawn into the war as a combatant Power. This did not save the Spanish Blue Division from sharing the horrors of the war in Russia, fighting alongside the German armies. On the Republican side, Mr. Thomas relates that Russian officers who fought in Spain were among those liquidated by Stalin in the purges (p. 621), and “nearly all veterans of the Spanish Civil War in Eastern European countries were arrested and many were shot.” Later on, after the death of Stalin in 1953, they were ” rehabilitated.”

In the Epilogue in which Mr. Thomas briefly notes the subsequent fate of those who came to prominence in Spain, he tells of the Republican general El Campesino who as an exile was welcomed to Russia, but fell foul of the authorities. He escaped and in appalling difficulties made his way to Persia; only to be handed back by the British. He escaped again and is still hoping to unseat Franco. In El Campesino's own memoirs he says that what queered him with the Russian authorities was that, on being asked at a military academy which was the world's most effective fighting machine, he named the German army!

Mr. Thomas's material shows how heavily the scales were weighted against the Republicans in the international field. He expresses the opinion that “the financiers of Europe and America not only expected the Nationalists to win but desired them to” (p. 273). A vital help for Franco was that of the Texas Oil Co. was at once willing to supply oil on long-term credit, without guarantee.

Nevertheless, Mr. Thomas’s implied criticisms of the American and British Governments seem designed to invite speculation as to what might have happened if, say, American Capitalism had had big and immediate interests endangered by a Republican defeat, or if those British Conservatives who supported the Republicans had been able to persuade the Government that long-term British Capitalist interests were involved and that they should support the Republicans and risk major war with Germany and Italy. In which event the world war may have come a little sooner.

Those who, for whatever reasons, hold the view that the workers should support war can say that in 1936 that risk was worth taking. But those who reject it had and have another aspect of the Spanish conflict to consider.

It is not merely being wise after the event to say that the Republicans’ position was impossible and that civil war could not solve their problems. Many observers saw this at the time. The Popular Front which, by a bare majority of votes, won the 1936 election, was composed of such divergent elements that the aim of some of them, a sort of Labour-Liberal Parliamentary democracy, was at that time as much out of the question as the establishment of Socialism. There were the Communists, aiming to establish dictatorship on the Russian model; the Basque and Catalonian separatists inspired by hatred of central government; and the very large body of Anarcho-Syndicalists who repudiated politics and parliamentary methods, which they called "empty phrasemongering,” and who believed in direct action, violence, and armed revolt, as much against a Republican Government as any other. Their support for the Popular Front and the Popular Front Government was a denial of all their principles, regretted almost as soon as it was given.

If we concede that by some different balance of international Capitalist interests the Popular Front could have emerged victorious at the end of the civil war, what could they have done with victory that would have borne any resemblance to the democratic Spain they, or some of them, had hoped for?

Edgar Hardcastle

Marxism: an anti-capitalist view? (2004)

Book Review from the December 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

Anti-Capitalism. A Marxist Introduction. Edited by Alfredo Saad-Filho. Pluto Press.

If you proclaim yourself to be “anti-capitalist”, it is a good idea to have some idea of what capitalism is. Alfredo Saad-Filho has gathered together here contributions from people considering themselves Marxists to produce “a Marxist introduction” to capitalism and anti-capitalism. His opening article on “Value, Capital and Exploitation” is excellent as is the closing article by Paresh Chattopadhyay, who understands that the abolition of capitalism involves the disappearance of money, wage-labour, commodity production and buying and selling generally and that “Marx does not distinguish between communism and socialism. Both stand for the society succeeding capitalism. (The distinction was first to be made famous, if not introduced, by Lenin)”. A number of the others make valid points, as, for instance, Ellen Meiksins Wood when she points out that many in the “anti-capitalist movement”:

  “are not so much anti-capitalist as anti-‘globalisation’, or perhaps anti-neoliberal, or even just opposed to particularly malignant corporations. They assume that the detrimental effects of the capitalist system can be eliminated by taming global corporations or by making them more ‘ethical’, ‘responsible’, and socially conscious.”

Others, despite their reputations, are obviously mere reformists, especially two ex-members of a Communist Party, Ben Fine and Suzanne de Brunhoff. The former, who can’t have known about Chattopadhyay’s contribution, talks of “some form of wage labour persisting” in the first stage of socialist/communist society while the latter opines that “a new public regulation of markets and financial institutions is necessary”.

   

In fact, all through the book there is an underlying tension between an analysis of capitalism as a profit-driven system governed by its own economic laws which preclude it working in the interest of the majority class of wage and salary workers and proposals to try to make it do precisely that.

   

You would have thought that the main aim of an anti-capitalist movement would be to end capitalism and establish socialism (as the sort of society described by Chattopadhyay). Apparently not. If this book is anything to go by, this is not advocated, except rhetorically, even by those within it who consider themselves Marxists. The aim seems to be to bring pressure on existing governments to introduce reforms and to change their policy so as to tame multinational corporations and/or return to the state interventionism of pre-Reagan and Thatcher times. Even Saad-Filho himself claims, in his introduction:

“Pressure for or against specific policies can be effective, and the ensuing policy choices can improve significantly the living conditions of the majority” (his emphasis).

“Improve significantly”? We can only retort “Prove it”, since all the evidence of experience as well as a Marxian analysis and understanding of capitalism goes against this. That’s why, in our view, coherent anti-capitalists should be campaigning for socialism not changes of policy.

Adam Buick

Stepping Stones. (1934)

From the October 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

For A New Reader

It is sometimes interesting to know how people of professional qualifications react to the Socialist Standard when it is first brought to their notice. Those who have had the opportunity to do so must have been struck by the great similarity of opinions expressed by these people. Such expressions as— “the paper seems fascinated by the idea of capitalism," and “the statement in the Declaration of Principles referring to the consequent enslavement of the working class by whose labour alone wealth is produced is sheer nonsense," are not uncommon. Let us, therefore, endeavour to deal with these particular objections.

To a new reader it does, perhaps, seem that the Socialist Standard is “ fascinated by this idea of capitalism," according to the rather sloppy wording of this particular objection. An inanimate object like a paper cannot, of course, be subject to the influence of fascination. What is undoubtedly meant is that there is throughout the Socialist Standard a continual reference to capitalism as being the main cause of the evils which exist to-day. Those evils are almost too well known to need recapitulation. They are widespread poverty and semi-starvation in the midst of an abundance of wealth, lying advertisements—part of the enormously wasteful method of distribution, with its myriads of shops and salesmen and deliverers, the colossal waste of human effort in the building of battleships, aeroplanes and armaments, the fussy and useless activities in the circularizing of letters and the faking up of news as an adjunct to the advertisers, the waste of valuable human labour in ministering to the whims and caprices of wealthy idlers—these, and the evils which arise directly from poverty itself, such as prostitution, robberies and murders.

If capitalism is the cause of these evils, then it is obvious that any party which maintains that this is the case must constantly refer by name to that order of society. In all sciences there are words which indicate certain basic ideas or principles, and if any discussion upon any section of that particular science is to be understood at all, those words must be used whenever that particular idea or principle is referred to. For instance, in physiology one constantly has to refer to the heart and the circulation of the blood. In the same way, in sociology one has to refer to the elements which constitute a particular society, and the particular form of society in which we are living at the present time, and which therefore interests us the most, has been given the name of Capitalism. It is, therefore, frequently necessary to use this word, and no apology is required for doing so. It is perhaps unnecessary to add that the pro-capitalist Morning Post constantly refers to the existing form of society as Capitalism.

That capitalism is the cause of the evils enumerated above, besides many others, has been abundantly proved in the previous issues of this journal. It is not proposed to go into this in detail here, but it is sufficient to point out that the characteristics of capitalism are—the private ownership of the means of production and the production of articles for profit. It is not very difficult to perceive that those evils arise from this fact of private ownership and the efforts by the few people who own them to dispose of those commodities.

“The consequent enslavement of the working class” is the next phrase which antagonizes our professional friends. Does it not logically follow that if the means of living are owned by one class, then any other class can have no other relation to the first class than that of slaves? But if logical deduction is not sufficient, then what are the facts? Unless he steals or begs, a person without capital has to work in order to live. He has to find a master. That master is generally some big combine or other. During the time that he is with that firm he has to work hard, he has to do what he is told, he frequently has to smile back when he is insulted, he is bullied, and if he dares to stand up for himself, he is sent forth to endure the torments of unemployment. He is now “free,” but as it is difficult to live upon the dole, quick as thought he has to start searching for another master. Whilst he is on the dole he is constantly being summoned to the Exchange for his case to be “reviewed”; an investigator comes round to see if he has managed to put by any savings or if he has earned a few shillings surreptitiously, and if he has and has not disclosed it, then woe betide him. Is this man not a slave to the class which employs him and which, when he is out of work, administers the relief and the unemployment benefit ?

It is, incidentally, of interest to note that the recent creation of a Central Assistance Board to control the local relieving authorities is in parallel with the development of capitalist industry. As capitalism becomes more centralised, the capitalists would not desire local relieving authorities, over whom they could not exercise direct control, to distribute scales of relief in excess of what they, in their just wisdom, might deem necessary. 

The next phrase calling for comment is “ the working class, by whose labour alone all wealth is produced.” The professionals like to think of themselves as performing some useful function, and hence, no doubt, their objection to this phrase. Definition is, however, the starting point of any science, and if it is realized that by the working class is meant all those who are compelled to sell their mental and physical energy—what we Socialists term labour-power—in order to get a living, then it is obvious that this term includes clerical and professional workers and scientists, and it cannot be denied that it is only the application of the energies of the workers to material supplied by Nature which results in the production of all present-day commodities.

The production of these commodities to supply human wants is of such a complicated nature that it can only be carried on by groups of men working together. The commodities which these workers have produced, however, do not belong to them, but to a group of anonymous capitalists who endeavour to dispose of the commodities. In times of trade depression the commodities cannot be sold, the men who have produced them are discharged, and are unable to obtain the very goods which they they themselves have produced and of which they may be in sore need. There is, therefore, a disharmony in the mode of production brought about by—on the one hand—social production, and—on the other hand—private ownership of the means of production. Therefore, by abolishing private ownership and substituting for it social ownership, the disharmony is eliminated and mankind will then be able to lead a free and full life.

Ramo.

Editorial: Trade Unionists in Conclave. (1934)

Editorial from the October 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

The annual conference of the Trades Union Congress took place this year at Weymouth under the chairmanship of Mr. Andrew Conley.

This year’s conference followed the trend of those of late years. The Government of the day was roundly condemned alike for the things that it has done and for the things it has left undone, and resolutions were passed recommending numerous reforms. All of which is to be expected of trade union conferences. This conference, however, was probably rescued from boredom by a provocative address by the chairman, a discussion on the bogey of Fascism, and another on war and the general strike.

Speaking on the conference resolution for a forty hours week, Mr. Conley said: 

  “Trade unionism may yet have to use more drastic means of making effective its demand for this reform— and other of its claims. We may have to resort to other methods if the Government and the private interests which keep it in power continue to stand in the way. I am not using the language of menace but stating the conclusions which responsible officers of the trade unions are being driven to by the pressure of events. Many of us are being compelled to ask ourselves whether the best use is made in existing circumstances of the tremendous powers resident in our trade union organisation. The presentation and prosecution of wage claims, claims for shorter working hours, and other measures of general industrial application have been left to individual unions to press forward in limited application to their own industries or trades. Is it not wise and timely to consider the simultaneous presentation to employers in all industries of a carefully planned programme of wage increases, and a standard of working hours which each union or group of unions, with the assistance and guidance of the General Council, can make a matter of negotiation in the trades with which they are concerned?
  “Piece-meal wage movements are on foot. They are backed by the argument that more spending power must become available in the hands of the wage-earning class, to lift the standard of life and to bring consumption up to the level of productive capacity. These sporadic and uncoordinated movements should be linked together in a disciplined and ordered effort to carry the unions forward as a united body. No infringement of the autonomy of unions is involved here. It is the logical next step in the development of the powers of this congress. The functions of leadership and unification of policy which congress expects its general council to exercise, find their justification here."

The above is worth its lengthy quotation. It is an attitude uncommon at the moment among trade union leaders, for it has been interpreted by the Press as logically leading to a threat of a general strike. This may or may not be the logic of Mr. Conley’s position. It does, however, reflect an increased aggressiveness among trade unionists, which in its turn reflects the increase in trade and production. There is less pre-occupation with the “crisis” and more inclination to regard the employer as the enemy, a greater disposition to press for concessions and less of the attitude of peace in industry.” Nevertheless, Mr. Conley would have improved upon the situation had he anticipated in his argument the simultaneous refusal by employers when faced with the threatened "simultaneous presentation to employers in all industries of a carefully planned programme of wage increases.” Remembering the back-door tricks of the T.U.C. in the so-called general strike of 1926, many trade unionists will await with interest to see whether Mr. Conley and "other responsible officers” will make their views heard on the General Council in the near future.

Conference developed discussion on the general strike in dealing with a decision of the last Labour Party conference calling upon the trade unions to call a general strike in the event of war. The subject was the kind to bring politicians to their feet. For example, Mr. Clynes: “Did the critics mean that under no circumstances should they offer resistance to an aggressor threatening to destroy democratic institutions?” Shades of 1914 and the “War to save democracy,” and twenty years later a trade union leader before an audience of working men and women can get away with the melodramatic suggestion that an “enemy” capitalist goes to war with "our” capitalist because he is anxious to destroy our democratic institutions. Mr. Bevin favoured deciding on a “course of action when the danger was on them." Others favoured the point of view that a war of defence against an “aggressor nation" was justifiable. The Daily Herald, on this point, suggested that there is “little likelihood that Britain would be an aggressor country." Is the inference obvious? Is the Daily Herald preparing a defence for a future Labour Government that might find war “justifiable” ? It seemed to occur to no delegate to question whether a general strike would be successful in preventing war, or what possible benefit it would be for the working-class to fight in any war to further capitalist interests. The motion calling for a general strike was defeated and the conference contented itself with the motion that the “General Council would call a meeting to decide what action it would take if war was declared."

The capitalist class will, we think, lose no sleep over the possibility. The Daily Telegraph, September 7th, without conscious irony, pointed out that on July 31st, 1914, on the eve of the late War, the late Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. Arthur Henderson issued, on behalf of the British section of the International Socialist Bureau, a flaming appeal to the British working-class. It ended: "Down with class rule! Down with the rule of brute force! Down with war! Up with the peaceful rule of the people!" Hardly had the ink dried before the official Labour Party and Trade Union movement were enthusiastically supporting the War. And later, Mr. Henderson “downed" those who made themselves a nuisance to the capitalists by recommending obstinate strikers for deportation.

In the debate on the proposal for raising the school leaving age to sixteen years, leaders of religious organisations came in for some criticism because of their sectarian differences. No mention was made of the fact that the Labour Government's bill for raising the school leaving age to fifteen years was prevented from becoming law because of the opposition of religionists within the Labour Party, led by the late Mr. John Scurr, then Labour M.P. for Mile End.

Likewise, the new Unemployment Insurance Act, which, though differing only in minor points from the Act which was in force during the period of the Labour Government, was described as a “ slave bill."

The affiliated membership of the T.U.C. was given as 3,294,581, a decrease on last year’s figures of 73,330. It was pointed out, however, that the decrease has now fallen off, and an actual increase taking place. Moreover, it was stated that, as affiliation fees are based upon the membership of individual unions, these unions tend to be conservative in their estimated membership, owing to financial difficulties due to prolonged unemployment.

This year’s conference gave no signs of having got any nearer to the Socialist understanding of capitalism than former conferences.

Editorial: 1904 -1934 and Progressing (1934)

Editorial from the November 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

The first number of the Socialist Standard appeared in September, 1904. From that month to this it has appeared regularly every month, advocating the same policy and aiming at the same objective. It is the only paper left of those in 1904 claiming to represent the interests of the working class.

Incidentally, it is interesting to notice that the old organisations have also gone along with the papers they published, for, now that the I.L.P. has become practically a limb of the Communist Party, it would hardly be fair to saddle it with the views of its parent.

The members who saw the first issue of our paper in print were young and hopeful. In spite of the difficulties of the time they expected to see Socialism here during their life-time. Progress has been slower than they anticipated, but for all that it has been solid and greater than appears from a first glance.

The standard of education of the workers is higher than in those earlier times, and Socialist ideas are widespread. In fact, Socialism is no longer the view of cranks, hut is something to be reckoned with. Dictatorships are partly efforts to kill the dragon.

As reform movements collapse and the Labour Party, with its satellites, reap the whirlwind that eventually reaches the discredited reformer, the prospects for Socialism will become brighter.

Russia is steadily proceeding with its industrialisation programme and, unless anything unforeseen happens, will one day take its place as a first-class capitalist power. It will eventually destroy its alien Communist supporters and bring to an end the Communist movement that has spread a blight over the movement for Socialism since the war.

One thing above all is essential to ensure the triumph of Socialism, and that is the enthusiastic advocacy of our principles and policy by those who accept them. Given this enthusiastic support then there is every reason to believe that Socialism will be a matter of our life-time. It is just because Socialism is a practical question of to-day, and not an ideal of a hundred years ahead, that we are organised in the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Consequently, we urge all really practical workers to give our principles and our policy their serious consideration. The more convinced and enthusiastic advocates we have the sooner will Socialism be here, and with it an end to our economic troubles.

It should be an inducement to waverers to know that here is a Party whose principles are so soundly based on facts that they have been a safe political anchorage for thirty years, through peace and war and post-war troubles.

Letter: The S.L.P. and the Conduct of Meetings. (1934)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the following letter from a reader in Vancouver : —

“Vancouver, B.C.,

“Canada.

“ September 21st, 1934.

"Comrades,

“In the September issue of the Socialist Standard, in reference to conduct of public meetings, you publish a statement of the Secretary of the British Section of the Socialist Labour Party, quoting that they allow questions and open discussion at all propaganda meetings.

“In this respect the British Section are ahead of the American Section, as last month (Thursday, August 16th), at the Victory Hall, Vancouver, I attended a meeting of the S.L.P., addressed by Eric Hass. Questions were allowed, but discussion was not allowed, and when the Chairman’s decision was protested from the floor he adjourned the meeting.

“I might add, the speaker was in difficulty over a question of the Communists dealing with the ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat,’ but the meeting was orderly, and the attitude of the Chairman could only be construed as evidence of the weakness of the position of the S.L.P.

What They Were Fighting For. (1934)

From the November 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Lloyd George’s “War Memories” (Vol. Ill) recall the wartime controversies about the secret treaties in which the Allied Governments set down their real war aims, which were in violent contrast with their published ones. General Smuts, at one time beloved of the “peace-by-negotiation” groups, wrote a report for Mr. Lloyd George when the latter was Premier. It contained the aims for which he thought the War should be waged and hundreds of thousands of workers’ lives should be thrown away. Here are the first two aims:

 (a) Destruction of the German Colonial System, with a view to the future security of all communications vital to the British Empire. This has already been done—an achievement of enormous value which ought not to be endangered at the peace negotiations. 

(b) Tearing off from the Turkish Empire all parts that may afford Germany opportunity of expansion to the Far East and of endangering our own position as an Asiatic Power. This has essentially been achieved, although the additional conquest of Palestine may be necessary to complete the task.

The Chief Task of our Times (1934)

From the December 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

In these times of fast communications and well-organised news services, with airmen hopping half-way round the earth in a few days, we are given the advantages of knowing fully and almost at once what the other half of the world is thinking. We find that they are thinking very much the same as we are. They are thinking that life is very hard, and the outlook very cheerless, for the human race. If they are workers they are wondering why it is so difficult to get and to keep employment; why there is food and the means of producing food alongside idle men who lack a sufficiency of it; why it is that work is so drab, tedious and exhausting when obviously it could be made very much more agreeable; why the ingenuity of craftsmen, scientists, inventors and so on is being devoted so largely to producing and perfecting weapons of destruction; why the world’s statesmen all proclaim their brotherly sentiments, but cannot translate them into the practical form of abolishing or reducing the armed forces.

These and many other questions flow through the minds of the world’s workers as they set off to or return from their employers’ factory, mine or office, or line up at the Labour Exchange or its equivalent, in New York, in London, in Tokyo and in Berlin.

Members of the propertied classes worry their heads, too. They have their own doubts and difficulties. They wonder why the working-class animal is such a difficult, unaccountable creature. Why it will not accept all the soothing answers given to it by those in control. They wonder, too, why foreigners must keep on thrusting themselves into the markets, territories and investment areas in which capitalist interests are centred. If they are British they wonder whether to open the door to Sir Oswald Mosley, who is knocking at it, or whether they can safely slam it in his face. They wonder whether the next election may bring a Labour majority; whether that will be very disastrous for them or whether they had not better accept it, lest worse befall.

And everyone, capitalist and worker alike, Socialist and non-Socialist, bears in mind the possibility that international rivalries may sooner or later culminate in a world war more deadly than the last.

These cheerless signs are not novel, but they are more depressing for most people because many of the accustomed opiates have been taken away. It gets harder every year for an intelligent person to believe that he can safely leave the world’s intricate problems to the experts, politicians, journalists and so on. There was a time when, for the average man or woman, it was comforting, and not outrageous, to stifle doubts with the thought that the leaders know all about it—leave it to them. But now? Will anyone confidently leave it to MacDonald and Thomas, the lost leaders of the Labour Party, or to the other leaders who ran away from the application of measures they had already agreed to? Or the statesmen who drowned the world in blood, and who now confess that they none of them want war, but do not know how to prevent it? The statesmen who say that capitalism is the best of all possible systems, but who do not know what crises are or how they arise, let alone how they can be prevented? Shall they trust their war lords of land and sea, their Haigs of Passchendaele, and their muddlers of Mesopotamia? Shall they trust their Bottomleys and Kruegers, Hatries and Insulls, or the non-criminal, but equally fatal, bankers and business men, politicians and newspaper proprietors, churchmen and lawyers, who have led them into the present stupefying chaos?

Confidence is a somewhat shop-soiled commodity these days, but those who set great store by it are now at a loss which way to turn. They would still like to believe, but there are too many awkward memories.

The Socialist Message of Hope.
Socialists alone can look at the world without pessimism or despair. Socialists never built up false hopes, and have not been disillusioned. Seeing the world as it is we know how great the task is, but we know what can be done by determined, organised work towards a clearly-outlined goal. The world is out of joint because the social system is faulty at the foundation. The private ownership of the means of production and distribution is no longer necessary or desirable. It produces the evils of poverty, unemployment, competition, war and class hatred. It has got to be abolished. Instead of an anarchistic war of private owners seeking profit and permitting the workers to produce wealth only when profit is to be obtained by so doing, the social system needs to be refashioned on the new basis of common ownership. Society must assume possession of its means of life. The private owners must be dispossessed. Their private interests and their class privilege must not be allowed to stand in the way of social progress and the welfare of the whole community. The Socialist Party of Great Britain has taken on the great task of organising for that end. We concentrate on the one vital question, capitalism to be replaced by Socialism, private ownership to give place to common ownership, privilege to give place to equality.

Our aim is one to which the workers of the whole world can rally, "without distinction of race or sex.” The Socialist movement is the one movement in the van of social progress, able to face the present world troubles with understanding and confidence.

Edgar Hardcastle