What is Behind the Government's Spanish Policy? (1937)

From the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many people have been puzzled at the attitude of the British Government, the capitalist Press and the ruling class generally towards the civil war in Spain. It was natural that their class prejudices and their associations with Spanish Conservatives and the Catholic Church would make them sympathise with General Franco’s revolt and hope for its success. Yet it might have been expected that they would quickly see the force of the argument, put forward by the Naval correspondent of a Conservative newspaper, that from a strategic point of view the interests of the Empire are bound up with the defeat of Franco and his German-Italian backers. This correspondent pointed out that German-Italian dominance of Spain and Spanish Morocco, including the approaches to Gibraltar and the control of the Balearic Islands in the western Mediterranean, unquestionably threatens the British hold on the Mediterranean and seriously, hampers communications with East Africa, India and beyond. Mussolini’s military and naval experts have not troubled to keep secret the intention of turning the sea into an Italian lake; and their British counterparts have been compelled to recognise that the threat is not an idle one. The handling of the Abyssinian affair showed that the British Cabinet were not prepared at that time to risk an open clash with the Italian forces. What, then, is the explanation of the Government’s behaviour, apparently so little in keeping with their class and imperial interests ? The attempt to provide an answer must take into account many divergent factors.

Willing But Not Yet Ready For War

First, there is the aspect, referred to above, that the Government was not ready for a possible war with Italy. That was an important factor in 1935 when Italy invaded Abyssinia. It is less important now that British naval and air rearmament has got well under way. It will be noticed that the recent announcements about the building of new or reconditioning of old warships and about the completion of more and more up-to- date squadrons of aeroplanes coincide with a noticeably more aggressive policy towards encroachments on British capitalist interests in the Mediterranean. Where before there was comparative reticence we now have the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Eden, declaring in unmistakable terms that British disinterestedness in the Spanish conflict does not mean indifference where British interests are concerned “ on the land or the sea frontiers of Spain or the trade routes that pass her by ” (Report of speech in Parliament, The Times, July 20th, 1937). He and the Prime Minister issued a plain warning to German and Italian capitalists that the Mediterranean is for British capitalism “a main arterial route, and we intend to maintain our place on it.”

Mr. Eden further warned Italy that : —

It has always been, and it is to-day, a major British interest that no great Power should establish itself on the Eastern shore of the Red Sea.

That the German and Italian threat is a serious one is shown by the information about big guns overlooking Gibraltar erected in the past six months by Franco’s foreign friends. Even the most loyal of Franco’s Tory supporters began to choke at the idea of “The Rock” being dominated by German or Italian guns and, with unconscious humour, they now grow more enthusiastic for strong action to prevent the intervention of foreigners in Spain.

It escapes their notice that to a patriotic Spaniard the most outrageous of all intervention of foreigners on Spanish soil is the existence of this British fortress at Gibraltar.

Mr. Winston Churchill made a characteristic statement. Speaking at Wanstead on July 4th (Manchester Guardian, July 5th) he regretted Mussolini’s recent policy and said: —

If I had been an Italian I should have been on Mussolini’s side fifteen years ago when he rescued his country from the horrible fate of sinking into violent Communism. All the more do I regret some of the recent utterings of Signor Mussolini.

Happily, Mr. Churchill continued, the power and preponderance of the British navy is growing rapidly. It already far exceeds the preponderance we possessed over other European Powers at the outbreak of the Great War.

Spanish Mineral Wealth An Issue

Then, again, Spain for the rival powers is not only the arena of a conflict about democracy and dictatorship, but also and more importantly a country of great mineral wealth. The facts are well known. Frank C. Hanighen summarises them in an article in the New Statesman (April 24th, 1937): —

Spain constitutes a far richer preserve of the basic elements which nourish industry than either Ethiopia or the former German colonies. Iron, the principal staple in munitions making, which both Germany and Italy lack, exists in abundance near Oviedo, near Vigo, and in the beleaguered Basque provinces. The best copper mines in Europe lie in Huelva province. Not far from the mercury of Almaden, the famous Pefiarroya mine produces high-grade lead. Other essential minerals—coal, tin, tungsten, silver, molybdenum, salt, phosphates, pyrites, graphite and zinc—are scattered throughout the peninsula and, across the straits of Gibraltar, Spanish Morocco contains iron, lead and manganese. Under monarchy and republic, foreign interests and, to a lesser extent, Spanish capital developed only a part of these resources. Accordingly, when the republic faced serious civil strife, it was natural that the two most predatory Powers in Europe should look hungrily towards Spain.

Mr. Hanighen. shows how Germany began organising the shipment of iron ore from Spain in 1934, but for a considerable period the trade was interrupted owing to Germany’s financial difficulties. Then, in 1936, by arrangement with the rebels, shipment was resumed on the basis of exchanging ore for armaments. He quotes Edgar Mowrer, correspondent in Spain of the Chicago Daily News, as saying on December 22nd, 1936: “ An entire fleet of ships is engaged in bringing arms to Spain, returning loaded with iron ore for Germany,” and adds his own opinion that “it is not too much to say that the German adventure in Spain saved the German re-armament programme.” He contends that before the revolt occurred in July, 1936, the iron ore situation in Germany had become serious: “Britain had started to compete for Swedish ore, one of Germany’s best sources. The French Socialists, in power in France, had been talking of an embargo on Lorraine ores to Germany. Spanish iron ore for the past year had been unavailable because Spanish exporters could not obtain German import licences as a result of the German currency shortage.”

Here we have Germany’s interest. Italy was likewise concerned to gain control of the tungsten and vanadium deposits, the iron, lead, copper and sulphur near Cartagena, and the mercury mines of Almaden, north of Cordoba.

It is plain enough why German aeroplanes should bomb Guernica, in the north, on the way to Bilbao and Oviedo, and why Italian troops should be engaged in trying to capture Almaden in the south'. Indeed, Hitler and Mussolini have lately been quite candid about it.

Addressing a Nazi gathering at Wurzburg on June 27th, 1937 (News Chronicle, June 28th), Hitler said:

Germany needs ore. That is why we want a Nationalist Government in Spain—to be able to buy Spanish ore.

and Mussolini, in an article in Popolo d'Italia on June 26th, 1937 (The Times, June 28th), wrote: 

 Italy has not been neutral, but has fought, and victory will also be hers.

But while the policy of Italy and Germany has been easy to understand and has been complicated only by possible divergences of interest between the two powers, the situation, from the standpoint of British capitalism, has been more complex.

The private interests of British shareholders in companies working mines in Spain have had to be considered and these have not necessarily coincided with the interests of the British imperial exploiters as a whole.

The Choice for British Capitalists

First consider the difficulties of the situation facing the big and wealthy companies operating in Spain : the Rio Tinto Co., Ltd., which owns great copper and sulphur mines in the province of Huelva; the £2,000,000 Orconera Iron Ore Co., “in which the Consett Company and Guest Keen Baldwins Iron & Steel Co. hold investments of a nominal value of £800,000 each ” (Daily Express, July 20th, 1937); the Barcelona Traction Co. and many others.

The aim of the directors in such concerns is naturally that of protecting their properties and maintaining profit-earning capacities. Beyond that they would incline to hope for a Franco victory as more likely to give a “strong government," which would “stand no nonsense from trade unions,” particularly when they read the declarations of the aims of some of the Popular Front Government’s supporters. How, in fact, have British capitalist interests fared?

The Anglo-Spanish Construction Co., which owns and operates the Santander-Mediterraneo Railway, say that everything has been satisfactory since General Franco took control of the area (The Times, July 9th, 1937).

From Government territory the Barcelona Traction Light & Power Co. tell a different story in a statement to shareholders (The Times, June 26th, 1937).

The company found so many difficulties in its relationships with the Workers' Committees that it withdrew its staff in September, 1936.

They state that since the date of the issue of the two circulars last year the general conditions in Spain have grown steadily worse and have, in fact, developed in such a way that it has been found impossible to obtain any reliable information as to the true position of the affairs of the enterprise in that country in which the Barcelona company is interested. The seizure effected by the Workers’ Committee in Barcelona covers all the properties, funds, and banking accounts of the enterprise.

Representations made through the British Foreign Office against the usurpation of the interests of the enterprise, and protests from time to time by the British Consul-General in Barcelona to the Catalonian Government, have produced no satisfactory results. The funds and cash have been removed from the banking accounts of the enterprise and appropriated by the Workers’ Committee. [Times, June 26th, 1937.) 

While firms in Franco territory have had to submit to financial losses and such inconveniences as the murder of hundreds of their workers (as happened with the Rio Tinto Co.), it is not to be wondered at if they prefer that to the seizure of their property and funds by Workers’ Committees.

It is therefore hardly surprising that Rio Tinto shares dropped from £22 to £13 following the electoral victory of the Popular Front Government in February, 1936, and rose sharply after the rebels captured Huelva in August, 1936 (New Statesman, April 24th).

About the Orconera Iron Ore Co. and its mines in Bilbao province the position is somewhat obscure. The Times City editor says (July 19th, 1937) that until about a month earlier there had been no interruption of shipments from these mines. Then there was a stoppage during the fighting round Bilbao, which resulted in Franco’s capture of that town. Franco then gave a verbal promise that ore supplies to Britain would not be interfered with. It was, however, reported from Berlin (News Chronicle, July 20th, 1937) that a German treaty with Franco provides that Germany’s much-needed iron ore for re-armament will be supplied from the Basque mines.

This may mean that Franco is acting against the interests of the British companies or it may mean that an agreement has been arrived at between the interested German, British and Spanish companies. The article in the New Statesman, quoted above, gives support to the latter view, although it deals with other companies than the Orconera Co.

While Germany and Italy quite openly fight battles for raw materials, international capital takes a stand which can only be construed as co-operation with these Powers. In the Riff, for instance, British and French mines receive no payments for the ore which is being sent to Germany (all payments, as it has been shown, are applied to Franco’s armament debt). Yet these companies show an odd diffidence about the matter. Not a single protest has been filed by these companies or their governments. On the contrary, the financial elements in London and Paris representative of these companies are known to be strongly pro- Franco.

Consider the extraordinary case of the Rio Tinto mines . . .According to the Manchester Guardian, the output of Rio Tinto is being requisitioned and sold to Germany, at a price of 42 pesestas to the pound, whereas the current rate is between 80 and 90 per pound. Has an international capitalist “understanding” been reached with Franco and his Fascist backers ?

“. . . . Why should not these British and French interests find in a Franco victory a solution of difficulties which have prevented them from being impartially (and prosperously) international ? Currency restrictions and the consequent inability of Germany and Italy to buy freely have kept many companies from profiting from the German and Italian armament booms. But with Franco in power, British and French capital might flow into a newly-organised Bank of Spain, Germany and Italy might borrow from this institution to pay for raw materials, and dividends in Penarroya, Almaden and the foreign companies in the Riff would be amply assured.”

What exactly these various British companies may be doing behind the scenes it is impossible to know, but it is certainly likely that they would seek some such solution as the one suggested by Mr. Hanighen. It must also be noticed that the controllers of these companies are exceedingly influential in British political as well as financial circles and would be able to exert great pressure on Government policy in a direction which would help them strike a good bargain with Franco and Franco’s friends.

There remains to be considered still one more aspect of the problem, that is the dependence of British re-armament on metals from Spain and elsewhere.

Ore For British Armaments

While British capitalists would have no objection whatever to making profit by selling materials to Germany or Italy for their armaments, the British Government, acting for the capitalists as a whole, cannot be indifferent to a stoppage of supplies needed for British arms. Already there is an acute shortage of steel and the loss of well over a million tons a year of Spanish ore (which cannot easily be replaced by poorer-quality ores from English or other mines) would be a serious matter for British capitalism. The Times City editor (July 19th, 1937) summarises the problem as follows (it will be noticed that, as regards Swedish ore, this statement rather conflicts with that made by Mr. Hanighen): —

If imports from Spain were to be cut off through ore being diverted to Germany or for any other reason, the task of making good the deficiency might present serious difficulties. Large deposits exist, it is true, in many parts of the world, but owing to the higher level of freight rates the cost of shipping ore from distant countries like India and Australia is apt to prove prohibitive. Of countries near at hand Sweden has probably the richest deposits, but exports are limited by the Swedish Government to about 10,000,000 tons annually, the bulk of which goes to Germany under contracts that have still several years to run. Except through a direct agreement with the Swedish Government, the scope for expanding supplies from this source is probably limited. In the first half of the current year imports from Algeria, Tunis, and especially Norway, were all higher, and should Germany contrive to satisfy a larger proportion of her requirements in Spain there is a possibility that still larger supplies in these countries would be available to Britain. Meanwhile, as the Import Duties Advisory Committee pointed out in its report, events are stimulating a movement towards the proportionately larger use of low-grade native ores, deposits of which, distributed through Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire, and Northamptonshire, are estimated at not less than 3,000,000,000 tons, or sufficient for an annual output of 10,000,000 tons of steel for 100 years. Substitution of native low-grade ores for foreign ores with high metallic content could not, however, be effected wholesale without considerable modification of existing plant and, therefore, offers no immediate solution to the problem of the scarcity.

How the British capitalists try to solve their problems in Spain is, of course, their own affair, but it is necessary for Socialists to try to understand the main lines of their policy, if only in order to combat the notion, increasingly prevalent in Labour circles, that British capitalism can be trusted to pursue a peaceful, idealistic foreign policy free from the violent and sordid motives which underly the policies of the dictators.

British Government policy at the present time probably runs on the following lines: —

Determination to resist German and Italian control of Spanish territory. A desire to see a Spanish Government ultimately strong enough in armed force and popular support to prevent this. A desire not to see either side in the civil war overwhelmingly victorious, since such a Government would feel less dependent on British capital and British support. And a willingness—on terms—to do a deal with either side in the struggle, the terms to include safety for British investments and guarantees for the continued supply of ore.

Edgar Hardcastle

Here and There: The Church in Spain (1937)

The Here and There column from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Church in Spain

Among a series of excellent articles on Spain in the Manchester Guardian one deals with the function of the Catholic Church in Spain and its attitude towards the Civil War. The correspondent, who spent a year in Spain, says: —

The burnings were often carried out by the villagers without any instructions from outside— indeed, they were often as spontaneous and, seemingly, as natural throughout Spain as the seizure of land was in the South of Spain. . . .

But, generally speaking, the war on the churches seems to have been a popular, spontaneous movement. And even when a gang arrived from outside the villagers, would, as a rule, stand round passively and look on while petrol was poured on the altar and set alight and the priest was dragged from his hiding- place.

In a country where the majority of the people have been, and still are, Catholics this indifference to the fate of the clergy needs some explaining. Read on: —

A Materialist Church.

Genuinely Christian priests have been killed. Much fine art has been destroyed and some of the finest music in the world been silenced. But the problem of the Church in Spain has another aspect. It was a Church more permeated by materialism than any other in Europe. It was largely—though by no means entirely—a commercial enterprise. It was the biggest landowner in a country of big landowners. It had a vast, and sometimes even a commanding, share in various industrial and commercial interests. A Church that identifies itself too closely with a temporal order is in danger of sharing the destiny of that order. And if a Church throws its weight on the side either of revolution or of counter-revolution, it will survive with the one or perish with the other.

The Spanish clergy has used Catholic teaching to influence Spanish workers to assist in maintaining the landowning and capitalist interests of the Spanish Church. They have failed and millions of Spanish Catholics are now the bitter enemies of the Catholic Church. The Jesuit boast that Catholic teaching until the age of seven years immunises the mind for life from heretical influences is a patent myth. The dominating influence in class struggles is class interest. The class interest of the Spanish workers, or what appears to them to be their class interest, dominates the influence of religious superstition. In many thousands of cases the open struggle with the Catholic Church will be sufficient to destroy its influence entirely. The position surprises many people with exaggerated ideas about the power of religion. The attitude of the Spanish worker to the Catholic Church is no less a logical expression of material interest than the attitude of the angry Spanish peasant who hung the image of St. Anthony upside down in a well after a failure of his crops. (An instance quoted by the Guardian correspondent, which can be paralleled by many stories from countries where there is a large Catholic peasantry.)

The Catholic Church is lined up with the landowning class behind Franco in a desperate fight to retain its ownership and feudal privileges. That is its chief interest in the struggle; and its resources are at the disposal of Franco. Many churches have become arsenals and many priests have discarded the cassock for the rifle. It is a ruthless and bitter class struggle in which life and property inevitably are destroyed.

If Catholic priests were murdered by angry Spanish peasants they have the reactionary and callous attitude of the Catholic Church to thank.

Whatever the outcome of the immediate struggle in Spain the hypocrisy and charlatanry of the Catholic Church there has dealt a blow to its moral influence which will not be rebuilt so easily as the walls of its churches.

Civilising Spain

The Irish Brigade, raised by General O’ Duffy to fight on behalf of Franco in Spain, has returned to Ireland without having done much fighting. The Manchester Guardian (June 23rd, 1937) quotes from the Irish Times and the Irish Press an account by the volunteers of what they saw in Spain.

We saw General Franco’s army executing “Reds” each morning in massed groups. They machine-gunned the condemned people, beginning at their ankles and directing the fire up along their bodies. The “ Reds,” in their last moments, lifted their clenched fists in the Communist salute, snouting “Viva Madrid !” This was in Caceres. It was in this town that the brigade spent most of their time.

That “great gentleman” and Catholic, Franco, will find a place in history with those murderers of the Paris Communards, the French ruling class. 

Marx—by Mr. Woodburn

Mr. Arthur Woodburn, secretary of the Scottish Labour Party, N.C.L.C. lecturer, and exponent of finance and economics, arch-squarer of the circles in Labour Party policy, says in the June Plebs: —

When individuals deny the obvious and proved fact that the Labour Party is a Socialist Party there is no point in arguing with them. . . . No one can join the Labour Party without proclaiming himself a Socialist.

It is, perhaps, too much to expect an Oracle to argue, but does he need to? Surely an "obvious and proved fact” should speak for itself? The “obvious and proved fact” that prominent members of the Labour Party have openly repudiated being Socialists and that the Labour Party is a Socialist Party does, however, appear to require explanation. Would you oblige, Mr. Woodburn? And would you also mention where evidence can be found for the statement that Marx agreed that 

It was quite conceivable that the capitalists would be bought out if they were paid very well if (as an exception, and England at that time was an exception) circumstances so developed that the capitalist would be obliged to submit and proceed in a cultured and organised manner towards Socialism on terms of compensation, 

and where

Elsewhere Marx said that "Under certain conditions the workers will not by any means refuse to buy out the bourgeoisie.”

There may be “not much point in arguing,” but, really, Mr. Woodburn, we would like to know.


The "New Leader” and “ The Socialist Standard"

In an article, “A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike,” which appeared in the July The Socialist Standard, it was stated that: “No reference has appeared, or—to be pedantically correct—has been noticed,” in Labour and Communist newspapers to the Bedwas Agreement signed by Mr. Arthur Horner. We learn now that such reference had been made. John Alpin, industrial editor of the New Leader, writes to say that it carried a critical analysis of the agreement and that a reply to that analysis by a member of the South Wales Miners’ Federation was dealt with point by point. Rather disagreeably, he says that he “would have assumed that the S.P.G.B. . . . would have read the columns of the New Leader each week.” We make the correction suggested by Mr. Alpin, if such it can be called, gladly. The number of weekly and monthly journals published by working-class organisations is numerous, and when writing is a voluntary task and journals unobtainable through the usual channels it is quite easy to miss an issue of any particular journal. The New Leader could help to avoid the recurrence of such “errors.” We suggest it put us on its exchange list. We put this suggestion to several journals, including the New Leader, a few years ago. Many agreed, even where the price is much higher than The Socialist Standard and publication more frequent: the New Leader declined. Perhaps, Mr. Alpin, you would do something to adjust the matter?

The Indian Workers and their Exploiters

Congress, India’s Nationalist Party, has climbed down from its earlier attitude of refusing to form governments in the six Provinces where it obtained majorities in the recent elections. In the resolution embodying the decision to form Governments, the draft of which, according to the Daily Herald, is attributed to Gandhi, it is said: —

The proper description of the existing relationship between the British Government and the people of India is that of exploiter and exploited, and hence they have a different outlook upon almost everything of vital importance.

Having admitted that exploiters and exploited must have a different outlook, Mr. Gandhi ignores the obvious, that exploited Indians can have no harmony of outlook with the Nationalist exploiters of their own race. To say, as he has said, that the Indian princes, landowners and capitalists can be persuaded to be “trustees” for the Indian masses, dodges the issue. The British capitalists would claim “trusteeship” for millions of Colonial masses throughout the world with nothing more to support it than the pious hypocrisy which cloaks their real interests. The practice of capitalism does not reveal the capitalist class to be any less the robbers because the class they exploit happen to speak the same language. The Indian workers have yet a painful road to travel before they acquire the understanding necessary for their emancipation. 

More Russian Puzzles

The Russian Government’s purge of "Trotskyites,” “diversionists,” ”wreckers” and “spies” continues, apparently, unabated. As must obviously happen, no amount of bias or coloured phraseology can obscure the contradictions which obtrude through the evidence against the “traitors."

The Moscow correspondent of the Daily Herald (June 29th, T 937) gives the number executed for spying in the Far Eastern Province of Khabarovsk as 133 to the end of April, and quotes the Russian newspaper Izvestia, that “the spies were able to persuade railway workers’ to sell them uniforms." The reason why workers, who, according to Russian and Communist claims, are well paid, should want to sell their uniforms, is left to the imagination of the reader who is keen enough to notice the contradiction.

Another report from the same correspondent (July 3rd, 1937) states that a notorious spy, who had been run to earth, succeeded in organising "a gang of ex-priests, monks, kulaks and discontented young people'' (Our italics.) Perhaps a Communist friend could explain that “discontent" of young people.

Many of the “honourable Communists" who helped to draft the Constitution have since become victims of the purge, including Tukhachensky, Gamarnik, Uborevich, Yakir and Chervyakoff, who are dead, and Goloded and Postysheff, who are disgraced.

The Moscow correspondent of the Daily Telegraph (June 29th, 1937) refers to the purge among industrial leaders whose production figures have fallen, and quotes from Pravda an attack on the woman Communist President of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Society, who. it is alleged, spent £600 on clothes suitable for her to wear to meet foreigners, when sent on an official trip abroad. The reward of Socialist competition?

Yet another report comments on the arrest of a “Trotskyist bandit,” Doletski, head of the Tass News Agency, which supplies the bulk of all news to Soviet papers. He is ”accused of having suppressed news about wreckers in industry and having over-emphasised news of successes." (Daily Herald, July 8th, 1937.)

Suppression of news inimical to its interests is inevitable where there is political dictatorship and a host of minor dictators in their own particular spheres. No regime claiming to represent working-class interests, which has a sound basis, need repress news or criticism. Socialist principles have nothing to lose and everything to gain from free and open discussion. Under dictatorship even the mildest criticism of the regime, or opposition on questions of policy, must result in intrigue against the Government and take insurrectionary forms.

Where there is dictatorship by a person or a clique, who decide what is right for the majority, it is inevitable that discontent and inequality arise. When discontent becomes widespread a scramble takes place to place culpability on the shoulders of others. Socialist interests can only thrive under the free and open conditions of democracy. 

Harry Waite

Editorial: No Escape from Holy Deadlock (1937)

Editorial from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. A. P. Herbert, M.P., hit on a telling phrase when he described unsuccessful marriages for which the law provides no remedy as a state of “holy deadlock.” His Bill to allow divorce for desertion, cruelty and incurable insanity, as well as for adultery, is now to become the law. Mr. Herbert is very proud of his contribution to human happiness and, doubtless, the amended law will simplify life's problems for a number of people, but the Socialist who reads the speeches of the M.P.s and the Peers as the Bill ran the gauntlet through the two Houses of Parliament will have other thoughts. He will be conscious that most of our legislators, both the elected and hereditary kind, do not appreciate at all what are the main problems of marriage for the greater number of the population. Consequently, their efforts to wrestle with divorce left them in a state of strangling deadlock equal to that of unhappy marriage. Much of the discussion was about the marriage problems of the well-to-do; quite naturally, for most of the legislators are themselves well-to-do. Then there were the Roman Catholics and some non-Catholics who believe that marriage is a “sacrament”—as they are quite entitled to do—but who are not content to refuse divorce themselves but want, in addition, to force their peculiar, and to many people detestable and immoral, attitude on the rest of the population. The Archbishop of Canterbury confessed himself torn between the desire to keep up the sanctity of married life, which he would like to believe exists, and his recognition that the present arrangements do not work out as he would like them to. He was forced, therefore, both to support and oppose the Bill, and refrained from voting. The sanest views were those of some of the medical men and lawyers in the House of Lords. But nearly all of them spoke as if marriage and divorce can be considered in a vacuum apart from the economic organisation of society. The fact is that capitalism makes it increasingly difficult for the population to make a success of marriage or of any other personal relationship. Looking for an ideal marriage law under capitalism is therefore as hopeless as asking the capitalist powers to honour the pious aspirations of die League of Nations. It is not in the main the greater or less facility for divorce that poisons the relationships of working-class men and women, but the problem of economic security, the need for adequate food, clothing and shelter, freedom from worry about war and unemployment and, of course, the need for the individual man and woman to be economically independent.

Socialism alone will provide these necessary conditions for successful marriage and without them not all the Peers and Bishops and Members of Parliament can do anything very much to improve things. It can be said in favour of any relaxation of the divorce laws that it is better for the individual men and women that they should use their own judgment in handling the problems arising out of their personal relationships than that their conduct should be forced on them by the law, but the major problems will still remain insoluble.

So the new law will be open to almost as much criticism as the old. In a few years' time we shall have the opponents of all divorce and the seekers for that impossibility: an ideal marriage law, combining to expose the hardships and miseries existing under the law. They will be quite right, except that the miseries are caused by capitalism and cannot be cured by tinkering with divorce laws.

The Labour Theory of Value - Part 2 (1937)

From the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Continued from the July issue.)

Of course, it is only necessary labour which counts as value. If one uses old-fashioned methods or obsolete instruments, or wastes more time or energy or materials than is necessary compared with the generally prevailing knowledge and equipment, this unnecessary additional labour will give no additional value to the product. Society is the accountant, not the producer. The value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour required to produce it.

'

The objections of the orthodox economists, and their alternative theories mentioned above, are more significant than important. It is to be expected that they should be preoccupied with an explanation of "price," which is what chiefly concerns their employer, the capitalist. It is not to be expected that they should occupy themselves with a theory of value which strikes the capitalist where he can’t take it, as we shall see. What is important is that the capitalist substantiates the labour theory of value in actual practice. He acts upon it and it works. Not only does he pay more for skilled workers than for less skilled, according to the time and cost of producing that skill, but he constantly aims to reduce the value of his products by eliminating waste, improving methods and so on, while hoping either to go on selling at the old price and thus making an extra profit, or to reduce his price to the new value and smash his rivals. The means of production are thus continually being revolutionised in one industry or another by the constant competition to produce commodities at lower values. The capitalist demonstrates in practice what his economists cannot tell him in theory.

Since value, the quality peculiar to commodities, manifests itself only in exchange it is not surprising that the history of exchange is a large slice of human history. Beginning in primitive times with exchange, between tribes, of surplus products incidentally left over after their needs were satisfied, it initiated the production of surpluses purposely intended for exchange and not for use, the production of commodities, and soon came the need to set apart one of these commodities to serve as a common medium of exchange for all others; this commodity thus becoming— money. Tribal enemies captured in war were not now put to death, but made slaves for the production of surplus wealth. Accumulation of private property, class exploitation, and commodity production are an inseparable trinity. The slave civilisation of the ancient world, of Greece and Rome in particular, witnessed the death-struggles of tribal Communism and saw arise the new system based on private ownership and class exploitation. This under Mediterranean hot-house conditions. In Northern Europe a slower and vaster development of commodity-relationships awaited the coming of the world market. Ocean navigation, conquest and colonisation; conversion of feudal dues into money rents, influx of silver from newly-discovered mines, “enclosure” movements, which took away the peasants' lands, the power-machine factory movement, which pauperised the handicraftsmen—both classes bereft of any claim on the means of production and became proletarians, the working class, wage-slaves of a small class now in exclusive possession of the means of life: the capitalist. These were the processes by which the commodity came to maturity.

The commodity has come of age. For now the very source and content of value, labour-power is itself a commodity. Men are not men but hands in the labour market, hoping for a bidder, rotting without one.

It is here that the importance of the distinction between usefulness and value comes home. It is the distinction which earlier labour theories of value, notably that of Ricardo failed to make between labour and labour power. It is the secret of capitalist exploitation. The worker sells his labour power (his knowledge, skill, energy) for a price, his wages, salary, fees, commission, etc., which, on an average is its value. The worker gets the value of his labour power, the socially-necessary cost of reproducing it—the cost of living. The capitalist, having bought the commodity, proceeds to enjoy the use of it as fast as he can and as long as he dare. By lengthening the working day, or by speeding up, by fines and penalties, by regimentation and discipline, by team competition and pace-setting, by psychological research and cups of tea he squeezes from the worker a far greater quantity of labour than the value of his labour power. He extorts surplus value.

Marx’s analysis of the commodity unearthed a secret which will bury a society! “What capitalism produces above all things are its own gravediggers,” and this is the grim and glorious spadework for which the S.P.G.B. is organised. There are plenty of spades, fellow-workers, waiting but the hands to use them.

Frank Evans.

Answers to Correspondents (1937)

Letters to the Editors from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

J. Cohen (E.3).—We note that, after reading the article “Big or Little Unions,” you considered it ”a clear case for organisation by industry,” and you say that, as our speakers have stated that we ”are not believers in that, would it be possible for the Party to be consistent?” As neither the Transport & General Workers' Union nor the suggested separate Union for London busmen is an organisation by industry, we fail to see why the article is regarded as an argument for it. Perhaps you will explain.

As Socialists, we stress the need for the workers to organise on a class basis, whereas organisation on a craft basis or on an industry basis is compatible with the holding of quite reactionary views.

Ed. Comm.

J. Cohen (E.3).—You ask what would be the position of members of the Socialist Party who may also be members of the South Wales Miners’ Federation; and thus be affected by the agreement signed by the Communist, Mr. Horner (see July issue—"A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike”). You ask: ”Are they to see that the agreement is kept or are they expected as Socialists to take no action in agitating to break the agreement, run the risk of expulsion or quietly acquiesce in its operation or help in its operation?”

It should surely be plain that, if a majority of members of a Union approve or acquiesce in a bad move by their Union officials, a minority of Socialists can only try to get the majority to recognise the facts of the situation. Until that has been done the situation obviously cannot be remedied. When the majority are won over they, the majority in the light of the circumstances prevailing in the particular industry, will have to decide what are the best steps to take to get a better agreement.

Ed. Comm.

S. Rodgers.—A reply to your letter criticising the article, ”A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike,” has been crowded out of this issue.

Ed. Comm.

R. D. Lovett (Brentwood). —Thanks for comments on and criticisms of the ”Left News.” We do not think the writer you particularly mention is worth space for a reply in the Socialist Standard. There seems to be nothing original in the case he makes.

Ed. Comm.

James Jefferson (Elgin).—As you are not acquainted with the position taken up by the S.P.G.B., we suggest that you read the Socialist Standard and our pamphlets.

We notice that you agree with us that the Labour Party is not a Socialist party, but you think if Socialists got inside they could convert it. You quote Marx, who, like the S.P.G.B., saw that poverty can only be abolished by dispossessing the capitalist class of their ownership in the means of production and distribution. The Labour Party, while professing to want to abolish poverty, rejects that necessary means of doing so. You want to convert the Labour Party to Socialism, but yourself suggest that it adopt a non-Socialist programme of higher old-age pensions, unemployment pay, etc.

Ed. Comm.

J. McClellan (Leeds).—In reply to your question about the Socialist attitude towards religion, we would recommend your questioner to our pamphlet, “Socialism and Religion,” for a full statement. Briefly, however, the Socialist view is that the essential feature common to all religions is a belief in the supernatural, a belief which is ruled out when we apply to it the methods of science through the use of which human knowledge has been built up and progress has been made.

Gods of all kinds are expressions of man’s ignorance, fostered nowadays mainly in the interests of the ruling class.

Ed. Comm.

Circular to all members (1937)

Party News from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Will London members (all of them) read the circular recently sent to all members? Under the last item, “organisation,” literature distribution and envelope addressing are mentioned. We are anxious to have a panel of names for the purposes mentioned.

Our thariks to H.G.H. (Battersea) and G.P. (Morden) for reply to our appeal. Your services are likely to be called upon in the near future.

Parliamentary Committee.

As in England, so in Australia (1937)

From the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent in Melbourne writes about political conditions in Australia, and points to the marked similarity with England in the way the capitalist class constantly renew their hold over the worker by taking over renegades from the Labour movement. He sends a report of a speech by the Australian Minister of Labour, Mr. Mackrell, who says that the only way to “ combat Communism ” is “by further education of the people and an untrammelled, free Press.” How the Australian Government values a “ free Press ” is shown by our correspondent’s further statement that “it is fatal to send single copies of the Socialist Standard through the post in an ordinary wrapper, as they get short shrift with the authorities.” It is only a few years since our pamphlet, “Socialism and Religion,” was officially banned in the great Australian democracy.

No debate by the Economic League (1937)

Party News from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

A short while ago the Economic League, an organisation which opposes Socialism and defends capitalism, accepted a challenge to debate, subject to certain conditions laid down by the League. When arrangements came to be discussed, we learned that the League was only prepared to debate subject to still further conditions, which included reserving admission to ticket holders, and having no literature sold or distributed in the hall, or advertising matter or announcements. As our policy has always been that our meetings and debates shall be free and open to any member of the public who cares to attend, and as we enter into debates in order that our principles and policy shall be publicly contrasted with those of our opponents, we were not prepared to accept these restrictions. It is evident, as indeed was made clear during the negotiations, that the Economic League does not consider that any very useful purpose to.itself is served by the public presentation of its case against the Socialist case.

Party Funds (1937)

Party News from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1937)

Party News from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Leeds and district Open Air Meetings (1937)

Party News from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

'L. Davis' was Lew Davis. He was a member of the SPGB from Leeds who joined the Central Branch of the Party in May 1937. He lapsed his membership in January 1947.

Open Air Propaganda (August) (1937)

Party News from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Letter: Limited LETS (2000)

Letter to the Editors from the August 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

Limited LETS

Dear Editors,

Like some other members of the Socialist Party, I am also a member of a local LETS group so my curiosity was aroused on coming across the article on LETS by Kaz in the July issue. Though interesting and informative, I did not find its line of argument altogether convincing.

Kaz appears to lump LETS together with various other “reformist schemes” which he condemns not so much because they are inherently ineffectual but because of the (unrealisable) “hope attached to them by often desperate members of the working class”. “Alternative currencies,” argues Kaz, “like experimental communities and a dozen other half-baked schemes have been tried before, more than once, as a solution to the problems of capitalism and each time have been found wanting.” There are two points I would like to make in response.

Firstly, it would be quite wrong to brand LETS as a “reformist” type of activity for it is no more reformist than, for example, trade unionism. By “reformism”, the Socialist Party means, quite specifically, policies enacted by the state which seek (futilely) to modify the economic behaviour of the capitalist system in such a way as to eliminate or alleviate certain problems that are inextricably part of that very system itself. In no sense does LETS fit this definition.

For one thing, it is simply a form of mutual aid at the grassroots level. Essentially, it does not involve the state at all—even if, sometimes (for example, in the USA) the state may choose to involve itself for its own reasons by providing funding for some LETS-type organisation. But this does not mean such organisation should be shunned anymore than we should shun trade unions because of their formal links with the Labour Party. For another, LETS constitute a particular kind of micro-economy qualitative different and separate from the capitalist macro-economy—the real focus or object of reformist activity. LETS are an essentially non-exploitative, egalitarian and voluntaristic arrangement which, like Marx’s “labour-time” vouchers, do not involve the use of money at all—one of the defining features of a capitalist economy.

Secondly, as a socialist I have no illusions that LETS offer any real solution to the problems of capitalism. Indeed, I doubt whether many members of the LETS movement would think any differently. LETS are essentially a way of coping with life under capitalism and are particularly beneficial for people on a low income, like myself, or the unemployed. Moreover, the range of activities involved is vastly more expansive and diverse than the caricature that Kaz paints (“giving lifts to old lades and trading organic lentils”). My local LETS group, for example, publishes a fairly substantial directory each year which lists literally hundreds of different kinds of services (and goods) offered or requested—from plumbing and house painting to holiday accommodation and computer repairs—which enables our members to a limited extent to circumvent the capitalist money-based economy to meet our own personal needs. Granted this is never going to be more that a rather limited circumvention but, for someone like myself, it is by no means insignificant.

It is highly regrettable that the title of Kaz’s article (“LETS not make the same mistakes again”) should convey the impression that workers should not become involved in LETS groups. This is emphatically not the view of the Socialist Party and it would be utter folly if it ever were to become that. LETS do not represent an alternative to the absolutely essential task of organising politically to establish socialism and just because enthusiasts like Dave Boyle entertain fantasies about what can be achieved through the LETS movement, this does not mean that we should then proceed to shoot down in flames the very idea of LETS itself.

The significance of LETS to the working class is not that they will provide any real and lasting solution to the problems we face under capitalism; it is that they offer a practical instance of what Kaz rightly calls a “form of voluntary labour for the good of the community, surely the basis of work in socialism”. If they, along with experimental communities etc. have been “found wanting” in this respect then so too, it has to be said, has the purely “propagandistic” or political approach adopted by the Socialist Party. For after nearly a hundred years of consistently applying this approach we have unfortunately made very little discernible progress.

The answer is surely not to reject one approach in favour of the other but to embrace both. While it is not the business of the Socialist Party to directly involve itself (in a practical sense) in the development of the LETS movement, it will certainly benefit by adopting a more explicitly sympathetic approach to this movement. Yes, let us recognise its limitations but let us also recognise that by involving ourselves as individuals in this movement we can each help in a small way to nudge the consciousness of our fellow workers in the direction we desire.

Robin Cox, 

Redruth, Cornwall

Reply: 

We don’t presume to tell workers (including our own members) what strategy to adopt to survive under capitalism—beyond, that is, urging them to fight back against downward pressures via trade unions, tenants associations and the like. So if people want to join LETS schemes, we have no objection. Our criticism of them (as of trade unions) is that they are not the solution—there is no solution to workers’ problems within capitalism—nor are they somehow “stepping stones to Socialism”. When people make such claims as Dave Boyle did in his book on Funny Money we criticise them. LETS schemes are not socialist or a step towards socialism. They are, as you put it, “essentially a way of coping with life under capitalism”.

Editors.

Letter: Top class (2001)

Letter to the Editors from the August 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Top class

Dear Editors,

I wish to ask a question – how best to describe collectively, what is the best term to use, to encompass “the ruling class”, “boss class”, “capitalist class”, “power brokers”, etc, etc? For when responding to pensioners in the supermarket. I am 81.

JH, 

Hull

Reply: 

Any of the terms you use will do. We tend to use “capitalist class” and “ruling class”, though our Declaration of Principles uses “master class” which is a bit dated. We don’t recommend you use the word “bourgeoisie” in supermarket queues.– Editors.

Letter: When did socialism start? (2003)

Letter to the Editors from the August 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

When did socialism start?

Dear Editors

Your exchange with Ron Smith (no relation) in the February issue was, as usual, well answered by yourselves but does pose the questions: When did socialism start and how and when do individuals accept the indisputable logic of its truth?

I can only relate my own story but it would be interesting to hear from others of their own experiences and enlightenments.

Born on the even of the 39/45 war into a large but poor family, father an uneducated window cleaner (and after serving abroad for five years with an aptitude for hard work and drink) and mother (a cleaner when financial needs demanded and time allowed) allegedly from a middle class family who, amongst all the poverty, educated all her children into the niceties of life including manners, respect and discipline.

Fortunately, as with my siblings, 11-plus took me on a free place to a local public school and until the age of 16, when family need for money demanded that I leave, I had my mind stretched, titillated and forced into action. At that time I had been an ardent believer in christianity for 10 years and was so until National Service in the Far East and other life experiences had convinced me of the futility of religion. Nevertheless attendance at a “posh” school and exposure to Christian beliefs and history did flood my subconscious with all the inherent inequalities, privilege and hypocrisy of private schooling and formal religion.

By the time I was 30 good business fortune had visited and I was happily married with three children living in a superb house in a select locality, driving the latest large saloon (hers) and dashing sports car (mine).

This lifestyle continued for the next 20 years and I do recall feeling on many occasions; why me, what have I done to be so lucky, what about all my ex-friends who are still grafting at their lathes, down the mines and existing day to day? A few pangs of guilt, feelings of general unfairness in life and then – back to the good life…

It all ended in 1990 when my lawyers, personal friends for many years, would not stand their corner in a large business deal in which they had been employed to protect my legal interests. They betrayed and deserted me which resulted during the 1990s in unemployment , life on income support for three years, self-built home repossession and homelessness.

Why me again? – but this time with the boot on the other foot! Why after all these years of being a “true blue” and avid supporter of the system (capitalism) have all my friends (sic) and acquaintances deserted me and left me for dead? It didn’t make sense but I now had the time to reflect and think long and hard about life, people, politics, systems and capitalism and out of this came the realisation that millions of people were being subjected to the harsh realities of capitalism every year in the UK alone. It wasn’t right, not fair, why so much hypocrisy and ruthlessness and why so many lies all the time? Where was the justice in our legal system and, if I was disenfranchised with all my accumulated knowledge of the workings of capitalism, what about all those people who had not enjoyed my good fortune, wealth and privileges?

Up to now Marx, Lenin, Morris, Communists, Socialists etc. were all unacceptable lefties who had no place in the world and whose ideas must be stamped out at all costs. Can you believe such arrogance, stupidity, lack of real consideration for others and shallowness in a supposed intelligent 50-plus-years-old man?

Looking for answers I started to buy the Big Issue and came across your advertisement in the small ads. Duly applied to be a reader and the first few issues were an absolute revelation to me! After years of mental turmoil and survival, all the thoughts I had had about a better world for all were springing out at me from the pages of the Socialist Standard. As the years have gone by and I have continued to enjoy your magazine and continued to research into how life could be! The mists of time have drifted apart and memories of an earlier learning period in my life have surfaced.

It strikes me that the similarity between much of the truth, logic and reason of socialism is akin to many of the teachings of christianity – less the mumbo jumbo of course (this mumbo jumbo is surely man’s add-on for personal greed and self-aggrandisement).

I put it to you – just a thought – could Jesus Christ, an ordinary man or a fictional character, be the first and best socialist? Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself – think about it! Surely to get socialism all we need to do is to live truly by that sentiment!

Finally, the capitalist sun is shining again for me but I am exploiting them now and much of my accumulation is voluntarily passed on to fellow workers in my current business venture – as you say, we all have to make a living under capitalism until socialism happens – just a pity that more of our resources are not directed to “marketing the brand”.

On the campaigning issue for a fairer and better life for all humanity (socialism), I talk and debate with anyone who will listen and lobby anyone – politicians, the corporate world, religious worthies et al – under the guise of Campaign for Morality, Fairness and Truth (with financial self-sufficiency this would be a full time job).

When will socialism happen, when will the majority understand logic and reason, is it a natural progression, are European integration, globalisation, the US current muscle-flexing activities all indicators that the world is becoming one and will this give socialism a better chance of happening in our lifetime or are we all pissing in the wind?

Recently I had a letter in the anarchist magazine Freedom suggesting that more co-operation between them, the SPGB and all other far left tendency organisations (Christians included) is the only way to avoid Armageddon – can I put that to you, too?

Trevor L. Smith, 

Bury, Lancs

Reply: 

We hope our previous correspondent is still there to read your tale of woe. It might teach him something about how the present system works.

Actually, the so-called golden rule – of “do as you would be done” (“Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself”seems a bit extreme and unpractical) – has nothing to do with the mythical (or possibly factual) character called Jesus. It’s a feature of all human codes of behaviour, whether incorporated into some religion or not (and, as you say, all religions are mumbo-jumbo), reflecting the fact that humans are social animals who depend on co-operating with each other to survive. No society in which everybody competes against each other and in which “anything goes” could survive. This is indeed capitalism’s ideal but, fortunately, it can’t achieve it as humans just aren’t like that. Even under capitalism humans’ basic social nature comes through and most of the time most people behave to each other in a decent way.

But this in itself is not socialism. It merely shows that, if anything, it is capitalism not socialism that is “against human nature”. Socialism is not a code of behaviour. It is a system of society, one based on the common ownership and democratic control by the whole community of the means for producing the things we need to live and to enjoy life. It is, as you hint, the next stage in social evolution and for which developments within capitalism – such as the building up of a world-wide productive system capable of turning out plenty for all – have paved the way. In fact, today, everything is in place for the establishment of socialism except one vital ingredient – the desire and political will to establish it.

This is where we in the Socialist Party come in. Our members have got together for the single purpose of helping the emergence of an understanding of and a desire for socialism. When this does emerge – fortunately it does not depend on our own meagre efforts but more on people’s experience of capitalism and its failure and inability to solve the problems they face – it is our opinion that will express itself, among other ways, through the ballot box. Those who want socialism will use their votes to send delegates to elected bodies with a mandate to use political control to end class ownership and usher in the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and to dismantle the apparatus of class rule.

We certainly think that all those who want socialism and are agreed that this is the right way to proceed to get it as quickly and as peacefully as possible should get together in a single organisation, a single socialist political party. But Freedom , the anarchist publication, does not stand for socialism; it seeks to cater for all those who want to abolish the state for whatever reason, including those who are resolute opponents of socialism. And even the minority among them who do stand for socialism (in the same sense as us) don’t think it can be achieved by democratic political action and advocate the suicidal policy of trying to take on head-to-head the fully armed capitalist state.

As to other “far left tendency organisations”, by which we take you to mean the SWP, Militant and the others, our experience is that they don’t stand for socialism but for state capitalism (nationalisation misnamed socialism) and the rule of a vanguard party (preferably themselves).

Besides, both Freedom and them have other priorities in that they consider campaigning for this or that reform – or, more often these days, against this or that measure proposed by the government – more important. If they were prepared to drop campaigning for reforms and to accept campaigning for socialism as the immediate priority then of course we should all get together and have a bigger and better socialist organisation, so helping to speed the demise of capitalism and avoid the miseries it has in store for us if allowed to continue.

—Editors