The Passing Show: South African Revolution (1960)

The Passing Show Column from the May 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

South African Revolution

The recent events in South Africa have made starkly clear the real nature of the conflict there. The entire capitalist world, Governments and press, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, has denounced the measures taken by the present ruling class in South Africa to bolster its position. The Nationalist newspaper Die Burger, the organ of the ruling landowners and farmers, admitted that staid Conservative British papers like The Times and the Daily Telegraph had been “practically hysterical in their vehemence.” The Times, indeed, went so far as to say in its leading article of April 6th, that it was sixteen days “since the revolution began in South Africa.” 

After the Sharpeville massacre it was announced that the pass laws would not be enforced for the time being. This was an astonishing concession for the ruling landowners' class to make to the capitalists. It showed how much the landowners had been shaken, for the pass laws are the cornerstone of the society built by the landed interests. The aim of these laws is to keep Africans in the country, where they must work on the white men's farms in order to live, and to prevent them coming to the towns, where they could obtain higher pay in the capitalists' factories. If despite the pass laws they come to the towns, they are arrested—in numbers running to hundreds of thousands each year—and sent back in convict gangs to labour on the farms for a mere pittance. The news that the pass laws had been suspended was a tonic to the South African capitalist class: the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, which had slumped at the news from Sharpeville, recovered some of its losses. Then came the announcement that the pass, laws would be reimposed: again share prices fell. And the South African Federated Chamber of Industries was reported to be seeking a meeting with Dr. Verwoerd to urge some modification in his policies.

The question now in South Africa is this: how long will the growing capitalist class allow the landed interests to continue ruling the country?

Calvinism

Christians are sometimes harder on their fellow-Christians than many materialists would be. For example, when on April 8th the House of Commons was discussing the open police brutality against Africans in the streets of South African cities, Sir Godfrey Nicholson (the Conservative member for Farnham) said the situation was partly due to the Afrikaners' “background of a rigid Calvinistic creed." This is a case of putting the cart before the horse. Many other peoples in the world share the Afrikaners' Calvinism, but not being in the same economic position, have no sympathy with the South African landowners’ apartheid. The Afrikaners' “Dutch Reformed Church” originated in Holland, whose inhabitants are also closely related to the Afrikaners. But far from sharing the Afrikaners’ beliefs, the Dutch leaders go out of their way to criticise apartheid. The Calvinist Scots Presbyterian Church has long attacked the white farmers’ policies in both South Africa and the Rhodesian Federation. No, religious beliefs do not determine political views. Both of them are, in the long run, expressions of the economic and material position in which a particular class finds itself.

Sailing before the wind

The Readers' Digest, which claims a world circulation of over twenty million copies, is one of the most accurate indicators of the current policies of the American ruling class. During the war it was full of articles showing how bestial the Germans and—even more the Japanese were. As soon as the war was over, and it became clear that in the next war the United States' enemy might well be Russia, with West Germany and Japan lining up as America's allies, the content of the articles shifted abruptly. Now it was the bestiality of the Russians which was written about; references to Germany and Japan became friendly. The editors even went so far as to print articles about the heroic deeds of German and Japanese soldiers in the Second World War.

Rome

But besides Germany and Japan, the United States also fixed on the Catholic Church as a useful ally against Russia. References in the Readers Digest to Roman Catholicism therefore became friendly. The fact that the Catholic Church is hand in glove with Fascism in Franco Spain, and supports at least one South American state (Colombia) where Protestants are harried mercilessly, was ignored. In the March, 1960, issue there is an article on “Good Pope John,” in which the writer talks about the “warm humanity, irrepressible humour and amiable wisdom” of the Pope with all the starry-eyed enthusiasm of a twelve-year-old girl listening to Cliff Richard. Still, that’s not surprising. If America’s alleged “defence of democracy” can be stretched to include military and other assistance to the Fascist Franco, it can't be too much of a strain to take in Franco’s friend as well

The nearly royal family

The news (in the Daily Express, 31/3/60) that at the forthcoming royal wedding there may be present not only Mr. Armstrong-Jones’ father and mother, but also his mother's present husband, his father’s present wife, and his father's other previous wife—the five of them all coming roughly under the heading of “the bridegroom's parents"—reminds one of the extent to which the divorce courts are patronised by the ruling class. The American millionaire Tommy Manville, who has had ten wives (or is it eleven now?) is exceptional, but the difference is not a matter of principle: it's only a question of how often the principle has been applied. Cases of husbands with three or four successive wives, or wives with three or four successive husbands, are not uncommon, as anyone who glances through the gossip columns can testify. Monogamy, at least in the upper class, now appears to have been replaced by this successive polygamy, at it were. The whole subject is worth careful study by anyone who claims to understand the workings of modern society.

Alwyn Edgar

The Optimists. (1922)

From the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

It has been said that in Shakespeare’s works there can be found lines to describe any type of man. This may or may not be so, but many of his descriptions of man in the bulk or individually fit the types we observe to-day.

After reading Mr. Herbert Smith’s address to the Miners’ Conference delegates at Blackpool, the thought that occurred to the writer was the one expressed so satirically in “Twelfth night.”

  “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.”

Mr. Smith has not displayed much originality or acumen during his career as a trade union official, especially since he has been President of the M.F.G.B.

During the lock-out of last year he cut a very sorry figure, rushing into No. 10, Downing Street appealingly exclaiming to Lloyd George, “You have got to offer us something !”

Without a great stretch of imagination we could see the effect of these words and the cringing of the E.C. of the Miners in stiffening the attitude of Lloyd George and the coal owners behind him. Smith is not renowned for mental alertness, and cannot be considered an improvement on former presidents, so that we can only conclude his “greatness has been thrust upon him.” We need not go into the squabble between Smillie and Hodges over the job of leadership, but it might have some bearing on the fact that Smith is now President of the M.F.G.B.

As an example of what Shakespeare called “chop logic,” his speech will take some beating, for he says, “It will take years to wipe out the consequences of decontrolling the industry,” and immediately contradicts that by adding, “I am not a pessimist. I am certain we will come out of the present position within the next year.” He also told the Conference: “While we have private enterprise the prosperity of owners and workmen are linked up,” and later quotes : “He that owns the means whereby I live owns my life.”

Labour power is bought and sold on the market at a price which has for its basis the socially necessary labour required for its production. The price of labour power is arrived at by bargaining, and as the capitalist is in possession of the means of production, it is obvious that he is enabled to dictate, within limits, to the seller of labour-power.

But Smith, who says the prosperity of the workers is linked up with that of the capitalists, would have the workers give up the struggle, suggesting the fallacy that the employers would pay on a generous scale in accordance with their prosperity. Smith tries to make the best of a bad business, but not having the lawyerlike mentality of his colleague Hodges, his efforts are too apparent; he reminds one of the old man who had discussed everything from a doleful standpoint, explaining finally to his listener that “he was not a pessimist because he could not see anything to be optimistic about.”

Smith goes one better. He tells the doleful tale, but tells it cheerfully, defying all logic and correct conclusions. He congratulates the Federation on its position, although there are more than one hundred thousand drawing unemployment pay, in addition to the large number wrong-fully disqualified from benefits. The disqualified are the victimised men whom the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain have not been able to get reinstated since the “settlement” by the precious “agreement” which the E.C. of the Miners’ Federation made for the miners.

Still looking for the bright side, Mr. Smith remarks, “Had it not been for the clause in the agreement which provides that a wage of 20 per cent. in excess ‘of wages paid in July, 1914, many of the districts would have been still worse off.” His optimism knows no limits, for though the 20 per cent. may be given, the cost of living is 80 per cent. above July, 1914.

That the coal owners refuse to recognise the clause in the agreement, as every district agent and the E.C. of the Miners’ Federation must know, for those men who ask for the “minimum wage” risk the sack; their places can be filled by others outside the gates. This deters many, as they, quite naturally, desire to handle some wages in preference to unemployment benefit or Poor Law relief.

That the owners dodge the clause is borne out by Hodges in the Daily News, June 9th, 1922

  “Many instances are occurring where employers, presumably (italics mine) unable to pay the district rates, are stopping the collieries and intimating to the workmen that they can resume employment if they accept lesser wages than their neighbours. “

Hodges is always ready to “presume” that the employers are unable to make their collieries pay, for during the lock-out of last year he was more concerned in devising schemes for the employers, and side-tracking the workers from the real issue, which was a question of wages.

The miners have spent money on giving Hodges an education which they thought would be useful to them in their struggles with their masters. It is money that has been badly spent if the only use of the knowledge he is credited with is to “presume” what the capitalist class want the workers to think, that is, employers are “unable to pay the district rates,” and the only way to employment is for the workers to “accept lesser wages than their neighbours.”

To return to Mr. Smith. He must know that the employers have treated every plea which as been made to them with contempt, for they knew that the miners were not able to contest another struggle for some time. They have refused to re-employ those they thought undesirable, and refused to make the men’s wages up to the minimum when asked by the workers. There seems to be but one object throughout the whole of his speech, that is to make it appear that the so-called agreement is working out favourably to the miners, but these know that, in the words of Hodges, “the British famine has begun,” for hundreds of thousands have felt its worst effects during the months after the “settlement.”

After some platitudes on the “great boon and blessing of the seven-hour day” (a boon and blessing which has not injured the coal owners, in so far as output is maintained). Smith urges the miners to greater efforts.

  “It is now known that providing we had the trade we could, with proper internal organisation and a more extensive use of scientific methods, not only maintain the pre-war output per man, but increase the aggregate output produced in 1913.”

Here we find him playing the role of all “leaders,” assuring the capitalists that they will get the workers to produce more so that the British capitalists will be able, more effectually, to compete in the scramble for trade. Their most formidable competitor, America, is now engaged in capturing the coal markets of the world. Dr. H. M. Payne, in the Colliery Guardian, December 2nd, 1921, stated that the productive capacity of the coal miners of the United States was 700,000,000 tons per year, and the normal consumption 500,000,000 tons per year; thus a well regulated market would provide an outlet for a surplus of 200,000,000. The Colliery Guardian, in reporting Dr. Payne’s address, says: “He spoke of a remarkable analogy between the position here and in America regarding railway rates and other factors,” and continuing : “They must above all concentrate on the labour factor both on the railways and in the mines.” The American capitalists are concentrating on the “labour factor,” as can be seen by the struggle now taking place between the miners and their employers; the latter with the help of the prototypes of Smith and Hodges will soon be in an even better position than before to compete for trade, for the intention is to bring lower still the cost of production of coal.

The Socialist is continually pointing out to the working class that the interests their leaders serve when they tell us to produce more are the capitalists interests, whether advocated in ignorance or with full knowledge of the effect does not matter, for as a rule the more the workers produce the sooner are they unemployed.

Apparently Smith is ignorant of this, but it is very difficult to believe that is the case, since he tells us : “The American miner has never been fully employed ; even last year they had to play 139 days out of a possible 308, owing to the output being in excess of the demand.”

Fellow miners, it can be seen that greater output is not for your benefit, and is not your problem, for in America the miners produce a surplus which is nearly as much as the total amount of coal produced in this country, and yet are out of work 139 days in the year.

More than 100,000 miners are unemployed in England. “A more extensive use of scientific methods” will increase their numbers, and those employed will be worn out more quickly, all in order that our masters may reap trade and profits.

Is it not time you looked into the condition under which you live? Only when you do so, will you be on the way towards understanding your present function in society, and the outcome of such knowledge will be a revolutionary attitude towards your exploiters and their system. You will no longer look to leaders; it will be clear that your interests and the capitalist’s can never be reconciled.

Under capitalism every improvement in the methods of production tends to worsen the workers conditions ; the tools producing wealth in abundance become a menace and a terror to them.

Within capitalism there is no remedy. When the workers understand the position they will capture the political machine and use it as an agent of their emancipation, and make all the means whereby society has to live the property of the whole of society.

The machines that to-day are a menace to the happiness of countless millions will then be the means by which all shall attain leisure and happiness.

J. M. D.

Jottings. (1922)

The Jottings Column from the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

Quite recently an application was made on behalf of the Secretary for War, at Lambeth County Court, for an ejectment order against James Leach, an ex-soldier, from rooms occupied by him and his family in married men’s quarters.

The following interesting conversation took place in Court :—

Judge Parry asked “Can the court eject a man from barracks?”

Mr. C. Davies (for the application) : “It has always been done.”

Judge Parry : “Are the authorities not capable of turning this man out?”

Mr. C. Davie : “The Secretary for War does not want to use Prussian methods.”

Judge Parry : “He brings to this Court a nasty job which he can do himself.”

Judge Parry made an order by consent for possession in a month, and gave judgement for £6 18s. rent, with costs.—Daily Mail, April 26th, 1922.

What a piece of hypocrisy ! A puzzle !

What is the difference between the “Prussian” methods of ejectment by the Secretary for War and the ejectment order of Judge Parry?

Any reader correctly answering same will be asked to contribute to the £1,000 Fund.

* * *

The first week in September a postal strike was declared in Ireland against a proposed reduction in wages.

The Irish Government showed themselves to be the same as all other capitalist governments when their interests are threatened.

The following was culled from the Evening News, September 11th, 1922 :—

  "Free State troops to-day dispersed strike pickets outside postal offices in Dublin by firing over their heads. This is in accordance with the Government’s announcement that the postal strike, which began at 6 yesterday evening, is illegal and that picketing will be suppressed. The strike is against a proposed ‘cut ‘ in wages.”

The workers in Ireland have the same lesson to learn as the workers of all countries, i.e. : That not until they recognise there is a class-struggle in Society born of the private ownership of the means of life, and that Socialism is their hope, can there be any improvement in their wretched conditions.

* * *

  “Our bitter experience has proved that it is not Germany that is paying. It is the British working man who is paying at this moment. “

This statement, made by J. H. Thomas, M.P., was loudly cheered at the Trade Union Congress at Southport to-day.—Evening News, September 5th, 1922.

How often have readers of the S.S. heard the above statement made from the platforms of the pseudo-socialist parties and met it in their press? By a mere superficial examination of the above, it undoubtedly appears to be correct. But when a thinking worker analyses the assertion, he will quite easily see how unsound J.H.T.’s economics really are. Doubtless, Thomas, like many thousands of workers, think that because the workers are the wealth producers of the world, they must of necessity pay for everything. That only shows “loose” thinking, a failure to understand correctly capitalist wealth production.

* * *

One statement in the election address of the “revolutionary” Mayor of Bethnal Green during the last L.C.C. election was as follows :—

  “We maintain that unemployment is a NATIONAL, and not a local problem, and if returned to the L.C.C. will do all in our power to force the Government to provide work or accept financial responsibility for unemployment. Further, we pledge ourselves to do all in our power to push forward the L.C.C.’s own schemes of. work so as to absorb the unemployed. If you want the opportunity to work : Vote for Valentine and Vaughan.”

Could anyone but a place-hunter spread broadcast such rubbish and still claim to be a Socialist? Sorry, Mr. Printer, he’s a Communist ! Every line in the above statement is sheer bunkum. Quite apart from the fact that unemployment is not a national problem, even if Vaughan and his clique were in the majority on the L.C.C. it would not be possible for them to provide schemes to absorb the unemployed.

Not all the schemes, plans and efforts of all the reformers can remove the canker, of unemployment and its concomitant evils; not until the workers are fully conscious of the fact that the private property basis of society must be swept aside, to make way for the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living.

 'The Settler'

The Way of Peace. (1922)

From the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

Such was the alluring title of an article published in the Daily News, dated July 31st, 1922, in which the writer showed a subtle ability of propounding views which help to keep the workers from grasping the real significance of hero worship. To contend that they who demonstrated at the Cenotaph in Whitehall by dipping their banners as they passed, or laid flowers at the base of the monument, were actuated by the desire to pay homage to the fallen in war; and to describe it as a ”silent and impressive pledge to the dead,” is but sentimental humbug ; for those to whom the pledge is stated to have been made, care nothing for such promises, and certainly will in nowise be offended if they are not carried into effect. The eyes of the dead are closed for ever, and weary not for the hypocritical promises made in their name. However easy it is to escape the responsibility of a promise to the dead, you cannot deceive them; but it is possible to deceive the living by lugubrious protestations over the dead and impress them that some benefit may be derived from their mournful pretensions.

Sorrow for departed friends will always persist, and people will continue to demonstrate their regret in various ways long after their friends decease. Those who went to the Cenotaph with honest motives were of this kind, and relieved their emotions publicly because ”knowing not where they have laid him” they cannot do so privately as they would if death had been the result of disease and been followed by an ordinary funeral, and the remains deposited in a place easy of access. Others were there who totally lacked that spirit of thoroughness which we call principle, indifferent to all else except spectacular effect, who would sooner see a man dive to death from the top of St. Paul’s, than go to the poll and vote their slavery away.

But a more sinister motive lies behind these officially organised demonstrations of pretended reverence for those who fell in the war; and that is to inculcate and keep alive the thought that they died in a glorious struggle to ensure eternal peace to posterity and willingly made the supreme sacrifice. Once get that idea into the noddles of those who are maturing unto military age, how much easier it will be to recruit the forces required by the capitalists for the next last great war to end war.

Already on to-night’s placards I find they are calling ’em up.

It may be useful to remember that during the great war of 1914-1918, the workers who were drawn into that bloody orgie wanted nothing more than to be allowed to remain in their native land, and to be provided with a constant means of obtaining a living by the sale of their labour power to the masterclass. That is the high watermark of their intelligence, which socialists so much deplore; but to say nations are torn with suspicions of each other, or secretly preparing war-like plans of self-aggrandisement, etc., is a travesty of facts, or the result of lamentable ignorance. It is not the nations, but the greedy capitalist class whose sectional interests compel them to regard each other suspiciously and who are secretly preparing to commit another terrible crime against humanity.

The great mass of the world’s workers know nothing of these plans, and instead of suspicion there is an ever-growing sympathy springing up between them : a sympathy born of the knowledge that there is only one enemy they have to face the wide world over :—the capitalist class who alone are responsible for the present economic chaos, and the sum of human misery and suffering entailed thereby.

Many workers of all nationalities who have passed through worse than death, now realise that the cult of nationalism is indeed a tragic futility so far as the working-class are concerned ; and the spirit of international co-operation and solidarity, though slowly, is surely growing up amongst them, born of the knowledge that they are poor because the greater part of the wealth they bring into existence is robbed from them by the capitalist-class.

To his everlasting credit, Karl Marx made this clear, and explained the process of the robbery in Capital, in which the true nature of capitalism is revealed as resting upon the exploitation of the working-class through individual or private ownership of the means of producing the necessaries of life.

This divides society into two distinct classes whose interests are as widely opposed as the two poles of – the earth : one a propertyless class having nothing to sell but its power to labour; the other a wealthy class owning the means of wealth production.

Amongst the latter there is continual friction arising out of the competition for markets for the sale of commodifies, each section trying to oust the other. World-wide territories are examined, trade routes determined, and all the machinery put into operation to secure a profitable sale; and a very watchful eye is kept by their respective governments upon the interests of those whom they represent. When these interests are threatened by trade rivalry of another state, bombing machines, gun-boats and troops are hurried to Tom Tiddler’s ground to administer a gentle admonition to the offending party. All of which goes to prove there can be no peace, in either a military or economic sense, while goods are made for profit instead of use, and exploitation of the working-class forms the basis of society.

I once heard the House of Commons described as the Thieves’ Kitchen, and in my opinion that term is not less applicable to the League of Nations to which the Daily News pins its faith ; for what else is it, but a consultative body of capitalists which meets for the purpose of determining the most economical way of appropriating the results of working-class effort and apportioning shares of the spoil to the various capitalist sections whom they represent.

It follows then, as the day follows night, that if we would do away with war, we must destroy the conditions from which it arisen. Not patch up or reform the old structure, but change the system entirely by doing away with wagedom and capitalism, and substitute a system of society in which the whole of the means of social production is commonly owned and democratically controlled in the interest of all. Then it will be impossible for anyone to deprive another of existence by withholding the means of satisfying his requirements.

In this way alone lies the path to peace. After all it is not in the power of statesmen to end war as they belong to the class to whom war is necessary and inevitable, and cannot but desire a continuance of a system that gives them such ease and enjoyment.

The workers alone can alter the circumstances that bring such untold misery and ruin to their homes, by organising for the complete overthrow of the wage system. Then only can there be Peace throughout the world. How this is to be done will be found in our Declaration of Principles on the back of this paper. Read, mark and inwardly digest them.

W. W. F.

Blogger's Note:

There is a strong chance that the author of this article, W. W. F., was the longstanding SPGB member, Walter Ford. He is the only member that I am aware of from that period who had the initials, W.W.F.

Walter Ford died a party member at the age of 94 in November 1957. His obituary appeared in the January 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Letter: The Rate of Exchange. (1922)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Comrade,

How many who read the daily paper understand the financial column ?

For instance:—Paris, 54.30, Aug. 4th; 54.37, Aug. 5th; Madrid, 28.67, Aug. 4th, and so on. Do you think it could be printed in the Socialist Standard so as to make it clear to the average man.

—Yours, 

G. F. Hart

Answer to Hart.

The basis of the figures—known as the rate of exchange—given by Mr. Hart may be stated as follows :—When two countries enter into commercial relations and exchange goods, the prices of these goods are balanced against each other, mainly through the medium of Bills of Exchange. In practice over any financial period, such as three or six months, it will usually be found that one country has sent goods whose prices total more than the prices of the goods it has received. Under ordinary circumstances this difference is settled by the other country sending gold equal to the amount of the debt. The costs of transporting this gold, including insurance, etc., will be the basic cause of the difference in the rate of exchange.

If, for example, a balance were due to England from France, and assuming that 50 francs were equal to a sovereign; that a sovereign equalled 1/4 oz. of gold; and that the cost of transporting gold, including insurance, etc., were 20 centimes (roughly a 1d.) per oz., then the rate of exchange for that day would be, approximately, 50.05 francs to the pound. The number of bills available, the state of credit between the various merchants, the manner in which a particular government has honoured—or otherwise—its debts, would all have an influence on these figures, which often vary from day to day, and sometimes during the same day, but the basic factor would be as outlined above.

Editorial Committee

Correspondence: Answer to J. Blundell. (1922)

From the Editors from the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

In regard to their general results “Inflation” and ”Debasing” of the currency are the same, though the terms are generally used with reference to two different kinds of currency. “Inflation” is used in connection with a paper currency, and “Debasing” in connection with a metallic one. When first established the coins of a metallic currency were worth—or were of the value—of their face denomination— Pound, penny, etc. Some of the old rulers tried to rob their subjects by using inferior metal in the manufacture of the coins, or by issuing coins under the legally fixed weight. In either case the difference in value between the original coins and the altered or “Debased” ones, would form a margin for the rulers’ benefit until the debasement was discovered and new higher prices established in line with the lower real value of the new coins.

In the case of a country with an inconvertible paper currency—inflation, of course, cannot take place where the paper is convertible into gold upon demand—the purchasing point at which the paper will circulate depends upon how much “foreign” trade is carried on by the country in question, and the amount of notes issued compared with the estimate, made by the trading community, of the power and willingness of the Government to meet its liabilities, or, in other words, upon the “credit” of that particular government.

Should the Government issue notes in excess of this “credit” the notes would circulate at a point below their face denomination in the proportion of the “over-issue.” The “over-issue” would be termed “inflation,” as the notes would have been issued in numbers beyond their legitimate sphere. Poland and Austria are extreme examples of such “inflation.”

Editorial Committee.

Editorial: The Call of the Graveyard. (1922)

Editorial from the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “war to end wars” is still going strong. Eight years ago this peculiar brand of wars was going to finish in a few weeks. Four years later we were told that the fearful enemy that had been menacing the peace of Europe had been whacked. There was great jubilation in the tents of the mighty. A short time after, however, the whackers discovered that it was they who had been whacked. Much talk there was about the wheels of industry that would not move; much mystery and puzzlement over the movements of foreign exchanges; and finally weird and wonderful theories of currency. Tearfully the capitalists’ leader writers complained of the black outlook after all the treasure spent, and all the property destroyed. The allies had gleefully arranged how the war indemnity was to be split up amongst them, and afterwards discovered that they had so successfully busted the enemy that he could not pay. Then there was a wild scramble to raise up the fallen enemy (put their competitor back where he was before they started the busting process !) as he appeared to have fallen on the victors. In the meantime forty or fifty other minor wars were going on in different parts of the world to fill up the interval. 

A little later still the different members of the victorious time discovered that each was pulling a different way, each trying to carve a bumper share out of the alleged spoils on the sly.

There were many portentous conferences, much trumpet blowing and raising of smoke screens. So avaricious were the “peace­ makers” that the period of conferences bid fair to be infinite. While this hubbub was going on one that was so lately a fallen enemy rose up again, and while the “faithful” allies, without even the staunchness generally attributed to thieves, were following each his own course in backing this fallen enemy or his opponent a new apparition has appeared to haunt Europe in the person of the “victorious Turk.” So the wheels of the “war to end wars” are kept merrily turning.

With unconscious humour the Daily News (19th September, 1922), exhibits on its front page a picture to stiffen the backs of future war heroes. It is a pleasant picture; the picture of a portion of the Anzac cemetery at Ari Burnu, on the Gallipoli Peninsula, where, they state, 20,000 British and Australian soldiers are lying ! Are they offering a solution of the unemployed problem ? Or are they offering the Anzacs a “home from home?” How anxious our masters must think we are to enter the eternal silence of the tomb ! Funny, isn’t it ?

In the editorial column of the same paper, same date, there are some other funny things. For example, we read : “Which is the better way of preventing a war—to keep Kemal’s army on the Asiatic side and call a conference to consider his claims, or to give it free passage and leave it to stake out its own claims by force?”

Here we have a capitalist definition of “preventing a war”—to prevent war go for the other chap first; it isn’t a war then it’s a defensive action ! Quite obvious, isn’t it?

In the meantime what has become of the wonderful “League of Nations” that was floated with such a flourish of trumpets? It appears to have quietly stepped off the stage (referred the matter to a committee!) its services being no longer required now that arrangements have been made to refloat the war enterprise on the grand scale.

To work up our feelings over “small nationalities” and similar sacred matters we are kept informed of the alleged atrocities of the Turks some hundreds of miles away. In the meantime, however, there has been a mining disaster in the North of England not many days ago, and many workmen lost their lives; further, we read daily of men, women and children being run over and killed by the motor cars that hurry the wealthy from pleasure to pleasure. Atroci­ties are not confined exclusively to wars; they also flourish abundantly where peace is supposed to reign.

This brings us to the main point. What does it matter to the world’s workers what group of capitalists control the sources of wealth? An exchange of masters is of no practical account to the world’s workers. The point is they are all members of the capitalist class.

Therefore the fresh stir up in Europe should not concern working men at all ex­cept as another instance of the cupidity and trickery of their masters.

On the page of the Daily News that contains the invigorating picture of the graveyard we read that Lloyd George sent a telegram to the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand containing the following :

  “Your prompt response to our inquiry regarding troops to resist any threat against freedom of Straits and sanctity of Gallipoli Peninsula received here with enthusiasm.”

Who were the enthusiasts? Those who were going to direct the war evidently, as they were the only ones who knew anything about it. Anyhow, it wasn’t the prospective candidates for the vacancies in the cemetery; they are too busy discussing the wage cuts—the reward for their so recently suspended activities in the shambles.

Letter: Rip Van Winkle. (1922)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Sirs,—

Re your reply to my letter, I hardly think it meets the case. The fact of new people developing capitalism does not alter the fact that it is possible for a country to acquire means whereby it can escape going through all the stages of capitalism. You half admit this yourself, for your assumption that the Russian people would not keep abreast with Western development is not in accordance with facts. For instance, the rapid growth of capitalism in Japan is an instance of how a backward people can acquire proficiency regarding the manipulation of modern means of production. We must understand that the Bolsheviks holding political power are in the position of giving their people full scope for development. It is not necessary for a person to fully understand a machine before he is capable of operating it. Regarding the S.P.G.B. Standard—what I meant was that it was not necessary for a people as a whole to be capable of understanding Marxian Economics. That is why 1 quoted the passage from the preface to the “Critique.” The passage precedes the one over which Mr. Dight first crossed swords with you. The passage following is also illuminating. It runs as follows :— “Therefore mankind always takes up such problems as it can solve; since looking at the matter more closely we will always find that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist, or are at least in the process of formation.” Now I claim that the Russian Bolsheviks were justified in seizing power and attempting to establish Communism, since it seems clear to me that it is possible by importing modern means of production into the country of at least escaping the worst of capitalist development. If I am wrong, I would like to be put on the right track. I asked you to explain the passage I quoted from the “Critique.” You declined, brushing it aside, saying that it did not require interpretation ; I asked because I put a certain construction on it that you might think wrong, and I require information which you did not give. My interpretation is briefly this :—That Marx foresaw a seizing of power by the intelligent section of the community, backed by the unrest and misery of the workers on the breakdown, partial or complete, of a preceding system. Where he says—”and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic—in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out,” it strengthens the idea that despite a changed economic foundation, a great bulk of the people would not have an ideology in keeping with the change. He points out that “the distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production.” Briefly, this is my construction, and I think that it is also the construction of the Russian Bolsheviks. I again ask you for your interpretation. Regarding my “astounding blindness,” it still remains, that whichever country or countries subsidised the buccaneering expeditions into Russia, it was always with the purpose of overthrowing the Bolsheviks, for they all realised, if J.F. does not, that they had little hope of fleecing the workers of Russia whilst the Bolsheviks held power; so I do not see the refutation or answer to the latter part of my letter.

One more point I would like to ask. In the reply to Mr. Dight, J. F. says there is no race or nation of people that have passed from feudalism to fully developed capitalism without going through the essential phases of capitalist developments. Will J.F. kindly explain what he means “by the essential phases of capitalism.”

Yours fraternally,

D. S. O'Mahoney.

Reply.

When a correspondent sends any question to the Socialist Standard, the facts and arguments in support of our case are put forward in the simplest language, consistent with accuracy, at our command. If such a presentation of our case fails to reach the understanding of the questioner, it is evidently useless to carry the discussion any further.

All the points given in Mr. Mahoney’s letter have been answered in various articles in the Socialist Standard, and were specifically dealt with in the answer to his previous letter in the August (1922) issue.

Mr. Mahoney admits that he still fails to understand that the most colossal war in human history was not between two nations at different economic stages, but between two whose stage of development and economic conditions were practically identical. In the face of such a mentality, it would be a waste of time and space to deal with his other statements.

Editorial Committee

Letter: Steps to Socialism. (1922)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Sir,

I should be glad if you would state upon what “lines” you consider Socialism will be achieved? Could you tell me, as nearly as possible, the successive steps by which the working class will overthrow the existing order, and how the means of life will be distributed when the workers have conquered the powers of government, national and local?

(It is argued in Communistic quarters that the officers of the army, navy, etc., would refuse to obey a working-class Parlia­ment by the way.)

Perhaps you would be good enough to show, for example, how the raw materials for clothing and housing would be obtained and manufactured, and made avail­able for members of Socialist Society.

I am, yours faithfully,

J. C. C.

Answer to J. C. C.

To attempt a forecast of the details of a social revolution would be a waste of time. A little thought will show that such details will be decided by the conditions existing at the time of the revolution. As it is impossible to forecast the date of the revolution, evidently it is impossible to know in detail the conditions that will prevail then. The general lines of the change are more easy to define, because the general conditions are known:—

(1) As the centre of power is Parliament, and members of that body are returned by the votes of the working class, it is quite clear that the first step is the conversion of a majority of the voters to a recognition of the need for the establishment of Socialism.

(2) The next step is the organisation of that majority into a political party for the purpose of returning delegates into control of Parliament.

(3) The Socialists, being in a majority, would pass laws for the purpose of converting the great means of wealth production and distribution into social—or common—property.

(4) If necessary force will be used to carry out these laws, but this use will depend not upon the socialists, but upon the capitalists, who may turn rebels against society and law.

The raw materials would be obtained by setting men and women to work for that purpose. An illustration, though perhaps not a very good one—was the action of the Government in taking control of materials during the war. Distribution would be according to the needs of the members of society, the details being dependent upon conditions at that time.

The statement of the Communists that officers of the army and navy would refuse to obey orders is a sheer assumption, and no evidence has ever been brought forward to support that statement.

Editorial Committee

A Word on Organisation. (1922)

From the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

An organ is something that works. Or­ganisation is the assembling and arranging of the parts of a compound body in a manner for use; that is to say, that each part may co-operate with the others to a given end, the whole working as one organ. A tree, with its multitude of diverse cells, is an example of exquisite organisation.

In the same way, when men and women organise themselves they are proceeding to work together, with an agreed objective. They are forming a single body, of which each individual is a part; and should any part deviate to pursue some different plan, the advance of the whole will be hindered by just so much. The body may be very small, or it may be immense; the same remains true.

When a man joins a party, therefore, he automatically proclaims himself as in agreement with its declared aims. No amount of disclaimer or qualification does away with this fact. The outsider assumes, and is justified in assuming, that the aims of the party represent his ideas. The members expect, and have a right to expect, that he will conform at all points to its principles. Why else is he there? If, once admitted, he proceeds to advocate principles which do not agree with those of the party, the members will only act consistently in expelling him. The inside of the party is not the place for such an advocacy, and the application for membership was a ruse : he did not join for the purpose of working with others for an agreed object. Moreover, the outsider has good reason for not attending to his message, since he proclaims one thing in his words and another by his actions. What is true of the individual in relation to parties, is true of parties in relation to federations.

The application of this? The S.P.G.B. is sometimes asked why it does not seek affiliation with other bodies professing themselves socialist or labour. The foregoing is one reason, and in itself would be sufficient. The programmes and actions of these various parties have been frequently examined in the pages of the Standard. None of them agree with our idea of socialist principle. Therefore affiliation, if obtained, would be unfair to their members, confusing to those out­ side.

The other reason is that the movement towards working-class emancipation would not be strengthened thereby. We want the greatest possible number of our fellow workers with us ; but purely formal organisa­tion is useless in any sphere of action. Organisation must be the expression of a real unity of purpose, whether the purpose be the felling of a tree or the building of a new society. The more momentous the work, the more important it is to remember this. In the case of the class war, formal unity is worse than useless. It is a pretence and a danger. If it were possible to form a vast and disciplined organisation of workers with their present degree of class-consciousness, it would be but a more convenient instrument of exploitation for the master-class. In short, organisation must follow education, not precede it.

This is true alike on the industrial and political fields. In industry we workers must learn the meaning of the tasks which emerge in the daily fight over conditions of labour. That we cannot hope to placate the exploiter, nor look for impartial arbitration. That we have to expect capitalist aggression —with fleeting exceptions, progressively more vigorous every year. That we have but one weapon on this field, the strike, and even that will fail us whenever the master­ class decides to fight an issue out. That to make the best use of the strike we must have, not many unions for one industry, nor one for each industry, nor even one for each national group—but a world-wide workers’ union. And that this day to day struggle must be waged, not for us by leaders, but by us through delegates.

We shall not have advanced far on this road to industrial solidarity before we are forced to see that the utmost we can do by these means is to resist attacks on our already poor standard of living. We cannot improve our standard to any appreciable extent, much less entirely free ourselves from exploitation. To do this we must take the vast machinery of production into our own hands. And since this is an issue which our masters decidedly would fight if they could, we realise that direct action on the industrial field will no longer suffice for us. We do not intend that the capitalists shall be able to starve us by commandeering the food supply, nor slaughter us by using the army and police. While we hope that in that day our fellow-workers in the armed forces will be with us—while we are going to do our utmost to make them so—we do not mean to take risks by allowing the capitalist class to give them orders. We find that we need political power. We need an assembly of workers’ delegates, with a mandate for socialism ; and we organise in the Socialist Party with the object of getting it.

Thus our industrial and political activities must be two sides of one movement : the industrial for safeguarding conditions with­ in the capitalist system, and probably forming the basis for the industrial organisation of the Socialist Commonwealth ; the political for the expropriation of expropriators.

These things we have to learn, and only on the basis of this knowledge can organisa­tion proceed.

A.

The Broom. (1922)

From the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “Those who opposed it on ‘principle’ [the tactic of seeking affiliation with the Labour Party]—(in reality because they just cannot stand the Hendersons and MacDonalds . . .) —who prefer to carry on their ‘revolutionary activities’ far from the madding crowd . . . are happily not in our ranks. On their banners the word ‘purity’ is writ in large letters, and over it a dainty broom as a warning. Alas, they have failed to understand that only the newly-born are pure; that in order to become pure again, we must go through purgatory. … If the present trade unions are hells we have simply got to go through it—not save our souls by running away to start unions of our own. If the local labour party is a hell we have got to go through it, and so with the National Labour Party.” (The Communist).

The supreme desire of the Socialist is for the triumph of his cause. His heart is “scared with the knowledge of preventable human woe” ; his dreams are bright with the possibilities of the future commonwealth. His ambitions are no longer individual, nor are his joys and sorrows. He is glad and downcast with the flow and ebb of the movement. He views events in their relation to the revolution; he asks of institutions whether they can assist or only obstruct it. The needs of the cause are imperative calls, the advantage of the cause is his highest expediency.

He knows that the revolution is no one’s business but the workers ; and therefore asks himself, “Is our class to-day, generally speaking, ready for such a step ?” It is not. We are not even capable of fighting with any degree of success the everyday battles of industry. In the perennial struggle around conditions of livelihood we suffer defeat on defeat; worse, we combat one another. We allow ourselves to be divided on all manner of pretexts. We have not learned to unite even in defence of the meagre things we have. As to completely re-organising social life, we should call the suggestion madness. Send our masters packing—why, who would pay our wages? Produce and distribute by democratic arrangement—the work would never get done. Claim and receive what we need from the common store—why, we do not even laugh at the idea. It lies outside our imagination.

The present order of things suits us very well; only we should all like to be kept in work, draw higher wages, and pay less rent.

Such being the state of mind of those whose mission it is to overthrow capitalism, the Socialist and his comrades buckle down to their task. They may do one of two things : lead the workers or teach them. That is to say, they may select a non-revolutionary political party which at the moment has the favour of the workers, and associate themselves with it, regardless of whether its activities are in themselves an advance toward revolution. By zeal and devotion they may aim at acquiring a strong influence with the members, so that when decisions are to be taken their advice will be asked and followed, even though the members are not convinced Socialists. This does not mean that they will neglect to teach socialism, but that they are prepared to attempt a revolution, relying for support on people who better understand the efficiency of Socialists than the full meaning of Socialism. On the other hand, they may devote all their energies to education, assisting no reformist activity, but rather making clear the worthlessness of such endeavours, and the true remedy for the distress which gave rise to them. In this case the minimum pre­-requisite of a seizure of political power would be a majority of Socialists. That is not to say that the majority need be profound Marxian scholars , but they must (1) understand well the basic principles of capitalist and socialist society respectively; (2) have freely decided to destroy the one and set up the other; and consequently be able (3) intelligently to exercise the right of recall, if any of those whom they depute to give effect to their will shall seek to play them false; or (4) to appoint suitable successors if chance should remove some of their delegates, so that the direction of the revolution is in nowise accidental.

In other words, Socialists may either act for their fellow-workers, making all efforts meanwhile to bring them into line, or they may concentrate on making them capable of acting for themselves. The method of leadership recommends itself to some, because it appears at first sight to be the quicker. Naturally no Socialist is willing to defer the revolution a year—a day—beyond what is necessary. In face of capitalism’s terrible daily waste of human life and happiness; with men and women dying every hour, worn out at an age when they ought to be enjoying their full powers of mind and body; with babies born every hour into such conditions that they can only be­ come grotesque caricatures of humanity; what Socialist would not be impatient ? Walk round Bermondsey, look out as your train runs into Bristol, or make a tour of a Lancashire mill, and see whether you can feel patient about the last years of capitalism! It is all too easy to understand men like Martin Nexø‘s anarchist character, who was so obsessed by the suffering of his neighbours that he threw away his life in a futile attempt to effect an immediate remedy. There is not a Socialist who does not desire the transformation to­ morrow, if that were possible.

But what would be the outcome of a revolutionary venture employing the method of leadership —such an attempt as Engels criticised— “carried out by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses ?”

To count on the support of people who do not understand your purpose is to build your house on the sand. At your most need they may desert you. If they can be influenced by you, they may be by your enemies too; and, in the hardships and uncertainties of the transition period, will they not be fruitful ground for the seeds of counter-revolution ? Moreover, if you surmount the first dangers, are these the men and women successfully to work a socialist system of industry ? Accustomed to leaders, how shall they show the qualities necessary for democratic control—the independence, the responsibility ? Not understanding how the system should develop, where is the safeguard against their wrecking it by unsound decisions ? And if to prevent that you must govern your fellow-workers after all, what is it you have established ? Not a co-opera­tive commonwealth, but a bureaucratic state —a sorry achievement of leadership, which leaves the task of education still before you.

For this reason, believing that no genuine and enduring transformation of society is possible until the majority of the workers have embraced socialist principles, the S.P.G.B. directs all its actions towards organising an ever-growing body of socialist conviction. It takes no part in reformist agitation, but calls on the workers to come together for the one action that can help them. Nor does it by keeping its independence lack opportunities of reaching the workers. Men and women are not confined to barracks labelled Labour Party, National Unemployed Workers’ Committee, and so on, and only approachable through those doors. They may be members of these or­ganisations, yet none the less exposed to our socialist bombardment, in the workshop, the trade union branch, at the street corner, in the parks. We do not lack opportunities for propaganda; but we do avoid confusing our message, as we should confuse it by advocating socialist principles with our lips and supporting reformist programmes by our actions. We seek to ensure that new comrades join us with their eyes wide open— knowing the road without need of a leader. Such a party is framed to triumph, because the fabric is sound all through. Say in time of revolution a man is entrusted with a great task. He fails or he dies; it is but to supply his place with another. The revolution will not fail or die with him. All are not equally gifted, but the field of selection is as wide as the party, not limited to a small vanguard.

Leaders, however strong and cour­ageous, cannot guarantee victory, and a defeated insurrection would sow despair and defer what it sought to hasten. But a resolute majority, equipped with knowledge, is invincible.

Specific comment on the paragraph at the head of this article is almost redundant. We might perhaps advise our Communist friend not to be mistrustful of principle. It’s a good thing to have. Without it he will be only a ship without a helm. Nor be too guilty-conscious of his own fall from grace. However little he may look like a pure revolutionist at present, there is hope for him, though for a member of a relatively “newly-born” party it’s rather sad to feel that urgent need of purification. Since he seems to have a fondness for scriptural allusion, we counsel him to strive to become again as a little child in the movement, by discarding the opportunism that has sent him astray. If he must have a taste of purgatory, why the preference for the Labour Party ? There are the Liberal and Conservative parties too, also supported by the workers, who hoped from each in turn sympathetic attention to their interests. They sent these parties to power in the hope of something being done for them; they now bid fair to send the Labour Party for no better reason—certainly not because they are determined at last to think and act for themselves.

We like the device of the broom which he inscribes on our banners. We accept and shall use it to sweep the dry leaves from our revolutionary path—daintily for such as he, for that is all that is necessary ; but for our enemies, with a stroke that shall hum across the world.

A.

“Liepocracy.” (1922)

From the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

Certain writers in the capitalist press are telling us that Bottomley was a canting hypocrite. What a study for the cynical philosopher? This erstwhile defender and champion of capitalism is now “down and out,” he therefore better than any other can be used as a scapegoat, a means to delude the working-class into the belief that the methods he employed were unusual, were contemptible, and therefore to be condemned. Was Bottomley, during the war, with his highly paid patriotic speeches, a greater hypocrite than his satellite recruiting sergeant, Ben Tillett? Was Lloyd George with his “Land Fit for Heroes” make-believe, or Asquith unsheathing the sword and spending his last shilling less despicable? They knew that they lied, that their words were dope for war victims. What of the flood of nauseating hypocrisy that is launched during a strike, the tears of anguish from the smug and complacent fat bellies for the consequently suffering women and children; even while the same gang at the same time, fight bitterly to reduce the workers to the lowest possible standard of subsistence consistent with the maximum output of wealth. What is all the lying pretence and the soft-soaped promises given to the long-suffering worker at election times by capitalist politician and labour misleader alike, if it is not the quintessence of cant and hypocrisy? The Socialist claims that this insidious form of working-class chloroform is an essential attribute of a now useless and parasitic capitalist class. That they may justify their luxurious and leisured life and your inhuman existence with the consequent antagonism between the two conditions, they pretend sympathy to blur class cleavage; they buy your votes with honeyed words that you shall give them the power to rule you; they insult you with the return of a little of the wealth you alone of the human factors produce, and call it charity. Though you are the only useful class to-day, you have still to become conscious of the fact. When you understand Socialism you will be PROOF against the cant and, humbug of all sections of the capitalist class and their agents, whether it be priest, politician, or pretending sympathiser.

W. E. MacHaffie

£1000 Fund. (1922)

 Party News from the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Man in the Back Street. (1922)

From the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Daily News, of May 16th, 1922, had an interesting editorial on the Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Masterman’s article in the same issue, entitled “The Wealth of England.” Sentences in the editorial were quite up to the S.S. standard :—

  “The contrast between the gaudy phantasmagoria of politics and the sordid facts which for the great mass of the people make up life is always there. The politicians talk on interminably of their high matters, determining the fate of great nations, regulating, or affecting to regulate, the courses of trade, composing peroration upon peroration on liberty, or the balance of power, or the honour of the Empire, or whatever other catchword best reflects the mood of the moment. The man in the back street feels no doubt in the end, and indirectly, the result of it all. Directly, it has as much relevance to his thoughts and his feelings, his hopes and his fears, as the road to Mandalay. His concern is to keep a roof over his head, and, if he is lucky enough to have one already, to earn enough money to keep himself and his family in some semblance of comfort; to win, if it may be, some stray glimpse of light and colour in the hard, squalid wilderness of his life. It is easy to rebuke men so situated for ‘taking no interest in politics.’ So situated, who would? It is easy to charge them with lack of patriotism or indifference to the things that matter. Let the prophets who say these things change places with their victims, and see how much they care for Empires on which the sun never sets in courts to which the sun never penetrates.”

The Daily News see the workers are tired of the old Liberals, and in despair say plain words about the conditions of the working-class. No doubt the Daily News would like the workers to vote out the Coalition Government. But there is something deeper that is the cause of this darkness and blight on working-class lives. The capitalist system of wealth production and distribution would keep out the sun and brightness whatever the Government, with whatever name you may give it. It tickles us somewhat, when the Editor says, “Let the prophets change places with their victims and see how much they care for Empires, etc.” What funny Daily News to give us. Surely the changing of places of individuals would only change the antics of individuals. Mrs. Soapsuds of the back street would surely become Lady Pears, and Mr. Coalheaver would shine as Lord Hard Nuts? Our cocoa editor—should the Liberals gain office—would get Empire on the brain again. Socialism is the only remedy—and the artfulness of parties out of office helps us to get on with the work—sometimes.

S. W.

Letter: Minted Gold. (1922)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the two following questions from Mr. W. A. Archer :—

1. Is minted gold, e.g., a sovereign, a commodity within the borders of the nation of issue?
2. What would be the attitude of the Executive of the S.P.G.B. towards the member of that party who disagreed with the explanation given in reply to question (1)?

Reply to W. A. Archer.

(1) A sovereign is issued for purposes of currency, under Government control, to ensure that fineness and weight of metal shall be constant in all new coins. To attempt to alter, or interfere, with either the fineness, weight or inscription of such coins is an illegal act. Technically the sovereign can only be used as currency inside the country of issue, and is, therefore, not a commodity.

It is true that on rare occasions jewellers take sovereigns and melt them down for use in their business, to save the time and trouble of assaying gold they might purchase in the ordinary way, but the quantity of sovereigns thus used is extremely small. Moreover, as it is impossible to distinguish minted gold after remelting from any other gold of the same fineness and colour, it is exceedingly difficult to detect such illegal occurrences unless the offender were “caught in the act.”

(2) The attitude of the Executive would be to judge any case brought before them on its merits, in the light of the declaration of principles and the constitution of the party.