Editorial: The Peace Settlement : Back to 1815 or on to Socialism? (1941)

Editorial from the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Times, in a recent editorial, was discussing the kind of settlement that should be made when the war is over. Comparison was made between the Versailles Peace Treaty made after the last war and the settlement made in 1815, when Napoleon’s armies had been disposed of, and the comparison was wholly in favour of 1815 !

 Neither ingenious formulas nor noble aspirations will of themselves suffice. Those who made the Vienna settlement of 1815 were less affected by sentiment and took less account of abstract ideals than the peace-makers of Versailles. But the settlement proved more enduring because it was based on a shrewder estimate of the relative strength of the principal European Powers. No peace settlement can last which is not rooted in the realities of power. Mr. Eden was right, in his speech last Tuesday, to set down as the first of peace requirements the military measures necessary “to prevent a repetition of Germany’s misdeeds.”— (Times, August 1st, 1941.)

Thus does the Capitalist world progress. During and after the last war the keynote of the utterances of most of the leaders of the Liberal and Labour Parties was that the mistakes of 1815 must not be repeated. Instead of a peace based on the balance of force we must have, they said, a peace based on principles and ideals. Now that it is popular in the same quarters to ascribe the present war to the last peace, there is a revulsion of feeling, and back we go to the good old principles of the reactionaries who disposed of the boundaries of Europe 126 years ago. And what will that mean?

One thing the Times does not attempt to hide is that even when the Peace is settled, trouble will still be round the corner.

  “The danger point is likely to occur not at the moment when the settlement is made, but some 15 to 20 years after . . . when a new generation rises to challenge it.”

Indeed, the Times need not have postponed the trouble for so long a period. In accordance with its newfound enthusiasm for 1815, the Times pointed out that after this war.

  “Leadership in Eastern Europe is essential if the disorganisation of the past 20 years is to be avoided … This leadership can fall only to Germany or to Russia.”

This line naturally caused some apprehension in the minds of the Governments of the smaller Powers, notably Turkey and Poland, especially in view of the Times’ further remark that “an enforced disruption of Germany would run athwart the modern trend towards larger and more integrated units, and would be unlikely to endure.”

The rulers of the smaller Powers anxious to preserve independence can see the difficulty of doing so whether Germany or Russia rules the roost in Eastern Europe.

Then, a few weeks later, came a Times report about the growth of a Pan-Slav movement in Russia: —

  “Hence to-day virtually the whole Russian nation— and, indeed, all the Soviet peoples—stand in conscious solidarity behind the Government. They believe that a greater Russia may arise, destined to be the nucleus of the Slav peoples, and to play the same unifying role as Prussia did in Germany.”—(Times, August 25th, 1941.)

What with the existing Empires and new Russian and Chinese Empires in process of formation, or at least being thought about, will the new world be any better than the old? Let there be no mistake about it, there is no formula or principle, new or old, Prussian or Russian, British or American, which will solve the nationality problems of Europe and the rest of the world under Capitalism. Capitalism breeds conflict, and conflict leads on to war even though a Napoleon gives place to a Kaiser or a Hitler.

Think on these things (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Henry Longhurst concludes an article on Douglas Bader (the legless airman) in the Sunday Express (August 17th, 1941), with the following paragraph: —

“I never thought the Germans would get him. I was so convinced that he was destined to be head of Fighter Command in the next war! Maybe he still is (Italics ours.)

The last paragraph in the editorial column of the Evening Standard (August 19th, 1941) commences as follows :—

  “Soviet Russia must never go down. All our own prospects are governed by her endurance.”

On August 21st, 1941, the Evening Standard editorial concluded with the following words : —

  “If the great dam of the Russian armies now holding back the Nazi avalanche should ever fall, a vast darkness and blight would descend on the hopes of all mankind.”

How circumstances change attitudes !

Gilmac.

Socialism Will Forge Ahead (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is obvious to the students of Socialism that the material conditions engendered by the war will have much to do with advancing or retarding the well-being of mankind. The situation in which the various nations will find themselves at the cessation of hostilities cannot now be gauged with any degree of accuracy, and, therefore, it is only within certain limits that we may venture to speak of the future.

In the piping times of peace the forces of mass production are throttled by narrowing markets, and therefore do not produce to their capacity, but when the dogs of war are at their heels the flood-gates are opened and in certain branches of capitalism everything is accelerated.

The discovery and utilisation of more and better means of producing commodities simply means, other things remaining the same, that we shall, at the end of the war, have unemployment on a larger scale than we had before. So long as the system of ownership and control is not changed nothing accrues to the advantage of the working class, and our masters have not the slightest intention of renouncing their class privileges or foregoing their right to exploit those who are dispossessed.

There is, however, one thing that our rulers will be unable to prevent, and that is the enlightenment of their victims as to the cause of their sufferings. The exigencies of the conflict will help to bring into the open, clear of all camouflage, the basic cause of class antagonisms and convey both to the working class and the capitalist class a full understanding of what the situation demands: both sides will then know what to do.

Enrico Ferri, in his book “Socialism and Positive Science,” can be quoted here: —

 “Political life will have no fresh birth except through the development of the Socialist Party, because when the historical figures of the patriots and the personal reasons for differences between the representatives of the various political shades have disappeared from the political arena, the formation of a single individualist party will become necessary. The historical duel will then be fought and the class struggle will then unfold on the political arena all its beneficient influences, not in the paltry sense of of pugilism and outrages, malice and personal violence, but in the grand meaning of social drama. With all my soul I desire that this conflict may be solved for the sake of the progress of civilisation without bloody convulsions; but historical fatality has initiated it, and it is given neither to us nor to others to avoid or retard it.

  “As a result of all we have just said, these ideas of political Socialism, because they are scientific, dispose to personal tolerance at the same time as to theoretical disagreement. That is also a conclusion of scientific psychology in the philosophical domain. Whatever may be our personal sympathies for such or such representative of the radical fraction of the individualist party (as also for every honest and sincere representative, of no matter what scientific, religious or political opinion), we ought to recognise that there is not by the side of Socialism any party organically connected with it. We must be on one side or the other—individualist or socialist. There is no intermediate situation, and I am more and more persuaded that the only useful tactic for the formation of a Socialist Party that will live, is precisely this theoretical independence and the refusal of every ‘alliance’ with the partiti affini, who only constitute for Socialism a ‘false placenta’ for a foetus unlikely to live.”—(Page 148.)

The political truce between the Labour Party and the Government is likely to meet with increasing opposition from the rank and file of the former. Many of the Labour Leaders will be discredited because of the actions they are compelled to do owing to the circumstances in which they find themselves. A Socialist policy is called for, but they cannot deliver the goods.

Read the following from the Daily Express, of June 12th : —

CALL-UP GIRLS SACKED.

From Hilde Marchant.

Hundreds of girls between 20 and 21 who have registered for employment under the new order, have been sacked. Mr. Ernest Bevin, Minister of Labour, describes this as “disgusting.”

The Ministry has sent inspectors to try to reinstate the girls, but they have no powers over employers who wish to get rid of them. 

“All we can do is appeal to their decency to keep these girls in jobs until they are needed,” an official said yesterday. 

Girls are already being called up on the first registration, but to spread them out smoothly, the call-up is slow. Each case has to be investigated. In the meantime, some are being sacked as “dead” labour. 

There was one case of a large lingerie factory. Most of the girls were within the registration age. 

They were given notice, for they were still learning their trade. Older women were brought in, but when clothes rationing was announced many of these were sacked. 

These are girls in clerical jobs who have been told they are under notice, and have to teach older women their jobs. The girls are sent on the dole, for it will be some time before they can be called up. 

The Ministry of Labour says it can do little but appeal to the patriotism of employers. Meantime, many hundreds of girls are being thrown on to a floating labour population, with no work to do.”

What I wish to call the attention of the reader to is the fact that Mr. Ernest Bevin is unable to do more than appeal to the patriotism of the exploiters of the working girls.

We will give him credit for the best intentions and say he would reinstate the girls if he could, but he can’t in face of the opposition of employers.

It is interesting to note how those who apparently think they are not of the working class consider the Government should act when some of the wage slaves take advantage of the fact that their services are at present in demand. The Daily Sketch had a letter in the other day which illustrates the point: —

  “Sir,—I see four men have been fined £5 each for gambling in an air-raid shelter when they should have been at work in a factory. All were of military age.

  I also see that Mr. Bevin is creating a flying squad of 100,000 men for the building trade—picked workers, exempt from military service, with a “guaranteed week,” one day’s holiday every six weeks and week-end leave with free rail passes every eight weeks.

  Is it not time this ridiculous squandering of public money was stopped?

  Remark heard in a public-house: “Oh, we go a bit slow during the day, as if we work too hard there would not be so much overtime pay.”

  Can nothing be done to bring the wage of the factory and munition worker more in keeping with that of the man in the Forces? Is it not time that we conscripted labour?

Sybil Tufnell 

Sunninghill.”

The lady evidently, unlike the Government, does not rely upon an appeal to patriotism; her wish is plain: she wants the Government to become dictatorial and conscript labour in order to compel the workers to work more cheaply. If someone asked the Government to conscript all employers and compel them to run their business for a soldier’s pay the request would be looked upon as absurd, but there are many members of the “middle class” who will no doubt agree with the lady and consider her letter worthy of the sincere attention of Mr. Bevin’s department.

While the war is going on the Government is assuming ever-increasing powers over the means of life: the ruling class are pooling their interests and heading for State capitalism.

In order to run State capitalism in their interests the ruling class will be tempted to curtail political democracy, because under State capitalism the intelligent section of the workers will in ever increasing numbers not only perceive more clearly how they are exploited, but also how it is possible to put an end to the exploiting process. We must stand ready to oppose any attempt to restrict present-day political privileges.

It is our duty as Socialists to continue our work of education, time and tide are with us from now on.

The encouragement we are now receiving is the logical outcome of present-day developments. Let us be worthy of the job we are called upon to accomplish and do our utmost to get those who incline a willing ear to understand that the only economic foundation of a peaceful world is Socialism.

Charles Lestor

Synthetic Socialism (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Society’s emancipation from the chaos of war, want-amid-waste and mental stagnation, must await the Socialist education of the working class, for which purpose the Socialist Party of Great Britain exists. Logically expected is the colossal opposition of avowed capitalist propoganda; but what irony, what tragedy, that working-class organisations should set up a further barrier.

Such bodies not only put forward the demonstrably false idea that a revised capitalism could operate in the interests of the workers, but also perpetrate the additional and even greater crime of tagging “Socialism” to such proposals. More : despite the S.P.G.B. example of nearly thirty-eight years of political integrity, these parties manifest such inconsistencies that the worker, confused and disillusioned, loses his progressive urge, and either returns to political apathy or else goes as far as active antagonism to any movement styling itself working-class.

An outstanding instance is that of the Labour Party—non-Socialist, according to the scientific exposition of the S.P.G.B. Further misconceptions, unfortunately common, are that “Socialist” can be applicable to schemes for “public ownership” and to the regime in Soviet Russia. Particularly significant are, such statements as : —

The difference between common ownership and public ownership is metaphysical. The Post Office is an example of common ownership”.—(Mr. John Paton, Labour Party prospective Parliamentary candidate, Welwyn Garden City, February 12th, 1941.) 

“. . . there should be public ownership of the land, banks, and industry, for only then is planning in the public interest possible.”—(Mr. Pat Sloan, “Russia Has a Plan” Series, No. 1, p. 15; his black.) 

“Emergency powers to be used to take over the banks, land, transport, armaments, and other large industries in order to organise our economic life in the interests of the people.”—(People’s Convention Program, point 4.) 

“The one essential thing is that all the various forms of socialist organisation should involve the public ownership of the means of production.”—(Mr. John Strachey, “Why You Should be a Socialist,” p. 65.) 

“The Soviet Union represents planning for human welfare, on a basis of common ownership (p. 39). Socialist Planning—The U.S.S.R. (title, Chapter II)”.—(Mr. G. D. H. Cole, ” Practical Economics,” Penguin Edition.)

To the S.P.G.B. alone can the worker turn for unwavering and scientific political enlightenment. In 1917 we stated that the Russian revolution could not achieve Socialism, and thereafter have consistently indicated and explained the rise in that land of a form of State capitalism, evolutionarily consequent upon feudal backwardness. It should here be noted that rapidly increasing production, industrialisation, widely extended education, improved health services and other public welfares—claimed by pro-Soviet propagandists as evidence of Socialism—are in fact normal features of capitalist growth in many countries.

Regarding nationalisation, or public ownership, its quality is State capitalist, not Socialist; so, axiomatically, its function is not in the interests of the workers. What fundamental working-class problems were solved by, say, the German State institutions from Bismarck to the Nazis ? Turning to Great Britain, is that not equally true of such bodies as the London Passenger Transport Board ? Then, too, the conditions of Government and Municipal employees are basically typical of capitalism.

It is essential to understand that the State, often presented as being identical with society, is, on the contrary, a superstructure thrown up by society and seized upon for the purpose of rulership and exploitation.

With the advent of Socialism it will go the same way as the bow and arrow, the tinderbox, the penny-farthing, the yoyo and other things society decides it has no use for.

“Russia is Socialist!” “Public ownership is Socialist!” Oh, for William Shakespeare to pronounce: “Call any other flower a rose, and it will not smell as sweet.” Or for Donald Duck to squawk “Phooie!”

Richard Tatham

Two and two make—? (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

“I guarantee,” said the Bishop, “to be able to teach geography or history, or even mathematics, in such a way as to leave the impression that there is a God or to teach these subjects in a different way which will leave the impression that there is no God at all.”—(The Bishop of Grimsby, in an address at Market Rasen Parish Church.—Lincolnshire Echo, July 2nd, 1941.)

Hopes and Fears for Democracy (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the present war the word democracy is continually being used by many who have different ideas as to its meaning. We are supposed in this country to have developed a means of democratic expression to a point beyond that reached by the people of other lands, but so long as the means of production are owned by the capitalist class democracy is worked in the interest of the exploiter. Bertrand Russell, in his book “Power,” brings out a point or two in this connection.

  In democratic countries the most important private organisations are economic. Unlike secret societies, they are able to exercise their terrorism without illegality since they do not threaten to kill their enemies but only to starve them. By means of such threats, which do not need to be explicitly uttered, they have frequently defeated even governments, for example, recently in France.

The above is interesting and induces one to recall certain incidents nearer home, but the most striking statement in the book is the author’s contention that exploitation can take place in a country where the means of production are in appearance “commonly” owned if there is not full and free political democracy.

 Under any form of Socialism which is not democratic those who control economic power can, without ‘owning’ anything, have palatial official residences, the use of the best cars, a princely entertainment allowance, holidays at public expense in official holiday resorts, and so on and on. And why should they have any more concern for the ordinary worker than those in control have now? There can be no reason why they should have, unless the ordinary worker has power to deprive them of their positions. . . . To suppose that irresponsible power, just because it is called Socialist or Communist, will be freed miraculously from the bad qualities of all arbitrary power in the past is merely childish nursery psychology.

Of course the author is wrong in calling this a “form of Socialism.” The old Socialist was not far out when he wrote : “There can be no Socialism without democracy and there can be no democracy without Socialism.”

The suppression of democracy in Germany, Japan, Italy and Spain is an attempt to turn the clock back, and we are interested in the matter inasmuch as we are desirous of knowing to what extent the dictatorships are in line with the economic development. In other words, is there to be a curtailment of democratic privileges even in the so-called democratic countries? Capitalism is a system that will last until it is replaced, and those who live by exploiting labour power will not hesitate to use any means they may possess to safeguard their ownership of the means of life.

Who would have thought even five years ago that the French people, after over a century of democracy, would be compelled to submit to decrees of a dictator ?

Things slip back very quickly under certain conditions ; the privileges the working class are supposed to have enjoyed for generations may disappear overnight.

Some three years ago there appeared a book by Aurel Kolnai, “The War against the West,” which clearly depicted the dangers of “National Socialism.” The literature published by German writers was little read here before the present war, but a study of it shows that “National Socialism” is, and prides itself on being, the great counter-revolution against the Western revolution of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

It is, according to Auriel Kolnai, an uprising against the ideas of 1789.

 Against liberalism and the rights of man, against any rational universal order and against the bare attitudes of Christian and Greek civilisation. The doctrines of National Socialism are deeply rooted in German history and expressive of some aspects of the German mind. Nazism is more than Prussianism has ever been, it is more than National Chauvinism. It bears within itself the seeds of pan-German Imperialism as well as a semi-religious pan-Fascist Imperialism. It is therefore not only a menace of war but a fountain head of propaganda. All economic and social issues in Germany have since the rise of Hitler been subordinated to one central thought—the approach of the epoch of the Germans on world history.

With the victory of the counter-revolution over the West, the nation “that will crush the humanitarian life of Europe and hoist the banner of true order,” will necessarily become the undisputed head and leader of Europe and all mankind—so runs the Nazi creed.

He concludes with Masaryk’s words: “Democracy is still in its infancy.” If we had to probe the subject more thoroughly we should in all probability find that the material conditions prevailing in Europe, and in Germany in particular, after the war 1914-1918, were in the main largely responsible for the appearance of Nazism and Fascism, but the ordinary writer does not look at things from a Socialist standpoint and considers that a particular ideology is responsible instead of reasoning the other way round.

The present struggle is spreading to every portion of the planet, and the ruling class of the democratic countries can only hope by arousing the working class of their own countries to be able to wage war whole-heartedly against the dictatorships.

To do this they must offer them something worth striving to attain, something worth the sacrifice, and Capitalism has nothing to offer. The question now arises, will democracy be maintained by the momentum of history by those people that are striving to subdue Hitler? Or will the working class of the democratic countries not only line up and fight Nazism but strive in the process to put an end to Capitalism and bring into being Socialism ?

We confess we do not know. Society springs many surprises upon us. Those who live by selling their labour power often take a course of action (generally a wrong one) which even Socialists do not anticipate. As stated before in these columns, events have taken charge and society is largely at their mercy. We cannot tell what is coming in the immediate future, but we know that Socialism must emerge in the long run. We also know what is our duty, and that is to boldly put forward Socialism as the only possible solution to the world’s problems. The common ownership of the means of life is now an economic necessity, and this, together with production solely for use under a democratic administration eliminates Nazism, war and economic worry.

When Socialism comes then is man free. Under Capitalism “the commodities control the producers.” Man is the creature of the mechanism of his own creation.

The war at bottom and in the last analysis is a blind attempt on the part of society to escape being crushed by the forces which man himself has developed and set in motion. Forces which he does not, and, under Capitalism, cannot control. He must understand the nature of these forces, and by understanding transform them from merciless masters into willing servants.

A knowledge of Socialism enables man to command by knowledge these social forces and change society for the benefit of all.

Charles Lestor

Where Did They Get Their Wealth ? (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is an extract from a pamphlet, “The Origin of Great Private Fortunes,” by Gustavus Myers, published by Charles H. Kerr and Co., Chicago. It is summarised from the larger work, “History of the Great American Fortunes,” by the same author.

Many fanciful descriptions have been written of the origin of these great fortunes. Usually these narratives are so much alike, so consistent in their alluring and gorgeous colouring, that the suspicion naturally occurs that well-regulated press agencies are doing their effective work. Always it is skilfully explained how these great magnates amassed their immense fortunes by industry, thrift and ability. It is further glibly explained how they created wealth and were, therefore, signal benefactors of the human race. If, incidentally, some hundreds of millions of dollars adhered to their hands, that was only the just reward of their prodigious labours.

Flowery phrases, of course, explain nothing. It is facts that count, and facts alone; and somehow it is to be invariably noted that facts are lacking in these seductive eulogies. No explanation is ever offered as to how the magnate’s got their first millions. After a man gets a few millions, it is comparatively easy, as the present system goes, to get more. But—and this is the crucial point—how does he contrive to gather in his first millions ? It does not suffice, also, to say airily that on such and such a date he acquired this railroad or that plant. What we want to know is how he obtained the resources with which to do it, and what methods he used. None of the eulogies tell us this.

To indulge in glittering statements is easy, but they leave us no more informed than we were before. They simply inebriate us with words, while all the time we are hungering for the actual facts.

If we stop to reason a moment it becomes evident that the exercise of industry, thrift and ability does not produce fortunes of hundreds of millions of dollars. Tens of millions of people work very hard, save money (when they can) and lead temperate and useful lives. But they have no fortune, except bad fortune. Vast numbers literally live from hand to mouth; they begin life in poverty, and after a lifetime of toil, end it in poverty. Others manage to acquire a little competence which is always precariously threatened by being out of work, sickness or business disaster. Obviously, if industry, thrift and ability produced great wealth, America’s working people would all have multi-millionaire fortunes.

This explanation, it is clear, does not hold, and cannot, for a second, stand the test of reason and experience.

Even, however, if one does not give serious thought to the matter, a striking circumstance is of itself sufficient to make him suspicious of the usual run of explanations. If our magnates are so honest and honourable and such pure and lofty patriots and philanthropists, why should they be so sensitive to criticism ? Why should they be so eager to purchase eulogy by contributions to charities and colleges and universities, and by owning or subsidising so many newspapers, periodicals and magazines ?

Where Are We ? (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The war on Russia is the manifestation of the dire straits in which German capitalism finds itself. It is an admission of the eventual success of the British blockade which has forced the swashbuckling gangsters into an Eastern war for essential resources. Stalin is now allied to the Churchill Government, and no longer do we hear of the need for a “People’s” Government. Of course the time-serving Communist Party and its Left Book Club merchants will rally the masses, because, according to Molotov, the Germans are “treacherous dogs” and it is now a workers’ war. In August, 1939, Molotov signed a pact of “friendship.'” with these “treacherous dogs.” She followed this up by war on Finland and the seizure of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and part of Rumania. All this was done on grounds of military defence, at a time when Germany was busy on the Western Front. Russia became the great “appeaser” by repudiating the Norwegian and Belgian consuls and thus officially recognising the Nazi occupation of those countries, even going so far as to recognise the Fifth Column coup of Rashid Ali in Irak.

Now that the Soviet-Nazi pact is ended, will Russia restore the territory gained by that pact to their former “independence”? Will the Communist Party still demand to know Britain’s “war aims” ? And will they still demand “independence” for India?

How their chickens came home to roost. The feather-brained Communists used to say, “Who supplied Hitler?” and they replied: “Chamberlain.” The same question, “Who has since supplied Hitler?” could now be asked, and the answer is— Russia. Now that the Nazis have become “treacherous dogs,” will the Communist Party assure that Russian bombs will only drop on German capitalists and not on German workers ?

Lew.

Tit-Bits from the Press (1941)

From the September 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Journalism – Twentieth Century

The dishing up of news in the newspaper world is a complicated one with many facets, but in general it may be said, particularly with regard to articles and news items prepared in this country for home consumption, that they have to be written up in such a way that they will appear to support the policy advocated by the newspaper in which they appear. The quizzical attitude in which journalists have come to look upon their profession is exemplified in the following paragraph from the Newspaper World, of June 28th last: —

 The vindication of King Leopold of the Belgians is a perfect example of the need to walk warily the difficult path of newspaper criticism in war-time. Many writers must be wondering now how long it will be before they must think up nice things to say about Stalin. You never know where you are these days. It is not wise to put out the tongue which should be left in its neat resting place—the cheek.

It was on June 22nd that Germany attacked Russia, and prior to this date it was definitely not the fashion to “write up” the wonderful qualities of the Russian dictator.

R.M.

50 Years Ago: Words, Words, Words . . . (2004)

The 50 Years Ago column from the September 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

The style of the Standard then, as now, owed to two principal sources: the sociological textbooks of the time and popular journalism. From the latter it drew a peculiar Joe Miller waggishness that was part of the stock-in-trade of successful newspaper columnists, easier to exemplify than describe. Thus, the Editorial Committee apologizing for a writer who had not made himself clear to a correspondent: “He developed what he calls his style by studying a burr-walnut piano case in foggy weather”. A debate with a suffragette was irresistible, and its report was resplendent with quips about “ye gallant knight Anderson” and “the poor girl”. Perhaps the acme of this sort of wit was with a highly dramatic poem which had the refrain:

“Go! Reckon your dead by your forges red,

And in factories where we spin;

If blood be the price of your cursed wealth,

By Christ! We have paid in full.”

The poem was called “Gawd Struth We Have.”

The writers on economics, socialist theory and political issues put forth their subject-matter lucidly and without frills or ambiguities; style which came naturally through close acquaintance with Engels, Kautsky, Plechanov and the other classical exponents of Marxism. The popularisation of academic and technical subjects influenced later writers, and is still doing so – “science for the citizen” has made its mark. Just as on the platform, the people addressed are more widely informed and less concerned with theoretical questions. That does not mean, however, that the modern writer – or speaker – may neglect theory; it means that he must apply it more widely in a world with wider horizons.

And so it goes on; the business of persuading people to think straight, because that is what the Socialist wants. Words are our weapons. Words, words, words . . .

(From an article by R. Coster, Socialist Standard, September 1954)

A letter to the Fire Brigades’ Union (2004)

From the September 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear General Secretary,

At its meeting of 3rd July 2004 our Executive Committee asked me to write to you to express our welcome of your union’s recent decision to reverse your historic mistake of affiliating to the Labour Party.

For nearly 100 years the Socialist Party has held a clear and consistent position that trade unions and political parties need to remain separate. We have considered it bizarre that trade unionists in public sector unions should hand over their dues money to their, effective, political employers. Feeding the hand that beat them.

We have observed that trade unions need freedom to manoeuvre and represent the interests of the membership – distinct groups within the working class.  This freedom of manoeuvre means getting the best deal for their members within capitalism, often as against the general policy of a political party, which has to at least attempt to represent the general interest of its constituency. Political parties and trade unions only harm each other by shackling themselves to one another.

In the case of the Labour Party in Britain, it is clear that there have been numerous clashes between themselves and the Unions. The Attlee government used troops to smash a dock-workers strike. Wilson’s government floundered over the refusal of the unions to accept the ‘In Place of Strife’ income controls policy. Your own union members were branded traitors and threatened with legislation to deprive them of their freedom to strike in your recent dispute.

This is not caused by individual wickedness of Labour ministers, but by the hard logic of administering capitalism.  The same hard logic that saw Labour governments tear up railways and close down more pits than the Tories ever did. Capitalism is founded on the principle of no profit no production, and if a government is to keep capitalism running, it must obey this hard and fast law.

We thus wish to express our hope that your union will not seek to affiliate with any other political party, and most specifically, not try to recreate the Old Labour disaster that has blighted the workers movement for more than a hundred years. We hope you will use all your union’s resources and funds to defend your members’ interests, rather than those of your political employers.

We further hope that your members will come to understand that any resolution of a pay-deal within capitalism means their continued exploitation by the tiny capitalist class, and that their best interest lies in joining their fellow workers in a movement with the express and single aim of “the abolition of the wages system” and its replacement with common ownership and the free association of producers.

Yours for the World Socialism,

Bill Martin (Acting General Secretary).

Same Old Answers (2004)

From the September 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Saturday 3 July, the lunchtime edition of ‘Any Questions’ on BBC Radio 4, that doyen of the Left Arthur Scargill made a return appearance onto the national stage. In the light of the recent experiences of the Left here and around the world, might he have revised his world outlook? Would the failure of Keynes, the rise of Thatcher and Reagan, the defeat of the miners’ strike, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the rise of New Labour and numerous attempts to get his Socialist Labour Party elected, cause this once colossus of the Left to think a little wider about society?

Arthur’s lack of an understanding of our capitalist world was displayed when he called for Mr Bush and Mr Blair to be in the dock with the tyrant Saddam. He imagines that workers could, under his leadership, provide enough pressure to force capitalists in the USA to put their own man, Bush, on trial for dancing to their own tune.

Next, in answer to a question posed on the ex-Sainsbury Boss, Peter Davis’ £2m bonus that forced him out, Arthur declared he would, presumably if he were to become Prime Minister, nationalise Sainsbury’s, Tesco M & S and all the banks etc, etc and use the profits for the good of the workers and pensioners.

Here Arthur, like Tony Benn, George Galloway, Tommy Sheridan and the rest of the left, has learned nothing from the failures of both Keynes in the West and the Bolsheviks in the East.  Both groups in a similar way, the latter, slightly more extreme than the former, thought that they could make capitalism work in a national-centric arena for the workers and call the result: ‘Socialism In One Country’.

The left work to accomplish a compromise, as proposed by Keynes, with the ideology of the wages system which exploits human labour for profit and places a monetary value on that labour and its products (as commodities).  An ideology which fosters the creed of competition and contest, which leads to human estrangement, brings first squabbles among us then violence and ends with war and death.  An ideology which will deny the human race the talents of all the humans as many are blighted and stunted by a life of miserable wage labour producing useless and cheating products for market and in duplication 100 times over.  An ideology which will preserve the existing partition of humans into economic units (countries or regions) governed by leaders who will seek to protect their power and interests, which are different from the workers, through the rule of law and factitious process of parliamentary democracy.

Finally, Arthur called for more financial investment into the process where we, in Britain, could produce winners for the world sporting arenas.  Not just one Henman, but many many Henmans, across all the sports.

I guess old king coal is still a merry old soul, in his little world of grand delusions.

William Dunn

Obituary: George Meddemmen (2004)

Obituary from the September 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are saddened to have to report the death at the end of June, at the age of 84, of our comrade George Meddemmen. He was born in Camberwell, South London, in 1920 and joined the old Bloomsbury branch in 1947. In later years he was a member of Central Branch living in Rayleigh, Essex. Comrade Meddemmen taught art and design and much of his contribution to the party was in this field, designing for instance posters and the front covers and inside illustrations of the pamphlets on war, Ireland and the miners’ strike we published in the 1980s. Asked last year to record his reminiscences he wrote: “I was on demob leave in 1946 after six year war ‘service’ in the artillery (a number of my works, painted during the Italian campaign, are in the archives of the War Museum) and thanks to Tony Turner in Hyde Park, I learned of the party and joined. Apart from my artwork, I’ve done little of note for the cause. My dizzy heights were reached in the 50s, when I chaired one of the Party’s Sunday evening public meetings in a T. U. club in Gt. Newport St, W1. (Those meetings were very well attended, before TV gripped so many people’s bottoms.)” Which shows that being a soldier is not a bar to later being receptive to socialist ideas.

Blogger's Note:

There is a recording of George Meddemmen speaking about his time during the war (and his early life) available on SoundCloud.

If you click on this link you will be able to see a number of George Meddemmen's illustrations that appeared in the Socialist Standard and elsewhere.

Obituary: Daphne Cottis (2004)

Obituary from the September 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are sorry to also have to report the death in June of comrade Daphne Cottis of Southend who originally joined the Party – in Southend – in 1944. Older and not-so-old members will recall that she often represented Southend branch at Conference, together with her husband Harold (who died three years ago), as well as volunteering to run the literature stall that is always set up on such occasions and maintaining a Socialist Standard round locally. She was also a keen supporter of Southend United football club and for many years acted as a steward at their home matches.

Editorial: Socialist exclusive (1984)

Editorial from the September 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard

In September 1904 the Socialist Standard came alive and politically kicking: the first issue of the Socialist Party of Great Britain’s journal declared:

. . . we are all members of the working class, and cannot hope that our articles will always be finely phrased, but we shall at least endeavour to lay before you on every occasion a sane and sound pronouncement on all matters affecting the welfare of the working class. What we lack in refinement of style we shall make good by the depth of our sincerity and the truth of our principles.

Today, we can look back on that promise and ask how it has stood up to the test of eighty years during which the events of capitalism have given many an opportunity for it to be kept or broken.

In the First World War we might have gone the way of a host of confused reformists and, telling ourselves that we were only postponing the revolution, given support to one or other of the rival capitalist groups who were in conflict. That would not have been a postponement of socialism; it would have been its abandonment as our policy. Instead our socialist principles demanded that we stood out against the slaughter of workers by each other; “. . .no interests are at stake justifying the shedding of a single drop of working class blood . . ." was how the Socialist Standard expressed our opposition to capitalism’s wars.

Before that war had run its course there was the Russian revolution, which offered false hope to many workers seeking for some relief from the miseries of capitalist society. These hopes, of course, persist to this day; it is still possible to find “communists" who argue that capitalism in Russia and its allied states is different in some basic way from capitalism elsewhere. The SPGB have never entertained such delusions and as early as 1918 the Socialist Standard exposed the undemocratic and anti-socialist actions of the Bolsheviks, pointing out that the new rulers in Russia would have no option but to organise the development of capitalism there with all that that meant in terms of the repression and exploitation of the Russian workers.

The twenties and thirties brought much questioning of capitalism, of whether the slump meant that as a social system it was about to collapse, of whether it would be better organised under a Labour government including an element of ex-trade unionists and the like. Such ideas could only originate in an ignorance of the true nature of capitalism, of how it operates and of what is needed to abolish it. Socialists knew that the system would not, could not, collapse of its own accord. We knew that organisations like the Labour Party, with their promises to run capitalism stealthily in the interests of the working class while they reformed it out of existence, were attempting the impossible. The Socialist Standard put these attitudes; we were not surprised when the two Labour governments failed and when capitalism ground on its repressive, destructive way. Neither, unlike so many people who had put their faith in such delusions, were we disillusioned. Socialist principles had shown that reformism is futile, a diversion of the energies which should be devoted to bringing about a social revolution. Labour government could be no more successful than any other in controlling the anarchies of capitalism. The society of class ownership could be ended only when the working class in the majority understood the need for this and how socialism would be the next stage in social development. Nothing less would do.

The confusion and the irrelevance of the reformists was exposed again by the Second World War, when they argued that democracy was at stake and that the defeat of Nazi Germany (with which they falsely equated the safeguarding of democracy) must take priority over all other objectives including, inevitably, the struggle for socialism. Socialists again opposed that war. arguing that democracy was not an issue in it and that in any case democracy could be defended only through the will of a consciously democratic working class — which meant, in fact, by socialists. The war would not, we argued, make the world safe for freedom nor for peace. Since 1945 dictatorships and repression of the most brutal and pitiless kind have flourished throughout the world and millions have died in wars during this time of “peace”. The socialist case, which the Standard stated with all the force promised in that first issue, has been fully justified.

Since 1945 there has been small reason to feel that there has been any decline in the adherents of the case for reformism. The problems of capitalism persist, indeed in many cases they can be said to worsen. This is the nuclear age, when war promises to be an instant, all-obliterating matter from which settled human life may not be able to recover. World-wide, famine regularly wipes out tens of millions of people.

In many countries there are clumps of refugees, homeless through the conflicts of capitalism and the system’s artificial, inhuman national barriers. Poverty in its simplest form, in which workers struggle day in and day out to make ends meet and to gain access to the most unremarkable of life’s needs, persists. In 1984 poverty has the added impetus of unemployment, to which government’s inevitable response is to tighten the screw on workers, to grind down their already perilous hold on adequacy. But to each of these problems the reformists have their apparent, seductive answer. War, they say, can be eliminated by the capitalist powers agreeing not to behave like capitalist powers. The same can be said about nuclear weapons; the mighty states which have made them should simply agree that it has all been a waste of time and throw them away. Famine can be solved through charity, poverty by an adjustment of state benefits. And so on.

The reality of capitalism is that such problems are endemic to the system. They flow directly from its basis and in one form or another they will endure for as long as capitalism lasts. The reformist case is that capitalism need not be abolished (although some reformists profess this to be their eventual, distant, objective) just yet because it can be modified so as to be acceptable to people. All the evidence destroys this myth and points to the conclusion that socialism cannot be delayed. It points to the conclusion that reformism is not only futile but reactionary, since it aims to postpone socialism when this in fact means the abandonment of the aim of social revolution and therefore the continuation of capitalism with all the problems which so concern the reformists.

The Socialist Standard has stated the socialist case on these issues because it is the official journal of the SPGB. We are an organisation of workers who are conscious socialists; we may ". . . lack refinement of style” but we offer an understanding of capitalism and of the need for socialism which amounts to no less than the only hope for a desperate world. Socialists are democrats; every member of the SPGB stands equally and we have no use for leaders, who exist to lay down policy for, and to instruct, those who are not clear about where they should be going. A democratic political party must control, in the majority, everything that is said in its name and that is what happens in the SPGB. The Socialist Standard, today and for the past 80 years, has stated a clear and uncompromising case for socialism.

Socialists are satisfied — but no more — that our case has stood the test of time and has been kept clear and forceful for all these years. But we are aware that progress towards socialism is desperately needed; we are not satisfied that the workers remain so wedded to capitalism, so susceptible to the specious propaganda for the social system which exploits and degrades them. If we look back, then, it is only to draw the lessons of the past and to apply them in the future. The years since 1904 have taught us of the need to refuse compromise, to stand for socialism and for that alone and to insist that the revolution is an immediate possibility; the working class can and must understand socialism and opt for it. That is the continuing task of socialists everywhere and the Socialist Standard, as their journal in this country, will carry on with it until socialism becomes reality.

When that happens, the role of the SPGB is at an end. A classless, united society will have no need for any expression of class-divided society; there will be no privileges, no coercive machinery, no medium through which ownership on the one hand, and denial of access on the other, are expressed. Neither will there be political parties, which exist as proponents of class interests. The socialist parties alone represent the interests of the working class; when that class is abolished with the establishment of socialism the socialist parties, along with all others, will cease to exist.

There are many ways in which the SPGB and the Socialist Standard are unique and one of them is the fact that we are busily working for our own extinction. That should not of course deter any worker who thinks that socialism is the answer to the problems of modern society. Eighty years of the Socialist Standard is enough and it is time we were able to use these columns to write, thankfully, our own obituary.