The "Picture Post" Revelations (1952)

From the November 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

A constant problem to small political parties is the finding of opportunities for nation-wide publicity. One organization which can have no complaints in this direction at the present time, however, is the Communist Party. Most popular newspapers and magazines have had in the past twelve months articles telling "the truth" about the Communist Party's activities, and "Picture Post" has lately weighed in with a series of articles in which the "inside story" is presented.

The author of these articles is Bob Darke, who left the Communist Party in 1951. In the course of eighteen years' membership, he held various positions in and on behalf of the Party, including that of a Borough Councillor; he has now joined the procession of apostates who have scarcely allowed the ink to dry on their resignations before bellowing their condemnation of the Party they so lately, and so long, embraced. One cannot, in fact, resist suspicion of the many whose "seeing the light" has coincided with the Communists becoming the villains of the contemporary political scene. It is worth considering also that Bob Darke admits having thought and behaved irrationally and deliberately misrepresent facts for eighteen years; on his own evidence, his story and his judgements should be treated with more than a little reserve.

In fact, there is little in Bob Darke's "inside story" that has not already been told in similar articles in other publications. Serious consideration of the Communist Party's aims or the theoretical suppositions on which its case rests is completely avoided. The articles deal principally with the Party itself. Bob Darke shows it is an organization with a relentless discipline, in which members are required to follow the "Party line" blindly and subjugate their individual ideas to those which are imposed on them by the Party. That this is true is well known. Its significance, however, is considerably deeper than is shown by Bob Darke.

The question of the organization and methods of the Communist Party is as old as its Russian parent body. The basic concept of a centralised, disciplined party was that which Lenin, after the revolution of 1917, tried to extend all over the world; it was the concept which led to the formation of the Bolshevik Party. It was first expounded by Lenin in 1902, in "What is to be Done?" and in 1903, at the second congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party, it was embodied in his draft for the Party's statute. The draft was rejected in favour of Martov's, which aimed at a broad party of sympathisers, but when the delegates of the Bund, the Jewish organisation, withdrew, Lenin's supporters were left with the balance of voting power and used it to carry out their own wishes over the Party's constitution. Thus originated the Bolshevik-Menshevik feud, with its root in the Bolsheviks' conception of themselves as the highly organized Party leading the masses.

Was, and is, this concept a socialist one? Lenin did not draw it from his study of Marx. In one of his early pamphlets, he extolled the organization which was his model for a political party: Narodnaya Volya, the 19th century terrorist group with which the fanatical Nichaev was associated. The adoption of the idea of leadership of the workers by such an organization was, in fact, a rejection of the basic contention of Marxism. Marx saw the working class, through the development of industrialization and the constant increase in exploitation, becoming revolutionary; indeed, without this there could be no working-class revolution. Lenin, on the other hand, contended that the workers would never become revolutionary, and thus saw a necessity for his Party to be designed only as a group of leaders. It is interesting to note that at the 1903 congress the opponents of Lenin's concept stigmatised it as the prelude to dictatorship; the events in Russia from 1917 onwards, with many of those leaders holding political power, have borne out the prophecy.

Thus, the Communist Party's conception of the nature of a working-class political party was formulated in contradistinction from that of Marx. The behaviour of the Bolsheviks, in the years before they came to power, in many respects resembles that of Britain's Communists to-day. The Bolshevik cause was promoted by any means that appeared useful, and changes of policy were justified by Lenin's insistence that marx must be interpreted "dialectically." Any kind of dissent was branded with the word "Menshevism," just as present-day opponents are labelled "Fascists" or "Trotskyites."

At its inception in 1920, the Communist Party of Great Britain was committed, by its affiliation to the Third International, to a type of organization and methods which both were dictatorial. The "Statutes and Conditions of Affiliation" of the International included armed struggle and secret organization as clearly stated aims. The assumption of Lenin that the working class would never become revolutionary, was accepted; indeed, so far from seeking to spread understanding of capitalism among the workers, the founders of the English Communist Party believed that the capitalist economic system had broken down. This was frankly admitted in an article in "The Communist" in 1921, and for the next decade the Party's leaders continued to believe at every moment that capitalism was collapsing. The policy and administration of the Party became concentrated in a few hands, following the Russian model, until the membership was deprived of any opportunity to participate in the running of the Party and became, as it is now, an obedient rank-and-file. "Theirs not to reason why" is no less true of the Communists than it was of the Light Brigade.

Bob Darke shows his former self and his fellow-members as such obedient and devoted workers for their cause, accepting the unreasoning and often malicious discipline imposed on them; he fails, however, to make any suggestion as to why this should be. The key-word is "understanding"—or the lack of it. In spite of its Marxian pretensions, the Communist Party has thrived on lack of understanding. The supposition that the working class is incapable of becoming consciously revolutionary has provided a convenient justification for this; in fact, it is extremely well illustrated by Bob Darke's description of the methods by which Communist factions gain control of trade union branches. Far from making any endeavour to stimulate class-consciousness in the unions, the Communist tactic is to exploit the lack of it. In Darke's own words" "Our greatest ally was the apathy and indifference of the ordinary Trade Unionists."

Other examples are given to show how the Party membership itself is instructed to act without knowing the reasons for its actions. Perhaps here the hoary myth may be exploded that Communists are people who are more knowledgeable about society than most other workers. In fact, there is no reason for considering them to be superior in this respect to the members of, for example, the Labour Party or the Church of England; they have often identified themselves with the former, and at least one prominent Communist is a member of the latter. The leaders of the Communist Party are dependent upon the political ignorance of the membership as much as upon the political ignorance of the working class as a whole.

It must not be imagined, however, that Bob Darke is concerned with this aspect of the Communist Party. As was noted at the beginning, his articles are devoid of any serious consideration of Communist theory. Much of his "criticism" consists of the painting of unfavourable personal pictures of well-known Communists and even of allegations against them—for instance, that one member misuses money entrusted to him by his workmates. That is political warfare on its abysmal lowest level, and the only thing which might be said in excuse for Bob Darke's using it is that he probably learned it in the Communist Party.

Taken all in all, the "Picture Post" articles can hardly be said live up to one's normal expectations from "revelations." The only really valuable revelation of the Communist Party is the exposure of its fallacies and misrepresentations; and should "Picture Post" ever decide to do that, it need not concern itself with finding the latest adherent to the lengthening procession of penitent ex-worshippers of "the god that failed." The Socialist Party of Great Britain has maintained an attitude of analytical opposition to the Communist Party from the day of that Party's foundation. It has pointed out that the system in Russia is the same capitalism which causes the degradation of the workers in this country and elsewhere; that the aims of the Communists, if they were realised, would bring nothing but the continuation of the same economic and social problems; that leaders—would-be revolutionaries as well as the rest—can offer nothing to the working class. A party which bases its policy on the workers' lack of political understanding is, by that very fact, an anti-working-class party.

At the present time, the Communist Party is this country's scapegoat in the precipitate rush towards war. Capitalism has always to find scapegoats because the workers must always be persuaded to accept war, crises and hard times. The Socialist Party's criticism of the Communists has remained the same, whether the Russians have been "gallant allies" and their supporters have basked in reflected glory, or whether they have been regarded as villains of the deepest dye. The socialist case is one of opposition to capitalism and the political organisations which support capitalism; that opposition extends no less to the Communists than to those who now attack them to further the ends of British capitalism.

Robert Barltrop

Democracy or Dictatorship

From the July 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Thirty years ago this month the Spanish Civil War began. It continued until the defeat of the government forces in March, 1939; it killed about 600,000 people (many of them murdered, assassinated or executed) and it roused passions of one sort or another all over the world.

The war was regarded by many people as a straight¬forward struggle between a democratically elected, humane government and a band of bloodthirsty rebels; in other words, as a struggle between democracy and dictatorship.

The supporters of the Republican government even played upon whatever colour prejudice they could find by citing the fact, as evidence of Franco's brutality, that he was using Moorish troops.

A few months after Franco's victory the Second World War began and again this was said to be a fight for democracy. The effect of all this was to make democracy versus dictatorship one of the great political issues of the Thirties and Forties.

A typical reaction from the so-called Left Wing was the demand for the formation of a Popular Front. Nothing is heard of this idea now; no Left Wing party suggests an alliance against the dictatorship in Russia.

In any case the Spanish Civil War showed up the fallacy of the idea. The organisations which united in the Popular Front never succeeded in sinking their differences; many of them were too busy murdering each other. Many of the participants were anything but supporters of democracy.

There were, for example, the Communists, who stood for dictatorship on the Russian model. There were the separatists who bitterly opposed the entire concept of central government, and there were the Anarcho-Syndicalists, who rejected the use of Parliamentary election and who stood for violent insurrection.

The war was used by the great European powers partly as a rehearsal for the clash which came in September, 1939, and partly for what economic advantage they could get out of it.

The Nazis practised their dive-bombing; the French tested their aviation equipment. The Germans were after the rich deposits of iron ore in Spain; the Russians drove a hard bargain for the arms they supplied to the Spanish Government and insisted on prompt payment for them.

The details of the 1939/45 war, perhaps to the dismay of many who supported it, were similarly sordid. Far from being a clear-cut conflict between democracies on the one hand and dictatorships on the other, it was one in which both sides had their share of despotisms.

It is true that there was nothing among the Allies to quite match the refined sadism of Nazi Germany. But there was the Stalin dictatorship glowering over Russia, and there were minor countries like Greece and Poland which were under the iron heel.

When the war was over and the truth began to filter out, it was time to take stock. The first thing which was clear was that the world was no safer for democracy than it had been before the war.

The military conflict had been won and lost; the economic threat from expansionist German, Italian and Japanese capitalism had been contained, at least for a time. Yet millions of people lived — and still live — under oppression.

The simple fact is that the wars of capitalism are not fought to defend democracy. This is impossible, for democracy depends on a popular desire for it and not on which country wins a war. If the majority of people want democracy they will have it; if they do not want it they will surrender it.

In this issue of the Socialist Standard we set out to discuss democracy. For Socialists this is a vital matter, for our existence would be in jeopardy if the working class should abandon their democratic rights.

When the workers have realised how vital democracy is, when they have realised that it cannot be defended by making war, and when they have grasped the fact that it is an important part of the process to be used in establishing Socialism, they will have taken a big step nearer the new society which will be organised by the people, of the people and for the people.

Cooking the Books: Down with welfare? (2014)

The Cooking the Books column from the April 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Times (15 January) reported that George Osborne was to tell a conference organised by the think tank Open Europe that ‘Europe will face further economic woes if it fails to cut welfare spending’:

‘As Angela Merkel has pointed out, Europe accounts for just over 7 per cent of the world’s population, 25 per cent of its economy and 50 per cent of global social welfare spending. We can’t go on like this.’

He didn’t explain why not, but the implication must be that, to compete on world markets against the products made in countries which spend less on welfare, Europe has to reduce its welfare spending towards their levels. In other words, a race to the bottom.

One dictionary definition of ‘welfare’ is:

‘1. good health, happiness, and prosperity. 2. the maintenance of persons in such a condition; money given for this purpose.’ (OxfordReference Dictionary)

On this definition, Osborne was in effect saying that, due to competition on the world market, all countries are forced to reduce the ‘good health, happiness and prosperity’ of their population. What an indictment of capitalism! And what a confirmation of the futility of reformists’ attempts to make capitalism serve human welfare.

But is it true? One thing Osborne ignores is that ‘welfare spending’ is not motivated by a desire to improve human welfare but by a desire to improve the productivity of the workforce – a better educated, more healthy workforce feeling less insecure can produce more profits. This was in fact the capitalist rationale behind the introduction of the so-called Welfare State and why the drastic reduction of such spending to the levels in China or India which Osborne and Merkel seem to be proposing could prove to be counter-productive.

Osborne probably knows this and doesn’t regard such spending as an unnecessary burden that has to come out of taxes that ultimately fall on profits any more than he does military spending which also comes from this. For him, both will be part of the necessary costs of running capitalism. What he will be against is welfare for those who can’t or don’t work and so are useless from a profit-making point of view – the sick, the disabled, the mentally ill, the old, the unemployed and the unemployable. In short, the most vulnerable members of capitalist society.

The fact that welfare has become a dirty word for capitalism shows that it is not a system geared to improving human welfare. If it was, then as productivity increased (as it does slowly from year to year) more resources would be devoted to services and amenities that enhance the welfare of everyone. But this is not what happens. Far from it. The pressure is downwards not upwards.

The fact is that capitalism is a system geared to making profits and accumulating them as more and more profit-seeking capital. That’s the logic which is imposed on all countries through competition on the world market. In this sense Osborne and Merkel are right, but that’s a convincing reason to get rid of capitalism and to replace it with a system in which the welfare of all can and will be the priority. Which is only possible on the basis of the common ownership and democratic control of productive resources and the end of production for the market with a view to profit.

Notes on "Solo Trumpet" (1953)

From the August 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

A book has just been published by Lawrence and Wishart which calls for some comments from us because of what it says and what it does not say. The book is "Solo Trumpet" by T. A. Jackson.

In the description of his early days, in the '90's and the beginning of the present century, Jackson gives an authentic picture of working class life at that time and of the struggles to clarify the socialist outlook. So also is his description of the events leading up to the formation of the Scottish Socialist Labour Party and the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Whilst he quite correctly points out that the two groups were dubbed "Impossibilists" at the time, by the leaders of the Social Democratic Federation, he frequently mentions the S.L.P. by name. But nowhere throughout his book does he refer to the S.P.G.B. by name; whenever we are concerned he always uses the old sneer "Impossibilist." Furthermore whilst he is lavish in detail about other parties he does not give any details about the formation of our party. This is curious because Jackson was one of those who left the S.D.F. to take part on the formation of the Party. He was a member of the early Executive Committee, and he spoke for the Party regularly from 1904 until he left in 1909. From page 64 onwards he makes references to the "Impossibilists" but in such a way that at times it is difficult to know whether he is referring to us or to the S.L.P., though he generally refers to the latter under its own name.

The complete silence about the S.P.G.B. is intriguing, particularly since the other parties and groups, about which he has so much to say, are either dead or moribund, apart from the Labour Party which might as well be dead. At the beginning of the Twenties Sylvia Pankhurst told one our members—Hardy—that instructions had been issued to Communist Party members to have nothing to do with our Party and not even to mention it. Can it be that this ostrich policy still operates?

Jackson gives two reasons for leaving the Party, though only those who know the circumstances would know who he is writing about. One reason is correct, the other is apparently a face-saving afterthought.

From pages 87 to 91 he explains the circumstances that led him to leave the Party and to become a freelance speaker. These circumstances were well known to members at the time, and the present writer is not going to throw stones at him for what he did then. He was having a very rough time, was badly on the rocks, was unable to get employment and needed what money he could get as a free-lance speaker in order to obtain the means to live and keep his family. As he himself puts it, he tried all kinds of jobs,

"But a permanent job eluded my seeking. In those circumstances I was driven at last to 'turn professional' and charge a fee for my services as a speaker. This was quite a recognised thing, in those days—indeed just as there were free-lance journalists (whose ranks I tried vainly to join) so there were free-lance Socialist propagandists—who lived wholly or partly upon their earnings as lecturers and propagandists." (page 90.)

That this was the real explanation of his leaving the Party is borne out by letters he wrote to members at the time.

After a short time speaking for the I.L.P. in the West of England he went North to join J. W. Gott of the Freethought-Socialist League. He carried on the agitiation for that body in Leeds up to the outbreak of war in 1914. This propaganda he refers to as his "whole Atheistic interlude" which "A stern critic would condemn" and after some general and footling explanations, he opens the next paragraph with the following statement:-

"In any case, in the purely personal sense I had little choice: It was the only means of living open to me—I had burned my boats' and there was no going back." (page 98.)

Surely he has given in his own words the complete explanation of the reason for his leaving the Party and for his subsequent career? Why then does he try to slip in another slant in other parts of his book? For example on page 87 where he writes:-

"Thus, as I had sickened of the doctrinaire rigidity of the 'Impossibilists,' and found both the Hyndmanites and the MacDonaldites hostile to the ideological struggle for Marxism," etc. 

Sickness "of the doctrinaire rigidity" had nothing to do with the action he took that burned his boats, but his subsequent activities may have influenced him to change his outlook—if he really has changed it!

Although he refers to the attitude of the B.S.P., the I.L.P., and the S.L.P., on the 1914 war, about which they were hopelessly at sea, he makes no reference to the opposition of the S.P.G.B. which was stated in clear terms immediately the war broke out. If he did not know this at the time he must have known it soon after. He tells us that he was in Leeds at the time war broke out and that it came as an unexpected shock with which he was associated, groping in the dark.

In the course of his book he speaks very well of two members of the Party who have passed out—Fitzgerald and Baritz—but refers to them as belonging to the "Impossibilists." He tells a humorous story of Baritz's escapades in Manchester, when he climbed on a roof to blow a horrible clarinet obligato through a ventilator shaft while Hyndman was speaking at an indoor meeting. The story is funnier still when one realizes that Baritz was perfectly serious. Jackson refers to Fitzgerald as the man who took him through Marxian Economics and writes very appreciatively of him. It may interest him to know that Fitzgerald always had a regard for him, in spite of the line he took. He is mistaken in thinking that he and George Hicks (another ex-member of the Party) were the only two "outsiders" at Fitzgerald's funeral: there were others.

Gilmac. 

What Do We Mean By Revolution? (2014)

From the April 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

Whatever else you might think of Russell Brand at least he has re-introduced the word ‘revolution’ into the political vocabulary. But what is a ‘revolution’?

One good definition was given by the Victorian era socialist, William Morris, in a talk he gave in 1884 later published as the pamphlet How We Live and How We Might Live:

‘The word Revolution, which we Socialists are so often forced to use, has a terrible sound in most people's ears, even when we have explained to them that it does not necessarily mean a change accompanied by riot and all kinds of violence, and cannot mean a change made mechanically and in the teeth of opinion by a group of men who have somehow managed to seize on the executive power for the moment. Even when we explain that we use the word revolution in its etymological sense, and mean by it a change in the basis of society, people are scared at the idea of such a vast change, and beg that you will speak of reform and not revolution.’

A revolution, then, is ‘a change in the basis of society’, whether or not this is accompanied by violence (Morris in fact thought it would be), a change that has to be fairly rapid, involving a clear break with the existing society.

The change in the basis of society which socialists envisage is a change from what exists today, where society is based on the ownership and control of the means of wealth production – the means by which society survives – by a tiny minority of rich individuals, corporations and states. We want to change from that to a situation where the means of production have become the common heritage of all to be used, under democratic control, for the benefit of all. A change from a class society to a classless society. A change from capitalism to socialism.

Why a revolution?

But why is a revolution against capitalism needed? Could it not be gradually reformed out of existence? No, basically because capitalism cannot be reformed so as to work in the interest of the majority. For a start, it is based on their economic exploitation. Because most people are deprived of access to means of production they have to sell their working abilities for a wage or salary to those who do have access. But employers are not philanthropists. They only employ people if there is something in it for them – a profit. If there isn’t, they won’t employ people or else they make people redundant. This happens all the time.

Since the only way that wealth can be produced is by humans applying their physical and mental energies to materials that originally came from nature, the source of a non-work income like profit can only be the work of those who work. It’s workers, not their employers, who are the ‘wealth producers’.

Profit is the difference between the value of what wage and salary workers produce and the value of what they are paid as wages and salaries. The extraction and accumulation of profit is the aim of production under capitalism.

A good alternative name for capitalism is the profit system. Because that’s what it is. It’s a system whose economic aim is the accumulation of more and more capital out of profits. It’s a profit-making system in which profit always has to come before meeting people’s needs. If a profit is not made, economic activity slows down, stops or declines. One of the basic economic laws of capitalism is ‘no profit, no production’.

This has various consequences. An obvious one is that production is geared only to what people can pay for, not what they need. The rich get their whims met while the poor have to go without heating. Luxury flats are built while many live in unfit accommodation. In fact, while technologically there could be plenty for all, the profit system means that production stops well below that point.

The struggle for profits is a competitive one, with every business trying to maximise its profits. In this ‘battle of competition’ the main weapon is reducing costs by installing new more productive machinery and methods of production. This, too, has consequences. It leads to speed-up and stress at work. And to pollution and the neglect and destruction of the environment.

All these problems – housing, stress, pollution, and many others – are interconnected. They are not just isolated problems that can be dealt with one by one. They all have the same root cause in the capitalist system of production for profit and are unavoidable consequences, inevitable effects, of it.

Revolution not Reform

This is why capitalism cannot be reformed to work in the interest of the majority by putting ‘people before profit’. Any government that tried to do this would provoke an economic slowdown, even an economic crisis, and would sooner or later have to give up and accept, and even apply, the economic law of ‘profits first’.

There have been governments in the past – Labour governments – which could be said to have genuinely and sincerely tried to put people before profits. They have always failed in the end. Not necessarily because they weren’t sincere or were sell-outs or not resolute enough, but because they had set themselves an impossible task – to make capitalism work other than as a profit-making system in which making profits has to be given priority.

The Labour Party has learned this lesson and has long since given up being other than an alternative management team of British Capitalism plc to the Tories. But some of those on and to its left have not learned this and still imagine that they can impose other priorities on capitalism than profit-making and turn it into something else. The new Left Unity party, formed in November last year, is a case in point, as are the various Trotskyist groups who campaign and contest elections on such platforms as tax the rich to pay for better schools, homes, transport and the like. If tried, by reducing profits, it would probably provoke an economic crisis.

It is surprising how widespread this belief is that governments can change the way capitalism works, when they obviously can’t. This is why we say that socialists should direct their energies to ending capitalism not to mending it, to abolishing it, not managing it. In other words, ‘Revolution not Reform’. That’s our policy and that’s what we advocate.

What kind of revolution?

But what sort of revolution do we need? Going back to William Morris it ‘cannot mean a change made mechanistically and in the teeth of opinion by a group of men who have managed to seize on the executive power for the moment.’ Speaking in 1884, Morris probably had in mind the French revolutionary Louis-Auguste Blanqui and his followers who were forever plotting an insurrection to take over the Town Hall in Paris. They never succeeded and Blanqui spent most of his life in jail.

His ideas, however, were inherited by Lenin and the Bolsheviks and propagated by their followers in the 20^th century. And still are by the Trotskyist groups. It is true that they are not so crude as Blanqui but realise that they need some degree of popular support before staging their uprising. But this support is to be won not for replacing capitalism with socialism but from people discontented for any sort of reason. The end result is the same: a group of people – a minority – find themselves in control of ‘the executive power’ but without majority support for socialism.

What they can do in these circumstances is as limited as Labour and other reformists who have got control of executive power on a non-socialist basis, in their case with non-socialist votes. The revolutionary minority, too, have no alternative but to manage capitalism in one way or another.

Lenin eventually realised this and had the honesty to admit it and say that the only way forward for Russia was state capitalism, which is what really happened, though both Stalin and Trotsky refused to recognise this. Stalin called it ‘socialism’ while Trotsky regarded it as some sort of ‘workers’ state’ till his dying day, which was when he was murdered by an agent of his supposed ‘workers’ state’.

Democratic, majority revolution

So, by ‘revolution’ we don’t envisage the type of revolution advocated by Leninists of a conscious minority leading a mass of discontented but non-socialist workers and others.

What we envisage, rather, is a majority revolution in which the majority want and understand socialism and participate in bringing it about. For us, this revolution must be democratic in both senses of the term. It must have majority support and it must be carried out by democratic means.

In a politically and economically advanced capitalist country like Britain and most of Europe, a socialist majority can win control of the ‘executive power’ via elections. That’s our view, as argued in detail in our pamphlet What’s Wrong With Using Parliament?

Of course, establishing socialism is not just a question of voting for a socialist candidate and waiting for a majority of socialist MPs to vote it in (much as people do today who vote for a party which promises some reform of capitalism). People have to have organised themselves outside parliament into a mass democratic socialist party, into trade unions and other workplace organisations, into neighbourhood councils and the like. The socialist MPs would be merely the delegates – the messenger boys and girls – of the organised socialist majority outside parliament.

So, we have in mind a democratic, majority political revolution which begins with the winning of political power via the ballot box by a socialist-minded majority. The majority  then uses this control of political power to dispossess the capitalist class, declaring all property titles, all stocks and shares, all bills and bonds, all limited liability companies and corporations null and void. This means that the means of production become the common heritage of all. The socialist majority can also co-ordinate the physical take-over of the means of production by people outside parliament, organised and ready to do this and keep production going.

This done, production can be re-orientated towards meeting people’s needs instead of for sale on a market with a view to profit as at present under capitalism. Goods and services can be made freely available in accordance with the principle ‘from each their ability, to each their needs’. This social revolution will then have been accomplished and socialism will have been established.

Adam Buick

Voice from the Back: Capitalist moonshine (2003)

Voice from the Back column from the September 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalist moonshine

Phineas T. Barnum (1810-1891) was a famous showman and circus owner who is perhaps best remembered for the phrase, “There's a sucker born every minute”, but even that old huckster would have been astounded at capitalism's most recent scam. Selling property on the moon! It's true; a Mr Dennis M. Hope of the Lunar Embassy is offering on the internet to sell you an acre of the moon. According to their website “The sale of lunar property has been ongoing for 22 years by the Lunar Embassy, which is the only company in the world to possess a legal basis and copyright for the sale of lunar, and other extraterrestial property within the confines of our solar system.” They claim to have sold over a million acres already. Its not as unlikely as it sounds, after all the majority of people on the planet earth seem to think it is a sensible arrangement to have all the resources of this planet owned by a tiny handful.

Winners and losers

“America's defence spending grew so strongly in supplying the war against Iraq that it propelled the US economy to a spring surge just as Britain and the eurozone suffered from cuts in tourism and travel.” Times, Business Section (1 August) In any war some sections of the capitalist class will benefit, such as the armament business, others will lose business and have to face possible tax increases. There is one section of the population that never gains from war – the world's working class. Ask the recently bereaved families of Iraq, Britain or the US.

Yesterday's allies

In reviewing Clyde Prestowitz's book “Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions”, Economist (9 August) highlights the duplicity of US foreign policy. “He reminds us that the United States tacitly accepted the Taliban's assumption of power in Afghanistan, tells us that it supplied them with anthrax and botulin, and unkindly notes that it was one Donald Rumsfeld who went to Baghdad in 1983 to assure Saddam Hussein of American support.” This is not peculiar to US foreign policy, every country in the world adopts a policy that it hopes will advance the interests of their capitalist masters. Duplicity and double-dealing are the norm in the cut-throat world of capitalism.

US charm offensive

Some sectors of the US population seem puzzled that their troops in Afghanistan and Iraq don't seem to be universally loved so perhaps the following may shed some light on the matter. “ Like many of his fellow GIs, (Pte Simon) Behrndt's take on how best to conduct security in an occupied nation is not complicated. “Basically”, he told the Daily Telegraph, “we go in, kick in the doors, pull the guys out of bed, drag them outside, put zip ties around their wrists, throw them in the truck and take them in for questioning . . . The raids are a real adrenaline rush, plus I get to practice my Tae Kon Do moves on out-of-line EPWs (enemy prisoners of war).” The Week (9 August)

The final solution?

Labour's David Blunkett wants longer sentences, Conservative spokesman Oliver Letwin wants more prisons built, but Phil Wheatley, the new director of the prison service reckons they are both wrong. “In a direct challenge to central elements of the home secretary's criminal justice reforms, Phil Wheatley declared that prisons should not be “lightly used” because “they are not the answer” to crime. Mr Wheatley's extraordinary comment that overcrowding was one factor behind the record increase in suicides is likely to be welcomed by members of the judiciary, who have warned that Mr Blunkett's reforms will swell the prison population yet further.” Guardian (18 August) Maybe Wheatley, Letwin and the judiciary have got it wrong; could Blunkett have a “cunning plan” a la Blackadder? With a prison population in England and Wales of 74,000 and 105 suicides maybe his plan is to double the overcrowding and thus the suicide rate. More suicides equals less criminals! It could be a New Labour vote winner with league tables just like schools and hospitals.

Editorial: Caring is Not Enough (2012)

Editorial from the May 2012 issue of the Socialist Standard

A system is not a thing which is capable of caring for anything or anyone, it simply performs the functions it was set up or adapted to perform. Capitalism is set up to enable the pursuit of profit for private gain, regardless of other ‘external’ outcomes. The chief beneficiaries of this system do care but only about protecting their interests. Their main concern is for the wellbeing of their own future, and short term gains always take priority over less profitable long term considerations. Such questions as the health and wellbeing of workers are treated as externalities, as is the state of the planet, now being plundered and abused to irredeemable levels through reckless use of its resources and pollution of land, water and air.

Governments don't care; corporations and shareholders don't care, except for upholding the status quo to protect the bottom line. Endless promises are made pre-election and endlessly broken afterwards. Elected politicians, unelected paid advisors and supposed experts working together deliver one failure or crisis after another, following policies and goals that usually fly in the face of public opinion. Meanwhile the electorate, who have no meaningful part to play in the decision-making process, are expected to meekly acquiesce.  

Nevertheless, capitalist governments to some extent have to buy this acquiescence. Modern societies do not consider it acceptable to turn out the old, the sick or the poor to die in the gutter, even if they are no practical use as workers, so state administrations have to invest in looking busy by funding a ‘support’ industry which is forever the subject of new approaches, paradigms and target-led initiatives. In this issue we have personal accounts by three socialists of their experiences in the caring and support services which show just how big a gulf there is between what governments say in their speeches and what they really care about.

None of this will come as any surprise to most Standard readers. But it is encouraging that the almost universal acceptance of the status quo by politicians, economists and the media is being challenged by growing numbers of people around the world who do care and who do believe there are alternatives. Many people are starting to realize that, if the whole world has to live with and bear the consequences of decisions made about it, then it follows that this decision-making process needs to belong to all the people of the world. And that means getting involved, and giving proactive support to the struggle for revolutionary change. A system embodying genuine participative democracy as a fundamental principle is in the best interests of everyone, but it won’t come about if people don’t work for it, however much they care.

Members in the Great War (1964)

From the September 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

When conscription came into operation during the 1914-1918 war, members knew that they stood no chance of being exempted from military service on conscientious grounds. Nevertheless, some went before the tribunals whilst others went on their travels.

Adolph Kohn went to America and landed into trouble there when America came into the war. He took part in the formation of our companion party over there and continued to send articles to the Socialist Standard. One of his articles was opened by the American authorities and they tried to trace him. As soon as he discovered they were looking for him; though he did not know why, he adopted various expedients to keep under cover. One of these was taking a job as a civilian auditor in a military camp. However, he succeeded in remaining free until the end of the war. At the behest of the American authorities the police over here made enquiries. In the course of their enquiries they interviewed Fitzgerald, whom they kept in prison for a night. On him they found an address book containing the name of Kohn's sister, Hilda. They also interviewed her without success. They did not even find out that she was a member of the Party, although she was the General Secretary at that time, and also at the time when Head Office was raided by the police.

Harry Russ had decided to sleep out in the open and keep away from towns. He moved about the country, wet and dry, and after some months reached the neighbourhood of Sheffield. He saw some placards advertising a meeting to be addressed by Ramsay MacDonald. Craving for company he resolved to risk attending just this one meeting. He did so. The meeting was raided and he was arrested, along with others, as an absentee from military service. He refused to be conscripted on the ground that, as a Socialist, he was opposed to the war. He was stripped of his clothes and presented with a uniform but refused to put it on. Various manoeuvres were tried to get him to sign his name, but he refused to sign anything. He was then transferred to Parkhurst prison on the Isle of Wight. Whilst he was there, one of the buildings was occupied by soldiers who were going back to the front after their leave. One evening a warder who was taking him across the compound pushed him in with the remark, "here you are boys, here's a bloody conchie." He was knocked about and was so furious when he got out that he determined to complain to the warden. He crossed to the gate, which was open, went into the road and, finding it deserted, suddenly decided to walk off. He had the name of a sympathiser on the island who hid him and then provided him with money to get across to Portsmouth and then to London. On the platform at Portsmouth late that night he heard someone calling him. He turned around and found it was an army officer. He thought "this is it," but all the officer wanted to know was if the train in the station was bound for London! When Russ arrived in London he lodged with some members, also "on the run," who pretended to be employed on jobs essential to the war. He succeeded in remaining free until the war ended.

E. Hardy ("H" of the Socialist Standard) was working as a farm pupil when he was called up. He was offered exemption on the ground that he was engaged in the essential service of farming. He refused to accept this on the ground that it would have meant some other worker being called up. He went before the tribunal and was turned down, as he expected. After some months in an army guardroom and a court martial he was put in Wormwood Scrubs prison, where he remained for six months. Whilst in there he learnt from the "old lags" the mystery of dealing with the burden of the bugs that came out and attacked him when he lay down on his plank bed. The method was to use his soap to fill in as many cracks in the planks as he could find. Incidentally he was glad that he had learnt poetry as he was able to while away solitary hours by repeating poetry to himself. In the Scrubs there were other S.P.G.B.'ers. and lively discussion went on under the tolerant eye of a sympathetic warder.

At one time in an army guardroom there were two other S.P.G.B.'ers., and one of them named Brooks, organised a class on Marxian economics among the military prisoners, more than a dozen who listened attentively. It went on for many nights until it came to the notice of the authorities and they separated Brooks, Hardy and the other member from the rest of the prisoners. Eventually Hardy was transferred to a Conscientious Objectors party working on construction in Wales. The first night in camp he climbed into the top hammock. There was an argument going on between two of the inmates. He intervened. Immediately a head popped out below him and a voice exploded "Well, gorblimey, we got rid of old Banks this morning and now we have another S.P.G.B.'er." It appeared that Jimmy Banks had also been transferred there before Hardy and used to hold forth on the Party's position.

One morning, while Hardy was there, the foreman on the job complained about the appearance of one of the C.O.'s who used to turn up for work in a pair of dirty old trousers, supported by a string, a pair of old boots, a ragged shirt with no collar, and a dilapidated coat. The foreman appealed to the chap to dress a bit better. The next morning this man turned up in a clean shirt, collar and tie, a nice coat, hat and walking stick, but he still wore the trousers tied up with string and the dilapidated boots.

Mick Cullen was a member of Birmingham Branch. When he was turned down by the tribunal he got half a column write-up in the Daily Mail headed "A class fighter, not a conscientious objector." Cullen was handed over to the military who put him in a house with other prisoners for the night. He climbed through the window, caught a train to Holyhead and then the night boat to Dublin. At that time Irishmen who were prepared to work in England during the war, to make up for the shortage of manpower, were provided with a green ticket exempting them from military service. The morning Cullen arrived in Dublin he applied for a green ticket, received it and took the boat back to England the same night. As he did not care to risk going back near Birmingham he took a train up the North East Coast. After he had travelled some way up the coast a man who was sitting opposite him in the compartment suddenly leaned forward and demanded to see his exemption papers. Cullen asked him what the hell he was talking about and who the hell he was, anyway. Then the man produced his warrant card showing that he was a police inspector. Cullen then went into action. "Oho," said he, exploding with wrath, "You're just the man I want to meet. I was told in Dublin that there were plenty of jobs over here but I have been traipsing around unable to get one." And so he went on, going for the inspector in a fury. At last the exasperated inspector assured Cullen that he had been just unlucky: that there were plenty of jobs. He gave Cullen his card with the address of a factory in Newcastle and told him to present the card and he would be assured of a job. At the next station the inspector hurriedly got out, obviously glad to escape the ravings of Cullen. However, finally the authorities caught up with Cullen again and he had to make his way back to Ireland and remain there for the rest of the war.

There was a group of members imprisoned in Dartmoor and others in Scotland in C.O. camps where they distributed Party literature.

The present writer also went to Ireland. I packed a kit-bag with so many books that I had no room for my clothes. On that account I had to cycle from Cork around the South and East coast to Belfast wearing two suits, a heavy overcoat, and a heavy kit-bag fastened to my back. I crossed over with a member who was a music hall juggler and was appearing for a week in Cork. I was supposed to be his assistant and he got me through.

In Belfast, being somewhat unsophisticated, I tried to sell art postcards in the streets. I had to give up deciding, by results, that the Irish were not an art-loving nation. I then got a job with a dentist as a canvasser but later the dentist took me in to teach me dentistry. Finally he arranged for me to "walk the hospitals" so that I could qualify. Fearing this would reveal the fact that I was technically a deserter from the army, I told him I was not fitted for the profession and gave up the job. This was not much of a financial loss because, in order to get the job, I had pretended I had private means and the doctor had ordered me to take an open air job on account of my health. In fact I was half starved.

I then followed a number of occupations, including selling cattle, horse and sheep medicine, dock labouring, working in a saw mill and driving a Foden steam wagon. Part of the time a friendly tailor let me sleep in his shop on the sewing board. Finally I got a job cutting timber in the mountains for a lumber company. This lasted me until the war ended, when I returned to London.

These are just a few rambling notes about what happened to a few members of the Party during the 1914-1918 war. Many other members could tell similar stories. Some went to different parts of the world and either remained there or only returned after the passage of a long time. As a result it was a sadly battered and reduced Party that gathered together after the war to continue the struggle.

Gilmac.

Greasy Pole: Mission Implausible (2014)

The Greasy Pole Column from the April 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was enough to recall the reaction of Bumble the Beadle confronted by Oliver Twist asking for another spoonful of workhouse gruel when David Cameron described his government's drive to reduce the number of welfare benefit claimants as a 'Moral Mission... giving them new hope and responsibility' when in fact what they have to look forward to is a closer and more frequent acquaintance with the charity of the Food Banks. The truth of Cameron's phrase was exposed by the author of a recent report from the 'right wing' Policy Exchange think tank '... there are a significant number of people who have had their benefit taken away from them unfairly. Four weeks without any money is driving people to desperate measures'. Even worse – among the regular users of the Food Banks are people suffering from various health problems, including disablement, such that they are unable to work and rely on welfare benefits. Which often requires them to submit to a compulsory programme of tests of their capability and if they fail in this they are likely to be condemned to 'sanctions' – a reduction, or even a stop, of their benefit payments.

ATOS

It is by way of justifying this process, with all its tensions and misery, that Cameron called for that Moral Mission with its assumption that imposed employment is a guarantee of a freer, happier, more fulfilling life. It was clear that bringing this callous fantasy into operation would require one of the specialist organisations of which the better known are SERCO, G4S, Capita Group – and ATOS – none which have been clear of controversy. The government contract was awarded to ATOS, which was formed in 1997 through a series of mergers, take-overs and sell-offs, now presenting itself as supplying hi-tech IT services and network connecting. In the United Kingdom it holds a £500 million government contract to organise and operate the Work Capability Assessment system which forms a judgement of benefit claimants' fitness to work and passes this to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). ATOS claims to do this '... using criteria set out by government, and provides the DWP with independent advice which is used by a DWP Decision Maker, along with any other information they have received, to decide on your entitlement to benefit'. As to their style in carrying out this delicate and sensitive work, their CEO Joe Hemming recently informed the House of Commons Public Administration Committee that it '... is proud of the work it does ...' with '... a real passion for delivering services to the citizen in a way that continues to satisfy the way the citizen wants to be served'.

Protests

But the world outside Joe Hemming's fantasies has rather different experiences. In dealing with claimants who have been referred to them ATOS uses the Logical Integrated Medical Assessment (LIMA) method which works with a spreadsheet listing questions which have to be answered by the infamous Box Ticking method. Sitting there with a computer and a mouse the assessor (described by ATOS as a 'healthcare professional') does not rely on any special knowledge or qualifications or previous contact with the trembling applicant before them. Among the results of these 'assessments' there was the 47-year old woman who was pestered to attend to have her Fitness for Work rated when she was in a coma after a heart attack. A 39-year old woman with three children was suffering from a brain tumour. She informed her assessor of this but was told to start looking for a job. Just weeks afterwards she died. In the year up to September 2013 there were 897,690 'sanctions' (would 'punishment' not be a more suitable word?) by the DWP carrying the threat of a stoppage of benefits. Predictably there was a flood of protest and appeals. During the final three months of that same period there were some 600,000 appeals with a success rate of 87 percent.

Sanctions

It hardly needs to be said that the work of ATOS, in conjunction with that of the DWP, should always be done so that it is, at the very least, sensitive to the desperate existence of the people they are judging. But that does not happen. In 2013 a doctor who had been an ATOS assessor told the BBC that he had been 'instructed to change my reports, to reduce the number of points that might be awarded to the claimants. I felt that was wrong professionally and ethically'. It was the same for a nurse who said she had been instructed to mark down claimants she knew were unfit for work. It was predictable that claimants heavily dependent on charities and food banks should react aggressively to this treatment. The Financial Times reported that in 2013 there were almost 163 cases of ATOS staff being insulted and abused: 'Murdering scum... won't be smiling when we come to hang you bastards' was one sample from Facebook. The response of ATOS staff was also as expected: one said on his Facebook that the claimants were 'parasitic wankers'; another referred to her workplace as '... that Godforsaken place with the down-and-outs'. In Edinburgh the ATOS staff retaliated to a protest outside their office by giving the V sign out of an open window. A likely result of all this is that ATOS will give up on their contract before it is due to expire in August next year.

Morality

There should be more celebration on this score as so profitable is the mission of cajoling people from the stresses of charity back to those of employment that there are plenty of other companies prepared to take over. There will be no change if Labour win the next election. The Work Capacity Assessment was introduced by the previous Labour government in 2008 and in their 2010 election manifesto they proclaimed their intention to widen its scope – ‘people with disabilities will be helped to move into work’ – and pledged that they would extend their 'tough but fair work capacity test' to get more people off Incapacity Benefit and Employment Support Allowance.

The morality of capitalism is founded on intrinsic human misery and operates through legalised theft and exploitation and the consequent hostilities within the class which needs above all to be united. There is no need for ATOS – or for Cameron and his Mission in hypocrisy – to remind us so elaborately of this.

Ivan

The Films (1955)

From the July 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

From time to time Hollywood gives us a film which is worthy of our attention. In this category we may place On The Waterfront, The Barefoot Contessa, and more recently Marty. All these films present not only a high standard of technical skill and acting ability, but also, and this is what makes them particularly interesting, an unusually accurate reflection upon some parts of contemporary life.

This is perhaps most obvious in Elia Kazan's On The Waterfront. It is the story of the docker who is gradually awakened to the reality of the life around him; of his increasing antagonism, his rebellious stirrings, and his final successful combat with the crooked union bosses. This is a film to see not only because of the skill which has gone into its making, but also because it rings true.

The Barefoot Contessa is as subtle as On The Waterfront is obvious. Here is a biting satirical essay upon wealth and power. There are lines in the film which one feels had they appeared in a film of five years ago, would have resulted in the writer making a sprightly appearance before the Un-American Activities Committee.

Of the three, however, Marty is undoubtedly the pick. Here is a film which is pure joy. No great Hollywood epic this, but the simple tale of the search of a very ordinary American, a butcher by profession, for a spouse. The whole thing reads as true to life as the usual product is false. No de-luxe kitchens, no stupendous cars and fashionable clothes, no slinky blonde who makes the rest of her sex pale into masculine insignificance, this is reality; and because it is is real it pulls at the heart strings and tugs at the emotions with devastating effect. There can be few people who could possibly sit through this film without recognising their own experience as they flash before them on the screen.

This is a film about real people living in a real world. Here are depicted social problems of this day and age, problems of loneliness, of old age, of inadequate housing, of artificial social values; they are all paraded before us. The film has no answer to these problems, even though hero and heroine are reunited at the end of the final reel, but at least it has the courage to pose them. We can but hope that this trend in realism, which has already been felt—particularly in the Italian and Mexican film, will be continued, and that the cinema public will not only become aware of life's problems but also realise their solution.

Michael D. Gill

Notes on Party History: The Islington Dispute (1954)

From the August 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Islington dispute occurred in 1906. It revolved around our attitude to Trade Unions, also to the question of whether a Branch of the Party was in order in suspending propaganda activity with the object of forcing the Party to reverse a decision that the Branch considered a fundamental and dangerous mistake.

At the end of December 1905, a certain R. A. V. Morris attended an Executive Committee meeting and asked what was the difference between the S.P.G.B. and the Socialist Labour Party. After his question had been answered he expressed himself as satisfied. A week later a request to form a branch of the Party in the Bexley Heath District was received, and one of the signatories was R. A. V. Morris. On the 9th January, 1906, the Executive agreed to the formation of the Bexley Heath Branch.

From what immediately followed one is forced to the conclusion that the formation of the branch was a shady manoeuvre planned by people interested in the Socialist Labour Party.

In February 1906, the Executive Committee were receiving items for the Party Conference Agenda. On the 20th February the following item was received from the Bexley Heath Branch:

"That the E. C. be instructed to approach the S.L.P. with a view to the union of the two parties."

The E. C. declined to put this item on the Conference Agenda and gave the reason in the resolution that was passed on the subject, which was as follows:

Neumann and Jackson moved:

"That the Bexley Heath and District Branch be informed that the E. C. does not see its way to put their resolution on the Conference Agenda, as it conflicts with the Declaration of Principles of the Party; further that it be pointed out that when R. A. V. Morris attended the E. C. before the Bexley Heath Branch was formed he raised the question of the existence of the two bodies and expressed himself satisfied with the explanation given."

At the 1906 Conference the Bexley Heath delegates brought the matter forward and asked the Conference of the E. C. was in order in declining to put their item on the agenda. The Conference overruled the action of the E. C., restored the item and discussed it. Arising out of the discussion two resolutions were moved and lost.

Before giving the text of these resolutions it should be mentioned that one of the founders of the Party, and a very active speaker and writer, E. J. B. Allen, had been vigorously supporting the ideas of the Industrial Workers of the World, but not supporting the S.L.P. There had already been trouble with Allen and an article of his committing the Party to support of the I.W.W.  had been rejected.

The first resolution referred to above was as follows:

Humphrey and Hopley moved:
"Whereas pure and simple Trade Unions foster trade struggles and keep the workers divided, and
"Whereas the unity of the workers on the economic field, and whereas, only by the unity of the workers in a Socialist Industrial Union, as well as in a Socialist Party is sound progress possible,
Resolved that the Socialist Party of Great Britain condemns pure and simple unionism, and calls upon its members inside and outside of existing trade unions to carry on an organised propaganda in favour of revolutionary industrial unionism as the first step towards the establishment of a Socialist Industrial Union to work in co-operation with the Party for the overthrow of capitalism."

E. J. B. Allen, I. W. Allen, Leigh and Phillips supported the resolution.

Neumann, Fitzgerald, Jackson and Pearson opposed it.

The resolution was defeated on a card vote: 81 for; 111 against.

It was then agreed that a Special Meeting be called to discuss Trade Unions and a poll of the Party be taken on all resolutions arising therefrom.

Later in the Conference Morris and Carter moved:

"That the E. C. be instructed to approach the S. L. P. with a view to the union of the two parties." 

Fairbrother, Humphrey and Phillips supported the resolution and Jackson, Mrs Anderson, A. W. Pearson, Neumann,  Fitzgerald and Gray opposed it. The resolution was lost by 4 votes to 9.

After the Conference the Islington Branch sent a resolution to the new E. C. [the Executive Committee at that time, and for long afterwards, was appointed by a vote of the membership which was counted at the Conference] repudiating the action of the delegates in discussing a motion which was in direct conflict with the D. of P., endorsed the action of the previous E. C., and called upon the new E. C. to ignore the instructions of Conference to take a Poll of the Party on the Conference findings, and to obtain from Bexley Heath Branch a formal withdrawal of its resolution.

The Executive Committee accepted the proposal and submitted the following question to the membership for a referendum vote:

"Did the conference, in accepting as in order the Bexley Heath resolution, exceed its power?"

The result of the Referendum was a majority favoured the view that the Conference had exceeded its power. But the majority was a narrow one, 35 to 34, with a large number of abstentions.

The Executive Committee circulated the result to branches and there let the matter rest. The Islington Branch, however, came back again, urging the E. C. to request the Bexley Heath Branch to forthwith rescind the resolution standing on its books. The E. C. replied that this could not be done without falsifying the records, and that they did not think it necessary to go any further in this matter.

The Islington Branch carried on their agitation. They claimed that the Bexley Heath Branch was still unsound and that the E. C.  had failed in its duty by not pursuing the matter. As a protest they decided to suspend all propaganda activity until the Party had taken such action as would absolve itself from any charge of being unsound. They circulated the E. C. and all Branches to this effect. The E. C. pointed out to them that this action was neither in accord with Party discipline nor helpful to the cause of Socialism. Islington them circulated the branches charging the E. C. with criminal neglect and calling for their immediate removal. The E. C. then informed Islington that they would place Islington's unconstitutional action before the next Delegate Meeting for their decision and Party vote.

The E. C. submitted a statement to the Branches on the subject. Islington claimed that they only received this statement four days before the Delegate Meeting and therefore had no time to place their own case in reply before the members.

The Delegate Meeting, which was held in July, 1906, considered the case and decided that the line taken by the E. C. was correct, and carried a resolution expelling the Islington Branch. This Delegate Meeting also expelled Bexley Heath Branch for supporting the S.L.P.

In August 1906, the Islington Branch submitted to the membership a twenty page printed pamphlet called "Rocks Ahead." This was their reply to the E. C.'s statement. They denied that their action was unconstitutional and claimed that they were not interfering with the E. C.'s power to do as much propaganda in Islington as they liked. This statement was addressed to "Comrades" and put their side without engaging in personalities but bad feeling was developing. In December, 1906, while still claiming to be Branch of the Party, they issued another pamphlet with the title "Another Political Wreck." This pamphlet was addressed "to the Working Class" and was badly marred by personal attacks.

Looking back on this dispute now it appears to the writer that the Islington Branch were on the right track when they urged that action should be taken against Bexley Heath Branch but they were wrong in trying to force the E. C. and the Party to take action by suspending propaganda. However, the dispute was one of the penalties that had to be paid in the work of hammering out a sound policy. The pity of it was that, owing to the feeling developed in the dispute, we lost some valuable members.

Gilmac.

(To be continued).

More Light on the Russian Confessions (1937)

From the September 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

The widespread disbelief in the genuineness of the "confessions" made by prisoners of the Russian dictatorship has had the good effect of bringing more information to light. The International Review, which has published much valuable material during its short existence (published in New York. P.O. Box 44, Sta. O, New York City. 15 cents a month, 1 dollar 75 cents a year) reproduces in its August issue extracts from a statement made before an unofficial committee of inquiry in Prague by a German Communist named Wolf, who lived for considerable periods in Russia. Through casual contact with another Communist who fell foul of the Russian police, Wolf suddenly found himself arrested and urged to plead guilty to Trotskyite and Nazi activities. Here is a typical passage describing how "confessions" were extracted from him: -

At 11 o'clock in the night, he was suddenly undressed, examined, transferred to a cell. Sleep? The light remains there day and night. Every several minutes a soldier, in the service of the G.P.U., looked through the hole in the door. Wolf had hardly fallen asleep when the door suddenly opened, and he was subjected to an interrogation that lasted from 11.30 p.m. to 5 a.m., and started again at 6.30. He was permitted to sit down on a small, narrow, backless iron seat, before a small table. This continued for weeks. He raved, crying for sleep. Every interrogation terminated with his signing a stenographic report in Russian, which he could hardly make out.

He describes convincingly how his questioners twisted and distorted every harmless detail of his past activities. He had lodged in the house of a Trotskyite: therefore he must be a Trotskyite. He had once suggested that the Russian lumbermen's paper should get its own radio station: he therefore must have wanted to establish communication with the Nazis with it. His father was in a Nazi concentration camp: Ah, that was just a trick of the Nazis to fool the Russian police.

On the advice of the Russian Communist Party he had written reports to a German Liberal newspaper favourably commenting on industrial development in Russia: that "proved" his contact with the Nazis, although the paper was anti-Nazi and the reports were written before Hitler came to power.

So it goes on, until the police have their "confession." Luckily for Wolf his German citizenship deterred the Russian police eventually.

All that can be said about the police procedure used in Russia is that there are lots of other countries which use the same procedure.

A correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, who has just left Russia after many years' residence there, claims to have interviewed 98 people arrested between 1928 and 1932, about half of whom alleged that they "were subjected to actual torture" in Russian jails. The article dealing with this was published by the Manchester Guardian on August 19th, 1937. The correspondent (whose name is not given) points out that only a fraction of the Russian trials are held in public and the witnesses or defendants who "confess" are only a selected few of the much larger number arrested and held by the police.

In conclusion, for the benefit of those who still believe that "confession" means guilt, consider the report from Rebel Spain about the bombing of the British ship, "British Corporal," outside Algiers. The Rebel authorities at Majorca admitted it was their doing, an unfortunate mistake! General Franco, nominally in supreme command over the Majorca authorities, denied this. He had "proof" that the bombing was done by Russian airmen in the pay of the Spanish Republican Government. What was the proof? What else than a "confession" by a Russian airman captured in Rebel territory. And here is the comment of Mr. Philip Jordan, of the News Chronicle (August 12th, 1937): -

If indeed such an airman exists, it is possible that he has said such a thing. When in Spain I was able to authenticate the case of a Russian pilot brought down in rebel territory with three bullet wounds, one of them in his head. For three days and three nights he was not allowed to sleep or to receive medical attention. At the end of that time he was ready to make any statement demanded from him.

What price confessions?