Letter From Europe: Money must go (1982)

From the September 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following article recently appeared in the Luxemburg journal, News Digest.

Those who follow the adventures of the spacewoman Axa in the Sun will remember that when in March she arrived in the City of Artisans the following conversation too place:

Artisan: You're hungry.
Axa: Yes, but I've no money to pay for food.
Artisan: Money? We never use it! Take what you want and eat!
Axa: If your people don't use money they must be happy.

Presumably Axa based this conclusion on her experience of other planets, such as Earth, where money is used and where you do go hungry of you don't have any. In any event she raises an interesting point: would we on Earth also be happy if we didn't use money?

I remember about ten years ago buying a paperback on Euston Station entitles Who Needs Money? The book so intrigued me that I contacted the author who was called, I think, Herbert Lomas. He told me that there was a conspiracy to prevent his idea of abolishing money getting out as his publisher had not printed enough copies of his book and wasn't advertising it properly. I put this down to the paranoia sometimes associated with people who have seen the Light and found the Truth and can't understand why others don't too. After all, the publisher did publish his idea and so did help to spread his idea.

But, conspiracy or no conspiracy, Bertie Lomas at least did not have to suffer the fate of one of his more illustrious precursors as an advocate of abolishing money. Sir Thomas More, the man who inspired the film A Man for All Seasons, had his head chopped off by Henry VIII, not, I agree, for advocating the abolition of money but for remaining loyal to the Pope of Rome, though I'm sure Henry found both these opinions equally obnoxious.

More, who has the unique distinction of having a place both in the Marxist Hall of Fame and as a Catholic Saint on the right hand of God, expressed his ideas in a book entitled (some would say appropriately) Utopia which was first published in Louvain in 1516. It was written in Latin so it can't have had much of a readership at the time, but it has since been translated into many languages and must be the most read book by someone arguing for the abolition of money. In fact since More introduced the word "Utopia" into English (and into most other languages too) a money less society can be regarded as the genuine, original Utopia.

But to return to our question: would we on Earth be happy if we didn't use money? Well, one group who on the face of it would have no reason to be happy would be those whose jobs depend on the existence of money. People who work for banks are an obvious example, but they are not alone. There are also those who work in insurance, in advertising and marketing, those who calculate our wages, pensions, family allowances and all other payments, those who issue, collect or punch holes in tickets, shopkeepers, shop assistants, tax inspectors, accountants, Securicor, salesmen and buyers of all kinds. In fact in an administrative and financial centre like the town of Luxemburg well over half the population must be directly dependent on work connected with the use of money for their livelihood.

Only a minority are actually engaged in the work of producing the useful things or of performing the useful services we need to live. I'm thinking of the street cleaners, the building workers, those in the Arbed factory in Dommeldange and those making lavatory bowls and urinals at Villeroy and Boch — though in More's Utopia even these latter would be out of a job since he suggested that chamber pots should rather be made from the gold which would no longer be needed as money.

I hasten to add that this is not meant as a criticism of those employed in these non-productive functions connected with money (my own job wouldn't be above such a criticism either). I'm merely noting a fact and am fully aware that people have to find work where they can since without a job, they would have no money and without money . . .

But if there's no money, how would you distribute goods and services? "Take what you want and eat", as the Artisan said to Axa. Which seems a good enough to me. After all, you would have thought it unchallengeable that food should be grown to be eaten and not to be stockpiled as butter mountains and wine lakes or worse destroyed — which is what happens today when food is produced to be sold for money.

So the alternative to money would not be a return to barter, nor even equal shares for all, but free access for all to what they needed to live and enjoy life. As in More's Utopia: "When the head of a household needs anything for himself or his family, he just goes to one of these shops and asks for it. And whatever he asks for, he's allowed to take away without any sort of payment, either in money or in kind. After all, why shouldn't he?" Because, some would no doubt reply, there'd be chaos, it would be worse than Harrods on the first day of the sales; people would grab more than they needed. Or would they?

I once heard a Hyde Park orator deal with this particular objection to a moneyless society. He pointed out that even today certain things are free, either completely like the air we breathe or at least at the time of use like the water from the taps in our homes, yet you don't see people going around hoarding air or water; we only use water when we need it for drinking or cooking or washing.

I can give you another example. Down in Vittel in the Vosges there are public drinking fountains from which you can draw without paying the same water for which you pay a ridiculous price after it has been put in bottles. The locals use these fountains regularly nut, once again, take any one time only as much as they need. Sir Thomas More realised the reason for this as long ago as 1516: "There's more than enough to go round, so there's no risk of his asking for more than he needs—for why should anyone want to start hoarding, when he knows he'll never have to go short of anything?"

But back to Hyde Park. A heckler interjected that if things were freely available there'd be no incentive to work so that the stores could not be kept  continuously stocked with plenty of what people needed; therefore a moneyless system couldn't work. Q.E.D. I can't remember how the orator dealt with this point, but it didn't appear to be a problem in the City of Artisans. There people worked because they liked working:

Axa: You work for fun, then, in this City of Artisans.
Artisan: Stupid to work for anything else! 

Why indeed work for any other reason if you've got the choice? Today most people work at boring jobs in offices and factories not because they like the work (masochism is only a minority deviation) but because . . . they need money.

If you think about it, the abolition of money would mean other changes too and the disappearance of a whole host of problems we have to put up with today. There'd be no inflation, no taxes, no devaluations, no theft, no robbery, no muggings, no strikes, no riots, no blackmail, no corruption, no alimony, no poverty, no wars. But in case his paranoia gets worse, let's leave the last word to poor old Bertie Lomas, on the back cover of his book: "If money is the root of all evil why not abolish it and give mankind a new deal?"

Adam Buick

Reformers and Revolutionaries (1995)

Theatre Review from the October 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Machine Wreckers by Ernst Toller, National Theatre, Cottlesloe

Socialists are likely to find The Machine Wreckers, a play about the English Luddites, of interest—though they may be surprised to discover that its author was a German expressionist playwright, Ernst Toller, most of whose plays were written whilst he was in prison.

Toller was associated with an attempt to set up a Soviet-style republic in Bavaria at the end of the First World War, and when this failed he was sentenced to five years for treason. Whilst in prison he read widely. As he wrote in his biography:

"I read Marx, Engels, Lassalle, Bakunin, Mehring, Luxemburg, the Webbs . . . In my prison cell I discovered socialism, and for the first time I saw clearly the true structure of society today, the conditions that make war inevitable, the terrible perversity of the law that allows the masses to go hungry while a few go rich, the true relationship between labour and capital, the historical significance of the working class" (I Was A German, translated by Edward Crankshaw, 1934).

Toller had clearly read Lord Byron's passionate speech against the Frame-Work Bill (1812), which made the breaking of machine-frames, used in the textile industry, a hanging offence. The Machine Wreckers begins with an imaginary exchange in which Byron's humanity is set against Lord Castlereagh's Statesman's voice. Quoting Malthus Castlereagh chillingly argue that since the miseries of plague, war and family are "God-ordained":

"The more the infant ranks are thinned by Death
The better for our children and our land."

Toller shows us what such sentiments meant for working-class life in Nottingham in the early years of the nineteenth century. But more than this he examines working class responses to the introduction of machines and the dehumanising excesses of early capitalism. Should the workers die with the rebellious John Wibley who wants to destroy the machines, or the revolutionary Jimmy Cobbett who asks, "what if you laboured to produce for all, and not for Mammon—for service, not for gain?", and imagines a world in which the machine is "no more your enemy but your helper."

Writing about The Machine Wreckers Toller is clear that the clash between reformers and revolutionaries is at the heart of the play, and perhaps significantly it is the reformer Wibley who engineers the death of Cobbett by conspiring with the factory owners.

The play works best when it shows, in naturalistic fashion, the monstrous slavery and poverty which were the lot of many workers in the early nineteenth century. At this level, as one newspaper critic has it, the play shocks and grips. Ironically, the expressionistic devices—a blindman lead by a deaf mute, the character of Old Reaper supposedly representing suffering humanity seeking God, and the attack of the off-stage machine all stroboscopic light and hissing steam—dilute the impact and make the play seem dated and often pedestrian.

The playing is unambiguously first class and if some of the author's stylistic devices—here faithfully reproduced by the director—are a source of weakness, the blazing vitality of the dialogue (particularly the exchange between Cobbett and the factory owner), the continuing relevance of most of the major themes, and the entirely appropriate rage which Toller clearly feels when depicting the grim reality of working-class life, make this a compelling piece of political theatre.

Michael Gill

See also:

Lord Byron and the Luddites

Pope Francis and the Devil (2015)

The Halo Halo! Column from the June 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

We don’t know whether Satan employs a spin doctor, or has his own PR team to boost his image and keep himself in the public eye, or how many believers he actually has these days; but if he does, they haven’t been doing a very effective job for, well, the last couple of hundred years at least. Now though, his public image is taking a sharp upturn. The devil, apparently, is enjoying a sudden surge in notoriety, if not in popularity, and believe it or not, it’s all down to the Pope.

According to the Independent (14 April) a recent gathering of exorcists in Rome have concluded that Pope Francis has prompted a rise in the number of Catholics who believe themselves to be possessed by the devil. Most recent popes, it seems, were in the habit of treating Satan like an embarrassing and rather dodgy uncle who was never to be mentioned outside the family, and only in very hushed tones – a bit like a randy Catholic priest – only worse. Francis, however, has no such inhibitions about Old Nick and apparently keeps banging on about him in front of anyone who happens to be listening.

He recently informed a delegation from Mexico that the Mexican drug wars were due to the Devil’s influence. The conflict in the Middle East too, he announced was all down to Satan. And if visitors express surprise at his views he sternly warns them ‘Look out, because the Devil is present’.

And so much faith do Catholics have in their leader that the demand for more exorcists is sharply on the rise. The Rome diocese has doubled the number it provides, Milan has increased its number from five to twelve, and even in Britain, bishops who have previously not bothered to keep an exorcist on the books are now trying to fill the vacancies.

But maybe there’s some method in the Pope’s madness. They can’t afford to let the devil die out can they? What would happen to the church if suddenly there was no more Satan, and therefore no more sin for them to save us from? Not only do they need him, they should put him on the payroll. As Satan’s own website www.churchofsatan.com says ‘Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!’(Nine Satanic Statements).

When we last visited Satan’s website (see Halo Halo January 2012), to be frank he did seem a little bit mad; liable to attract entirely the wrong type. Now, although there is no mention of this new understanding he has with the Catholics, he does seem a bit more restrained in his aims and claims. (Although he does still advise ‘When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him’ (Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth). That one seems a bit harsh, even from Satan.

And unlike the Catholic Church, he does seem to be trying to get out of the 17th century. The old membership application form with questions such as – ‘Are you satisfied with your sex life?’ – ‘How many years would you like to live?’ – ‘Do you feel oppressed or persecuted in any way?’ has gone, and is replaced by a simple requirement for applicants to send a cheque for $200. The Pope would be proud of him.

NW

Obituaries: Jimmy Banks, David Lamond and Helen Chesher (1967)

Obituaries from the February 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is with great sadness and great regret that we recently learned of the deaths of three members.

Jimmy Banks joined the Party in 1916 and was soon an active propagandist, speaking on Clapham Common regularly. He was a conscientious objector in the 1914-1918 war and was sent to Dartmoor. Immediately upon his release he was actively propagating socialism in South West London. Of recent years we saw him only at Conference and Party meetings, which he frequently attended despite his failing health.

David Lamond, who died in November, was a staunch member for many years in Edinburgh where for many years he worked to spread the Party's message. He organised and spoke at meetings on the Mound in Edinburgh. Although for long periods he worked alone, he did much for Socialism.

Helen Chesher, who died after a long illness, joined Lewisham Branch in 1958 and despite ill health supported outdoor meetings and Party rallies. Helen worked behind the scenes at Conferences especially with the catering.

Phyllis Howard

Marx on Money (1977)

Book Review from the November 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx on Money, by Suzanne de Bronhoff, Urizen Books (New York). 139 pages. Paperback £2.70, hardback £4.70.

This book attempts to bring together and comment on Marx's writings on money and credit, and to relate them to other monetary theories.

It can serve a purpose to students of Marx who are already familiar with his main economic theories but it suffers from two defects, one of presentation and the other an astonishing omission.

All of the numerous references and quotations are related to particular editions of Marx's works, for example to the International Publishers' 1970 edition of Capital. Consequently the page numbers are different, often widely different, from those in several other editions. This difficulty would have been lessened if, instead of merely giving the page numbers, it had also included Chapter and Section headings of the works referred to.

The Preface by Duncan K. Foley, claims for the book that it will help the working class because "Inflation and unemployment are . . . major issues over which class struggle is fought out". But there is almost nothing in the book to justify the claim, and occasional brief references are misleading. On page 37 there is reference to "the inadequacy of Marx's explanation" of "paper money", and on page 84 [there] is a somewhat obscure passage which appears to say that Marx did not deal with monetary theory in relation to "the general price level".

In fact the author appears not to know that Marx did deal with this. Most of her references are to money, banking and credit in Capital Vol. III, but she had not noticed that Marx was there writing only about conditions in Britain under the gold standard, with its full convertibility of Bank of England notes into gold. As Engels pointed out (Capital Vol. III, "Currency Under the Credit System", p. 615 in Kerr edition), inconvertible notes were not dealt with in Vol. III but in Vol. 1, Chapter III.

For the past forty years there has been an inconvertible paper currency, and what Marx wrote about the general price level in Vol. III has little bearing. What he put forward in Vol. I was both adequate and definite, namely, that if an inconvertible paper currency is issued in excess (the meaning of "excess" being precisely defined) prices will rise correspondingly, as has in fact happened.

If the author holds that Marx's explanation was "inadequate" or unsound there is a simple challenge she has to meet. Let her tell us of any occasion when an inconvertible currency was issued in excess and prices did not rise.

There is nothing in the book to indicate that the author appreciates that the workers' struggle should go beyond reacting to "inflation and unemployment", with the purpose of achieving a system of society as envisaged by Marx, in which there will be no production for the market, no price system or wages system, and therefore no monetary problems or unemployment problem.

Edgar Hardcastle

A Slice of the Cake (1962)

From the February 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

The National Cake this expression often crops up in newspapers and in the mouths of politicians. At first sight it seems like a convenient and homely figure of speech, giving a rough idea of the truth. Not so. Like the other myths employed as propaganda for capitalism, it is false at its very roots.

What it is meant to convey is that there is a certain total of earnings—the national income—out of which both wages and profits have to be allocated. Often this idea is put forward by writers and speakers who claim to have working-class interests at heart. In this case they complain that the workers are not getting a large enough share of the mythical cake; and many workers are deceived by this sympathy into thinking in these terms themselves. They see that profits are rising and they demand their 'share'. And so it is easy for the capitalists, or their managers or politicians, when they can manage to show that the 'cake' has decreased in size, to make an attack on wages or to resist demands for rises. The recent 'wage pause' is a case in point.

It also helps them to persuade workers to work harder: 'Our standard of living can only be raised if we increase our earnings overseas' and so on. It is an idea that has gained strength from the fact that standards of living are relatively higher in countries like the U.S.A. where productivity is high. It has become an extremely powerful idea, favoured especially by so-called 'socialist' parties like the British Labour Party; and many people take it for granted. Yet it is a completely anti-socialist myth.

Unfortunately, the truth is not nearly so simple or so homely. But the whole business reminds one of that problem about the three men who were overcharged in a restaurant and the waiter who kept two bob for himself. It is not a problem at all, really: it's a matter of considering the wrong set of figures. The point is that there is no such thing as a national cake; or of there is—if the total annual national profit can be called a cake—then the workers have no part in it at all. Their wages certainly do not come out of it.

Wages have to be paid before the capitalist handles any profit at all—sometimes a long time before. They are paid out of capital, just as are other production costs like raw materials, machinery, fuel and rent. And they are usually 'fair' wages; that is to say that, on average, capital usually buys workers' abilities at a price close to their real value. Profit is not mainly made by underpaying the workers (although much more could be said on this). Profit is made because work done on raw materials adds more value to them than the value of the labour power used up in the work.

It is when these commodities are sold, and not until, that the capitalist really handles his profit. He has converted his capital back into money once more—and a larger amount of money than he started with. This surplus, if anything, can be called cake—and it is cake for capitalists only. The majority of it is re-invested automatically to pay more workers and buy more materials, to bring in more cake—to build up, in fact, a veritable layer-cake.

So that almost everywhere a worker turns his eyes he sees property owned—not by himself or his kind who produced it all—but by a small minority—the ones who can really talk about 'our' country and mean what they say—the ones for whom it really is 'a piece of cake'.

S. Stafford

Gorbachev and Socialism* (1990)

From the May 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard

*This untitled block quotation from Vitali Vitaliev was attached to the unsigned article 'Is Socialism Dead?' 

"The main mistake of Western analysts trying to assess Gorbachev's career is the attempt to treat him as a kind of God-sent Messiah who emerged to save Russia from 'socialism'. Nothing can be further from reality. Throughout his political career Gorbachev was part and parcel of the apparat. He came not to dismantle 'socialism' but to preserve it.
    I am putting 'socialism' into inverted commas because there has never been anything of the kind in Russia. No other country is so far from the ideas of equality and fraternity as the Soviet Union. If there was a socialism, or even a Communism at all, it was only for the ruling elite who lived and are still living in a separate world.
    It is a world of privileges, starting from birth (special maternity homes) going on all through their lives (special shops, hospitals, hairdressers' salons, canteens, toilets and what not) and not ending even with the end of their physical existence (special cemeteries). Yes, yes, special cemeteries for the rulers of 'the first working-class State in the world', where workers are not supposed to be buried."

—Soviet journalist Vitali Vitaliev (Observer, 11 March)

English Hypocrisy and the Russian Outrage. (1905)

From the March 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The huge wave of indignation that has lately been sweeping over the country on account of the massacres in Russia is typical of the hypocrisy of the capitalist-class and the ignorance of the man in the street. Big headlines and stirring articles have proved effective in arousing a strong and quite unjustified feeling against Russia. The English attitude towards Russian affairs has long been intensely pharissical, and its real origin, imperial and commercial jealousy in Asia, has been quite lost sight of by the public. First of all, at the beginning of the war, there was a popular expression of sympathy towards Japan, as being the "little nation,"—England's treatment of "little nations" has been exemplified in South Africa! Next came a patriotic frenzy because some panic-stricken Russian seamen saw visions and killed or wounded a few defenceless fishermen: the killing and wounding of thousands of defenceless men, women and children by defective machinery, deliberate starvation and disease brought on by neglect, barely call forth any protest, save occasionally for political purposes. Finally, we have now a great shriek of horror arising because the capitalist and bureaucratic-class in Russia is determined, as it is in every country, to use every means to keep the working-class in subjection.

This feeling is quite unjustified from a capitalist point of view, and further it is only hypocritical, for no one, except a Socialist, can with honesty support the working-class in its efforts towards freedom. Yet we find the same people that would cheerfully starve out English strikers or shoot them down if more convenient, that ignored the fearful outrages in Colorado, and that approved the recent shooting of strikers in Italy, pretending to be horrified at the actions of their fellow-capitalists in Russia!

Perhaps it may be argued, as in the "Daily Mail," that the Russian worker is more down-trodden than the English, and that, moreover, it is not a working-class revolt. But the fact that the Liberals use the present time to put forward their political claims, does not detract from the fact that it is the Russian worker who is revolting and suffering for it; and, as regards the Russian being more down-trodden, he only lacks the political freedom of his English fellow, and that political power used, as it is in England, to strengthen the hands of his masters, counts for nought, and only leads the worker to a false sense of liberty, for the economic slavery remains as binding in England as in Russia.

This pretended sympathy is therefore arrant humbug or cant, calculated only to dupe the British worker and reconcile him to his slavery. It is quite time that he should realise that he is being deceived and that the aims of the working-class are the same all over the world.

If any worker is really anxious to support his class in Russia, England, or any other country, let him declare his allegiance to working-class politics and join The Socialist Party of Britain.

Sydney Chase.

Working to live or living to work? (1999)

From the January 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

Have you ever felt like reporting in sick?

At 8.15 I had convinced myself not to go to work. I plucked up courage, coughed to check I really was unable to function and phoned in my excuse. I had wandered for several minutes, nervous, guilty and had insisted on total silence from the children at the breakfast table. By 9 o'clock it was too late to reverse the situation. All guilt had evaporated and I was feeling much better. That was it. The only remedy for that sick feeling that precedes going to work was not going to work.

Work in modern society defines you. If someone asks you what do you do you tend to answer with the nature of your job. Too many of us do not leave our work at the workplace but carry it round wherever we may be, it lurks and inhibits what is known as leisure time. In fact a lot of so-called leisure time is simply time spent getting ready to go back to work. Clothes are got ready for the next day. Sandwiches need making, an evening shave saves time in the morning. We have early nights despite wanting to stay up for that great film on television because we have to be able to function properly for work. Work structures our lives.

Whilst plenty of people get some sort of fulfilment, job satisfaction, enjoy the company of their fellow workers and so on it is surely not something we would choose to do for so long a period of time. For a lifetime of work means just that. There is an old story about Pandora opening a box which contained all the evils in the world. On opening the box she released ponos the Greek word for work from which we derive our word punishment.

There is a saying that a hard day's work never did anyone any harm. Well that's not exactly true. Whilst I wouldn’t sniffle at the odd hard day I would argue that a lifetime of hard days has a nasty cumulative effect. Why else are so many days "lost" through sickness real—or, as in my case, imagined? Up pops guilt once again! Our working lives have impacted on the way we live when not physically at the place of work. We all know the fear of oversleeping, of being late and the headlong rush to be there on time. Witness the antics of normally calm, rational human beings on their daily commute to work, charging along to speed through traffic lights. Cutting each other up, fighting over ownership of a few precious yards of road, cocooned in the modern-day suit of armour, the car.

Our eating habits have changed. Real food is becoming a luxury, replaced by packaged, frozen, tinned, oven-ready instant meals. We have instant coffee. Whatever happened to the coffee bean, the smell of roasting beans? Instant potato that could be used for filling in holes in the walls. Meals have to be quick and easy to prepare for the simple reason that most of us don’t have the time to prepare them.

We come close to telling lies to get the job in the first place. We appear groomed and well-mannered. We give the answers we think the interviewing panel want to hear. We are not ourselves.

Just as dogs can be trained to leap gracefully through a hoop in return for a tasty titbit and seals will juggle balls in return for some tasty fish so we do that which we find unpleasant in return for money. If we didn’t get the money we would very quickly find that we would be unable to maintain the acceptable standards necessary to get the money.

Jobs need doing but . . .

It is self-evident that to maintain an effective modern society, one in which we continue to eat, have clothes to wear, somewhere fit to live and so on that a certain amount of work is necessary. Jobs need doing. I never heard of a house that built itself or of a cabbage that was self-planting, self-cultivating and somehow managed to get itself to a greengrocer's. But it is the difference between work and employment that throws up the dilemma. I would define work as socially necessary, needed for the functioning of society and the people that make up that society. Employment is what jumped out of Pandora's box and when you think about it is what gives rise to instant potato and getting up in what appears to be the middle of the night for three months of the year and going to a place you don’t want to go to do something you don’t want to do. You wouldn't treat a dog like that.

I am making the assumption that most people if given the chance would be able to give you plenty of examples of how their life could be improved. That society could in fact be organised in a way that actually improved the quality of our lives. To assume that, you have to consider changing things. Change is not something to fear and it is change that has enabled humanity to mould and shape the world that we live in. If you do not accept change then we are no more advanced than the dinosaur. It is as good a time as any to contemplate the possibility of doing jobs that need doing and of stopping doing jobs that are in fact only keeping us in a position that we do not in fact really approve of.

Society has evolved to a point where we can produce an abundance of what we need. Technology gives us the possibility of having less work and more possible leisure. But only if we concentrate on what needs doing and discard that which simply preserves and maintains the status quo. John Lennon summed it up beautifully in his song Imagine. Humanity possesses not only the imagination but also the physical ability to make such a society possible. A society that only produces goods and services if they can be sold for a profit is an anachronism for it creates injustice and suffering on a scale that beggars belief. Have you nothing better to do with your life?

Andy Pitts

Marxism and Humanism (1959)

Book Review from the June 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is Marxism a Humanism? By Charles Taylor, ULR, 1s.

(See Part 2 here.)

This pamphlet by an editor of Universities and Left Review starts so many hares running that one wondered whether in the end it would turn out to be a kind of wild goose chase. We cannot say that in the pursuit, we have all Mr. Taylor's hares in the bag, but we did manage to catch one or two remarkable specimens.

To begin at the end. Mr. Taylor's conclusions are that as a humanism, Marxism is inadequate. A true humanism, he says, must regard men as ends in themselves, never as means to an end. On the question of end and means he believes Marx's position to be ambivalent. Marx's primary concern, he argues, "was the smashing of Capitalist relations." From this a Socialist society would then be built up and only when this was done would Socialist man or truly human relations, emerge. This is the classic Communist formula for the "proletarian revolution."

Given then the assumptions of an over-riding political authority—an elite—to put all this into effect, he continues, might not the ruling authority in pursuit of this end, be tempted to subordinate everything, including men, towards its attainment? Might not a state of affairs come about in such a situation where the maxim prevails — "the end justifies the means"? And might his not mean that men themselves could become merely a means to an end, which in turn brings about an end different from the one originally intended. Marx, thinks  Mr. Taylor, never resolved this conflict between ends and means which involves a contradiction between Marxist practice and Marxist ethics.

This, we believe, boils down the essence of Mr. Taylor's vague and diffuse treatment of the subject.

"The Revolution Betrayed"

Mr. Taylor offers Soviet Russia as the classic example of where this sort of thing happened. His Marxist motif has the orchestral background of—"The revolution betrayed." It seems we are asked to believe that what took place in Russia in 1917 and the projects put through by the Bolsheviks, would have met with Marx's approval. Mr. Taylor assures us that there are elements of Marxism in Stalinism and further these "elements" provide the latter with a theoretical justification.

Finally, Mr. Taylor believes that Marxism fails as a humanism because of its insistence on class loyalties. Thus generates hostility towards those who do not share them and leads to the dictum that those who are not with us are against us. In this way, he argues, barriers arise between different sets of men. He urges that we must strive to enter into full human relationships with all men, irrespective of differences of outlook, attitudes and presumably interests. Unless we are able to do this, he thinks, no worthwhile social future is possible.

His own recipe for true humanism consists of the time honoured ingredients, universal good will, brotherly love and the fullest expression of the individual. These are the ethical foundations for building the New Jerusalem. For the class ethics of Marxism he offers the classless ethics of Christ and Kant.

Over a century ago there came into being an order of a kind of Socialist monkhood whereby it was proposed by example, incantation and prayer to chant the way to the promised land. In this year of grace we seem to be witnessing its revival.

We cannot, of course, accept the assumption that a Socialist society was in process of being built up in Russia. Our views on what took place in Russia are too well known to require a detailed exposition here. What we can say is that when Lenin as early as 1921 blurted out that "State Capitalism exists in Russia," he blurted out the truth. When he added "State Capitalism in the interest of the working class is Socialism," he blurted out the clumsy but classic lie of all labour apologists. State Capitalism, it was in Lenin's time, in Stalin's time and State Capitalism it still is.

The Alienation of Labour

Mr. Taylor tells us that Marx at least wanted to abolish a state of affairs which has brought about what he, Marx, called "the alienation of labour" or to state it another way, the excessive division of labour which is an integral feature of the extant productive system. A division of labour which has such crippling effects on the working capacities of men and their productive potentialities and which disintegrates human personalities by transmutation into a single function and imposes on labour an exclusive activity. That is true. Above all things Marx and Engels insisted that this system with its division of labour must be replaced by a social organisation where there will be "no exclusive circle of activity and where it will be possible to engage in a many-sided productive activity and to do one thing today and another tomorrow." So important is this question of the alienation of labour to the assumptions of Marxist ethics that we propose to deal with it more fully in the next issue.

What we can say here is that of the "alienation of labour" is the hall mark of Capitalist production, then "re-unification of labour" will be the characteristic of Socialist production. It was, however, the task of Lenin and Stalin via the instrumentality of the dictatorship to accentuate and accelerate this alienation of labour; to attempt to develop at breakneck speed the division of labour essential to Capitalist production. Not to integrate the human personality in the productive process, but to disintegrate it. Lenin's formula for the alienation of labour was the ironic equation, American efficiency plus electrification—Socialism.

Social Revolution

In their attitude to the role and function of the working class, Marx and Engels were worlds apart from Lenin and Stalin. Marx and Engels declared that the social revolution could only be the self-conscious movement of the self-conscious majority. Lenin believed that it would be directed by "the green table intellectuals." Marx said, "to fit the workers for their historic task of inaugurating the new society would require years of patient educational work." Lenin on the other hand stated that "If we wait for the people to understand Socialism we shall wait a thousand years." Engels tell us, "Marx and I rely on the intellectual maturity of the working class to achieve their emancipation." Lenin, on the contrary asserted, "the proletariat can never advance beyond a trade union consciousness."

It is true Marx in the Gotha programme talked about the lower and higher phases of Communist society. Of the latter, Engels tells us, "a really human morality which transcends class antagonism and their legacy in thought becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class contradictions but has even forgotten them in practical life," and there is nothing wrong with this view. Both Marx and Engels looked forward to the expediting of a state of affairs, where "the enslaving subordination of individuals under division of labour and the antithesis between intellectual and manual labour had vanished" and where "labour had become not merely a means to live but the primary necessity of life itself."

What a tragic travesty has the so-called Socialist revolution in Russia made of Marx and Engels conception—of the truly human condition of the species. Once long ago Lenin in his more indulgent moods, spoke of "the withering away of the state in a Socialist society." It is not the state which has withered away in Russia—only the concept has withered.

Marx and Engels were uncompromising equalitarians. "From each according to his capacity to each according to his needs" remains the greatest ethical contribution to the humanistic ideal. Not only did they share the humanitarian ideals of the great Utopians of the past, they did more, they joined Utopia to science.

Soviet "Equalitarianism"

Lenin and certainly not Stalin were never unqualified equalitarians. It is true Lenin in the early days of the revolution laid down in principle that no State official should receive a higher income than the average wage of a competent worker. But even so, Lenin was also concerned with the fact that he did not want to see the newly formed State apparatus degenerate into a kind of bureaucracy which he was apprehensive about.

Actually the demand for a much more drastic equalitarianism came "from below," a demand which Lenin resisted. It was under the New Economic Policy introduced by Lenin that inequality of remuneration became more marked and under Stalin's "Socialist" regime these inequalities became even more glaring than those of Western Capitalism. It was finally left to Stalin a few years later to denounce equalitarianism as "a petty bourgeois deviation" and a crime against the State. After that the mass of workers were indoctrinated into the belief that inequality of remuneration was a fundamental Socialist principle.

Little wonder that the aging Fabians, Mr. and Mrs. Webb, set the seal of Fabian approval on Russia in their work, "Soviet Communism" and Bernard Shaw declared Lenin's N.E.P. "to be the carrying out of Fabian policy."

We will not apologise for spending so long a time in discussing the antithetical differences between Marx and Engels and the Soviet ideologists who spoke in their names. Because Mr. Taylor has taken to task what he believes to be the contradictions involved in the Marxist ethics and its inadequacy as a humanism and has at least in part sought empirical demonstration of his theme in Soviet practices, we felt it necessary to clear the ground for assessing his reasons for the failure of Marxism to achieve a true humanistic level. For that reason we shall in the next issue attempt to show that although the Marxist ethic is a class ethic it in no way conflicts with the aims and ideals it sets out to achieve—the truly human society or socialised humanity.

Ted Wilmott

After eight (1978)

Film Review from the May 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Alain Tanner's Jonah who will be 25 in the year 2000 centres around eight people, all of whose names begin with the letters "Ma"—presumably a reference to May 1968, which in another sense is that the film is really about.

Max is a Trotskyist, and for him everything since 1968 has been an anti-climax. He is brought back into political activity when he finds out about a scheme by some bankers to force some farmers off their land and later sell it at a huge profit. Max persuades the farmers not to sell, and thereby becomes friends with two of them, Marguerite and Marcel.

Although the film is not clear about this, it seems that this act of resistance to the profiteering businessmen is successful. But attempts by the other characters to behave differently—however slightly—from the way that society expects them to all come to nothing. Marie works at a check-out in a supermarket: she undercharges customers who can't afford to pay for all their purchases, but gets sent to prison. Marco is a history teacher and tries, with the help of some of the other characters, to teach his students about crises and inflation — and is sacked for his pains. Mathieu organizes his own school for the farmers' children, until he is eventually stopped by Marguerite, who tells him that she employs him to shift manure not to teach her children (she already pays taxes for that purpose, she says). The only character who achieves some kind of contentment is Madeleine who deceives herself in religious mysticism.

So at one level the film shows the pointlessness of individual tinkerings with the social set-up. But what it doesn't do, at least not directly, is to indicate any positive solution. True, there are a few references to class struggle (but also quotes from Rousseau about man being "everywhere in chains"). The background of inflation is emphasized at the beginning and the end of the film, while Marcel is concerned with ecology, especially the preservation of rare species of animals. But the pervading influence of 1968 suggests that this is what is held up as a model to follow. In fact, the events of May of that year were in sense revolutionary, just an instance of popular working-class action on the industrial front, aimed at wage increases.

Mathilde is pregnant with the Jonah of the film's title. The film contains some well observed scenes and in places is very funny but a major weakness is that nothing is said to point the way towards marking the year 2000 (or—let's be optimistic—well before then) one in which the frustrated dreams of its characters are no longer necessary.

Paul Bennett

Rosa Luxemburg (1991)

Book Review from the June 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

Rosa Luxemburg. By Wendy Forrest. (Hamish Hamilton. £6.99)

New on the shelves of the children's section in the local public library, one of a series "In Her Own Time", is this book on Rosa Luxemburg. Contrary to the perceived correct behaviour for women of her time, Luxemburg did not wait at home for a husband and children to look after, but campaigned for socialism, was imprisoned and finally murdered. The book is a breath of sanity among the usual mind-bending and cobwebbed Never Never Land found on children's bookshelves. It is especially encouraging to see children introduced to Luxemburg's definition of the cause of war, so relevant today: "The fight against militarism cannot be separated from the socialist class war as a whole . . . Wars between capitalist states are as a rule the result of their rivalry for world markets . . . Wars are therefore inherent in the nature of capitalism; they will only cease when capitalism is abolished".

Eva Goodman 

Letter: Who's Spreading Confusion? (2015)

Letters to the Editors from the June 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors

I wish I could say thank you for your review of my book The 1% and the Rest of Us (May Socialist Standard). But I can say thanks for bothering to read the book. So thanks.

I'm sorry, however, that you are extremely misguided and it is people like you who fail to do proper research that keeps up the confusion around money and the problems faced by the working classes of this world. How we produce money in our society and how it is allocated is of incredible consequence for inequality and the future of the planet (e.g. what we invest in like energy/food/shelter etc). Your review gives me little hope that this one day might be addressed based on evidence rather than conjecture.

Not only does Martin Wolf of the Financial Times recognize that banks create money out of thin air but so too does Positive Money (I wonder whether you even visited their site or read their literature) among many others who have bothered to actually do research rather than pontificate out of conjecture on the web.

Moreover, I wrote my book in late 2013 early 2014, which Zed's production team did not get out until this year. What we have known for a while thanks to various statements, leaks and logic, has now been empirically confirmed and published in the peer reviewed journal: the International Review of Financial Analysis in late 2014 (when my book was already in press, hence it is not cited). It is written by Richard A. Werner from the London School of Economics which you may or may not be familiar with.

As it turns out, banks do indeed create money out of thin air when they make a loan. It appears as an asset on their balance sheet and a (deposit) liability for the borrower. No reserves are checked with the central bank and money does not move from a saver to a borrower.

I doubt you have seen or heard of the article or probably care given your penchant for Biblical Marxism and love of this 19th century economic religion.

So, given the evidence (of which you martial [sic] absolutely none) the bad news is that your review is bad . . . really bad. In an honest world, after you've actually considered the evidence you'd retract your review, or at least amend it. But following the Church of Marx and blind faith might be easier for you.

I just wish you'd stop spreading confusion. 

Cheers mate,

Tim Di Muzio, Editor, RECASP, Senior Lecturer, School of Social Inquiry and Humanities

University of Wollongong, Australia.

________________________________________

Reply: 

We are well aware of the theory put forward by Richard Werner and discussed it in, for instance, the October 2012 Socialist Standard. Incidentally he is not ‘from the London School of Economics’ except that he once studied there. We also know of Positive Money and have in fact debated against them (video recording here).

You appear to be unaware that there are two rival theories which claim that ‘banks can create money out of thin air’. One, favoured by Martin Wolf and Positive Money among others, that it is only the whole banking system including the central bank that can do this. The other, favoured by Richard Werner and wilder currency cranks generally, is that an individual bank can do this, and have done so since banks first came into existence. We don't agree with using the term 'out of thin air' as it is confusing and opens the door to all sorts of currency crank ideas.

The empirical study you direct us to (of a small savings bank in Germany) by Werner is entitled 'Can banks individually create money out of nothing – The theories and the empirical evidence', to which he replies:

'This study establishes for the empirically that banks individually create money out of nothing. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ by the banks individually, "out of thin air".' (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070)

In fact it doesn't show this, but merely that when a bank makes a loan those in charge of granting it do not check that the bank has the money in its reserves. This may well be the case for individual loans, but it doesn't go on to examine what then happens afterwards. The March 2014 issue of the Bank of England Quarterly Review provides an answer, as well as confirming our view that banks don’t make profits by simply creating money from nowhere and charging interest on it:

‘A bank’s business model relies on receiving a higher interest rate on the loans (or other assets) than the rate it pays out on its deposits (or other liabilities). (...) The commercial bank uses the difference, or spread, between the expected return on their assets and liabilities to cover its operating costs and to make profits (…) In order to make extra loans, an individual bank will typically have to lower its loan rates relative to its competitors to induce households and companies to borrow more. And once it has made the loan it may well ‘lose’ the deposits it has created to those competing banks. Both of these factors affect the profitability of making a loan for an individual bank and influence how much borrowing takes place. (...) therefore try to attract or retain additional liabilities to accompany their new loans. In practice other banks would also be making new loans and creating new deposits, so one way they can do this is to try and attract some of those newly created deposits. In a competitive banking sector, that may involve increasing the rate they offer to households on their savings accounts. (…) Alternatively, a bank can borrow from other banks or attract other forms of liabilities, at least temporarily. But whether through deposits or other liabilities, the bank would need to make sure it was attracting and retaining some kind of funds in order to keep expanding lending.’

In his study Werner doesn't appear to have asked the managers of the small German savings bank he studied whether they felt they could go on indefinitely creating 'fairy dust' loans of €200,000.

Nor does he state what happened to the bank’s balance sheet when he repaid the loan they granted him as part of the experiment (as presumably he did).

It is repeating currency crank theories and advocating banking and monetary reform that is spreading confusion. The solution to the problems facing the wage and salary working class the world over is not Monetary Reform. It lies in making the means of wealth production commonly owned by all, which would make banks and money redundant. – Editors.

INLA feud—gangsters big and small (1988)

From the January 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

A feud between the factions of the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) has ended in death for many and will undoubtedly see the same end for many more. To the bystander, the whole episode seems a bit confusing as it is difficult to understand why those with apparently the same political objectives devote their time to murdering each other. The fact is that this feud has nothing to do with politics. This is not a disagreement over differing political principles or tactics; this is a gangland feud about control over the spoils of protection rackets and other gangland activities.

There has never been any doubt that paramilitary organisations have been up to their necks in racketeering since they became powerful and intimidating forces in their communities. They act as a self-appointed police force, dishing out punishments like kneecapping to young people considered by them to be involved in anti-social behaviour. The IRA and UVF are not strangers to the back entry courtroom where the "soldiers of liberation" become jury, judge and executioner over some young fellow who broke into a shop without their permission. In contrast, they ensure that where racketeering does take place, it is done under their control and with the organisation creaming off the benefits.

The INLA had simply brought this to its natural conclusion and had become much more a Mafiosa than a so-called political army. Of course they are content in the notion that their robbing and protection racketeering is for the needs of the movement, an illusion which the leadership is happy to perpetuate. It was only when the division of the spoils became a problem, that they started to blow each other's heads off, each in an attempt to intimidate the other faction. Their style of execution is similar to that of a wild west film where the gunfighter walks into a bar, shoots the victim in the head and cooly walks out again. Men who shared cells together in person are now on opposing sides, both with loaded guns and both intent on killing the other.

To add insult to injury these sad people have the gall to call themselves socialists. There is no need to waste space in this journal explaining to our readers that these anti-working class "heroes" are simply Irish nationalists, bent on "convincing" any opposition through the barrel of a gun. They have nothing to do with the principles of democratic socialism.

One important observation must be made about this feud. It's easy enough to dismiss it as a crowd of self-interested gangsters going around murdering each other, but what is the difference in what they are doing and what the forces of the State do? When governments "fall out" over trade routes or areas of strategic interest they are simply arguing over who is going to administer the robbery of the working class in a particular area — through the swindling economics of capitalism. The fact that the conflicting sides in these feuds wear nicely tailored uniforms and fly expensive war planes does not make it any less a feud. Dropping a bomb on a city, killing thousands of innocent people only differs from the INLA feud in that it is done on a bigger scale. 

The INLA are only amateur copycats of the lessons taught by Big Brother — the State. When the factions of the INLA disagree as to who is going to put the screws on a couple of shop-keepers, they shoot each other until one side wins. When the government of one country falls into irreconcilable dispute with the government of another country over who is going to put the "screws" on the workers, then they send in their armies, gullible workers, trained and paid to kill, to slaughter each other until one side wins.

(Reprinted from Socialist View — World Socialist Party of Ireland)

American Tour (1961)

Party News from the December 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the beginning of September I visited the World Socialist Party Conference in Boston as a delegate from the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

The Conference lasted two days and the subjects that came up, concerning reviews of past activities and methods of improvement and increasing propaganda efforts in various directions, were discussed at considerable length, with enthusiasm and also, at times, with some heat! Owing to the vast distances between branches and groups over there the delegation present was of necessity not large.

At the outset taped and written greetings from all over the world were heard and read. Then various reports of the year's work were given. These showed a 100 per cent increase in subscriptions to the Western Socialist, an increase in the number of articles coming in for the paper, and a general resurgence in activity, particularly in Canada. The sending out of letters to Libraries and Colleges during the year had brought excellent results. A proposal to produce two new Pamphlets, one on the Materialist Conception of History and the other on The WSP: What it Stands For, was referred to the Editorial Committee for attention.

A Conference Social was held at a member's house on the evening of the first day of conference. It was a very pleasant, comradely and lively affair, attended by about fifty members and friends.

On September 5th I left for Detroit, accompanied by comrades Rab and Orner, and we held three meetings there. They were small but interesting with plenty of questions. On the fourth evening there was a meeting at which a proposal to form a discussion group was agreed to. I have since learnt that the discussion group has made a very good start, at a place that has been rented, and a large number of interested people are attending it. The members concerned have put in a lot of time and energy to ensure its success. It appears to me that it is a method that could be widely copied.

On September 9th I left for Vancouver and Victoria—Comrades Rab and Orner going on to Chicago. On the morning of the 11th I was given a long newspaper interview in Victoria and a brief TV interview—it was cut short because of mechanical difficulties during the recording. The next day there was a good meeting in Victoria with plenty of questions and some opposition. There was a short disturbance at this meeting on account of the interruptions of a local celebrity. However this resulted in some considerable newspaper publicity.

After the Victoria meeting I went up the coast of Vancouver Island to Nanaimo, about 80 or so miles. I had an interview with the editor of the local paper and spoke at a meeting in the evening—not very well as I was feeling very tired. However there were interesting questions, particularly from some young people and discussion. Comrade Stafford, a man 84 years old, proposes to run classes there—he writes regularly to local papers. After the meeting we had a hectic drive back to Victoria, arriving at 2 a.m.

The next meeting I spoke at was in Port Alberni, about 40 miles beyond Nanaimo. This was also a small but good meeting. One or two people came a long way to it. There was also an excellent report of the meeting in the local paper. The following day, Saturday, I left Port Alberni for Vancouver.

Before finishing with Vancouver Island I must express my appreciation of the excellent work being done there by Comrades Luff, Jenkins, Tickner and Poirier. The last three just swept me off my feet with their energy—they travelled to Nanaimo and Port Alberni to post bills and distribute leaflets advertising the meetings, as well as arranging for newspaper interviews and attending the meetings. They also received considerable help from sympathisers.

On September 16th I left Port Alberni for Vancouver. Comrades J. and M. Ahrens, Watkins and Cannon had been busy with Radio, TV, and the newspapers. In spite of strenuous efforts they were unable to get me on TV, but succeeded with Radio. They also sent out 150 letters advertising the meeting there and asking for financial support—they got in over 200 dollars.

I had a ten minute interview on the Radio—Webster's Channel, and appeared on "Town Meeting"—a radio meeting that I understand goes across Canada and down into the northern part of the States. This was probably the best part of the tour. I appeared with three others—budding MP's—and we each had to supply a copy of the script which we read at the meeting. Mine lasted about nine minutes. Then we were given a short time to answer each other. After a short break in the radio whilst questions were collected from the audience, we each answered questions put to us by the audience, and then were given a short time to sum up. The studio was crowded with about 135 people and the subject we were speaking on was "What Future has Socialism in Canada".

The meeting that had been arranged in Vancouver was not large but there were plenty of questions and discussion. At the end of the Vancouver visit, Comrades J. and M. Ahrens took me for a long week-end to a bungalow they had built in the mountains where I was re-vitalised for the rest of the tour. I should add that the members are making strenuous efforts to get an open air meeting place in Stanley Park.

On September 26th I left for Winnipeg. There were two meetings there but the attendance was not good—possibly because the weather was perishing cold,  about 20 degrees. However I was glad to renew acquaintance with old members and sympathisers there, who went out of their way to make my stay as pleasant as possible—and it certainly was, in spite of the cold! Winnipeg has changed over the years. Old members have died or moved west and south-west, leaving the others to carry on under great difficulties. Some of those who left were active speakers.

On October 2nd I left for Toronto and Comrades S. and G. Catt and Comrade Brodie met me at the airport—literally falling on my neck! They are very much isolated there, but are doing a very good job stirring things up. An open discussion group has been formed not connected with any political party in which every week one of the members reads a paper, which is then discussed. I was invited to address the group. After I had opened up, questions were addressed to me for about 1½ hours, and then there was discussion. The business started around 8.30 p.m. and finished at 11.30 p.m. It seems to me to be a well worthwhile effort. There are 21 members of the group and another 16 wish to participate.

On October 5th I left for Montreal late at night. Comrades George and Karla Ellenbogen have recently gone to live there and started stirring things up. I stayed with them, and the morning after my arrival the fun started. In the course of the morning three newspaper interviews were given and two TV. The whole of it lasted over 4 hours. Two leading French newspapers gave excellent reports running to about 1½ columns. There were also three English newspaper reports and one in the McGill University paper. The meeting in Montreal was excellent with plenty of questions and discussion. There should soon be a branch of the Socialist Party of Canada there and also in Toronto. I should also add that I was taken on an excellent trip to the Laurentian mountains about 100 miles north and south along the Richelieu river. The autumnal colours were very good.

On October 10th I left for New York. There again I was glad to renew acquaintance with old members I had met on previous visits—including Comrade Orner, who is endowed with superlative energy. The meeting there was better than on my previous visits. The questions were slow in coming but there was plenty of discussion. I met a number of sympathisers, including a seaman who had met our comrades in London at the Russian Exhibition, and now wanted to join the WSP which shows how seeds sown at a venture can flower in distant places.

The New York members of the WSP meet regularly and open-air meetings are being held in Greenwich Village.

On October 14th I left for Boston. Comrade Morrison had worked like a trojan and got me in two Radio programmes—one over the phone. Both were quite good - one lasted nearly a quarter of an hour and I have brought the tape of it back with me. Unfortunately Boston had received reports that I was in a bad way physically (in fact I was in excellent condition!) so they did not go out their way much to advertise the meeting there. There was a good attendance of members and sympathisers. I gave a talk on the tour. Arising out of something I had said (nothing to do with the tour) there was an excellent discussion relating to war and the H-Bomb, in which there were contrasting views expressed.

There is a great deal I have missed out of this report on account of the limitations of space, and many members and sympathisers who gave me a warm greeting, but whose names I have had to leave out. I would like them all to know how much I appreciate what they did for me.

During the last weeks in America I stayed with the Rabs, and I have to thank them for the warmth of their hospitality and the way they put themselves out to see that I had rest and recreation, including some lovely trips to see the magnificent autumn plumage—I have never seen anything like it before. Members here will also be glad to know that Comrade Gloss is well again and back in harness. He sends his greetings to all he met here on his visit (so also do Comrades Rab and Milne) and hopes to make another visit soon.

Finally I found in the States and Canada plenty of sympathy for our outlook, as shown in the questions and discussions, much more than on my previous two visits, and the future for Socialism is certainly brightening up on the other side of the Atlantic.

Gilmac.