Our Sixpenny Stunt (1939)

Party News from the November 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our “sixpenny stunt” is still in operation. All you have to do is to send a sixpenny postal order to the Literature Secretary, 42, Great Dover Street, together with the address of an interested sympathiser, and we will send him or her the Socialist Standard for three consecutive months. A brief note will accompany the first month’s copy. At the expiration of the three months we shall write again, inviting the new reader to become a subscriber and to read our other published literature.

Some readers have gained the impression that the “sixpenny stunt” had been dropped owing to the fact that it is not announced in every issue of the Socialist Standard. For reasons of space, however, it is not possible to reproduce the same notice every month. Readers will understand, however, that this method of arousing interest in new circles is still in force, and will continue to be carried out until further notice.

Germany, the Danube and Rumania (1939)

From the October 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Rumania is in the picture just now and we have been informed that she would like to be our ally, in spite of the pressure Germany is exerting to induce King Carol to link up with the Axis

On January 16th last, according to the Economist (April 29th), M. Gafencu, Rumanian Minister for Foreign Affairs, was present at a meeting held in Galatz by the National Re-generation Society. In his speech he referred to Rumania’s interest in the Danube, for recently this time-honoured river and artery of Europe had attracted the attention of politicians and economists in all the countries through which it flows, and not least Rumania. M. Gafencu said that the Rumanian Danube must serve as a show-window turned towards the East and the Black Sea, and that this fact placed certain duties upon the shoulders of Rumania.

The importance of the Danube has been increased lately by various plans for canals connected with its upper and lower reaches. On May 11th, 1931, the German Government promulgated a law for the construction of the Rhine-Main-Kelheim (Danube) canal. This canal, which is to be finished in 1945, forms a part of the German economic campaign, and the Rumanian Press talks of Baghdad as the goal towards which it is aimed. It will carry vessels up to 1,200 tons.

On November 19th, 1938, a Convention was signed between Germany and Czecho-Slovakia for the construction of another canal from Kosel, on the Oder, through Moravska Ostrana to the Danube above Bratislava. For several years the Rumanian Government has had in its archives plans for the construction of a canal to unite, by a straight line, the Danubian port of Cernavoda with Constantza.

The voyage of cargo steamers would be reduced by nearly 200 miles by loading at Constanza instead of at Braila or Galatz. Below Braila the average depth of the river is about 24 feet, so that it is navigable for sea-going vessels. Higher up the depth decreases.

The Government is at present studying this proposal.

The most far-reaching proposal which, if it were ever carried out, would radically affect the Balkan countries, is for a waterway running from the Timok river, a Danubian tributary below Belgrade, and by the Nishava to Nish, thence down the River Morava to the River Vardar and finally to the Mediterranean at Salonika. This canal would shorten the goods route from Central Europe to Salonika by 900 miles. It would, of course, kill the lower Danube ports of Braila, Galatz and Sulind. It is interesting to recall that when the Czecho-Slovakian business was agitating the public mind, Mr. Walter Runciman was sent by the Government to make certain representations—he is in the shipping business.

Germany is aiming at connecting the Rhine and the Danube by means of a large waterway; this, she calculates, would enable her to tap all the resources of Central Europe, and if she could also succeed in getting control of the proposed canal to Salonika she would, in addition, be in a position to play a strong hand politically in the Mediterranean.

Dr. Schacht, the German Finance Minister, advocated intensive industrialisation as the best means of solving Germany’s post-war economic problems, and this immediately brought him up against Germany’s shortage of raw materials and the question of currency.

A nation faces a difficulty if it launches into intensive industrialisation without sufficient raw materials in its own territory and without adequate reserves of capital. Raw materials must be imported and paid for—in foreign currency. Barbara Ward, in “The International Share-out,” states in this connection, “This is not a difficult transaction if the industrialised country is able to sell goods abroad in large enough quantities to create a favourable balance of trade, or if it has enough capital to invest overseas and receive interest in the shape of raw materials or currency.” The situation for the German capitalists was doubly difficult. The post-war years were years of growing economic nationalism, when every nation was engaged in a bitter struggle to produce and sell goods rather than to buy them, and Germany found it more and more difficult to place her manufactures. And the war of 1914-1918 and the inflation had wiped out Germany’s capital reserves. She was herself a debtor country in a world which refused to take her goods as service on her debt, and demanded that the transaction be carried out in gold. Behind the high tariff barriers of America and France the gold silted up, and Dr. Schacht felt that Germany’s position was extremely precarious. Therefore, in 1926, he began to advocate a colonial policy, not because he believed colonial raw materials to be a solution of Germany’s industrial problems, but because he argued that the return of the Colonies might ease the strain on Germany’s currency. Germany’s difficulty, so his argument might have run, is to find enough foreign currency to buy the essentials, such as iron and tin and zinc, or any other important metal which at present was being bought from foreign countries with foreign currency. If Colonies were returned to us we could buy these primary products with our own money and set free a corresponding amount of our scanty supplies of foreign currency to buy more of the essential raw materials, which are only to be found in the territories of foreign sovereign States.

Germany’s revival of the Colonial question was not due to the traditional policy of supplies and markets, but to Dr. Schacht’s thesis of underpinning the German mark. Germany’s exchange position was rendered much worse by the international slump. 1929 brought an end to American lending and the retreat of panic-stricken nations behind tariff walls. Germany’s export trade was damaged catastrophically. When Hitler came to power in 1933 he was faced with the problem of some eight million unemployed. He sought a way out in a policy of controlled inflation and internal recovery. The men were brought back to work, but the position in regard to foreign currency grew worse. Germany’s internal boom, coming at a time when the rest of the world was still wallowing in the trough of economic depression, cut German industry off still further from the general flow of world trade. Her export trade, nevertheless, was a vital necessity, for without it she could not secure foreign currency, and without foreign currency she could not purchase essential materials.

During the first two years the problem was simplified by conditions in the world market of primary products. There had been a general fall in prices, and for a considerable period the prices of most raw materials were ludicrously low. Germany could obtain supplies at this low rate, and she did not feel the pinch of her currency shortage too severely. In 1935 the position changed. Slowly the markets of the world recovered. Great Britain, France, and the United States had all embarked on vast armament programmes. Their needs came into direct collision with Germany’s, and as the prices of the primary products rose and the scramble for them increased, Germany’s position grew more and more unfavourable. She found it difficult to compete in the open market, and other Powers were not so ready to conclude “clearing” agreements with her. They preferred free multilateral trade.

Germany might at this juncture have inflated her currency. Such a step would have lowered costs and helped the export trade to compete in foreign markets. Or she might have made a determined effort to secure a foreign loan. She did neither. Memories of the 1923 inflation were too vivid for the first step. As for the second, the Nazis claimed to have come to power in order to redeem Germany from “the slavery of foreign Jewish finance capital.”

Their solution of the problem was the “Four Years’ Plan” and the drive for self-sufficiency. The aim of this total mobilization of the country’s resources was said to be to reduce its dependence upon foreign supplies, and it is significant that the Colonial question became a recurrent refrain in German propaganda about the same time as the Four Year Plan was launched.

“If critics protest,” says Miss Ward, “that the game is not worth the candle, because the Colonies do not produce Germany’s basic needs, the Germans reply that, although the Colonies do not produce iron or copper bauxite, or cotton or wool, they do produce, and could be made to produce, more of certain other materials, which Germany must at present buy with foreign exchange. The recovery of the Colonies would thus set free a certain amount of foreign currency, which could be used to buy the really essential metals elsewhere. If after this critics still protest that the sum saved is too small to be weighed against the risks of the transaction, the Germans can reply that if they find it worth while to legislate about waste tooth-paste containers, colonies are not too insignificant to be of interest to them.”

Germany’s moves in Spain can be understood if we take the above into consideration. She was searching for raw materials she could not afford to buy. Every time a crisis has developed she has taken advantage of the stagnation in trade that resulted to bring off a barter agreement. When the Germans were marching into Czecho-Slovakia, Hitler was making a deal with the Argentine, bartering railway material for wheat. Airplanes obtained as a result of the seizure of Czechoslovakia were offered to France in exchange for badly-needed foreign currency.

Enough has been said to show something of what is involved in the struggle.

Charles Lestor

Announcement from the Central Organiser (1939)

Party News from the October 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the war it is necessary for all Party members to maintain the closest personal contact with their Branches. You can do this by attending Branch meetings or by keeping in contact with your Branch Secretary. Do this and you will help the Party through these trying times. Be liberal with your payments to Party funds. Don’t forget that your dues and any other calls that may be made on you.

Central Organiser 

The Trick (1939)

From the October 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The past six years have been a period of harvesting for Russia and their little Sir Echoes, the Communist Parties. Based upon “immediate needs,” the Communist Party has propounded doctrines which have done nothing but obscure the fundamental issues of Socialism versus Capitalism. How was this made possible? Cunningly and with wilful lying, they have built up a legend—Socialist Russia! Distorting the teachings of Marx, through the pages of their journals they have made it appear to the innocent workers that Russia was another name for Socialism, for peace, for democracy. For six years they have exploited the hatred of Hitlerism and all it stood for. Dropping their “alleged” working-class basis, they have pandered to rich Jews, rich Liberals, Deans and Duchesses in order to create the impression that they stood as the pivot of anti-Nazism, around which all “democrats” should assemble. Each time their slogan has been—look at Russia ! Seeking to boom their lying party they initiated, fostered and conducted campaigns through the medium of “Left Book Clubs” and kindred groups for a “peace” front of the “democratic” nations. When naming these nations they have always included Russia. The avowed aim of this proposed “peace” front has been to prevent further aggression by Nazi Germany. With monotonous regularity they shrieked “Chamberlain must go.” They supplemented this by demanding the inclusion in the Cabinet of Mr. Churchill and Mr. Eden, this being a sure guarantee of peace or at least victory in war. They urged the necessity of a boycott of German goods and the sabotaging of any British-German trade agreements, on the shallow plea that such trade would only strengthen the Nazi powers of aggression. This was amply shown in an article in the Labour Monthly for August of this year, written by John Austen. In a new book published last month, under the title, “Russia—Foe or Friend?” by Pat Sloan (Communist Party’s authority on Soviet Russia’s internal and external policy) we are informed that “never would Russia make any agreement with Nazi Germany.” A few days after publication Russia did make a pact with Nazi Germany. It looks very much like a bit of sharp practice, creating an antagonistic atmosphere against British trade with Germany, and under cover of this, slip in and collar the same trade.

The events in Spain, in Austria and in Czechoslovakia were used by Russia and the Communist Party for all they were worth as a veritable Godsend to a Party devoid of any sound working class teaching. Thousands of pounds were collected, millions of leaflets distributed, all with the object of steering into the Russophile Communist Party the growing sentiment against Hitlerism, the last of these campaigns being the propaganda for an Anglo-Soviet pact. When asked about the utility of such a pact we were informed that the “immediate” need was to unite all "democratic” Powers against, not world capitalism, but Nazi Germany. Having worked up large masses by every form of demagogy to a pitch of anti-Nazi frenzy, hey presto ! our swan is a duck, and Russia embraces, by agreement—Naziland. Gone is the “immediate” need of a German boycott and all the other slogans which served to blind the workers. The Soviet gangsters now shake hands with their Nazi friends, whilst the Chamberlain Government (charged with aiding Hitler) incorporate Churchill and Eden in a War Government, and declare war on the Nazis. Ladies and gentlemen ! This trick.

Lew.

What the Parties Say about the War (1939)

From the October 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Below are extracts from the official statements on the war made by various Parties.

The Labour Party.

(Extract from the Manifesto issued by the National Executive of the Labour Party, published in the Daily Herald, September 2nd, 1939.)

“It will, now that the die is cast, use all its influence and authority to secure a Peace, the basis of which is in accord with the faith it holds.

It will resist any attempt to use the present conflict for ends that sow the seeds of further war. So long as its principles animate those whom Herr Hitler has driven to resistance against his aggression, so long they can count on the support of British Labour. None know better than the Labour Movement the tragic folly of war; but a stage has been reached in the development of Europe where War has been chosen by Herr Hitler as a deliberate instrument of national policy.

It is impossible for Labour to acquiesce in claims supported, or conquests achieved, by this method. To do so would be an indefensible betrayal of its own vital faith.

The British Labour Movement, therefore, call upon all its members to stand solidly behind it in resistance to aggression.

Until those who have been willing to resort to its use have been overthrown it sees no prospect of an enduring Peace. The Movement must summon all its energy and devotion to the task of defeating the aggressor.

British Labour has taken this stand with calmness and without passion.

It will hold itself free to define in its own way the conditions of a just settlement at a later stage.

It will use all its authority to build a Peace of justice which removes the cause out of which War comes. With the defeat of the aggressors, there emerges the prospect of building a better world from which the roots of economic and political grievance have been removed.

The British Labour Movement will give all its strength to making the foundations of that world a secure defence of Peace and Justice.”

* * *

The Communist Party of Great Britain.

(Extract from Manifesto issued by Central Committee, September 2nd, 1939.)

“You are now being called upon to take part in the most cruel war in the history of the world.

One that need never have taken, place. One that could have been avoided even in the very last days of the crisis, had we had a People’s Government in Britain.

Now that the war has come, we have no hesitation in stating the policy of the Communist Party.

We are in support of all necessary measures to secure the victory of democracy over Fascism.

But Fascism will not be defeated by the Chamberlain Government.

The first and most vital step to victory is a new Government in which the key positions are in the hands of a trusted representatives of the people who have neither imperialist aims, nor latent sympathies with Fascism.

This is absolutely vital for any success in a war against Fascism abroad and the friends of Fascism in Britain.”

Then, one month later, the Communist Party thought it had supported the war long enough and announced :—

“We are against the continuance of the war. We demand that negotiations be immediately opened for the establishment of peace in Europe.”— (Daily Worker, 4th October).

* * *

The Social Democratic Party of Germany.

(Extract from Manifesto issued by the exiled Executive of the Social Democratic Party of Germany.)

“To the German people,

With Hitler’s criminal attack war has begun. In this historic moment the executive of the German Social Democratic party appeals to the German people and to the whole world. It is the last body which was elected by the Social Democratic mass organisations in Germany itself. It speaks for the party, and beyond the party, for that section of the German people which hates war and dictatorship and whose aim is to live in peace and freedom.

The whole weight of guilt for this monstrous crime against peace and humanity rests on Hitler and his system. The destruction of freedom and the disturbance of world peace was from the outset the sum and substance of National Socialist policy. The fall of Hitler is therefore the aim for which we shall fight, together with all the democratic forces in Europe.

Hitler and the new German militarism are one. The defeat and final overthrow of this militarism are the prerequisites for the peace and reorganisation of Europe. As a force allied with all the opponents of Hitler who are fighting for freedom and civilisation in Europe, our efforts in the war will be directed to this end. We are waging this war for the German people’ and for the great goal of safeguarding liberty, peace, and democracy in Europe.

We appeal to the German people. Fight for your freedom. Get rid of Hitler. The overthrow of the system will shorten the war, preserve millions of lives, and save the nation. Hitler’s policy is not the fulfilment of national needs. It is a relapse into the superstition that the future and well-being of people depend on the conquest of territory.”—(Published in Manchester Guardian, September 5th, 1939.)

* * *

The I.L.P.

In the introduction to a ”Socialist Programme During the War,” the I.L.P. made the following declaration (New Leader, September 8th.)

“The I.L.P. will remain true to the principles of International Socialism in this war as it did in the war of 1914-18.

At this dark moment it holds out hands of solidarity across the frontiers to the workers of other countries, and over the roar of guns, greets those heroic Socialists who in German territory maintain their opposition to the Fascist regime and to war.

During the war the I.L.P. will do all that it can to retain the spirit, organisation and action of International Socialism. …”

(The programme itself consists of such demands as recruitment of Trade-Unionists, the maintenance of contact with working-class organisations abroad, increased old age pensions, a national living wage with family allowances, etc., etc.)

* * *

The British Union (Mosley-Fascists).

(Extract from a statement published in Action, September 16th, 1939.)

“The policy of British Union was, is, and will be, Britain first.

We mean by Britain first: (1) If any nation attacks, or threatens, the life of Britain or her Empire, we fight for Britain; (2) with us the life and interest of the British people come first, and, therefore, the lives of British people are more important than any foreign quarrel. That is why we have said, and now say, “Mind Britain’s Business.”

Our Peace policy is the same as ever, and by this policy Peace can still be won.

(1) We have no interest in the East of Europe, which is no concern of British Empire ; therefore, we should cease to intervene in any Eastern European quarrel.

(2) We are determined at all times to defend and to maintain British Empire, but we have no interest in “Mandated Territories,” which do not belong to British Empire.

(3) Britain can and must be strong enough to defend herself from any attack by any nation in the world, but should never intervene in foreign quarrels which do not concern Britain or the Empire.

(4) We desire a permanent peace and understanding among the great nations of the West of Europe.

The practical test of our Peace Policy is this: Can the British people make a peace that secures the integrity .of British Empire and the peace of Western Europe? Which of our opponents can deny that this can be done?

Their only argument is that they do not trust the word of a Foreign Government. Then why not trust the strong arm of Britain instead? In the strength of British Union we should have nothing to fear from any attack even if we stood alone. So we should have no need to wage war in case we were attacked at some future date.

Therefore before, and after, the outbreak of war the Peace Policy of British Union remains exactly the same.

* * *

The German Communists

According to the Daily Worker (September 8th, 1939) the German Communist Party have issued a call to the German people to overthrow the Hitler regime. The Worker says : “It supports the Soviet Union arid the peace policy of Stalin, which resulted in a split of the Powers supporting aggression.”

Among the points in the declaration are the following: —

“In this hour, when Hitler attacks the Polish people, we call all German workers, and the whole German people, to fight for the saving of the peace of the world in this last hour . . .

“In case of war we must fight the Nazi regime and for the downfall of Hitler.”

* * *

Manifesto of a group of Labour M.P.s, Candidates and others.

LABOUR DURING THE WAR.

Twenty years after the “war to end war,” Capitalism has again plunged the peoples of the world into mutual slaughter.

Once again the ideals of liberty and democracy are invoked by Governments which deny liberty in their own colonies and social justice at home.

We share with countless working men and women in Germany the desire to end the barbarities of Nazism and the Hitler Government.

But it is tragic that the Labour Movement of Britain has forgotten all it owes to the teachings of Keir Hardie and the other pioneers, and repeats its blunder of 1914, lining up with Capitalism in the waging of a war to defend Imperial interests.

Large numbers of Labour Party, Trade Union and Co-operative members are deeply distressed by a war which will inflict endless suffering on the peoples whilst making enormous fortunes for profiteers.

The workers must preserve and strengthen their organisations on an independent basis. Let them hold fast to their right to organise, to meet together, to speak freely, so that they may keep their power to influence events and to work for Socialism and Peace.

Alfred Salter (Labour M.P. for West Bermondsey). Cecil H. Wilson (Labour M.P. for Attercliffe). Fred Longden (Labour Candidate for Deritend). Jack Gibson (Labour Candidate for Lanark). Gordon Stott (Labour Candidate for W. Edinburgh). Reg. Groves (Labour Candidate for Aylesbury). W. T. Colyer (Labour Candidate for Chislehurst). Donald Fraser (Labour Candidate for North Norfolk). W. H. Morris (Labour Candidate for Hampstead). Wilfred Wellock (Labour Candidate for Stourbridge). David Freeman (Labour Candidate for N.W. Hull). Jim Simmons (Labour Candidate for W. Wolvehampton). Rose Simpson (General Secretary, Women’s Co-operative Guild). Mrs. M. Pavitt (Treasurer of the Women’s Co-operative Guild). M. G. Grindley (Women’s Co-operative Guild). Charles A. Smith (Chairman of the I.L.P.). Fenner Brockway (Political Secretary of the I.L.P.). John McNair (General Secretary of the I.L.P.). John Aplin (Chairman of London I.L.P.). Will Ballantine (Member of N.U.R. Executive). Alexander Kelley (General Secretary of the Scottish Bankers’ Association). John Goldie (Scottish Bankers’ Association). P. Cowan (Scottish Bankers’ Association). Stewart Purkis (Ex-Member R.C.A. Executive). B. Porter (Baillie, Glasgow Corporation). J. A. W. Douglas (Labour Councillor, Bermondsey). James Ross (Chairman, W. Edinburgh Labour Party). James H. Hudson (Ex-Labour M.P., Huddersfield). G. F. Dutch (Vice-President, London Co-operative Society). J. Allen Skinner (Chairman, Pacifist Research Bureau).

Ethel Mannin.

Lennox Kerr.

Thomas Burns.

Norrie Fraser.

Farringdon (Lord).

Huntingdon (Lord).

Notes by the Way: Bad News in New York—Afraid That Peace Might Break Out (1939)

The Notes by the Way Column from the October 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Bad News in New York—Afraid That Peace Might Break Out

The City page of the News Chronicle (September 19th, 1939) published a report from New York telling how shares slumped when it was feared that the war (and the war boom) might cease : —

WALL STREET’S WORST BREAK. 

  The worst setback since the “war boom” started was experienced by Wall Street to-day. Part of the profit-taking sales was attributed to the belief that peace proposals would be made by Germany.

   There was some recovery at the close, but the tone was weak and losses extended to 7 dollars in U.S. Steel, Bethlehem Steel, Douglas Aircraft and other “war babies.”

* * *

The Communist Party Explains It All Away

Though obviously embarrassed by the recent actions of the Russian Government, the British Communist Party continues to try to explain it all away. The general attitude adopted by that Party and by the Daily Worker is that the Russian Government will, in the long run, prove to have justified itself. In a letter to The Times, on September 12th, the Secretary of the “Russia To-day Society” argues that Russia has destroyed the Berlin—Tokyo—Rome Axis. He then adds:—

“It is not improbable that the British people will have much more for which to thank the Soviet Union before the present conflict is brought to a victorious conclusion.”

When the Russians invaded Poland the Daily Worker was in the unlucky position of having just published an assurance that it would not happen. The invasion began on Sunday, September 17th. The Daily Worker on the previous day had ridiculed the suspicious people who had forecast this. Mr. Walter Holmes, a regular contributor to the Daily Worker, had the following: —

“But, it seems, they learn nothing. Now, again, they are rushing forward with “explanations” of how Russia is going to share with Germany in a carve-up of Poland. I am content to leave the answer to the only people who can give it, viz., the Soviets, but I have no doubt about who is going to have the last laugh.”

Two days later the Daily Worker was explaining why the Russian carve-up of Poland was justified, as a “counter-blow against Nazis.”

On the earlier mystery about Russia’s simultaneous negotiations with England and France on the one hand and Germany on the other, the Manchester Guardian (August 29th) put a pertinent question, which the Communists will have difficult in answering: 

“If Russia did sign the German pact because she was dissatisfied with the progress of negotiations with Britain and France, it is curious that she never informed the military missions of this, but encouraged them to think that their efforts would shortly be crowned with success.”

All the same, it seems certain that now Germany and Russia are neighbours, both intent on dominating Eastern Europe and the Balkans, they will find each other very dangerous friends, liable to turn into enemies at any moment.

* * *

The Bishops War by War

The Bishop of London, 1915 : “We are in the midst of the greatest fight ever made in this world for honour and freedom, and—I will go further, and say—for the vital principles of the Christian religion.”—(Times Recruiting Supplement, November 3rd, 1915.)

The Bishop of Durham, 1939: “It is a crusade for the rescue of the ultimate factors of Christian civilisation, and we need the faith and fervour of Crusaders if we are to achieve victory.” —(Times, September 15th, 1939.)

* * *

The Revised View of Russia

As soon as the possibility of an Anglo-Russian pact disappeared the Press suddenly rediscovered that Russia is a dictatorship, and that Bolshevism is very like Nazism. The Times (August 31st) gave prominence to a long letter showing point by point the similarity between the two ideologies. The Daily Express (August 26th) found that Russia’s retirement had its advantage: “If war comes the issue will be clearer. The democracies will be ranged against totalitarian States. . . .”

The Manchester Guardian (August 25th) found, likewise, that “the true division was never between Fascism and Communism, but between freedom and tyranny.”

Edgar Hardcastle

What They Said and Say (1939)

From the October 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

When It Will End—A Prophecy

Every week during the war we intend giving a leather medal for the greatest thoughts expressed in war-time.

This week it is awarded to Dr. Hugh Dalton, M.P., for the following: —

” ‘The war would end when, above the war zones of Europe, with her Allies, Britannia ruled the clouds.’

“Speech at Bishop Auckland last Saturday.”

From Forward, September 16th, 1939.

* * *

What “We Are Fighting For—Herbert Morrison

“Herr Hitler left us and France no choice. The precious freedom we British have—incomplete though it is—is a freedom of high value. We must not lose it 

“All of us must help our country. But we must also think of humanity. When war is over our great task must be the building of a peaceful world based on human brotherhood.”

(Forward, September 16th, 1939.)

* * *

Another “War to End War”

“What made a blasphemy of the sacrifices of 1914-1918 was the betrayal of the principles of justice and freedom by those who inherited the world which the dead in those years had won for the living. To-day we must swear that never shall we make that betrayal again.

“If the war is to be won, in the sense that when it is over the fear of future wars will have been banished and a sane world order established, then from the first, and onwards to the bitter end, this nation must keep unswervingly before it the goal of a just and honest peace, founded on freedom and fair dealing for all peoples.”

(News Chronicle, September 3rd, 1939.)

* * *

Mr. Pat Sloan on the Impossibility of a German-Russian Pact

“We are assured that a rapprochement between the Soviet system and Fascism is an impossibility, a ‘mirage’.”

From a review of Pat Sloan’s book, “Russia— Friend or Foe?” which appeared in the Manchester Guardian the day the Russian-German Pact was announced.”—(Forward, September 9th, 1939.)

* * *

The Real Victors—By Daladier

“If French and German blood shall flow again as it did 25 years ago, in a war still longer and more murderous, then both nations would fight confident of victory. The real victor, however, would only be destruction and barbarity.”—M. Daladier, reported in the Daily Telegraph, August 29th, 1939.

* * *

Who Walks Into Whose Trap ?

“If we went in without the help of Russia we would be walking into a trap. It was the only country whose armies could get there and that had an air fleet to match the Germans.”—Mr. Lloyd George, in the House of Commons on April 3rd, 1939.

* * *

The “Daily Worker” Re-Discovers Polish Fascism

“The British people are … for an independent and democratic Poland, freed from all varieties of German and Polish Fascism, but they will not risk their lives to restore Poland’s right to rule over non-Polish minorities.”

The re-discovery was made after the Russian army entered Poland.

Harry Waite

Editorial: The Socialist Party of Great Britain and the War (1939)

Editorial the October 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

In this, our first issue of the Socialist Standard since the declaration of war, we have the opportunity of reaffirming the socialist attitude that we have consistently maintained since the formation of the party, including the war of 1914-18. With the increasing international tension of recent years we have again and again pressed home the undeniable truth that as long as the world is organized on a capitalist economic basis the never-ceasing rivalries will continue to produce conflicts ranging from mere diplomatic crises to gigantic armed struggles spreading over the oceans and continents of the world. The Socialist Party of Great Britain re-affirms that the interest of the world working class – on whom the untold misery and suffering of war inevitably falls – lies in abolishing the capitalist economic system.

The present conflict is represented in certain quarters as one between ‘freedom’ and ‘tyranny’ and for the rights of small nations.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is fully aware of the sufferings of German workers under Nazi rule, and wholeheartedly supports the efforts of workers everywhere to secure democratic rights against the powers of suppression, but the history of the past decades shows the futility of war as a means of safeguarding democracy. After the last Great War – described as the war to end war, and as a war to make the world safe for democracy – the retention of capitalism resulted in the building up of new tyrannies and terrorisms through the inability of the capitalist states to solve the problems created by the system of private ownership of the means of production and distribution and the competitive scramble for raw materials, markets and control of trade routes. So little did the last war achieve its alleged purpose that the man who was prominently associated with the Allied victory and the claim that that war would be the last – Mr. Lloyd George – now has to confess that even this war may not be the last war. Writing in the Sunday Express, (September 10th), Mr. Lloyd George says:

“It is only just over 20 years ago that France and Britain signed the armistice with Germany which brought to an end the bloodiest war in history. They are now fighting essentially the same struggle again. Germany is again the aggressor. Once more it is a fight for international right – the recognition of the equal right of nations, weak as well as strong, to lead their own independent lives so long as they do not interfere with the rights of their neighbours. This conflict has gone on periodically since the dawn of history. It will go on for many centuries to come unless and until mankind accepts that principle as one of the irrefragable commandments of humanity.”

The Socialist Party of Great Britain calls on the workers of the world to refuse to accept this prospect, and calls upon them to recognise that only Socialism will end war.

Among those who support the present war is the British Labour party, who long ago declared that the peace treaties of the last war contained the germs of a future war. At one time the Labour party, in its ‘Labour Speakers’ Handbook’ 1922, declared that the “unjust territorial arrangements” of the Peace Treaties must be rectified, including the return of Danzig and other Polish territory to Germany and the return of other Polish territory to Russia in accordance with the principle of “self-determination”.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain holds that neither the doctrine of “self-determination”, which the Labour party then claimed had been violated by the Peace Treaties, nor the German claim for a new carving-up of Europe, nor any other policy for settling minority problems and international rivalries within the framework of capitalism, is capable of bringing peace and democracy to the peoples of the world. Another war would be followed by new treaties forced on the vanquished by the victors, and by preparations for further wars, new dictatorships and terrorism.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain therefore pledges itself to continue its work for Socialism, and reiterates the call it issued on the outbreak of war in 1914:

“Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our goodwill and socialist fraternity, and pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism and the triumph of Socialism.”

The Executive Committee, S.P.G.B.

Forgings from the Furnance (continued) (1939)

From the October 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Below are some further quotations, selected from the writings of Marx and reproduced in Otto Rühle’s work, “Karl Marx.” A first selection was published in the September Socialist Standard.

“The social principles of Christianity have now had eighteen hundred years for their development, and do not need any further development at the hands of Prussian consistorial councillors. The social principles of Christianity find justification for the slavery of classical days, extol mediaeval serfdom, and are ready, in case of need, to defend the oppression of the proletariat—somewhat shamefacedly perhaps. The social principles of Christianity declare that all infamies will be spiritually compensated in heaven, the assertion being made a justification for the continuance of these infamies on earth. According to the social principles of Christianity, all the misdeeds wrought by the oppressors on the oppressed are either a just punishment for original sin and other sins, or else are trials which the Lord, in His wisdom, sends to afflict the redeemed. The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, subjection, humility, in a word, all the qualities of the mob; whereas, for the proletariat which does not wish to allow itself to be treated as a mob, courage, self-esteem, pride, and independence are far more necessary than bread. The social principles of Christianity are obsequious, but the proletariat is revolutionary.”

” . . . . Upon what title do you Jews ground your claim for emancipation ? On your religion ? It is the mortal foe of the State religion. As citizens ? In Germany there are no citizens. As human beings ? You are not human beings any more than those to whom you are appealing. The conflict in which a man is involved between his position as one who professes a particular religion and as one endowed with citizenship in a State (wherein he is related to his fellow men,inasmuch as he and they are all members of a community) reduces itself to the secular cleavage between the political State and civil society. Not until the concrete individual human being takes back into himself the abstract citizen of the State and, as an individual human being, has become a member of the species in his empirical life, in his individual relations; not until the human being has recognised and organised his own forces as social forces, so that social force is no longer severed from itself in the form of political force—not until then will human emancipation be completed.”

“After the failure of the revolution of 1848 all party organisations and party journals of the working classes were, on the Continent, crushed by the iron hand of force; the most advanced sons of labour fled in despair to the Transatlantic Republic: and the short-lived dreams of emancipation vanished before an epoch of industrial fever, moral marasm, and political reaction. The defeat of the Continental working classes, partly owed to the diplomacy of the English Government, acting then as now in fraternal solidarity with the Cabinet of St. Petersburg, soon spread its contagious effects to this side of the Channel. .While the rout of their Continental brethren unmanned the English working classes, and broke their faith in their own cause, it restored to the landlord and the money-lord their somewhat shaken confidence. They insolently withdrew concessions already advertised. The discoveries of new gold lands led to an immense exodus, leaving an irreparable void in the ranks of the British proletariat. Others of its formerly active members were caught by the temporary bribe of greater work and wages, and turned into ‘political blacks.’ All the efforts made at keeping up or remodelling the Chartist movement failed signally, the Press organs of the working class died one by one of the apathy of the masses and, in point of fact, never before seemed the English working class so thoroughly reconciled to a state of political nullity.” (These things) …”have taught the working class the duty to master themselves the mysteries of international politics: to watch the diplomatic acts of their respective Governments; to counteract them, if necessary, by all means in their power; when unable to prevent, to combine in simultaneous denunciations, and to vindicate the simple laws of morals and justice which ought to govern the relations of private individuals, as the rules paramount of the intercourse of nations. The fight for such a foreign policy forms part of the general struggle for the emancipation of the working classes.”

“Historical evolution is on your side,” he shouted to the proletariat. “Capitalism brought into being by the laws of historical evolution will be destroyed by the inexorable working of these same laws. The bourgeoisie, the business manager of the capitalist system, appeared on the stage of history with that system, and will make its exit when that system walks off the stage. You proletarians keep capitalism going by your labour, and maintain the whole of bourgeoisie society by the fruits of your industry. But Socialism will be a necessary organic outcome of capitalism, the essence of the latter being implied in the essence of the former. With the end of capitalism comes the beginning of Socialism as a logical consequence. You proletarians, as a class, being the incorporators of the forces and tendencies which will do away with capitalism, must necessarily make an end of, the bourgeoisie. You merely need as a class, to fulfil the evolution which your mission calls on you to fulfil. All you need is to will! History makes this as easy as possible for you. You need not hatch out any new ideas, make any plans, discover a future state. You need not dogmatically anticipate the world.’ You need merely put your hands to the task that is awaiting you. The means by which you will do it are to be found in the unceasing, purposive, consistent fighting of the class struggle, whose crown will be the victory of the social revolution.”

The be-all and end-all of all propaganda, therefore, is to generate in the minds of the class to which we belong “The will to be free.”

Blogger's Notes:

Otto Rühle's biography of Marx received a rather caustic review in the pages of the Socialist Standard over two issues in 1929:

October 1929 - 'Another Life of Marx: Queues at Truth '

December 1929 - 'Another Life of Marx - Part 2'

The Weight of the Chain (1939)

From the October 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

In “Wage Labour and Capital” Marx states that the forest of arms begging for employment becomes ever denser and the arms themselves ever leaner.” He points out that this is the inevitable result of the growth of the means of production, under capitalist conditions, but he says also that this development is at the same time in the interests of the working class—the sooner capitalism reaches the limits of its expansion the better.

In June, 1936, The Economic Journal contained an article by A. E. Feavearyear on “Capital Accumulation and Unemployment,” in which he endeavoured “to make an estimate of the rate of capital accumulation in this country in recent years and, secondly, to give some indication of the quantity of investment likely to be required to set the present unemployed to work and provide for future recruits.”

The result of Mr. Feavearyear’s investigations are of great importance and, whatever one may think about his conclusions, it must be admitted that he has been painstaking and thorough in his work; he gathered an enormous amount of data and carefully sifted it before attempting to point out its significance.

It is obviously impossible, within the scope of an article, to deal exhaustively with the writer’s views : we will let him speak for himself.

 “The whole subject is obviously bristling with theoretical difficulties. For instance, how are we to value the capital? Is it to be the written down value of the fixed assets together with working capital, or the market value of the business as a going concern—that is to say, in the case of a company, the total market value of the share and loan capital ? The chief objection to the latter is that where a business has been keeping its workpeople fully employed for some years, but making little profit and paying low dividends, the valuation will be too low, and where a business has temporarily had the advantage of windfall profits the valuation is likely to be much too high—that is to say, much greater than the cost of erecting such a business. … As the most practical method it was decided to take, for mining, manufacturing, and trading concerns, the sum of the paid-up share and loan capital at par, the reserves, and any long-term bank loans, less any substantial outside investments. The method involves the assumption that sundry debtors and cash are together equal to sundry creditors, and it values as capital goodwill and any other intangible assets which may remain in the balance sheet.”

The following table can be followed with comparative ease. The inquiry has been restricted by the fact that for only a limited number of firms is there any published information of the staff they employ, and in some of these cases, where there are subsidiary undertakings, it is not possible accurately to relate the capital to the labour.

In addition to the figures given above we have other information.

In his estimate of the national capital in 1928 Sir Josiah Stamp placed the total of farmers’ capital at £450 millions, excluding the value of land and buildings. If the total of the operative staff at that period is taken at the round figure of one million, the average per head is £450.

Public utility undertakings of all kinds have a very high average of capital per head, due chiefly to the heavy absorption of capital in mains, whether they be water, gas, or electric mains, or telephone trunk line. A London gas company, for instance, has a capital of £4 millions and a total staff of 2,500, with an average of £1,600 per head; and a London electric, supply company a capital of £9 millions, a staff of 2,700 and an average of .£3,300 per head.

If all the assets of Railway Companies are taken together, including steamboats, canals, hotels, the total capital is £1,020 millions and the total staff about 630,000, the average per head being £1,620.

In the case of Shipping Companies there is the shore staff as well as the crews. A line of twelve cargo vessels of about 5,000 tons each stood on the owners’ books at £903,000 and employed crews numbering 600 altogether, an average of £1,500 of capital each.

In 1931 the book value of the P. and O. fleet of forty-six vessels was about £15 millions and they employed crews totalling 11,000, the average capital being £1,360 per head.

The Empress of Britain was reputed to have cost £3 millions and her crew numbers about 720, while the Queen Mary, which has cost £5 millions, apparently requires a crew of only 1,270. The average is about £4,000 in each case and it is clear that building luxury liners is a very costly way of giving permanent employment to the new recruits to industry.

“If we deduct from Sir Josiah Stamp’s figure of £18,045 millions for the total wealth of the United Kingdom in 1928 the value of the land and items such as furniture and movables, which are not a part of the industrial equipment, we have a sum of £14,000 millions as the value of the capital being used to house and employ the working population, which, for an occupied population of 21 millions, represents an average of £666 per head. Since by far the greater part of this is old equipment and old houses, it seems unlikely that the average amount of new investment required to house and employ the additional personnel for which the nation still has to provide each year can be much less than £1,000 per head.”

This is certainly interesting, especially when we perceive the gigantic developments now taking place in the armament race.

Where will our masters obtain the necessary capital with which to employ those at present unemployed in the production of munitions, etc.? The workers are compelled to forge the very chains that enslave them. Let’s see what Marx says:—

“The law by which a constantly increasing quantity of means of production, thanks to the advance in the productiveness of social labour, may be set in movement by a progressively diminishing expenditure of human power, this law, in a capitalist society—where the labourer does not employ the means of production, but the means of production employ the labourer—undergoes a complete inversion and is expressed thus : the higher the productiveness of labour, the greater is the pressure of the labourers on the means of employment, the more precarious, therefore, becomes their condition of existence, viz., the sale of their own labour power, for the increasing of another’s wealth, or for the self-expansion of capital. The fact that the means of production and the productiveness of labour increase more rapidly than the productive population expresses itself, therefore, capitalistically, in the inverse form that the labouring population always increases more rapidly than the conditions under which capital can employ this increase for its own self-expansion.

“Within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour-process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working time and drag his wife and children beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut of Capital. But all methods for the production of surplus-value are at the same time methods of accumulation; and every extension of accumulation becomes again a means for the development of those methods. It follows, therefore, that in proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse. The law finally, that always equilibrates the relative surplus population, or industrial reserve army, to the extent and energy of accumulation, this law rivets the labourer to capital more firmly than the wedges of Vulcan did Prometheus to the rock. It establishes an accumulation of misery, corresponding with accumulation of capital. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time, accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital.”

Marx was evidently full of moral indignation when he penned this analysis; he often wrote at a white heat, for it was his passionate sympathy with the victims of the industrial revolution that made him see the importance and significance of facts which were hidden from the academically minded economist.

Karl Kautsky says: 

“Political and social struggle is impossible without moral indignation against the opponent. The moral indignation against given political and social conditions, against the material oppression of the social powers, is therefore the first and the last, the basic form of the manifestation of the class differences, the most primitive and lasting mainspring of the class struggle.”

And then he states, referring to Menger’s ethical theory and the statement of some reviewers, that it was identical with the theory of ethics of the Materialistic Conception of History:

“To say that the conception of historical materialism is generated by the material conditions of society, is the same as Menger’s conception, that it is generated by material force is just as false and misleading as is the oft-repeated confusion of material conditions with the material interests of the individual, which reduces Marxism to that low level of ethics according to which all morality is reduced to egoism. People who so represent and propagate the Materialist Conception of History may consider themselves good Marxists, but they really belong to those who reflect little credit on the Marxian teachings, who made Marx shudder and with whom he begged not to be confounded.”

“….. While the growing contradiction between the changing social conditions and the stagnating morality expresses itself in the Conservative, that is, in the ruling classes, in growing immorality, hypocrisy and cynicism, which often go hand in hand with a weakening of the social instinct, the effect upon the rising and exploited classes is entirely different. The interests of those classes stand in direct opposition to the social foundations which created the reigning morality. They have not the slightest reason to defer to it, and all the reasons to oppose it. With the growth of their consciousness of their opposition to the existing social order, grows their moral indignation, their opposition to the old, antiquated morality, to which they oppose a new morality, which they advocate as the morality of society as a whole. Thus there arises in the rising classes a moral ideal, which grows in intensity with the growth of the power of these classes. At the same time, as we have already seen, the social instincts of these same classes gain in strength and are particularly developed by the class struggle, so that with the intensity of the new moral ideal grows also the enthusiasm for the same.”

Capital is the means of exploitation. It is the chain on labour’s limbs and grows heavier.

Slavery is involved in the wages system. As a result of realising the cause of their enslavement the working class will obtain a knowledge of what is essential to their emancipation.

When they understand what capital is and the place they occupy in society as a result of being bound to it the working class will generate within themselves the will to be free.

Charles Lestor

Correspondence: The Partition of Ireland (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (L. C., Paddington, W.9.) asks us what is our attitude “regarding the partition of Ireland.”

The question of the demand by the Government of Eire for the incorporation of Northern Ireland in a united, independent Ireland is one which really requires full and detailed treatment in order to make plain the correctness of the Socialist attitude of refusing to support either side. While the problem of Irish nationalism is, broadly, the same as the other problems of nationalism, it can only be properly understood by taking into account the extent to which many of the present generation are influenced by the events of past centuries, and by dealing with the arguments put forward by the various groups in defence of their actions and attitude. The Socialist view is that the problems and conflicts, arising from capitalism do now prevent, and will continue to prevent, the large and small racial and language groups of peoples in the world from living together harmoniously. Neither the creation of small would-be independent nations nor the forcible incorporation of unwilling groups in larger States, will work satisfactorily as long as international commercial rivalries keep stoking the fires of national hatreds.

One argument used in the past by advocates of Irish nationalism has been that until the national question is settled the workers will never be able to recognise their world-wide community of interest in the abolition of capitalism. As against this the Socialist points out that nationality problems never will be settled under capitalism. The efforts to do so under the Versailles Treaty illustrate this.

Moreover, national movements tend invariably towards methods of force to attain their ends, as witness the traditions of the Irish factions. This in itself is a factor which militates against the spread of Socialist knowledge.

Editorial Committee.

Correspondence: Capitalist Opposition to Socialism (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the February issue of the Socialist Standard we answered a question asked by a correspondent (D.G.D., of Clapham) regarding the measures Socialists would take after they had gained political power. D.G.D. put forth the view that Socialism would be born out of conditions of chaos, his actual phrase being “the crash.” In our reply we stated: “This is a mistaken view. Chaos could arise, and does arise, when a minority seizes power and tries to introduce more or less fundamental changes against the wishes of the majority of the population, or when the majority are apathetic and lack understanding of what is being done. But the inauguration of Socialism implies . . . the support and understanding of the majority of the population.”

A new reader, L. H. Tickner (N.13), writes to give his comments on our reply. He suggests that there may be a crash when the working class has gained political power, owing to the violent opposition of the capitalist class.

He says: “It appears to me that … a certain amount of force in the initial stages of the transition (from capitalism to Socialism) will be essential to suppress the property interests, arms-mongers and financial magnates, unless I over-rate their power to-day.”

The question he asks is the following: “Do you really think that capitalists will be eliminated in a simple manner, without a big fight on their part not to give up their power to the workers ? … It will have to be a fight—even (in the extreme) to the death, will it not?”

Reply.

We would point out to our correspondent that the capitalist class (including the sections of it he mentions) possesses power to-day because it has control of the machinery of government, including the armed forces. Not always has the capitalist class been so powerful. H was not able to become the most powerful class in the State until it had wrested from the feudal aristocracy a share in the control of the machinery of government.

To-day, the capitalist class still controls the machinery of government. But this is due only to the fact that the working class is immature. The workers still believe their problems can be solved within the framework of capitalism. Consequently, at each election, they send to Parliament and to the local councils members of the capitalist class, or other people prepared to uphold the capitalist system of society. Thus do the “arms mongers and financial magnates” get their power.

When the workers realise that they constitute a slave class and that their slavery and all its accompanying evils will remain as long as capitalism itself, then they will become Socialists. They will cease to give their votes to the supporters of capitalism. Instead, they will elect Socialist delegates to Parliament and to the local councils. Since the working class forms the majority of the population, nothing but its lack of political knowledge prevents it gaining control of the machinery of government for the purpose of carrying out its own wishes.

The power of the capitalist class will have vanished.

Whether the capitalist class will be foolish enough to attempt to fight to maintain their then hopeless position is a question we cannot answer categorically. We do know, however, that were the attempt to be made, it would be impossible for them to put up serious resistance. They would, of course, be rebels in revolt against society, and by rebelling they would make their already hopeless position still more hopeless : their unconstitutional action would cause many waverers to support the Socialists—the side of law and order. The puny efforts of the rebels would be met by the highly developed and organised might of the armed forces.

Our correspondent’s question, then, boils down to this : “Would a small number of capitalists try to retain power by fighting, when they would be met by the bulk of the population in control of the armed forces?”

It is obvious that such a question need detain us no longer. Certainly no “crash” of society could result from such an incident.

Clifford Allen

Letter: Socialism and the Well-paid Managers of Industry (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. R. Jessop (Spalding) asks : — 

”How will the well-paid managers and supervisors (the working variety) be persuaded to do their job during the period of transition from Capitalism to Socialism?” He adds : —

“Whereas it is quite true that the workers at the present time organise production and distribution, it is, generally speaking, a fact that those in responsible directing, overseering and organising positions are sufficiently well paid as to make their co-operation at .the outset of Socialism, on a basis of equality with their present ‘inferiors’ somewhat problematical. Yet we must have their help to keep the wheels of industry going, until we can train class-conscious Socialists to succeed them.”

Reply.

Our correspondent finds himself troubled by this question because he attaches too much importance to the size of wages received by managers and supervisors, and because he overlooks other factors.

Although some managers and supervisors do receive wages which are high compared with those of other workers, this is not sufficient to raise them up on to a plane, so that they become immune from the evils of capitalism and from Socialist propaganda. With the development of capitalism, the security of even well-paid managers is made more and more uncertain.

Capitalism is constantly revolutionising its methods of production. The competition for markets, the struggle for profits is always forcing capitalist firms to improve on their methods of producing commodities, and forcing them to cut down the cost of production to the lowest possible level. Consequently, old branches of industry are scrapped as soon as they fail to produce the required profits, and the manager as well as the ordinary working men have to look for fresh jobs.

Then, again, in order to cut down expenses, capitalist firms often amalgamate departments, so that fewer departments do the work that was previously done by more. These changes, too, mean that managers are displaced, so that their true position in society—wage slaves, dependent on the capitalist class for their livelihood—is made clear.

The insecurity of this section of the working class is increased owing to the fact that nowadays capitalism produces more technical specialists than it can use. It is not uncommon to find firms having numbers of workers as well-trained, as well-fitted for the job of manager, as the manager himself. Works do not close down when the manager falls ill or dies; the rest of the staff simply carry on as usual with very little difficulty. When a manager’s post is vacant and advertised, there are many applicants. Because many highly-trained workers cannot obtain the jobs they have been trained for, they will, in time, realise that capitalism is their enemy, and will turn to Socialism. They spend the years of their youth in studying, they (or their parents) pay University fees they can ill afford to pay—for what ? Frequently they leave the University to find they cannot obtain a job: very soon capitalism shatters the dreams of their youth. In this way does capitalism produce its own grave-diggers, for one day such young men will swell the Socialist ranks.

Lastly, the “high wages” of managers and supervisors are not as hard and fast as our correspondent thinks.

The insecurity of the better paid workers persists—and WILL PERSIST AS LONG AS CAPITALISM LASTS. This will eventually be understood by those workers, and this will force them to become Socialists. Should any managers, etc., show themselves to be hostile to Socialism when the working class gains political power, they will be replaceable by other specialists equally well trained.

Other aspects of this question were treated in the Socialist Standard March, 1935; Sept., 1933; June, 1923.

Clifford Allen

More Blessings of British Imperialism (1939)

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the February issue of the Socialist Standard we gave evidence of the plight of the coloured workers in the West Indies. In the April issue we drew attention to the way natives were being suppressed in the British colonies of Cyprus and Kenya.

News of brutal suppression comes now from Sierra Leone. Mr. George Padmore, General Secretary of the International African Service Bureau, tells of the state of affairs in Sierra Leone in a letter to the Manchester Guardian Weekly (June 16th, 1939).

A few extracts from his letter seem to indicate that the freedom so often boasted of in connection with the British Empire is unknown in Sierra Leone. Here are a few points from his letter : —

“During the past months a number of strikes have occurred in the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone, British colonies in West Africa. In Sierra Leone the workers’ leaders were arrested and kept in prison for one month and eight days without trial, in order to demoralise the strikers and force them back to work. All these efforts at official intimidation have, however, been without success. In order to arrest the development of free trade unionism and to curb political activities of the workers, an attempt to impose upon the natives the most repressive legislation is now being made.”

Laws are about to be passed by the Legislative Council (“a body on which the workers have no representation on account of the property qualifications, which exclude them”). The results of these laws, says Padmore, will be : —

“1. Where natives of Sierra Leone are sentenced to deportation they will be segregated in special areas in concentration camps, and if they or their family are in possession of any kind of means compelled to contribute to their maintenance there.”

“2. Any British subject (Englishman, Scot, Australian, West Indian, etc.) who renders any assistance to native workers and peasants in Sierra Leone in forming trade unions or co-operative societies can be arrested and deported from the colony.”

“3. The Undesirable Literature Ordinance will empower the Governor to prohibit the publication, importation, circulation and reading in the colony of any book, pamphlet, newspaper, magazine or any other kind of literature which in his opinion is undesirable. The possession of such proscribed literature will constitute a criminal offence punishable by two years’ imprisonment.”

“4. The ordinance outlining penalties for incitement to disaffection is aimed at subduing agitation among the armed forces. In Sierra Leone unrest is widespread, not only among the industrial workers, but throughout the Civil Services and armed forces. The new ordinance will prevent any soldier from purchasing and reading of his own will any book even so remotely revolutionary as George Bernard Shaw’s ‘Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism.’ . . . All persons and premises may be searched upon suspicion of harbouring such literature or being connected with agitation, by force if necessary.”

It will be noticed that the authorities in Sierra Leone, in order to keep their coloured wage-slaves in subjection, are using methods which, we are told, are foreign to “the democratic spirit of Britain,” but peculiar to the Fascist states.

Mr. George Padmore ends his letter by asking those “British people who value their own liberties and respect those of other nationals” to send letters of protest to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

We sympathise with the natives of Sierra Leone, but we are afraid that little can be achieved on their behalf by sending letters of protest.

The British are in Sierra Leone to exploit the natives, to make profits for a parasite capitalist class, and make profits they will, even if this means untold suffering for thousands.

If the workers of Britain wish to end the suffering now forced upon natives within the Empire, they will have to end their own sufferings also. They will have to take matters into their own hands. They will have to gain control of the machinery of government with the express purpose of abolishing capitalism, for, as long as capitalism lasts, brutality in many forms will be found. This is only to be expected when to-day there is a class in society which lives on the backs of the workers, which lives by exploiting them. Profits must be produced to enable our exploiters to live in idleness and luxury—that is a law of capitalism. What the consequences are for the millions of toilers is of little importance to the capitalists. As long as the profits are forthcoming, the workers can live in poverty, dwell in slums, be blown to bits in war. If the workers acquiesce in capitalism, they must expect brutalities, every day and everywhere.

Incidentally, what hope one can place in “protests” to help the natives of Sierra Leone can be seen from a letter to the Manchester Guardian Weekly, published in the very same issue as Mr. Padmore’s. It is from “A British Resident” in Cyprus and deals with affairs there. The writer complains that the intervention attempted by the Manchester Guardian on behalf of the natives some months ago has been fruitless. He writes: —

“In December last you called, in a leading article, for action by Parliament. Some questions were asked, which were more or less unsatisfactorily answered; but since then nothing has been done, though things have tended to become more and more repressive, especially in regard to attempts to form trade unions.”

In Cyprus, he says, “newspapers have been suppressed, partially and entirely, or placed under censorship, without the offence being specified, and without the offender being given a chance to argue his case before a responsible tribunal.”

It is clear that the British capitalist class is being hypocritical when it directs the attention of their workers to the brutalities performed in Germany, China and other states.

To those workers who are growing tired of their own exploitation and would like to bring a speedy end to the brutal suppression which capitalism causes everywhere, we extend an invitation. We invite them to join with us in our struggle for Socialism—a system of society which will bring to an end their own exploitation and “will involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex.”

Clifford Allen.

Since the above was written there comes news of still further strife within this glorious Empire of “ours.” The Evening Standard (June 17th, 1939) reports that: “Renewed strike troubles in Jamaica led to a pitched fight in one of Kingston’s main thoroughfares. The fighting lasted an hour, and I was ended when police fired warning shots over the heads of the crowd.”

And it is this “one big, happy family” (the British Empire) you are asked to lose your life in defending. Remember that, Fellow Worker !

Pseudo-Democracy and Dictatorship (1939)

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The lot of the Conscientious Objector is, as usual, no “Bed of Roses.” Witness the bitter facts of the first Birmingham Tribunal. One young wage slave who had the “Downright Impudence” to state his refusal to participate in any of the Government’s ALTERNATIVES was immediately entered for service with the Militia ! What a strange way of Administering Democracy?

All wage slaves are called upon to “Fight for Democracy” in order to preserve their Liberties, yet this self-same “Democracy” forces them into occupations which best serve the interests of the Capitalist “War Machine.” Farewell, Liberties !

Where then is the difference between Dictator­ship and Pseudo-Democracy?

The mistake made by the wage slaves at Birmingham was in Objecting to War only. . . . The REAL Objection should have been AGAINST THE SYSTEM OF SOCIETY which produces Wars and not merely against ONE of the MANY evils of Capitalism.

Russell.