Here and There: Is Hitler a Socialist? (1939)

The Here and There column from the November 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is Hitler a Socialist?

A good deal of our time as a propagandist organisation has unfortunately had to be devoted to denouncing false ideas about Socialism as well as to explaining what Socialism really means. This has led us to strong criticisms of the Labour Party and other parties claiming to be working-class parties, which have very frequently been grossly misunderstood. Our position is a simple one regarding these parties. It is, briefly, that they do not stand for Socialism, that is to say, the common ownership by the whole of society of the means and instruments of production and distribution, and their democratic control by and in the interests of all. Some supporters of the Labour Party and others bristle like Christians rebuked for lack of faith when the position is stated thus. Yet that is the position. And the evidence of Labour Party programmes, newspapers and conferences provide overwhelming evidence of the fact. Worse—many thousands who describe themselves as Socialists have so vague an idea as to what Socialism means that they would not, so to speak, recognise it if they saw it. In a recent issue we commented on the report from Labour sources that the Nazi movement gained considerable support among workers in S.E. Europe because of Hitler’s skilful exploitation of anti-capitalist phraseology and the fact that his movement describes itself as National Socialist. The danger to the working-class movement through lack of sound knowledge, as in this example, should need little emphasis. Moreover, when that lack of knowledge is evident in quarters where “leadership” is looked for from the less informed, the danger can have tragic results. Witness Hamilton Fyfe in Reynolds’s (October 15th, 1939):-

  “Suppose Hitler were to make his National Socialism a reality ? Rudolf Hess, who is his closest friend, declared in public the other day that the Fuehrer would rather go Bolshevik than yield to the democracies. Was it a knowledge of this thought in Hitler’s mind which impelled Thyssen, the once-powerful German capitalist, to bolt when war began? He is now in Switzerland, I believe.

  Hitler has certainly shaken off the capitalist yoke. He climbed to power on the willing backs of financiers and industrialists. They thought they could keep him in order by threatening, if he defied them, to withdraw their shoulders and let him down. But, when he felt himself strong enough, he stamped on them; it was they who found themselves in the mud. Will he take the further step of finishing them off by making the Reich Socialist ?

  By doing this he would set up a strong claim to the assistance of Russia in a war against the capitalist Powers (Britain, France, Italy).”

Observe the reasoning: “Hitler has certainly thrown off the capitalist yoke.” (Note the emphasis, certainly.) Observe the process culminating in the view that Hitler would have “a strong claim to the assistance of Russia in a war against the capitalist Powers (Britain, France, Italy).”

How much further need such reasoning go before it justifies a holy “Socialist” war against capitalism. It is tragic to reflect this comes from one of the “profound” minds which influence the Labour Party following. Yet it bears out our lifelong case against the Labour Party—that State ownership or State control is not Socialism. And that is what Mr. Hamilton Fyfe sees in both Germany and Russia, hence, in his mind, the ease with which they might come together.

Such ideas, such men, are dangerous.

* * *

A New Role for the Communists

An interesting item of news from the war zone:—

   “Communists are coming to the fore again all over Germany, according to reports received from Swiss sources.

   Goering, Hess, Funk are backing them feeling that victory against the Allies cannot be achieved without their aid.

    Nazi speakers are now allowed to proclaim publicly that radical reforms to bring Germany into line with Russia are being prepared. All capitalism will be suppressed.

  The revived Communist Party is being renamed ‘the Popular Party’.”—(Evening Standard, October 21st, 1939.)

It may not be true. Nevertheless it could be true: in which case it would illustrate how small the real differences are between Germany and Russia. “All capitalism will be suppressed” would mean no more than centralisation in the hands of the State of the means of production on Russian lines. The move might deceive German workers for a time, but they would more than likely suspect it to be an astute move by the German Government to arrest criticism and discontent with the war. Anti-capitalist propaganda is likely to have unpleasant results for German capitalism later on.

* * *

Sour Grapes

The Daily Herald (October 10th, 1939) quotes from the Italian newspaper, Corriere Padano, the following: —

  “Voroshilov (Soviet Defence Commissar) and his companions, like all carrion in Bolshevik Russia, do not interest us in the slightest.

  We refuse a grain of esteem or an ounce of sympathy to the Bolsheviks, who are models of gross bestiality—living monsters who are serving the most infamous undertaking of human deceit, cruelty and degradation ever recorded.”

“Bolshevism” is about as popular with the Italian capitalist class at the moment as it will be with the German capitalist class later. The explanation, of course, has nothing whatever to do with the “ideological” differences of Fascism, Bolshevism or Nazism, but the clash of national interests.

Russia’s expansion into Poland has perhaps to a large extent neutralised the influence of Italy in the Balkans.

* * *

Long Live Poland—Communist Version

From Humanité, August 30th, 1936.

“LONG LIVE POLAND !”

By MAURICE THOREZ, 

Gen. Secretary of the C.P. of France.

  “Arriving in Paris this morning is General Rydz-Srnigly, Inspector-General of the Polish Army, and the most powerful man in his country. General Rydz-Smigly was the disciple and the comrade in arms of Marshal Pilsudski, founder of an independent Poland, who chose him to continue his work, and before dying commanded that “all the State functionaries, from the President of the Council downwards, were to render him respect and obedience. …” Although the interior regime in Poland is far from being a liberal democracy, and also General Rydz-Smigly once occupied Kiev, and defended Warsaw against the Red Army, we are none the less happy in saluting this morning France’s eminent guest. . . . Communists and Republicans consider that the continued independence of Poland is a guarantee of Peace in our troubled and anguished Europe. Deeply concerned regarding the future of our own country, attached passionately to the cause of peace, we observe with sympathy the efforts of the Polish people, who wish to preserve the independence of their country. . . .

We above all desire—and this is our reply to those who libel our Communist Party by maintaining that we are favourable to a “sacred war of the democracies against Fascism”—that Franco-Polish friendship should be guaranteed in order to preserve world peace, whatever may be the interior regime in Poland, that Poland which is, and must remain, independent.

And that is why this morning, in the name of the working people, in the name of the Communists in France, saluting the arrival of General Rydz-Smigly, we cry with all our heart “Long Live Poland.”

And now Poland has been “liberated” with the assistance of the Russian armies. Far from being “independent,” that country is now under the mutual “protection” of the German and Russian Governments. Socialists are not shocked. It is all in the dirty game of capitalist politics. If we register any feelings at all about the business it is only in bitter protest that the name of Socialism has been dragged into it by the Communists.

There is only one independence that is in line with working-class interests, and that is the independence which flows from the overthrow of their masters—the capitalist class.

Poland, as an independent State, was a product of the last war, the result of the collapse of three great Empires, by which it was previously surrounded. By the very nature of capitalist development its position as an “independent” State became difficult when those Empires regained their old strength. It may re-emerge again if and when the capitalist States which surround are too weak to resist it. And so the old game goes on, a game which has parallels in other parts of Europe and the capitalist world. A game which holds no interest for the workers and leaves unsolved the fundamental problems of working-class life, poverty and wage-slavery. Whichever capitalists dominate in Europe or elsewhere, those problems remain.

Socialists criticise the Communists and Russia because the latter has entered the capitalist cockpit.

Socialists aim at working-class independence, and instead of taking sides in the quarrels of the capitalists, work for the ending of capitalism.

* * *

Mr. Brockway and Socialism

Mr. Brockway, in the New Leader, tells his readers that he wrote “to the Webbs for contributions to the ‘N.L.’ symposium on the war.” He received a reply from Mrs. Webb, in which she excused herself on the grounds of “old age.”

Mr. Brockway comments thus: “They may feel blacked-out by age, but not even war will black out their Socialist work.”

Can we take it, Mr. Brockway, that the hoary Fabianism for which the Webbs stood and for which you express your appreciation as “Socialist work,” can be used as a measure of the “Socialism” the I.L.P. stands for?

Harry Waite

Finland, The Balts, and the Baltic (1939)

From the November 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Finland was for centuries a vassal to the Swedes, and the lands of the conquered were given to the powerful and faithful of the conquering baronage.

In 1809 the Russians seized Finland, and by possession of the Gulf, made safe the channels of St. Petersburg. Apart from this purpose, Russian Governments left the economic and political dominance of Finland to the Swedish barons, or came in only to buttress their oppressions.

The Swedish overlords had nothing but contempt for the conquered race. Its language was ostracised, its literature suppressed. Official positions were the perquisites of the Swedo-Finnish upper class. The holders were unimpeachable. The language, even of the courts of law, was Swedish, and into these courts the Finnish people had to take their interpreters or learn the language of the master class.

The Government was Parliamentary. Parliament consisted of four Houses. It was a delusive democracy.

1st, The House of Nobility, in which sat the Swedo-Finnish feudality—hereditary, non-elective, self-appointed.

2nd, The House of Clergy—elected by the clergy.

3rd, The House of Burghers—elected by property-holders within the cities.

4th, The House of Peasants—elected by property-holders outside the cities.

The nobility and clergy were, as usual, the two arms of tyranny. They exercised the veto against even the few upon whom the pretence of self-government had been conferred. The labouring, wage-earning mass had no vote.

In 1906 the Finnish workers revolted. The Four-house Parliament was swept out of existence, and the first reformed Parliament of Finland contained 20 Social Democrats out of a total membership of 200.

At the 1916 election the Social Democrats won a majority of seats (103 to 97), and from their membership formed the first Social Democratic Government of Finland.

In July, 1917, the Finnish Parliament carried an “Independence Bill.” The Russian Government (the Second Provisional) vetoed the Bill and dissolved the Parliament.

No sooner did the November Revolution take place in Russia than the reactionaries in Finland jumped to arms, overthrew the Finnish Government elected by the votes of the people, set up an arbitrary Government, in which there was not one Social Democrat. But, in a few weeks the Finnish militia and Labour organisations consolidated their forces, rose up, smashed the reactionaries, and restored to power the men elected in 1916.

Parliament reassembled. It declared for a Finnish Republic. Karl Manner, the Speaker of the 1916 Parliament, was made first President, and Oskar Tokoi, first Prime Minister.

Mr. Frank Anstey, M.P., member of the Australian Parliament, states in his book, “Red Europe” : “This Government the Allies refused to recognise, but they did recognise and subsidise every conspiracy for its overthrow.”

The Baltic being then controlled by Germany, and the Arctic ports icebound, the Allies could not send troops. The Swedish Government would have put in troops, but the Swedish Labour organisations threatened a general strike. The reactionary factions in Finland appealed to Germany.

In March, 1918, German warships and transports appeared off Helsingfors, and German troops were landed.

In April the Republic was overthrown and a Dictatorship set up under the protection of German bayonets.

Mr. Anstey, referring to this episode, says: 

“Thus once more was it demonstrated that the capitalist and landed classes, the master class in every form, prefer the occupation of their country by a foreign foe, to the government of their country by a working class that in any way threatens their predatory powers.”

In this same month, April, 1918, Mr. Haines, the United States Consul in Finland, made a report to the American Government. He reported that the landowners and money classes of Finland had asked the Swedish Government for assistance, but that the Swedish Labour organisations threatened a general strike if Swedish troops were sent to Finland. He stated that the help of the Allied Powers had been sought, but for various reasons was not available, and then he added:

“Therefore there was no alternative but to fall back upon Germany.”

No sooner was the German-sustained capitalist Government established in Finland than the British Government intimated its readiness to recognise it and to enter into diplomatic relations with it.

The united action of the reactionary White Guards and of the German army of occupation in Finland was secured by a united command. The supreme command was held by the German General, Von der Goltz, and command of the Finnish reactionary regiments by the Swedo-Finn, General Mannerheim.

Mannerheim used the German-trained Jaegers and men of the land-owning class, with such of their servitors as they could certify as safe. These made a force of about 50,000, and these, supported by the Germans under Von der Goltz, put the rebellious population to the sword. David Soskice told the Manchester Guardian there was “terrible slaughter,” and the London Times, referring to the ‘splendid’ work of Mannerheim, says that it broke the back of the rebellion, and that “the Germans quickly finished the job.” The Times casually mentions that, “out of about 80,000 prisoners, 30,000 are dead.” “Dead” is a sweet and luscious word for wholesale slaughter of rounded-up human sheep. Out of a population of 3,000,000, over one hundred thousand perished.

The Germans smoke-screened behind a so-called “Finnish Government,” rounded up and wiped out in cold-blooded “law and order” slaughter thousands of men, women and children. They arrested and imprisoned 80 members of the 1916 Finnish Parliament. Only one got out alive. Some were executed and others were reported “dead.”

In the latter part of 1918, when the German overlords found their populations were rising, their ships of war flying the Red Flag, and their warriors declining to fight, then they opened negotiations for an armistice. Allied commanders stipulated many things for Germany to do, but there was one thing it stipulated that Germany should not do. It was not to withdraw any more troops from the occupation of Finland or the Baltic Provinces.

From Finland the Germans had begun the withdrawal of their troops in September, and it became evident that without foreign bayonets the local reactionaries could not exist. In early October, while the war was still on, and weeks before the declaration of any Armistice, the Finnish butcher, General Mannerheim, left Finland, came to England, was the guest of the Government and, interviewed by the English Press, he spoke of the “splendid work done by the Germans.”

The working class crowds of Stockholm howled at Mannerheim, “You murderer,” and in Norway the Government so feared a popular rising that they asked him to keep out of the country, but Havelock Wilson’s Union carried this man backward and forward without protest.

It is to the credit of the Finnish working class that they have kept the spirit of class-consciousness alive.

In March, 1919, on a jerrymandered franchise, with 100,000 of their best dead, or in gaols, or off the rolls, with no free speech and with a rigid suppression of working-class newspapers, they scored 80 out of 200 seats.

They have learned much by bitter experience. If they had got a majority their representatives would have been imprisoned or shot.

The working class of Finland are still doing their best in the circumstances in which they find themselves; they still lean too much to reformism, but they have a noble record, and in the coming struggle we can depend upon them to continue to do their bit.

The chief seaports and cities of the Baltic Provinces were founded by German traders in the thirteenth century. From that date they have been the master class, controllers of land, finance and industry, the exclusive holders of local political power, and the imposers of economic slavery upon the local races.

For two centuries the German Balts were the staunch supporters of Czarist Governments. In return they were permitted to be sole rulers in the Baltic Provinces, and Czarist soldiery were always at their disposal for the subjection of the rebellious workers.

The Baltic masses, therefore, staggered under a double yoke, that of the German Balts and that of the Russian bureaucracy—the former were the economic taskmasters, the latter the military oppressors. The German Balts and Russian autocracy were akin, but since the Balts came closer to the daily life of the people, the Baltic masses had a more implacable hatred against the German Balts than even against the Russian autocracy.

The Russian revolution of 1905 showed how intense was the hatred of the Baltic peasants to their brutal Teutonic landlords, and only the influx of many Cossack regiments saved the Baltic Barons from utter extermination.

On April 12th, 1917, the first Provisional Government of Russia granted “Home Rule” to the Baltic Provinces, and as such autonomy meant government by peasants and proletarians, the Baltic baronage of landlords, trade lords and financiers saw their robber power disappearing. Thus they agitated for intervention, annexation, salvation of their perquisites and possessions from the wrath of the Baltic people, and their cry for liberation was taken up by Germany.

On January 2nd, 1918, Herr Vorst, the correspondent in Russia of the Berliner Tageblatt, put the case thus: 

“Should the Baltic Provinces remain united with Russia or obtain self-government, the social and economic predominance of the German Balts will be abolished through the uprising of the people. The German Balts look to Germany for protection against the local proletariat.”

The Brest Treaty (March, 1918) left the Baltic Provinces of Esthonia and Livonia within the Russian State, and Soviet Russia left to these Provinces self-government. At once a deputation of Baltic capitalists visited Berlin and appealed for the occupation of their country by a foreign State. The German Government complied, and thereafter German steel and German guns kept the people in subjection.

And when Germany could no longer do the work Britain took up the task, and either acted alone or in collaboration with Germany.

On Sunday, December 29th, 1918, the local Lithuanian regiments held a meeting in Riga and declared for Lenin and the Soviet Government of Russia.

On December 30th the joint action of German and British troops was agreed to by their respective Governments.

On January 1st, 1919, the Lithuanian troops were designated “mutineers,” and German and British troops marched out against them, overcame them, and compelled the survivors to carry arms against their own race and country.

On January 2nd the working population rose en masse; the German soldiery refused to fight and the British were compelled to evacuate Riga and the surrounding country.

In this situation it was determined to secure high-priced “volunteers” for the unreliable conscript armies. The “National Committee” of German Baltic Barons, the Committee that twelve months previously had petitioned Germany to annex the Baltic Provinces, were heavily financed by the Allied Powers to organise a German volunteer force, and recruiting offices were at once established in Berlin and other cities. The Manchester Guardian, January 8th, said, “The irony of the situation is that the German Baltic Barons are the most reactionary gang to be found anywhere in the world.”

In the middle of January came the Spartacist risings in Germany, as a protest, amongst other things, against the German-British intervention in the Baltic Provinces.

During January and February, 1919, British ships of war were convoying German troops from one part of the Baltic to the other. Von der Goltz was invited across from Finland. He took charge of the Baltic land operations while the British Fleet protected his rear.

What has followed is now current history.

The working men of the Baltic and Scandinavian countries are well informed, and are watching the events now transpiring with intense interest.

They, like us, are caught in the web of conflicting imperial interests; the dropping of the mask by Soviet Russia has caused a hurried regathering of forces.

The present line-up is not likely to be permanent; a regrouping of Powers may be expected before the war is over. The class-conscious know where they stand and those who are not at present in that category will by hammer-blows be driven into an understanding of their position.

Charles Lestor

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