This Month's Quotation: S. G. Hobson (1938)

The Front Page quote from the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

"A gradualist is one who has a valid claim for a pound, demands a shilling, and proclaims a great victory when he gets a farthing."

S. G. Hobson

This Month's Quotation.

The quotation on the panel of the front page this month is taken from “Pilgrim to the Left," by Mr. S. G. Hobson (published Arnold, 12/6.)

Editorial: Russian Foreign Policy and Communist Somersaults (1938)

Editorial from the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ten years ago, when Germany was disarmed and Russia was particularly fearful of France and her allies in Central and South-Eastern Europe, the Russian Government cultivated friendly relations with Germany and Italy. In line with this policy, the Communist Parties all over the world were ordered to denounce the Versailles Treaty, seek the break-up of the British Empire and hold up Great Britain, America and France and her allies as the enemies of peace and democracy.

The Russian policy changed with the recovery of German armed strength. Russia joined the League of Nations and sought alliances with France, Czechoslovakia and Great Britain. A corresponding change had to take place in the policy of the Communist Parties, and they proceeded to eat their own words and preach all of the doctrines they had formerly derided. The League of Nations, instead of being to them a League of Britain and France to hold the spoils of the last war, became overnight the only bulwark of peace and democracy. The Lenin of 1918 would have poured scorn on the puerile arguments the Communists now put forward. 

The extent of the gulf between the old and the new Communist doctrines can be measured by comparing the present attitude with that contained in “The Struggle Against War," published by the Communist Party of Great Britain ten years ago. (It is undated, but reveals its date of publication by the opening words: “Ten years after the world war.")

On page 31 it deals with the “numerous oppressed nationalities and national minorities existing in a number of the States in Europe, set up by the Versailles Treaty." It denounces Poland and Rumania, who “cruelly oppress with a bloody hand the White Russian and Ukrainian and Bessarabian populations in their territories," and goes on as follows : —

In Czechoslovakia and in the Balkan countries, in Italy in France, Spain, Belgium and Great Britain (Ireland) there are also oppressed nationalities. The Communist Party will support the liberation movement of the oppressed nations and national minorities in all these countries, lead them in the revolutionary struggle against Imperialism and unreservedly champion their right to self-determination, which must include the right to complete separation.

But in 1938 Russia had treaties with Czechoslovakia and Rumania and France, and any Communist who dared to champion the right of their minorities to separation would have found himself in trouble, denounced as a Fascist.

Then there is the question of the cunning way in which capitalist governments lure their workers into supporting wars. In 1928 it was a fundamental task of the loyal Communist to expose the “sophistries and catchwords by which the bourgeoisie and Social-Democracy try to justify war" (page 14). The Communists were to expose the slogan of “national defence,” and, above all, the workers must be warned against the trick of pretending that the war is a war against Fascism. The pamphlet goes on: —

In the last Imperialist war, the Allies made use of the slogan, “Fight Against Prussian Militarism," while the Central Powers used the slogan “Fight Against Tsarism”; both sides using the respective slogans to mobilise the masses for the war. In a future war between Italy and France, or Yugo Slavia, the same purpose will be served by the slogan “ Fight Against Reactionary Fascism," for the Bourgeoisie in the latter countries will take advantage of the anti-Fascist sentiments of the masses of the people to justify Imperialist war.

The paragraph ends with the remark that “The Communist Parties have hitherto paid insufficient attention to the duty of refuting these sophistries.”

Pity the poor Communist who kept his pamphlet by him and dutifully tried to pay more attention to refuting them.

How the Churchills and Edens must laugh when they see the Communists walking right into the trap against which, ten years ago, they were warning other people.

Notes by the Way: Is it 1914 Over Again? (1938)

The Notes by the Way Column from the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is it 1914 Over Again?

Under the above heading Mr. Arthur Woodburn, Scottish secretary of the Labour Party, wrote in Forward (October 1st, 1938), arguing that the recent threatened war would have been different from 1914. His point is contained in the following paragraph: —

It might have been possible to argue in 1914 that there was not much difference for workers whether they lived under British capitalism or under German capitalism. That cannot be honestly argued today.

To-day, he says, the German workers, deprived of democratic rights, are “much in the position of the 1914 Czarist workers," and “a defeat of Hitler, peacefully or otherwise, will, therefore, be a victory for the German workers themselves."

A more muddled argument it would be hard to discover anywhere.

In the first place, in 1914 the Labour leaders were almost unanimous in arguing about Germany in exactly the same way as Woodburn does now. They were not saying that war was not worth while because Germany and England were both capitalist and both more or less democratic, they were shrieking about the necessity of dethroning the Kaiser; and backing it up with stuff about liberating the German workers. Moreover, they were all silent about the Russian tyranny, although Woodburn likens it to the present condition of the German workers under Hitler.

The next point is that Woodburn ignores what the German workers think about it. Far from wanting to be liberated from Hitler, millions of German workers are convinced that their lot is better than that of the British, French and Russian workers. In particular, they think they have already been “liberated" by Hitler from the capitalist-democracy which Woodburn wants to restore to them. So while Woodburn would be bombing German civilians in order to liberate German workers from dictatorship, his opposite numbers in Germany would be bombing English civilians to liberate us from the horrors of capitalist democracy.

Finally, while Mr. Woodburn believes that war would overthrow German dictatorship, Mr. Woodburn's chief, Mr. Attlee, says that it won't. Speaking at Hanley on October 8th, Mr. Attlee is reported by The Times as follows: —

Mr. Attlee said that he did not believe in the inevitability of war, and he did not believe that dictators could be overthrown by making war on them. “Destroy them from within by showing that, outside totalitarian States, democracy can make a better show than they can,” he said.—(Times, October 10th, 1988.)

Mr. Attlee himself, of course, falls into the same error as Mr. Woodburn of imagining that democratic capitalism is capable of making a good enough show to impress the German or Italian workers.

The fact is that in spite of Mr. Woodburn, the difference between the various capitalist States is not worth the sacrifice of workers' lives. Only Socialism is capable of making the desired impression, and only a Socialist Party can approach the German workers with clean hands, guiltless of supporting capitalism and capitalist war.

The West Indies and the Empire

Those who fancy that the natives under British rule are contented with their lot and anxious not to be handed over to some other exploiter should think over these two statements about the West Indies.

One is by Mr. C. V. R. Thompson, who went to Jamaica for the Daily Express and heard what the Labour leader, Bustamente, had to say: —

I have not seen all the horrors Bustamente has pictured, but I have seen slums and living conditions that have made me sick, that have made me ashamed that the Union Jack was flying over Kingston—evil-. smelling dungeons in which six and ten people sleep. — (Daily Express, June 13th, 1938.)

The second is by Mr. Arthur Calder Marshall, who went to Trinidad for the News Chronicle. His verdict is that “Trinidad would like to be American."

If a free ballot were taken in Trinidad as to whether the inhabitants would prefer to remain British subjects or to join the U.S., there is no doubt that a large majority would be in favour of making the change. Among the coloured people of Trinidad I met no one who felt loyalty to the Empire, and among the white Trinidadians a negligible few. — (News Chronicle, October 15th, 1938.)

German Wickedness in Africa

In a review of Mr. Lloyd George’s “Truth About the Peace Treaties ” (Vol. I), the Sunday Dispatch (October 16th, 1938) quotes him to the effect that the reason why the British and Dominion Governments held on to the former German colonies was to strengthen their own position and weaken Germany’s—there is no mention of the good of the natives. Mr. Lloyd George discloses that what alienated all sympathy from Germany in the matter of colonies was the German declaration that if they won they “would found a black empire in Africa, extending from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.” This ran counter, he says, to the British realisation of “the great Rhodes dream of a Cape-to-Cairo route.”

This disclosure ought to silence Hitler for ever. In face of it how can anyone suggest that the two robber groups were up to the same plundering game? For see how completely different the two imperialist plans were—one was to run north and south, and the other east to west, and every child must see that the one is highly commendable and the other very wicked !

What are the Workers Up To ?

More and more in recent years journals alleged to be Labour or Communist have gone in for the game of letting their readers in on "secret” backstairs political gossip about the intrigues, wirepulling and ambitions of aspiring capitalist politicians. Never a day passes without the Herald, the Daily Worker and other such journals telling us what is the latest plot of the “Cliveden” group, what Baldwin and Eden are scheming, what Churchill plans to do, what Hitler will do next, or how Mussolini or Roosevelt or Daladier will checkmate each other.

It is all very entertaining for armchair philosophers. It is also a sign of the lamentable immaturity of the working class. Instead of the workers hanging breathlessly on the words and schemes of capitalist politicians, a healthy, virile working class would be minding its own business and causing sleepless nights in high places. When we see politicians and the Press worrying about what the workers are doing and thinking we shall know we are on the way to victory. Then we shall have Chamberlain, Eden, Churchill, Baldwin and Attlee, not to mention Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, all going into a panic-stricken huddle about the latest bad news from the class-struggle front. Then the questions of the moment will be "What are the workers thinking?” “What are they going to do next?” “Why do they scoff at talk of patriotism and refuse to sympathise with the woes of the rich?”

Then the capitalist game will be up.

Russia Learns from England

It now seems to be agreed that one of the factors that influenced the Cabinet in their attitude towards Germany was the reported weak condition of the Russian forces. Colonel Lindbergh had formed the opinion that so many pilots and other key men in the air force had been shot or imprisoned for ”Trotskyism” that efficiency had been undermined. A correspondent writing to Time and Tide claims that in a period of 18 months Stalin’s Government has shot two field-marshals, three out of six district commanders, ten out of thirteen army commanders, etc., altogether over 50 per cent. of the higher ranks in the army.

The Russians must have been reading English history and recalled Voltaire’s wisecrack on the execution of Admiral Byng for failing to take Minorca—“The English shoot one Admiral to encourage the rest.” But there should be moderation in all things, and the Russians ought to remember the old English proverb that ”you can’t shoot your general staff and have it too.”

Jews and General Franco

Sympathy for persecuted Jews should not be allowed to obscure the fact that Jews who belong to the propertied class are just like the Gentiles in their opposition to anything which may endanger capitalism. One of the most influential figures behind the Franco movement in Spain is the Jewish millionaire, Juan March. Another curious piece of news was reported by the Evening Standard on September 6th, 1938. The new anti- Jewish regulations in Italy involved the retirement of a number of highly-placed military and naval officers. Among the latter was Rear-Admiral Paolo Maroni, described as “Commander of the Italian naval forces at Palma, Majorca.” It would seem, therefore, that this gentleman shares direct responsibility for the innumerable bombing raids on Barcelona and other Republican towns conducted from the Italian base at Majorca.

Patent Medicines and their Manufacturers

The Investors’ Review (August 20th, 1938) reported that Mr. Philip Hill, chairman of Beecham’s Pills, Ltd., had gone to Carlsbad to take a cure. A writer in the Review commented on Mr. Hill’s evident lack of faith in the curative powers of his own products. The Daily Telegraph (September 8th, 1938) reported that Beechams, in addition to their control of the Veno Drug Co., Ltd., Yeast-Vite, Ltd., Phosferine, Ltd., the Iron Jelloid Co., and many other firms, has now acquired MacLeans, Ltd., who manufacture the MacLean Stomach Powder, Fynnon Salts, and MacLean’s Peroxide Tooth Paste.

What is good enough for the workers is decidedly not good enough for their masters.

Labour Party Victory in New Zealand

At the General Election on October 15th the New Zealand Labour Party was returned to office with practically the same number of seats as in 1935 (54, against 24 National Party M.P.s and two Independents).

They have been lucky. They went into office at a time when the electorate were disgusted with the former government because of the widespread unemployment and trade depression, and have been re-elected while trade is still good. They got credit for the rise of prices of New Zealand exports and for the fall of unemployment, and will inevitably be blamed when trade slumps next time. The British Labour Party, not so lucky, went into office in 1929 just when a world crisis was beginning.

Strong in the Arm and Thick in the Head

Lord Forbes, in an article warning Germany, says: —

. . . The British nation is slow to wrath, but, if stirred to anger, is a race which will fight fanatically and with resource and ingenuity for the triumph of peace and the glory of the Empire.—(Daily Express, October 17th, 1938.)

People who, with all the results of the last war about them, can still go on waging war “for the triumph of peace" must be a bit lacking somewhere.

Labour Advocates of Compulsory Service

Lord Strabolgi, formerly Commander Kenworthy, M.P., much admired by the Communists, who supported him at elections, wrote to the Press advocating compulsory national service.

The industrial correspondent of the Daily Telegraph (September 24th, 1938) reported that the proposal was well received by many Labour leaders.

Hitherto Socialists have opposed conscription, but I am informed on excellent authority that, while a few of the leaders are of the opinion that Lord Strabolgi has committed an indiscretion, the general view is that, in present circumstances, hard and fast theories must be shed, and that the Socialist movement must be prepared to make sacrifices of principle in face of threats of aggression.

“It is clear,” said one Socialist Party leader to me yesterday, “that we are quickly reaching a state of complete national unity, when almost everyone will be willing to play his or her share in the defence of our shores and of democracy.

“The Socialist movement cannot afford to be querulous or pedantic, and suggestions for compulsory service for all who are capable must be seriously considered."

Alsace-Lorraine Again

Alsace-Lorraine, at that time German, became French in 1648. In 1871 Germany reconquered it in the Franco-Prussian war. France got back her “lost children” (i.e., its rich mineral wealth) in 1918. Now there is a likelihood that Germany will demand it back again. As far as the conditions of the workers are concerned the difference between French and German rule is of small account, though, no doubt, plenty of deluded citizens of those provinces will be persuaded to give their support to one group or the other.

A Daily Express correspondent at Metz, on September 25th, 1938 (Daily Express, September 26th, 1938), reported that Alsace-Lorraine soldiers called to the colours were singing a song which runs: “We are going victoriously to fight Germany."

It is the same tune and words as a song they sang in 1914, with only this difference: that in 1914 they were Germans and the words were then: “We are going victoriously to fight France."

Some Sensible French Trade Unionists

Readers of Labour and Communist journals will have noticed how, during the crisis, they turned over increasingly to the language of imperialism, talking of “national honour," “prestige," and so on. It was just the same in France. On September 28th, when the Teachers' Union and the Postal Workers' Union issued a joint manifesto in favour of peace, they protested against the bellicose attitude of the Communists and the French Federation of Labour (C.G.T.). They pointed out that instead of talking of peace the latter, under Communist influence, “could only speak of national honour, national dignity, national unity,"  and of the need for bigger armaments—all, of course, in the name of Peace !

“Thank Heaven We Have Not Got a Labour Government ”

Whatever the Labour Party and Communist Party may say, vast numbers, even of Labour supporters, realised during the crisis that Labour policy was leading to the danger of world war. Labour and Communist journals might say that Germany would climb down if threatened, but people had their doubts. A common attitude among Labour Party supporters was that summed up in the heading: “Thank heaven we have not got a Labour Government."

Communist Propaganda for the Defence of Empire

The Daily Worker (October 8th, 1938) reports from South Africa that at Johannesburg there is trouble with German Nazis who want former South-West Africa returned to Germany (at present it is held by South Africa under League of Nations mandate). So the South African Communist Party distributed thousands of leaflets, and this is what the leaflet was about :

The leaflet drew attention to the Hitler danger in South Africa, where Nazi-ism is preparing to convert South-West Africa into another Sudetenland.

Militarism in Russia

There was a time when Bolshevists boasted of their internationalism, but Russia now is as nationalistic as any country in Europe. How far it goes may be seen from the Moscow News, published in Moscow for the use of English-speaking readers in Russia and abroad. The issue for October 3rd, 1938, reports that the international crisis “has given birth to a fresh mighty wave of patriotism.”

It is claimed, of course, that the patriotism is the natural desire to defend “the Fatherland” against attack, but the same issue of the Moscow News contains other articles of the kind every government uses to work up an interest in militarism. Two columns are devoted to describing a military exhibition being held in Leningrad.: —

The military past of the Russian people and the heroic history of its numerous victories over foreign invaders are depicted in an exhibition opened recently in the State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad.

From this we learn how the Russians defeated the Polish invaders and routed the Swedes, and how Frederick the Great's armies were ”utterly routed.” Frederick is reported to have said : ”It is easier to thrash these people than to defeat them.”

Fine teaching for the youth of an alleged Socialist country!

Still another article tells "how the Russians captured Berlin in 1760.”

Hitler Drunk and Hitler Sober

The Times (October 11th, 1938), advocating more and still more armaments, quotes from a speech made by the Prime Minister last March, in which he said what a ”sobering,” ”steadying” effect Britain’s re-armament programme was then having on world opinion.

If Hitler’s Nuremberg speech was made under ”sobering” influences what must he be like when he gets drunk?

Edgar Hardcastle

Red light (1938)

From the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Really significant events often fail to elicit the comment they deserve, at any rate at the time of happening. Old Bailey, July 13th of this year, illustrates this fact. A soldier ”provoked by an insult to Royalty,” to quote the Evening News, struck the offender, who was killed as a result of the assault. Indicted for manslaughter, the accused was bound over for two years. The lightness of the punishment is irrelevant to the point at issue, except in so far as it throws a light on the sequel. Mr. Justice Macnaughton, sitting on a bench in probably the world’s most historic criminal tribunal, says: —

Although there was not sufficient provocation in law to justify what you did, there was provocation which, to a man in your position, might have made it difficult not to do something with your fist.

Read this pronouncement carefully. Taken in conjunction with the ”sentence,” what will it convey to the mind of unsophisticated wearers of the King’s uniform who look upon it as anything but a work of supererogation to condignly chastise all and sundry who fail to fall in with the goose step (British variety) after Royalty ?

The Socialist Party of Great Britain suffers from no illusions as to the limitations of Free Speech in this country; 1914, D.O.R.A., war-demented crowds offering violence to pacifist and Socialist speakers afforded ample evidence of the precarious footing upon which a hardly-won relative Freedom of Speech stood; it is becoming evident to many outside the Socialist movement that there has been of late years a sinister development in the direction of restriction of speech on the platform and in the Press; elastic libel laws, and sleeping, but by no means scotched ”blasphemy” laws are always at hand to serve the purpose of the governing class when necessary.

The Victorians were not so Mealy-Mouthed

Controversy (which is doing good service in keeping open column up to the present), in its May, 1937, issue, reproduced a cartoon (undated) of the ’40’s, lampooning Victoria the Great and her “prolific husband,” Albert the Good; outraged loyalty was not then given an opportunity to be gently censured by occupants of a Bench carrying the high ideals and noble traditions of Eton and Harrow. An article by Keir Hardie, dated 1897, is also reproduced. ”The King fraud will disappear when the Exploiting of the People draws to a close ” indicates its general intention and scope.

Thirteen years later, at Browning Settlement, Will Crooks was claiming in naive Poplarese for Edward VII what Compton Mackenzie is apparently driving at to-day on behalf of the exiled grandson. ”I feel, and I know, at the bottom of my heart, that he is the greatest statesman that the world possesses at this moment. He is above men, he is a father lo the lot of us, and smiles down upon us all.” ”Good old George” rather put his foot into it during the same week with, ”We all believe, rightly or wrongly, that he was a man, and that he loved and cared for his fellow men and women,” and to-day this Labour leader, who boasted he was prepared to use the Emergency Act against the working class if necessary, holds that “George V was as good a Socialist as Bernard Shaw.” (Quoted by New Leader, May 31st, 1935.) In short, Labour leadership wallows in the sty of ‘‘loyalty.” David Kirkwood (Daily Herald, May 27th, 1936), feeling “monarch of all I surveyed ” on the captain’s bridge of the “Queen Mary” when being launched, is moved to prayer: “And now, good ship, bearing the name of so good a Queen, sail on over the ocean . . . ” How long will Clydesider’s stand for this sort of thing?

Let there be no mistake. The Socialist Party makes no stand for Republicanism as such. Suppression of Free Speech in Republican Germany and Russia has made such suppression at the worst times of the Roman Empire or at the height of Tudor absolutism look mild in comparison, modern technique assisting; but the point here is that there is a relation between extravagant expressions of loyalty on the one hand and freedom of speech on the other. The two minutes' silence of November 11th is practically enforced; neglect of hats off and standing at attention within hearing of “God Save the King” is fraught with danger from the fist of uniformed indignation—to save a quibble it may be pointed out that non-conformity is silent, often a more eloquent expression of opinion than downright dissent.

Disorder at Public Meetings

There is one aspect of this subject that calls for very serious consideration. In the E. Willesden bye-election the Conservative candidate at one meeting was greeted with “cat-calls,” and, according to the Daily Herald, the meeting was practically broken up. Not a word of deprecation from the Daily Herald on these blackguardly tactics—infiltration of Communist methods is obviously affecting the Labour movement. History should warn Labour leaders that being hoist with your own petard is still a fatal possibility.

Another point is important, that is the practical impossibility of using the Press for expression of opinion. Even in quarters where some approach to decency is maintained, and sheer gutter journalism is eschewed, there is difficulty in getting a hearing.

Clause 6 of the Party’s “Declaration of Principles” states : “The working class must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of Government.” This conscious effort can only be based upon adequate knowledge, and for such knowledge an atmosphere of the freest discussion is essential. All “Left” and a big proportion of “Right” politicians give formal acquiescence to the principle of free and open discussion. Readers of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD have been given from time to time ample evidence of how this works out in actual practice. That the Socialist Party of Great Britain is almost the only political party which allows opposition on the platform and in its organ is, at the same time, indicative of its healthy democratic outlook and political soundness.

There is good material in the rank and file of the Labour Party; let the average member who has no axe to grind give careful consideration of the points adduced against his Party in the direction indicated in this article. What chance has he himself of criticism in “his” organ (owned by a rich syndicate), the Daily Herald ? Are all Labourites enamoured of the lick-spittling loyalty and fluffy religionism of a Hannen Swaffer? Do you all agree with “Good old George,” that “History will record Herr Hitler as one of the great men of our time”? (“My Quest for Peace.”) If not, try a letter to your official organ.

“Mass” enthusiasm, rooted in unthinking and hysterical devotion to leaders, whether to Pollit’s “giant” Stalin (he modestly refrains from naming himself in his “Call to All Workers,” p. 45) or the not extravagantly giantesque good-boy nominee of Canterbury & Co. (frozen mutts!) is an imminent danger holding appalling near possibilities for this country; it behoves all who give even an academic assent to Free Speech to think very hard.

Next article on this topic will glance at some historical events which throw light on the subject— including movements for religious (and irreligious) toleration.

Augustus Snellgrove

Some interesting quotations (1938)

From the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Lloyd George on Germany and German Colonies

The following passage is from a memorandum written by Mr. Lloyd George in 1919. It is quoted by The Times (October 17th, 1938) from Vol. I of Lloyd George’s “Truth about the Peace Treaties.”

You may strip Germany of her colonies, reduce her armaments to a mere police force and her navy to that of a fifth-rate Power; all the same in the end if she feels that she has been unjustly treated in the Peace of 1919 she will find means of exacting retribution from her conquerors. . . . I cannot conceive any greater cause for future war than that the German people, who have certainly proved themselves one of the most vigorous and powerful races in the world, should be surrounded by a number of small States, many of them consisting of people who have never previously set up a stable Government for themselves but each of them containing large masses of Germans clamouring for reunion with their native land. . . . To my mind it is idle to endeavour to impose a permanent limitation of armaments upon Germany unless we are prepared similarly to impose a limitation upon ourselves.

Mr. Lloyd George now insists that the sooner Germany’s demand for colonies as a source of raw materials “is met by some equitable and practicable adjustment, the better it will be for the peace and well-being of the world.”

The Germans in Samoa

Up to 1914, however, the Samoans had a pretty good time on the whole. The Germans didn’t bother them much. When the Governor was hauled over the coals in Berlin for not making the islands pay, he said that the money that could be got out of them was negligible, and that they ought to be preserved as one of the few remaining natural beauty spots in the world.

That was the right attitude, German or not. We must be fair, even to former enemies. There is no doubt that the Germans took the proper view.—(From the People, September 4th, 1938.)

What Our Masters Think of Us.

According to Mr. Frank Owen (Daily Express, July 19th, 1938) the following was said “privately but quite openly . . . at a dinner, by one of His Majesty's Ministers” : —

When you shout for work for the unemployed you make two big mistakes. First, the unemployed don’t want work, they would rather be on the dole. Next, it’s cheaper for the State to keep them there.

Treatment of the Minority in Ulster.

The following is from a letter written to the Manchester Guardian by Mrs. Maud Gonne MacBride, about the treatment of the Catholic minority in Ulster: —

Under this Coercion Act any policeman can arrest anyone without warrant on suspicion and detain him in a police barracks long enough to lose him his job, if he has one. He can secure long sentences for those whom he arrests if he objects to any book or paper found in their house, whether it is banned or not. Mary MacSweeney’s “The Republic of Ireland” was not banned, but a man is doing a year’s hard labour for having it in his possession. The policeman in court said he “found passages most objectionable” and objected to the whole tone of the book.

I know a young boy who got a six-month sentence for having the manuscript of a play in which he hoped to act, and to which the policeman who arrested him took exception and described it as “disrespectful to B. Specials.” I could give countless examples of people sentenced in this way; numbers of those for whose families Mr. McGuirk, secretary of the Belfast Branch of the National Aid Society, appealed are in prison for possession of such documents.—(Manchester Guardian, September 19th, 1938.)

Lord Castlerosse on the Fraud of 1914.

In 1914 we were told that we were fighting to make the world safe for democracy and to kill Kaiserism. We won: that is to say, we beat the Germans, but all we succeeded in doing was to make the world safe for autocracy, and substitute Heil Hitler for Hoch der Kaiser, the Duce for parliamentary rule, and Stalin for a mildish Czar.

When I review the last war I now realise that nearly all my friends and some 8,000,000 people died and nobody benefited one jot, and the world is not better but worse than it was before, and yet the promises that were made to us were wonderful.—(Daily Express, September 22nd, 1938.)

Mr. George Lansbury on Tyranny Abroad and at Home.

From an anti-war speech at Derby, on October 15th, 1938: —

It is a strange commentary on the almost universal denunciation of the regimentation of people in Germany, Italy, and elsewhere, that we should in this country, where the denunciation is loudest, be steadily marching towards the same conditions. If this proposal goes through and we are all regimented and ticketed and docketed, I don’t see that that is any different from living in a totalitarian State. You will have the facade of democracy, but really you will be all under arms. — (Manchester Guardian, October 17th, 1938.)

Blunt words about peace (1938)

From the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Amid all the welter of words and phrases about “Peace” there comes the still, small voice of the Socialist.

Parsons, politicians and the Press all prattle of peace with all the dogmatism so characteristic of a superficial outlook.

But it is left, as usual, to Socialists to base what they have to say on the solid bedrock of the facts of working-class existence under capitalism.

From no other standpoint can we deal with this question of strife and peace. Why ? Because strife—the antithesis of peace—must be studied from its economic and political causes. Understanding these will give the answer to the question: “How is peace in the industrial and political spheres to be obtained ?” 

Knowing the causes, the Socialist is able, definitely, to point to the remedy.

Let us deal with strife in the industrial sphere first of all, and, later, in that of politics.

Socialists say that the sole cause of industrial strife is produced by a conflict of interests between the possessing class and the dispossessed—that is, between the capitalist class and the workers.

They call this never-ending conflict (so characteristic of capitalism) the class struggle or the class war. It is inherent in the system itself, and arises out of the root cause: the private ownership of the means of life. So long as we have capitalism, so long must this struggle continue.

The very existence of the trades unions is a proof of these conflicting interests. Wages, hours of labour, and the conditions under which the wage-slaves work are the chief points of discussion and dispute between the employers and the employed.

The working class are compelled by economic pressure to work in order to live. They are “employed” for no other purpose than to produce a “profit” for their masters. The wealth they produce, being far greater than what they receive in wages and salaries, they, obviously, produce a “surplus-value." And it is this surplus-value that our thievish exploiters appropriate. It is shared out, ultimately, amongst their own non-producing class under the titles of “Rent,” “Interest” and “Profit.” The capitalists are always endeavouring to wring more, and ever more, surplus-value out of their exploited workers.

The working class have to keep up their efforts continually to maintain their standard of living, and prevent a worsening of their conditions. To do so they have to exercise an eternal vigilance. But the result of all this exploitation is that, as a class, the exploiters get comparatively ever more wealthy.

It is obvious that, so long as the system of production for profit continues, so long will the class-conflict continue.

The only remedy is the Socialization of the means of wealth production and distribution. That will automatically abolish wage-slavery and all the strife produced by a clash of interests in a class-divided society.

Strikes, lock-outs, sabotage and conflicts with the forces of “law-and-order” would disappear. Wealth being produced then for human needs and enjoyment, there would at last disappear every trace of industrial strife.

Capitalism is the menace to peace in every way. It is the cause of an eternal warfare—

THE WAR OF THE CLASSES.

To talk of peace while capitalism continues is sheer foolishness. Yet there are those who speak of “peace in industry’’ and “harmony of interests between employers and employed.” Such vapid utterances only show a complete misunderstanding of the realities of the situation.

Until we make a revolutionary change and establish Socialism it is inevitable that the present system must continue to create strife and discord, and a hundred other evils.

Until the working class fulfil their historic mission and make Socialism a reality, they will continue to suffer, as the wage-slaves they are, under a capitalist regime.

We have considered the question of strife and peace in the industrial arena. Now let us, briefly, consider it as it presents itself in the political sphere.

The employing class of social parasites has one sole object—to continually increase its own great wealth. It exploits the labour-power of myriads of workers for this purpose. Almost every part of the globe is ransacked for its potential riches. No effort is spared, or cunning device neglected when wealth and profit are at stake. And the lives of many workers are risked—and sacrificed—for capitalist interests. Groups of capitalists compete with other groups for the possession of territories where there exists potential wealth. Trade routes, spheres of influence, and markets are collared and exploited. Potential wealth becomes, through the work of the wage-slaves, a real wealth to the possessing class.

The things the workers produce are “commodities." They are for sale in the market, and belong to the class that owns “the means whereby we live," and who exploit the workers and rob them of the greater part of the value created by working class efforts alone.

Commodities being produced for profit— which is realized through sale in the market—an actual market must be found, somewhere., somehow.

The competition amongst the wealth-owners being intense, all sorts of devices are resorted to sell their commodities in the world’s markets. Undercutting, discounts and rebates are in turn tried; but the capitalists, or groups of them, score when they can cut down the actual cost of production—so as to make a bigger surplus-value for themselves and their class. Machinery, ever more and more, is used to increase productivity; with a minimum of cost.

Wage-labour is eliminated more and more as the mechanical means displaces the human. Production grows greater and speedier; and all the time commodities are being turned out in huge amounts. Some market must be found for it in order to realize “profit" for

“THE LORDS OF WEALTH."

In their centres of political discussion—be they Parliament or Senate—they discuss their political and economic questions. The differences between the various capitalist groups in the nations of the world are discussed; the clash of their economic interests are made the basis of their negotiations. Diplomats, ambassadors and representatives of each country voice the desires and demands of their respective countries. The clash of economic interests increases. “Notes" of a veiled kind, and “demands" of a much more definite character, pass from one capitalist centre to another. A quarrel over trade routes, territory and administration, markets and spheres of influence, gets fiercer. Ultimately it is decided to settle the matter by force.

“ Negotiations are broken off.”

SO WAR IS DECLARED, 

and the fighting forces are despatched on their sanguinary task.

We saw capitalism at work in the Boer War. Then the warfare was really over the possession and exploitation of the diamond mines of Kimberley and the gold mines of Johannesburg. We saw capitalism at work causing the gigantic war of 1914-1918. And we shall see it again while capitalism continues.

Modern wars are not fought for "honour," “freedom," or over “scraps of paper"—or for “democracy."

They are fought for sordid gain—commercial, financial and industrial “interests."

Hitler, on behalf of the German capitalist class, desires to capture and control the wheat-producing Hungary and the oil-yielding wells of Rumania.

The capitalist class stop at nothing in their ruthless desire for gain. “No sacrifice," said Asquith in 1914, “is too great when honour and liberty are at stake."

The “honour" and “liberty" of capitalist thieves!

And millions of lives were thrown away, and endless suffering caused through the quarrels of the exploiting and possessing class.

Capitalism always causes, and must cause, strife in some form or other. There can be no real, lasting peace in the world so long as the present system continues. Its conflicts, of one kind or other, are always in evidence. The peace of mankind is always menaced by its existence.

Socialism alone can bring about the all-desirable peace. Then when the means and instruments of wealth production and distribution are owned and controlled democratically by the whole of mankind, for use and enjoyment of all, we shall see 

THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION.

No longer then will the workers in their myriads be compelled to toil to enrich a small but very wealthy class of parasites. No longer will chronic poverty, misery, and ever-recurring wars be rampant as they are to-day.

The Socialist Commonwealth, world-wide, will automatically abolish all those evils, and every other which the present system inevitably creates.

Strife, in every sphere, will give way at last to peace.

Study Socialism, and it must become apparent that it, and it alone, can achieve world-wide peace.

Study Socialism, and you will see that only by the capture of Political Power by an organized class-conscious working class, who understand and desire Socialism, can they achieve the grandest purpose of mankind.

It is the mission of the working class of the world, their historic mission, to abolish the present system, with all the wage-slavery and suffering it creates.

To attain to freedom, peace, and the prosperity of mankind, they must overthrow the capitalist system, and in its place establish “ the Socialist Commonwealth of the World.” 

Graham May.

A timely lesson from Gateshead (1938)

From the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

A strong force of police was called to the offices of the Unemployment Assistance Board in Gateshead yesterday, when 200 men demonstrated against “cuts ” in their relief.

The men have been working on A.R.P. trench digging and, although they have been paid by the local authority, claimed that no “cuts” should be made in their normal relief.

After police had cleared the building of shouting demonstrators the men were admitted in four batches to receive relief, “cut” in proportion to the amount they had earned by trench digging. — (Sunday Dispatch, October 9th, 1938.)

Though given little space in the Sunday Dispatch, this incident contains a world of meaning for those able to interpret it.

It typifies the whole attitude of the capitalist class towards the workers.

The workers are always to be at the beck and call of their masters, willing to do any task demanded of them.

In time of war, they are expected to do the donkey-work, lose limbs and life.

Then, when peace comes, and the excitement is over, they are expected to carry on as usual and accept any pittance thrown to them.

If, however, the workers think that what they receive is not enough, and decide to do something about it, the forces of the State are at hand, and, if need be, will be set in motion against them.

This incident at Gateshead should have taught those 200 what their position is under capitalism, and what they are called upon to defend in time of war.

Clifford Allen

A colliery accident—and profits (1938)

From the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

The News Chronicle of September 30th contains an informative little paragraph regarding the explosion which took place last May in the Markham Colliery, near Chesterfield.

At this explosion seventy-nine miners lost their lives, and many of their bodies were unrecognizable when recovered.

The colliery is now about to be opened again, and the News Chronicle states that the Staveley Coal & Iron Company, who own it, made a gross profit of nearly three-quarters of a million pounds (£723,725 to be precise) for the year 1937-8, and that from this amount a sum of £225,156 has been deducted for depreciation and directors’ fees. A tax-free dividend of 11 per cent. for the year has been declared.

In the light of these figures, it seems curious that it should have been necessary to have opened a “public fund” for the relief of the dependents of the victims—with all the sanctimonious hypocrisy that usually accompanies such funds—the capitalist his cheque, and the poor widow “her last ten shillings.” It is, however, merely symptomatic of the callous selfishness with which the capitalist class generally treat those who make their profits for them.

R. M.

On Leadership (1938)

From the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is often argued that the traitorous conduct of leaders in the working-class movement makes the ultimate achievement of Socialism difficult, and, some almost say, impossible.

To many sincere workers this question presents itself as one of great and vital importance. They argue that leaders will betray their followers once the leader, by virtue of his leadership, is lifted out of his class. And it must be admitted that a superficial glance at modern political history would appear to lend colour to the view. Let us consider, for example, certain relatively-recent events in the Labour and Trade Union movements.

For many years past, organised workers have aspired to solve their economic and social problems by giving their support to the Labour Party. Until the first Labour Government in 1924, few of them seriously believed that the experience of that Government would have resulted in disappointment and disillusionment.

Thousands of workers believed that a Labour Government would at once have taken effective steps to remove any working-class burdens: that a Labour Government was the first real move forward to the establishment of Socialism. What happened ? During the first Labour Government, members of the Cabinet openly condemned and aided the defeat of the locomotive men on strike for higher wages. A demand by the miners for higher wages was met with the plea: ‘‘Do not embarrass the Government.” The dockers’ strike was met with naval ratings unloading mails and mobilised ready to unload foodstuffs, etc., had the strike continued. The unemployed were told by MacDonald that industrial capital was not going to be touched to provide relief, the Government wanted the confidence of financial groups. Well-known opponents of the working class were appointed to the Admiralty and Air Ministry.

It was this Labour Government that was fully prepared to use the Emergency Powers Act in the event of the tramway strike spreading to the ‘‘Underground” workers. In the outposts of “our” Empire, it bombed tribesmen in Mesopotamia and murdered strikers in India.

In brief, once taking on the rôle of the administrators of capitalism, the Labour Government was compelled to run the system in the interests of those who own the means of production : the only way it can be run. The threats (via strikes) to ‘‘public order,” “embarrassing” demands of starving unemployed, at home and within the Empire, were met with evasions, excuses and, where necessary, bloody suppression.

However, to put the question into correct perspective, did the Labour Government of 1924 (or, for that matter, of 1929) betray Socialism? The answer, quite simply, is that it did not. It did not for the very reason that that Government was not Socialist. That is to say, that it was not a Government supported and elected by class-conscious Socialist votes for the purpose of establishing Socialism. It was a Government devoid of any understanding of Socialism, elected by workers lacking Socialist knowledge. But this does not answer the contention of many workers who would describe themselves as Socialist and who argue that, even if Socialists were elected to Parliament and were supported by class-conscious workers, the question of the traitorous leader would in no way be altered: in short, that Socialists will go the way of the Labour leader. As one worker put it to the present writer : ‘‘There are traitors in every party.” This, of course, within limits, is quite true; or, should we say, could quite easily be true. But the admission of this possibility does not affect the logic of the Socialist Party’s case.

The question should be asked: What is it that a working-class political leader betrays—and why? Would Socialist delegates in Parliament, elected by class-conscious workers, act in a similar way?

Ramsay MacDonald (and others) were accused of betraying the Labour Government when they deserted it for the National Government in 1931. Let us, for the sake of argument, accept the accusation of “betrayal” as being a description of the facts.

How did it come about that the renegade leaders were able to betray their Party and sell millions of Labour votes to the National Government? The answer again is quite simple, though it may be unpalatable to Labour Party supporters. The fact is that workers who transferred their allegiance to the National Government in 1931 did so because they were not in a position to understand the issues involved. They were led to believe that the continuance of a Labour Government meant the loss of their paltry savings, etc. (It is reasonably possible that Ramsay MacDonald and his colleagues understood the issues even less than the voters who followed them like sheep.) The real position was that Ramsay MacDonald and Company were able to transfer working-class votes to an openly capitalist party because they were the votes of the politically uninformed. Those votes were the votes of people who had placed their faith in leaders to solve their problems. The leaders failed, as was inevitable, and the conditions were favourable for stampeding millions of workers behind the banners of new leaders—the National Government. The inability to decide for themselves the merits of the issues then involved, plus MacDonald’s prestige among large numbers of confused Labourites, resulted in millions of additional votes for the National Government. Those votes measured MacDonald’s value to the Government.

The lesson does not need great powers of observation to appreciate. The value to the capitalist of a traitorous working-class leader depends upon the extent of his uninformed flock. The greater following a leader has, the more value that leader has to the capitalist; the more ignorant that following, greater are the chances of its betrayal. In short, when a leader “sells out” he is able to do so because of his influence over them.

But what would be the position in the event of Socialist workers returning Socialist delegates to Parliament ? The position would be entirely reversed. Socialist workers would not be betrayed, not because Socialists are immune to temptation or are to be trusted the more for being Socialists, but because the Socialist members would never be in a position of leadership. They would not be able to transfer the allegiance of Socialist voters to a capitalist political party. The reason being that Socialist workers know what they want and how to get it. A Socialist electorate would understand as clearly as the delegates in Parliament the essentials of the mandate the delegates were sent there to represent. A Socialist delegate in Parliament would not be able to sell his influence over his electorate for the simple reason that that influence would be of no value to the capitalist political parties. The position of the Socialist delegate in Parliament, therefore, would be quite different to that of a Labour leader. The first would have no influence over his electorate, and this would make him not worth tuppence to the enemies of Socialism. He would merely be in the position of fulfilling the wishes and instructions of class-conscious Socialists. The second is always in the position of trying to carry out promises made to workers who have not reached the point where they understand that only the abolition of private ownership in the means and instruments of production provides the solution of their problems. Hence their dependence on leaders.

The difference between leaders and delegates is the difference between political ignorance and enlightenment.

A. G.

Party Funds (1938)

Party News from the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Donations to General Account

          (to October 19th).

Hyde Park Symp., 2s. 6d.; E. H., 2s.; W. H., 2s. K. F., 1s.; W. M., 2s. 6d.; G. A. J., 3s.; J. C., 4s.; H. R. 2s. 6d.; W. R., 3s. 6d.; E. P., 6s. 6d.; A. C., 10s.; Manchester Branch, £1 11s.- W. T. H., £1 2s. ; C. E. B. 3s. 6d.; F., 5s.; O., 5s.; H. G. H., 10s.; C. P., 2s.; Chiswick Branch, £2 1s.; A. S., 5s.; P., 2s. 6d. ; S. W. T., 2s. D. F. S., 5s.: F. & R. T., 7s. 6d.; P. H., 1s.; J. W. S. 10s.; Chiswick Branch, £1 10s.; A. S., 5s.; L. J., 2s. ; D. H., 2s. 6d. ; J. J., 2s. 6d. ; G. S. S., 2s.; E. K., £1 H. C. G., 10s. j J. B., 7s.; Quartet, 5s.; Mrs. H., 18s. 3d. M., 2s.; Paddington Branch, 10s.

Donations to Parliamentary Fund.

The following donations to the Parliamentary Fund have been received : Previously acknowledged, .£470 6s. 4d. Donations to October 15th, 1938: Dagenham & Romford, 1s.; J. R. B., 6d.; H. B., 1s.; J. M. 12s.; B., 2s. 6d.; West Ham, 10s.; East Ham, 10s.; Eccles, 2s. 6d.; P. H., 1s.; Stepney, 8s. 9d.; 'E. C., 1s.; Birmingham, 3s.; S.W. London, 10s.; R. E. T., Tottenham, 10s.; Clifford, 1s.; Thurmud, 5s.; W. G., 2s. 9d.; S. H. & Co., 6s. 6d.; Socialist Party of New Zealand, £6 10s.; M.P. Workers, £1 11s. 8d.; Manchester, £1 3s. 6d.; Hutch, 1s. 0d.; S. H. & Co., 6s. 6d.; P. H., 1s.: W. M., 2s. 2d.; East Ham, 10s.; W. P. S.. 2s. 6d.; E. C., 1s.; J. R. B., 4s. 6d.: G. S. S., 2s. 6d. Total: £485 11s. 8d.

Bazaar (1938)

 Party News from the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Bazaar will be held in December in aid of Party funds. We are to-day spending more money on propaganda and the distribution of literature than ever before and in order to meet the demands on Party funds we aim at increasing the sum raised last year.

Start sending in your gifts immediately. Having seen last year’s bazaar you know the kind of thing that is needed. If you cannot send in goods, money is an acceptable gift. Branches are asked to co-operate by appointing a member (or members) to organise the collection of suitable articles from members and sympathisers.

Time is short, but with the right effort we can surpass the sum raised last year.

Bazaar Committee.

SPGB Meetings (1938)

Party News from the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Answers to Correspondents: Trade Union Action and Political Action (1938)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Trade Union Action and Political Action

A correspondent (R. J., Spalding) asks the following question: —

When the Trade Unions approach employers with demands for, say, increased pay, longer holidays, shorter hours, improved pension arrangements, you support their efforts. When, to supplement that approach, they take parliamentary action, either by trying to influence M.P.s of all parties, or through their representatives (invariably in the Labour Party) I gather that it is your policy to oppose them.

Please define the point at which your support for working-class efforts at improved conditions under capitalism ceases, and say how I, as a Trade Union secretary, can justify this attitude to my own members if I accept your point of view.

The Railway Clerks’ Association has done quite a lot for its members at one time or another by parliamentary means. For instance, only during February this year action was taken through Labour members . . . . .  who, by threatening to block the L.N E. Railway’s General Powers Bill, to draw attention to the lack of a proper Superannuation Fund on the L.N.E., were successful in forcing the Company to begin negotiations, that have every appearance of being satisfactory. Again, through action in Parliament, a schedule was included in the Railway Grouping Bill, which had the effect of preventing wholesale dismissals. This action was definitely of benefit to the workers, including myself, concerned.

Reply.

In order to clear the way for our reply it is necessary to correct one statement in our correspondent’s question. He says that when trade unions support the candidature of Members of Parliament they are “invariably in the Labour Party.” Though generally true of Great Britain, it is not invariably so. The National Union of Teachers, for example, has candidates in the other parties also. Going outside this country we see the American unions openly bargaining to support candidates, irrespective of their party.

The next point to notice is, that until Socialists become a majority of the electorates, a man can only become a Member of Parliament by standing for capitalism; while promising at the same time to press for certain reforms. If, therefore, a miners’ union or railwaymen’s union finances a successful Parliamentary candidature, it means helping to delude the workers into the belief that it is in their interest to reform capitalism instead of abolishing it. Similarly, what our correspondent calls “trying to influence M.P.s of all parties” means, in fact, striking a bargain with them. M.P.s want votes, and that is the only kind of “influence” they are interested in. The union, therefore, goes to the M.P. and offers—even if it is not put so bluntly as this, both parties know what is meant—to provide votes in the constituency in exchange for support in the House of Commons. In America the bargaining is quite openly admitted and defended by the unions.

What is the attitude of the Socialist to these practices? What attitude can it be except opposition? The Socialist holds, and preaches to the workers, that capitalism must be abolished, not reformed, and that the abolition can only be achieved by the conscious action of the workers organised together on a Socialist basis. How could a Socialist at one and the same time teach these elementary Socialist truths and make nonsense of them by helping to return to Parliament men whose mandate is to retain capitalism and reform it? ;

There are other aspects also to be considered, The achievement of Socialism requires that the workers should organise together on the basis of recognising that they have a common class interest against the capitalists. On no account can Socialists foster sectional rivalries among the workers. But when the Railwaymen try to get the support of M.P.s of all parties in the House of Commons, it frequently means, in fact, helping the Railway Companies to resist the encroachment of the road transport industry, and hoping, in return, to get some concessions from the M.P.s who represent Railway Company interests. Thus it divides the working class instead of uniting them. In the long run the class interest of the workers is more important, even to the sections which hope to gain small concessions by taking action on their own.

Also it should be remembered that when the capitalists feel that something vital to them as a class is at stake, all the Parliamentary lobbying and Labour candidatures count for nothing at all. A case in point was the 1927 Trade Union Act. The Baldwin Government wanted the Act and got it without paying the slightest attention to the opposition demands. In other words, if the united trade union movement cannot get something out of the employing class it is an illusion to think that political "influence” in the House of Commons will make any difference.

Lastly, it should not be forgotten that the final aim of the Labour Party is to get into office. When it does, that is when it takes on the administration of capitalism, the trade unions find themselves face to face with a Government of the people it had been supporting, only to discover, as did the miners in 1924, that the Labour Government tells them not to make “embarrassing” demands. Or it finds, as did the railwaymen, that the Labour Government is prepared to use Emergency Powers against strikers.

Workers should not forget, too, that after giving their support to the Labour Party in order to get petty concessions they found that Party in 1914 urging them into the trenches in capitalism’s war.

The outcome of it all is that many workers in their disappointment jump to the conclusion that a Labour Government is even worse than a Tory Government, and this enables Tories or Fascists, or some other supporters of capitalism, to gain adherents.

The time to avoid these evils is right at the start, and the way is to stick to Socialist political action, even if it appears to involve occasionally some loss of a minor advantage to some section of the workers.

Ed. Comm.

Answers to Correspondents: The Trade Union Political Levy (1938)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Trade Union Political Levy

A correspondent (R. J., Spalding), who is a trade union branch secretary, says that he “strongly criticises the Labour Party from the Socialist point of view,” and is in doubt whether or not he ought to go on paying the political levy to his union. The money, he says, “ is at present utilised mainly to support such of our colleagues as have entered Parliament as Labour Members, in general parliamentary action and to provide loans to local parties in accordance with the decisions of local branch members; again almost exclusively the Labour Party benefits.”

He goes on to suggest two alternative courses of action, either not to pay the levy, or, alternatively, pay it but oppose its use to support the Labour Party.

The S.P.G.B.’s view is that the levy should not be paid, because only in that way can the Socialist’s opposition to reformist political parties be made clear and unambiguous. 

Ed. Comm.

Answers to Correspondents: The Busmen’s Problem : A Correction (1938)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Busmen’s Problem : A Correction

Our attention has been drawn by Mr. F. Snelling, National Officer of the National Passenger Workers’ Union, to a misstatement in the article which appeared in the August The Socialist Standard under the title “The Busmen’s Problem.” The statement referred to was as follows : — 

“Following the strike, an enquiry was held by the union into the activities of certain of the more prominent members of the section, with the consequence that a number of the leading rank and file members were suspended from office and others expelled from the union. The suspensions and expulsions were subsequently endorsed by the 1937 Biennial Conference of the T. & G.W.U.”

Mr. Snelling informs us that the decision to suspend and expel members was not taken until after the 1937 Biennial Conference, and although the enquiry was held and completed before the end of the Conference, no statement was before the Conference on the result of the enquiry.

The Committee of Inquiry which was set up issued an interim report which made no reference to the suspensions and expulsions. This was the report that was accepted by the Conference.

W. E. W. & F. W. J.