Tuesday, November 21, 2017

The Fallacies of Joad (1943)

From the August 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

We Socialists are constantly urging workers not to judge persons or political parties by labels. It is this free acceptance of terms or words used to describe political opinions and policies that is responsible in no small measure for the confusion and misunderstanding which exists in the minds of workers everywhere to-day.

If there is one tag used more often and indiscriminately than any other it is the label of "Socialism,” and it is only by a critical examination of the various nostrums put forward by pseudo-Socialists that the bankruptcy of their claims are revealed.

A case in point is that of Dr. C. E. M. Joad, who has on many occasions stated he is a Socialist. Dr. Joad is a man who receives much favourable publicity from the Press and the B.B.C. and who has come to be regarded with a great deal of respect by large numbers of workers who fall easily under the spell of erudite and fluent speakers. He is a member of the Brains Trust and a man of undoubted ability in certain spheres, but Socialist knowledge is not one of his assets. This is made clear in an article in Reynolds of April 18, in which Dr. Joad gives his reasons for aspiring to enter the post-war Government as a Labour member. He says: -—
   I have spent my life in learning and teaching, and I can see how the educational system of this country plays a greater part than any other single factor in perpetuating the division of our nation into two peoples —the privileged and the unprivileged.—(Reynolds, April 18.)
Dr. Joad then gives his solution as to how this division can be ended. He proposes to abolish the present educational system of, on the one hand, elementary schools for children of the working class, and on the other hand, kindergartens, preparatory schools, public schools and Oxford or Cambridge for children of the wealthy. In its place he wants to substitute a system in which every child is given an equal opportunity of developing his talents as a man and serving the community as a citizen, irrespective of the economic position of his father.” (Reynolds, April 18.)

Now it is true that the education, given out to-day plays a part, among other things, in perpetuating the class division in society. Whether or not it is greater than any other single factor is a point that need not concern us here. The influence of education on the preservation of things as they are is not due, however, to the two different standards of education, as Dr. .load thinks, but to the fact that education is coloured by a capitalistic outlook and inculcates into the mind of the child an unquestioning acceptance of the present order of society. Capitalist education is the antidote to revolutionary ideas.

The important point, however, the crux of the whole matter, is this: that education merely helps to perpetuate the class division—it is not the cause. It follows logically that even if you remove one of the perpetuating factors whilst leaving the basic cause untouched, then the effect of that cause will remain.

If Dr. Joad knew as much about the Socialist case as he would have us believe then he would know that the cause of the class division, not only in this country, to which Joad refers, but throughout the world, is an economic one: class ownership of the means of life. The class that owns and controls the means of wealth production, the land, factories, workshops, machines, etc., is obviously in a privileged position. Because of their ownership of the means of producing the things by which all men live they can deny access to these things by those that own nothing but their labour- power—-by far the largest portion of society. The propertyless class, then, are enabled to live only by the consent, and subject to the conditions of those who own the world’s resources.

The proposals that Dr. Joad puts forward do not assail the privileged position of the capitalist class. The continuance of the ownership of the means of living is unchallenged. In fact, this is implicit in Dr. .load’s statement when he talks about every child being given an equal opportunity “ . . . irrespective of the economic position of his father." What does this statement imply if not that economic inequality will still prevail? If there are rich and poor then there are privileged and unprivileged. Riches are synonymous with privilege; poverty with slavery.

Unlike this self-styled ”middle-class intellectual,” we Socialists, members of the ”unprivileged” class, put before our fellow-workers a case that really strikes at the roots of the problem. Our solution is not educational reform, nor any other kind of reform, but abolition of private property—capitalism. When the means of producing wealth are owned in common by the whole of society no class will be able to exploit a subject class. There will be no classes—in other words there will be no privileged and no unprivileged. And as regards education, only then will, there be available to every child the very best that modern science and technology can offer. The whole vast field of man’s knowledge will be open to all the children of society. That is the Socialist case and one that Dr. .load could well learn.
S. Pizer

We Prepare For Action (1943)

Party News from the September 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

The delegates at our Annual Conference at Easter decided that preparations should be begun now to meet the problems of the post-war period, when excellent propaganda prospects will open up. In accordance with this resolution, our Executive Committee has decided to inaugurate a fund to make it possible to appoint full-time organisers to develop the party organisation outside the London area.

Our propagandists who visit the provinces find that the Socialist message is being received everywhere they go with gratifying interest, our literature is being eagerly bought, and there are dear indications of a growing mistrust of Labourism and reformism among the workers. At the same time, our Central Branch, the members of which are scattered up and down the country in areas where no local branch exists, is growing considerably. But Socialist ideas cannot be spread widely without organisation, and organisation has to be built up.

We shall therefore need full-time organisers, whose duty it will be to propagate Socialism both in areas where branches or groups exist and in other provincial areas which have not yet heard our message. They will assist in the formation of new branches and help them to develop their internal strength, train speakers, etc., until they are able to function as strong and active centres of Socialist propaganda and organisation, thus releasing the organisers for work in other undeveloped areas.

With these future developments in mind, we call on our many sympathisers to subscribe to the fund which is being established for the purpose.

We are convinced, after long and careful examination, that Socialism is the only solution to the problems that afflict the workers and society in general, to-day. As Socialism is in the interest of the workers, the workers have but to understand in order to accept and work for it. Our aim therefore is to get our Socialist message spread as widely as possible.

Up to the present we have not had the means to cover the country with our propaganda. Now we are preparing to do so. We are training speakers, writers and organisers, and when we have sufficient funds for the purpose and can put organisers in the field we are bound to make rapid headway.

It remains for those who wish to see our movement progress to help us with contributions towards this end. If you want a life different from the slavery of the factory, the office and the farm, here is the opportunity to help forward the change. It is a change that will bring into existence a social system in which all men and women, on a footing of social equality, will be able to control their own destinies and make their existence on earth something worth living for. That time may not be far off. It rests with the workers how soon it will come. You can hasten the progress.

Send donations to J. Butler, 298, Halley Road, Manor Park, E.12, stating clearly that they are intended for the Provincial Organisers' Fund. P.O.'s, cheques, etc., must be crossed and made payable to the S.P.G.B.

Money and Socialism (1943)

From the October 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many people are incredulous when Socialists declare that money and banking will have no part to play in Socialist society.

Those on the "left" who are informed at all keep a discreet silence on this particular subject, or have been won over to the belief that Socialism has been established in Russia. Events and more information of the internal set-up of that country will in due course dispel the illusion from workers' minds. Yet such is the inroad that apologists of Russian “Communism" have made into the general theory that is essential to the workers' understanding of Socialism, that we are prompted to quote the Soviet War News pamphlet, "Believers and Clergy of the U.S.S.R." (Hutchinson & Co., 3d.). It contains a list of monies deposited with the State bank by priests and the acknowledgment of same by Stalin. One priest gives as follows: “I paid into the Government Bank on the 28th all my private savings, totalling 273,000 roubles'' (p. 6), (equivalent to about £11,000).

How these ecclesiastics came by their money need not detain us; what is exposed are the features of capitalism that Socialists have for years contended arise from the capitalist basis of Russian economy. What are the features of which we speak? Here a brief glance back is necessary in order to view capitalism in perspective.

Historically, capitalism, or the production of commodities for a market, breaks the fetters of feudal economy, based on domestic handicrafts and land cultivation, by revolutionising the means of production, thus changing the class relationship of landed proprietors and serfs to one of wage-workers and capitalists.

The erstwhile peasants become the employees in the capitalist's manufacturing workshops for wages.

Thereafter the development of the capitalist class itself goes apace with capital accumulation, and the invention of power-driven machinery to cheapen their commodities. Small private enterprise gives way to limited liability companies and trusts, tending always to remove the capitalists further from the activity of personal supervision by the delegation of a host of technicians, managers, etc., who carry out the capitalists' mandate, until in the case of State capitalism itself the State is used as the central organisation for managing capitalism as a national whole.

Whatever form it develops, the capitalist system produces commodities, and for their exchange and circulation needs a medium for expressing their value and price. All other commodities have been ousted by gold for this supreme position by the fact that gold enshrines in a small compass much human labour for its production.

Gold is therefore the commodity par excellence for expressing value in terms of money, on the basis that the labour-time expended to produce a given quantity of gold by modern methods—i.e., socially necessary labour—can be equated to an equivalent of socially necessary labour incorporated in any other commodity.

Most national currencies are therefore related to gold— an ounce of gold of certain fineness, for instance, divides up into nearly four pounds sterling, or in currency terms £3 17s. 10½d. The fact that gold, having doffed the commodity form and given the State stamp of money, can be replaced by metal or paper tokens, gives the clue to the basis of the capitalist arrangement of credit money, or exchange without immediate payment in gold, which enables the finance capitalist to offer to the whole capitalist class the total loanable wealth via the medium of banks, much to the dismay of the “small man," who finds difficulty in getting credit as against large concerns.

Any mismanagement of token currency by the capitalistic state in, say, the printing of too many notes to do the work of gold coin leads to inflation, and a comparable rise in prices.

Money is rightly said to be the lubricating oil that enables the capitalist mechanism to move, but it is not the motive power, for the true drive is the human need of the necessities of life. Standing in need of these necessities, the workers must sell their labour-power before they can buy commodities for their subsistence; and by the social legerdemain of money they are legally robbed of full access to the social wealth which they have produced, the trick being that wages will purchase but a portion of the total wealth made by them, the surplus being split up among the employing class.

With the foregoing as a background we return to the subject of Russia.

The social upheaval that took place in Russia opened up the country for industrialisation. The Bolsheviks seized power by the support given them by war-weary workers, soldiers and peasants, for the slogans of peace, land and bread; taking control of a state where the partly foreign capitalists were very weak politically. But could they jump the successive stages of capitalist development into Socialism? The S.P.G.B. declared an emphatic no! No intellectual minority could perform the social miracle of introducing Socialism with a non-socialist majority! Around the "Communist" dictatorship gathered those who determined to end the slough of semi-feudal Czardom. Learning from the large- scale producing countries, and applying this technique to a huge backward country, they tackled the problem that once faced all capitalist countries, namely, how to get cheap food for the towns. This was done by buying at a fixed price all peasant produce and by urging peasants into “Collectives" for the more economical use of machinery leased to them by the State. Alongside with this, industry was planned on the' basis of payment by results, or piecework, thereby increasing that part of the population dependent on wages paid by the State.

Thus at a stroke, this form of state capitalism removed any would-be capitalist to the completely impersonal owner of capital vested in the state, and created a social stratum of managers, experts, and functionaries who are appointed and salaried by the government. The class relationship in Russia is not yet sharply defined, but at first glance it could be described as one of state investors as against mere wage workers.

The official account of the state debt to hand is in the Statesman’s Year Book, 1942, which gives the following: "In January, 1933, the internal debt was 10,088,900,000 roubles; the internal debt has been increasing annually; some are lottery loans, and others bear interest of 4 per cent."

“National debts, i.e., the alienation of the state," says Marx, “whether despotic, constitutional or republican, marked with its stamp the capitalist era. The only part of the so-called national wealth that enters into the collective possession of modern peoples is their national debts." He then continues, “As with the stroke of an enchanter's wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and then turns it into capital without the necessity of its exposing itself to the trouble and risks inseparable from its employment in industry or even in usury."—Capital Glaisher Edition, p. 779, Genesis of Industrial Capital.)

Those simple souls who look for a capitalist class in Russia living in luxury will look in vain; for accumulation has had a chequered career in that country, being sunk in the fixed capital of new industrialisation, in the shape of roads, factories, power undertakings and equipment, much of which was bought and paid for from abroad, and this, together with the necessary heavy taxation drained away by the needs of modern war, leaves little time for the production of luxury goods. It would seem that the creditors of the young Russian state must wait for better times. Austerity is the mode at present for the monied class in Russia, although glimpses can be had of the upkeep of villas and servants which suggests a much higher living standard than that of wage-workers.

In contradistinction to state capitalism and those who advocate the nationalisation of the financial system, Socialists stand for the complete ending of the assessment of values in terms of money. Socialist society will not produce exchange-values or spend any part of its labour force obtaining the metal gold for currency, so essential to capitalist production and payment.

It will, undivided by classes, produce and distribute goods and services without money or price for use by the whole community.
Frank Dawe

Now That We Are All Capitalists: A Satirical Survey (1943)

From the November 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

According to the current propaganda nonsense, all who have a few pounds in a bank account or savings certificates are capitalists—"The population almost to a man . . . have acquired a capitalist interest in Great Britain” (Sir Alexander Roger, Daily Telegraph, April 14, 1943). Adjusting. ourselves to this cock-eyed view of the situation, we have decided to recast our own propaganda. It behoves us all to show a friendly interest in the doings of our fellow-capitalists.

We were glad to hear that our comrade, Lord Fitzwilliam, who died recently, was “one of the richest peers and owner of the biggest house in England, Wentworth Woodhouse” (Daily Telegraph, February 16, 1943). In our late fellow-capitalist's house there are. 1,000 windows, and "it was the custom to hand to each new guest a small packet of wafers to drop as a trail on his way to his room so that he could find his way back.” For the benefit of any foreign readers who may think that this kind of thing is universal in England, we may explain that the wafer system of finding your way about is not necessary in most of our houses. You just open the front door and there you are. When William's father died—now that we all belong to the same family, it would be unfriendly not to call him by his Christian name— he left £2,949,830, and William in 1933 "capitalised himself at £3,750,000 in four unlimited companies.” He was a man of great physical and mental powers. Although burdened with the cares that fall on all of us capitalists of looking after our investments, and though he was "much interested in engineering, especially mining engineering ” (Who’s Who), he was able to find time to travel much in India and Europe, and when he was young “he hunted three packs of hounds, one in Ireland and two in England. He would hunt all day in England, cross to Ireland at night, and hunt there all next day, and then return at night to hunt with his third pack on the following day” (Daily Telegraph). How he fitted this in with his work at the mine we do not know, but perhaps he was not so much interested in mining engineering as all that. Here, again, particularly for the benefit of American capitalist tricksters, who tell their local dupes that England (even more than Virginia) is given over to hunting, it should be explained that most of us have not even one pack of hounds.

Reverting to the question of the houses we capitalists live in, we recall that another of us, the Duke of Bedford, who died in 1940, was "one of the richest dukes and owner of several parts of London” (Daily Express, August 28, 1940). In 1913 he sold for £2,750,000 “part of his London estates, including Covent Garden Market, Drury Lane Theatre, the Royal Opera House, the Waldorf Hotel, the Strand and Aldwych Theatres, Bow Street Police Court, and property in 26 streets.”

By dint of painstaking research and inquiry, we have been able to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that it was not one of the wage-earning section of Sir Alexander Roger's “Capitalists ” who put up the £2,750,000. Nor were we able to trace any who as a regular thing are guests at the Waldorf.

Naturally, our interest in our fellow property owners does not stop at frontiers, so we may take a glance at U.S.A., where Comrade Marshall Field has just inherited £14,000,000 from his grandfather (Evening Standard, September 28th, 1943). Some accounts say £15,000,000, but what is a million between friends and fellow-capitalists? "This is in addition to the £9,000,000 accumulated interest he received five years ago under the will and other bequests totalling £9,500,000.” Marshall got the latest instalment on his 50th birthday, “ but there will be no special celebrations.” He said that he "does not contemplate any radical change in his life,” and that the sudden increase in his wealth " does not make me feel the slightest bit different.” It is this last touch that endears him to us. We know how he feels, like we do when we win 2s. on a horse. Like us, he is just going on with the daily routine. It all goes to prove those old sayings, " One touch of a savings bank deposit makes the whole world kin,” and "The capitalist propagandists can fool most of the workers for a very long time.”

Socialism—or Barbarism (1943)

From the December 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Recent issues of the New Leader (August 28th and September 25th) have carried rather sweeping onslaughts on the Socialist Party by Mr. F. A. Ridley.

He is annoyed at the "incurable colour-blindness” of the S.P.G.B., which is a "still surviving relic of the meliorist Victorian age" (shades of Keir Hardie!) “They seem to think that the world is a glorified Hyde Park," he snorts contemptuously. Whereas Mr. Ridley, according to the New Leader, sees through “ Socialist eyes."

These "relics" "have accused the present writer [Ridley] of exaggeration, because I have always maintained that the concrete alternative to the Social Revolution was not even the continuation of Capitalism, but, ultimately, the Barbarism of a new dark age." (New Leader, August 28th.—our italics.)

But on Saturday, September 25th, the Editor of the New Leader heads the article with the words " F. A. Ridley says the choice before humanity is Socialist Revolution or violent and bloody collapse" (our italics).

In the first few lines of this particular outburst he says, “a few weeks back I raised in this column the fundamental question of our time: Socialism or Barbarism," then follows a lengthy diatribe anent the “superannuated drivel" of those “fundamentalists" the S.P.G.B. who imagine "there are no set-backs in history."

Incidentally. he did not announce all this till after the reported destruction of Hamburg—when he says "it is time to speak out " (August 28th). Why he kept it bock till then is a mystery.

He also states, “we are in a state of war. In my opinion this state of war will end with the end of Capitalism and not before " (August 28th), i.e.. not permanent revolution, like Trotsky—but permanent world war.

The present war, "it is not fanciful to predict," will lead, he says, to an underground society like that predicted by Bulwer Lytton in his novel, "The Coming Race," and lastly, as though all this were not enough, "a grimmer .age of permanent war, of revolution and counter-revolution has arrived“ (August 28th).

Four weeks later, "apart from the victory of the Social Revolution, everything indicates the collapse of this era as the bloodiest and most violent of all." (Italics ours.)

We have cited all this wearisome rigmarole because we cannot start to sort it out until we have got the whole mass of self-contradictory notions in one heap.

We may now draw up a little table as follows:—

In the opinion of Mr. Ridley the present war shows that alternatives before humanity are:—
1. Barbarism.2. A new Dark Age.3. Violent or bloody collapse.4. An underground society,5. Permanent War.6. A grimmer age of War, Revolution and Counter Revolution.
It is obvious, of course, that to Mr. Ridley and the New Leader all these are synonymous terms.

It must be admitted that if one's only concern is to put the wind up readers of the New Leader, i.e., publish sensational "horrific" articles about what will happen to you, presumably, if you don't vote for Commonwealth candidates (who support "Victory"), and eat up all your nasty I.L.P. porridge, it is probably quite effective.

Unfortunately, it has nothing whatever to do with Socialism—or its attainment.

Mr. Ridley says "I propose to apply this dialectical method, the method of Marxism, to the historical philosophy which denies the present retrogression and approaching collapse of capitalist civilisation."

"Propose" is the operative word.

Shorn of all his irrelevant allusions to various classical writers, militarists, poets, historians, etc. (his articles are liberally sprinkled with frequent references to Tacitus, von Clausewitz, Leonardo da Vinci, Marx, Lord Tennyson, dear Lytton, Darwin, Aristotle, Flinders Petrie, Spartacus and old Socrates and Cicero, of course; Sir Geo. Paish, Lord John Ball), and his alleged "quotations," page references for which he never gives, what does all this ridiculous taradiddle about “bloody and violent collapse " amount to? It amounts to this—that Mr. Ridley and the New Leader have swallowed whole the moth-eaten Communist Party nonsense of twenty years ago (and even the Communists lifted it from the Labour Party), that Capitalism will collapse; and the S.P.G.B. have not. F. A. Ridley, therefore, says they [the S.P.G.B.] think that “evolution is uninterrupted," and are like "Lot's wife frozen into a permanent pillar of salt.” (September 25th).

The plain fact is that Mr. Ridley has lost the faintest glimmer of a notion of economics—and consequently, of the part they play in history; and all his flashy citations of scores of “great names" are merely an ineffectual attempt to conceal his ignorance.

Mr. Ridley does not know what Barbarism is—or Capitalism—either. He has no notion of how it is defined, or was determined. To a scientific Socialist, these terms are not fancy trimmings for political ghost stories; they connote a certain definite stage in social development; and Marx's great merit was in discovering that a certain stage of development of the productive forces produced that scheme of social organisation, e.g.. Barbarism. In other words, he gave us a clue to the law of social development.

Ridley talks glibly of Barbarism OR a new Dark Age. The period called the Dark Age by historians was not Barbarism—it was feudalism, something totally different, and to announce blithely in print that we may revert, to one or the other, just accidentally, is sheer idle nonsense.

If Mr. Ridley could forget Socrates and von Clausewitz for a minute, and turn to the man who actually studied Barbarism—Lewis H. Morgan, or the man who popularised him, Frederick Engels, he might learn something. There, we find Barbarism defined as—
"The time of acquiring the knowledge of cattle raising, of agriculture and of new methods for increasing the productivity of nature by human agency." (Origin of the Family, Kerr ed., p. 39.)
Barbarism started with, the discovery of pottery and ended with the invention of writing.

Is Mr. Ridley seriously suggesting in an article in which he describes the tremendous advances made by aviation, that humanity is discarding the knowledge it has accumulated and returning to primitive pasturage and agriculture as occupations?

And because he is hopelessly ignorant of the economics of Capitalism, he actually says in his article that "capitalist society does not differ in its social framework of exploitation and inequality from earlier vanished civilisations, such as those of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans . . .
"Wage-slavery is slavery, even if technically different from chattel-slavery." (September 25th.)

So it turns out that it is no different anyway—so why Ridley is so worried about going back to it nobody knows.

Even the New Leader has hardly ever printed a more stupid statement.

Modern machinery, etc. (constant capital) presupposes "free" wage-slaves (variable capital) to operate it, and cannot be run in any other way. Chattel slaves couldn’t be trusted with a mattock—let alone a tractor.

But now we come to the guts of the question — will Capitalism collapse ?
The Socialist Party said No, when almost everybody else, including James Maxton, was saying Yes.
   "I am perfectly satisfied that the great Capitalist system that has endured for 150 years in its modern form, is now at the stage of final collapse, and not all the devices of the statesmen, not all the three-party conferences, not all the collaboration between the leaders, can prevent the system from coming down in one unholy crash. They may postpone the collapse for a month, two months, three months, six months, he cries, but collapse is sure and certain." (August 22nd, 1931: "Why Capitalism will not Collapse," S.P.G.B., February, 1932. p. 9.)
So that all Ridley has done, after twelve years, is to stick a few "bloodys" in. Maxton even knew the date then, which Ridley doesn't claim to—now.

The whole thing originates in the absurd 1920-30 propaganda of the Communists—the idea of automatic collapse followed by blind revolt of the workers—which, for the Communist Party bosses, was the "psychological moment" to "seize power." 

Everything has shown since that "BLIND” revolts of the workers don't end in Socialism—but much more likely in Fascism.
   "Our work has been made more difficult by the idea that Capitalism may collapse of its own accord. It is clear that if Capitalism were going to collapse under the weight of its own problems then it would be a waste of time and energy to carry on Socialist propaganda and to build up a real Socialist party aiming at political power. If it were true, as is claimed, that Capitalism will have broken down long before it will be possible for us to win over a majority for the capture of political power, then, indeed, it would be necessary to seek Socialism by some other means. Workers who have accepted this wrong and lazy idea of collapse have neglected many activities that are absolutely essential. They have taken up the fatalistic attitude of waiting for the system to end itself. But the system is not so obliging."
(Why Capitalism will not Collapse, S.P.G.B., p. 1.)
   "The problem of over-production that is behind every crisis is always relieved in due course for a time. Employers close down production. . . .  Capitalists destroy stocks. . . . Stocks deteriorate. . . .  As a last resort there is the colossal destruction of wars to relieve the pressure. Sooner or later, these crises of over-production have always given place to a resumption of fairly brisk trade and employment." (Ibid, p. 14—our italics.)
That's just what Ridley can't grasp. When ho avers that the crises will become permanent wars, he doesn't understand that the WAR is the temporary solution of the crisis.
   "How does the bourgeoisie overcome these crises? asked Marx. On the one hand by the compulsory annihilation of a quantity of the productive forces." (Communist Manifesto, Rejayonoff edition, p. 33.)
This war is that annihilation. Even Lenin was well aware that "no situation for Capitalism is without a way out—we know that the overthrow of Capitalism . . .  requires the most titanic and long-drawn struggle, action, organisation and victory of the working class, and that until that is attained, Capitalism will still drag on from crisis to crisis, from hell to greater hell. (Why Capitalism will not Collapse, p. 15.)

To which we added : 
"The workers will never be able to take sound action until they possess the knowledge of Socialism that it is our aim to provide, so long as the workers lack a knowledge of Socialist principles and determination to bring Socialism about—each crisis will pass off in this fashion. . . . Until a sufficient number of workers are prepared to organise politically for the conscious purpose of ending Capitalism, that system will stagger on indefinitely from one crisis to another." (Why Capitalism will not Collapse, p. 15.)
   "There have been  . . .  political parties such as the Labour Party, the I.L.P., and the Communist Party seeking support on programmes of reforms. Some of these bodies have obtained a large membership and have appeared to gain small concessions. Some have even taken over the government and tried to apply their reform programmes. But such organisations do not, and cannot, bring Socialism. Their members are attracted by the promise of immediate results. . . . They may reform Capitalism, but they cannot abolish it." (Ibid, p. 16.)
Mr. Ridley should not be entirely unaware of all this. For he has rushed in where Brockway and other I.L.P.ers fear to tread; and debated with the S.P.G.B. The result has always been the now-evident and bloodless collapse not of the Capitalist system—but of Mr. F. A. Ridley.