A Pamphlet which Misses its Mark (1932)

Pamphlet Review from the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Of the very large number of pamphlets claiming to be Socialist propaganda that are published month by month, only a small number are of even passing value. In the main they deal with capitalism’s problems from the standpoint of the reformer without any real grasp of Socialist principles. Occasionally something better is attempted. Among the latter is “From Slavery to Freedom,” published by the Socialist Propaganda League. It purports to be a Socialist survey of history from the earliest times, the object being to relate the Socialist future to the past development of mankind. It fails in its essential purpose for several reasons. The first is that the treatment of social development in the pamphlet is too sketchy and disjointed, due probably to the writer or writers having tackled the job without first deciding exactly what lessons were to be drawn. The value of a knowledge of history to the workers (even a much simplified and elementary knowledge) is a severely practical one. It is necessary that the workers should realise that the social system has changed in the past, that it has changed because of material forces which are still operating, that these forces work in a manner which can be expressed in laws of social development. Learning these lessons of history the worker can discover from the past how to organise for the capture of political power as a prelude to the establishment of Socialism. But to make this clear in the space of a small pamphlet is a very difficult task. The chief difficulty is to select just enough of the main features to illustrate the course of social development without making the description read like a bewildering catalogue of unrelated facts. The worker who approaches this pamphlet without previous acquaintance with the subject is likely to find it very hard to bring away the few outstanding ideas which it should have been the aim to provide.

The writer of the pamphlet has not the same excuse for certain careless and ambiguous passages in the historical section. For example, the treatment of the State is unsatisfactory and likely to mislead. Having said (p. 9) that the early Gens, Phratry, Tribe and Confederation each had its own “political organisation,” the pamphlet fails to explain the fundamental difference between that form of organisation and the later coercive political organisation—the State. On page 13 the capitalists are described as capturing “the political institutions” from the nobility, while on page 16 reference is made to the same capitalists depending upon “the centralised official and military State.” This would make it look as if the administrative organisation of the Tribes and Gens, etc., was like the political institutions controlled by the nobility, i.e., a “centralised official and military State.”

It is also very misleading to suggest, as is done on page 9, that cannibalism was an “occasional alternative” to slavery.

On page 10 is the grossly misleading assertion that under chattel slavery “wealth was overwhelmingly produced for use and not for profit.”

The inference to be drawn from the first three paragraphs on page 11 is that Feudalism originated through drought and famine in Asia and was not the offspring of conditions within the Roman Empire.

There is a slip on page 21, where it is said to be paradoxical that an employer should introduce a machine costing less than the wages of the displaced workers. “Less” should obviously be “more.”

On page 24, line 29, “creditors” should read “debtors.”

On page 16 we are told “The lands of the Monasteries and the Gilds had already been filched by the absolute monarchy,” and on the next page, “on their accession to power the merchants and manufacturing class proceeded to dispossess the Church of its lands and territories.” The suppression of the Monasteries occurred in the 16th century, before the “merchant and manufacturing class” came into possession of political power, although the movement was born of their needs.

Leaving the historical treatment and turning to the attempted exposition of Socialist principles, we find many serious defects, a few of which are briefly noted.

On page 2 we are told that the “threat of tariffs” will “still further depreciate their [workers] exiguous standard of comfort.” No further explanation is given of this statement, and the reader is left with the impression that tariffs are a cause of a lowered standard of living, and presumably, therefore, are something the worker should resist, although on page 26 free trade is called a “capitalist nostrum.”

On page 2 also we have the familiar I.L.P.-Communist nonsense, about the catastrophic collapse of capitalism in the assertion that the development of capitalism will lead “ultimately” to a condition where “production has been brought to a standstill.” A knowledge of the working of capitalism during crises would have prevented the writer from supporting this fallacy.

Again, on page 2, there is reference to the workers responding to the call for war with “a flat refusal.” This is just sentimental claptrap. A capitalist class placed in power by a non-Socialist electorate is not going to be greatly disturbed by attempts to organise a flat refusal. The curious part is that the next page contains the assertion “we cannot give support to any movements which have for their object the removal of some particular evil arising from the system itself.” Surely war is an evil arising from the system itself ?

The treatment of trade unions is muddled, apparently being the work of two persons with opposing views. One of them, on page 26, describes the evils of bureaucratic control of trade unions and asks rhetorically if the workers are not as competent as their officials “to control and manage their own organisation, not to please capital, but themselves?” This implies that trade unions can be made useful to the workers, and it is evidently the same writer who says on page 27 that the workers should “set about the task of building up more effective industrial organisations having for their motto the abolition, not the amelioration, of the wages system.” But the other writer will not have this. He says (p. 26) that “even the most perfect control over officials, and the most willing and efficient service from them could not make of trade unions an effective instrument for improving the conditions of the workers, or even retaining their hard-won present standards.” It is pertinent to ask how these “hard-won” standards were “won,” if not by trade union organisation and action. And if the workers ought to leave the present unions (as they are told on page 27) and build up “more effective industrial organisations,” having as their aim “the abolition, not the amelioration, of the wages system,” what would be the use of this if, as we are told on the next line, “industrial action can only be applied against effects of capitalism, and cannot dislodge the cause of the workers’ slavery and poverty” ?

la short, the pamphlet rejects the case made out by Marx for trade union action (see Value, Price and Profit for example), without making any serious attempt to answer his arguments.

On page 19 an explanation of the class-struggle tells the reader that the class-struggle ensues from the conflict between employers and workers over the conditions of employment, instead of out of the private ownership of the means of life. This is unsound in theory and in practise has led to many unsound actions by those who have fallen into this error.

Lastly, the pamphlet makes some malicious assertions about the S.P.G.B., for example, that it is controlled by a “caucus” although “in form, the control … is, democratic.” Anyone who cares to look at our rules and to see our E.C. and other organs at work (all of them are open to the public) will see the silliness of this assertion, for which no kind of evidence is given, except the vague implication that “all forward movements initiated outside of their own circle” are blocked. By “forward movements” the writer doubtless means such policies as the anti-Marxian and anti-working-class attitude on trade unions expressed in the pamphlet. It does not seem to have dawned on the writer of the pamphlet that such retrograde ideas make no headway in the S.P.G.B., because the members have joined it on a basis which excludes them and, therefore, do not want any such innovation.

Without saying so explicitly the pamphlet manages to imply that members of the S.P.G.B. are allowed to belong to the Angliccan or Catholic Churches. This is utterly devoid of truth.

Reference is made to the S.P.G.B.’s attitude that a Socialist, elected to Parliament by a Socialist electorate on the Socialist platform, might be instructed by the Party to vote for certain measures that might come before Parliament, on their merits. The only argument given in the pamphlet against this sound Marxian attitude is that such votes might in certain circumstances save a capitalist Government from defeat. The attitude put in the pamphlet is that “a Socialist electorate would understand the need for opposition on each and every occasion to each and every capitalist Party.” This overlooks the point that a vote against a measure introduced by a capitalist opposition party in the House might have precisely the same effect as a vote for a measure introduced by the Government, i.e., it “might save a capitalist Government from defeat.”

Incidentally, we wonder if the writer holds that a Socialist in the House of Commons ought to vote against, say, a proposal by a capitalist party to stop a war, on the ground that the proposal emanated from a capitalist party.

Our policy of fighting elections for propaganda purposes is attacked by the pamphlet, by means of the dishonest device of implying (without saying so definitely) that our candidates run on a non-Socialist programme. The writer of the pamphlet knows this to be completely untrue.

The Socialist Propaganda League should stop and consider whether its claim to be an organisation for educating the workers and clearing away confusion does not place it under the obligation of making only those statements in support of its case for which evidence can be given. Malevolent, improvable and lying insinuations, levelled on the principle that some part of a wad of mud is sure to stick, do not help the working class movement, and it is doubtful whether in. the long run they even help those who fling them.

G. H. D.