Editorial: Rifts in the Atlantic Charter (1943)

Editorial from the October 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

When this war began, as when the last war began, there was a general chorus of “Never again.” To those who accepted the theory that wars are caused by the malevolence and greed of one man, Hitler, or of a group of Nazi leaders, it was easy to sketch the future peace. Remove the aggressors, disarm the aggressor Powers, then, in the words of the Atlantic Charter, a peace will be established which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries. But the Atlantic Charter, like Wilson’s 14 Points of the last war, is founded on a myth, the myth that nations in a capitalist world are just associations of human beings, able and willing to dwell within their own boundaries and to enter into mutually beneficial trading relationship. Capitalist states are entities in which one class, the owning class, lives by exploiting the property-less class, and must, in order to realise the profits of exploitation, sell goods in the world market in fierce competition with the capitalists of other states. There will be no enduring peace in the world until the world’s capitalists are dispossessed; the means of production and distribution made the common property of society as a whole; and goods produced not for sale at a profit but solely for use. The Atlantic Charter is silent on this point, but whenever the statesmen descend from the clouds of rosy hopes to the practical business of international relationship it keeps on breaking through. After the last war Lord Keynes told America that the only way, short of making an annual present to Europe, was that “America must buy more and sell less”: but the capitalists who own and control America’s great mass production industries (like their fellows in every other country) are not in business for charitable purposes, and their ruthless determination is to sell more, not less. In this war discussions have been going on round rival British and American plans for financing international trade. We need not go into the details, it will suffice to emphasise the fact that they are rival schemes, each group being concerned to safeguard its own interests. Here is the comment of a British Financial Editor (Manchester Guardian. August 24. 1943) on the latest version of the American plan : —

“As it now stands the American plan is entirely unacceptable to any country which has learnt by bitter experience that the attempt to prevent variations in exchange values by internal deflation is bound to produce mass unemployment. This is a grave matter. For three years the pessimists have been telling us not to expect any genuine co-operation from the United States in the financial and economic field and to prepare instead for an independent policy. . . . This plan . . will enormously strengthen British commercial isolationism. If it is persisted in those in Britain who are working for a truly international economic policy will be disastrously weakened. . . Let is be said at once that no British Government could accept anything remotely like these proposals and remain in power beyond the first post-war election.”

Here is the voice of the British capitalist, on the matter nearest to his heart—trade and profits. How far removed it is from the woolly optimism of the Atlantic Charter !

Then let us look at the question of territorial claims. The Charter has it that the signatories “seek no aggrandisement, territorial or other”—but what about the real post-war world in which the armed Powers again look to their defences, strategic frontiers and so on, and invoke the old principle of seeking security by alliances and the balance of power? On August 31, 1943, the Daily Mail, in an editorial headed “Where We Stand,” made a very forthright declaration of British imperial interests. Affirming that the American and Russian Governments at the proposed three-Power conference would “resolutely defend the vital interests of the American and Russian nations,” the Mail summarised the vital interests of the British Empire. Accepting the doctrine of the European balance of power, the Mail says that Britain “went to war, and not for the first time, so that no single Power or coalition of Powers should dominate Europe.” For this reason, says the Mail, “she is pledged to restore the independence of Poland—of all Poland and not half of it. She is pledged to restore the independence of Yugoslavia. She is in honour bound to liberate all the nations, big and small, who have fought on our side. . . . And this is so of all Europe, not only of Western Europe. Eastern Europe is as important in the balance of power as Western. The independence of the south-eastern countries of Europe is as necessary to the security of the Eastern Mediterranean, and therefore of Imperial communications, as the independence of the Low Countries is to the security of home waters.”

The significance of this is that the Russian Government, though pledged to restore “a strong and independent” Poland, has declared its unwillingness to restore Poland’s 1939 frontiers (statement published by Russian Embassy in Washington, Daily Mail, February 27, 1943).

The Daily Mail regards these rival interests as being capable of settlement, but with Germany and France for the time being too weak to exercise much influence, it is obvious that the relationship between America, Britain and Russia after this war will be a crucial question. An American writer on foreign affairs, Mr. Walter Lipmann, in his “U.S. Foreign Policy,” puts the issue in dramatic form when he writes that if the post-war settlement of the European States on Russia’s borders discloses a conflict of interests between Russia and the Western Allies, “then every nation will know that it must get ready and must choose sides in the eventual but unavoidable next war.”

In this connection it will be recalled that Russia has its own version of the balance of power; in the words of Foreign Commissar Molotov : “We have always held that a strong Germany is an indispensable condition for durable peace in Europe” (speech to the Supreme Soviet, October 31, 1939).

These are the European and Anglo-American problems that will confront a capitalist world after this war, but each continent and ocean contributes its own further problems. China hopes to emerge as a dominant Pacific Power controlling lands formerly held as colonies by Western Powers, and bent on speedy industrialisation and entry into the world market as a powerful competitor. The South American Republics have their rivalries with each other and with U.S.A. Africa will again be the scene of struggles for trade between European, British and South African interests and the Eastern Mediterranean has its problem of Jew and Arab—”Trouble is brewing in Palestine,” says the Cairo Correspondent of the News-Chronicle (August 30, 1943). “Both Jewish Zionists and Arabs are armed and both are preparing to use their arms against each other. … As the menace of the world war ebbs from the shores of the Mediterranean, a wave of civil war threatens to break over Palestine.” The struggle between Indian and British capitalism has yet to be decided, under the slogans of national independence. Turkey and the proposed Federation of Arab States have to carve out their place in the sun.

In short, the world will still be a capitalist world based on private ownership and competitive struggle. The remedy lies neither in the amiable hopes of the Atlantic Charter nor in the so-called “realism” of the Daily Mail, but in the achievement of Socialism, which alone can destroy the forces which make for wars and organise world co-operation of the human race.

The Origin and Growth of Nazism (Conclusion) (1943)

From the October 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 2.

Like a thunderbolt, the world slump struck German economy amidships towards the end of 1929. The capitalist magnates of New York, London and Paris who had financed Germany’s industrial comeback, hastily called in whatever part of their loans they could lay their hands on. Thus the German crisis assumed even more disastrous proportions than that of other countries. Her industry had rehabilitated itself on foreign credit and when this credit vanished, the bottom fell out from Germany’s reservoir of production.

This crisis of “overproduction” is an inevitably recurring feature of capitalism. It is “overproduction” indeed, over-production of the surplus value accumulated by its capitalist owners and which they cannot use or dispose of profitably. But for the workers it means unemployment and reduced standards of living. For the German masses the post-war years had been a continuous ordeal of extraordinary strain. The new republic had never settled down politically because the economic background was seldom stable enough (in the capitalist sense of “stability”) to allow for the mental adjustment necessary. When, therefore, the government of Bruening (Right Wing Catholic) was defeated in the Reichstag in July, 1930, the electorate went to the polling booths on September 14, 1930, in an atmosphere of a world  crisis which appeared to them as the consummation of years of distress and bewilderment. From this election the Nazis emerged as a mass party. They secured 6,400,000 votes and 107 seats in the Reichstag – eight times the number polled by them in 1928. The percentage of total voters who actually voted jumped from 50 per cent to 73 per cent: nearly four million new voters had entered the lists. It is estimated that most of these, probably three million, hitherto non-political elements, went to the Nazis. Thus the party of  “National Socialism” is revealed as a product of the world crisis – a party of wild despair and wild hopes.

The Nazis owed this unparalleled success to the fact that in the eyes of many their policy and make-up promised a complete break with the past. The fanatical fervour of the “Brownshirts,” their demagogy and displays, did not appear out-of-place under the circumstances. It reflected the neurosis of the modern troubled world. Compared to them, the parties of the republic, particularly the Social Democrats, were compromised with the “old order” and completely lacking in  “dynamic.” The German Communist Party, under the circumstances prevailing a possible rival to the Nazis, secured 3 ½  million votes. They, too, competed for the votes of those who wanted a break with the “old system” (in fact, large blocks of votes repeatedly fluctuated backwards and forwards between the Nazis and the Communists), but their past inconsistency and support of Social Democracy lowered their standing as a political party. And their ties with Moscow limited their appeal as a Russophile organisation. German industrialists  and big business owners now turned in increasing numbers to Hitler’s party as a means of helping them to give Germany what they were pleased to call “political stability.” They themselves, as “Nationalist” and  “Conservative” parties, had dismally failed to secure any backing of consequence among the people. In the September elections they had even lost a good deal of their previous support to the Nazis. In the “National Socialist” movement they saw an organisation that could compete for “mass appeal” with the Social Democratic and Communist  parties whilst at the same time providing a check to the political and economic threats of the disgruntled workers.

The union between the Nazis and a large section of the German capitalist class was publicly sealed by the parliamentary co-operation of Hitler’s party with the “nationalist” bloc led by Huegenberg, the leading business magnate. This does not mean, however, that the two parties had merged or that the capitalists of Germany were willing to commit their fate into the hands of the Nazi leaders. Nor would it be correct to assume that the Nazis from then onwards became the puppets of the German capitalists. There was in fact a great deal of distrust between the two groups. The Nazi movement was at no time comparable to the orthodox political parties which capitalism had hitherto thrown up. They were not a “class” party in the sense that the Conservative Party in Britain is the party of present-day British capitalism. Their membership and supporters held views as varied as the colours of the well known chameleon. The Race-mythology which attempted to concoct a special philosophy of its own, was merely one wing, and not the whole, of the Nazi movement. Its spokesmen is Alfred Rosenberg (this is definitely a Jewish name). The mass-appeal of the Nazis certainly does not rest on the race-myth. The S.A. (Storm-troops) led by Captain Ernst Roehm was largely composed of unemployed as wells as those dregs of society which Marx called very descriptively the “Lumpenproletariat.” It was this body that carried the terror against the Jews and other opponents of the Nazis. Numerically the most powerful section of this political hybrid was the “radical” wing led by Gregor Strasser. Strasser later attempted to detach this wing from the party and come to terms with trade union and Social Democratic elements. He, like Roehm, was later murdered by his former “comrades” in the “blood-purge” of June, 1934.

This political incoherency is the real explanation of the “Leader-cult.” The more backward and confused politically a people are, the stronger is the gravitation toward absolute personal leadership as a unifying force. Conversely, to the extent that the masses become politically enlightened, the need  for “leadership” disappears.

These differences, as well as the appetites for power of individual Nazi politicians, caused serious conflicts within the movement. But the momentum of the crisis, plus the powerful financial backing from the capitalists, boosted the Nazi Party from strength to strength. In July, 1932, the Nazis polled nearly fourteen million votes, and thus became the strongest single party in the country. To illustrate the unscrupulous lengths to which these political adventurers relied on the credulity of the German electorate (or a large part of it), the following items from their “Immediate Economic Programme,”  published at this election, can be quoted:

“Four hundred thousand houses for single families to be built within a year!”

“To increase the annual yield from German agriculture by two milliard marks,” a fantastic notion.

And, of course, these “revolutionary economists” proposed to abolish the gold standard!

What was the reaction of the so-called “working class” parties to this mortal challenge to all the principles and traditions which the workers since the time of Marx and Engels have built up by their historic struggles? Now, after the event, accusation and counter-accusation are hurled at each other by the parties involved. The worker who has no knowledge of the recorded events is confused. The facts, however, condemn both the Communist Party of Germany and the Social Democrats as equally guilty. The Communists who still claim that they proposed a “United Front” would have defeated the Nazis are, as usual, lying. They had no intention of combining forces with the Social Democrats against Hitler. On the contrary, their avowed purpose was to destroy the German equivalent of the Labour Party by every means, fair or foul. So intense was their hostility that they supported the plebiscite on August 9, 1931 organised by Huegenberg’s reactionary “Stahlhelm” and the Nazi Party, to turn out of office the Social Democratic Government of Prussia. As late as May, 1934, after more than a year of Nazi tyranny, Palme Dutt, the well-known British Communist, declared in his book, Fascism and Social Revolution:

“It would be more correct to say of Social Democracy and Fascism: their aims are the same (the saving of capitalism from the working class revolution); they differ only in their methods.” (Page 155.)

It was a year later, in 1935, when the Russian Government had reason to fear  the threat of war from Nazi Germany, that the Communists obediently turned themselves inside out again and clamoured for “Unity against Fascism.”

And yet no argument can be shown to prove that a combination of Social Democracy and “Communism” would have stayed the Nazi onslaught against the Weimar Republic. This Republic had virtually ceased to exist when Bruening became Chancellor in the spring of 1930. Bruening governed the country by emergency decrees which were authorised by Hindenburg (President of the Republic since 1925). Hindenburg, the Monarchist General, who had not a good word for the republic, but who nevertheless had taken the oath of loyalty to the Weimar Constitution. Bruening’s emergency decrees violated the constitution, but the only party in the Reichstag, who genuinely upheld the principles of Weimar, the Social Democrats, shrank from challenging Bruening and the popular figure of the President who was behind him. They feared that the defeat of Bruening would mean the triumph of Hitler. It was the age-old reformist illusion of compromise; the suicidal tactic of the “lesser evil.” In pursuit of this self-destructive policy the Social Democratic Party of Germany first linked itself with the Junker Generals, then with the catholic Centrists, and lastly again with the militarist Junker, Hindenberg. These alignments sapped the German Labour movement of most of its strength, destroyed the hopes and enthusiasm of  its working class supporters, and finally handed the sorry remains to the Nazis for the death blow. How many more tragic lessons must the workers learn before they abandon once and for all the folly of the lesser evil?

By the end of 1932, the world crisis was at its climax. The markets of the world, glutted by the fertility of modern wage labour, became additionally restricted from the high tariff walls erected by the frightened governments. The Ottawa Agreement barred the way to the raw materials of the British Empire. The capitalist class of Germany were confronted with problems involving their very existence. One half of their industry was at a standstill (the unemployed numbered six and seven millions). Their attempts to impose a semi-military rule on the country through Hindenberg, Von Papen, and general Schleicher, had broken down owing to the hostility of the Reichstag. Germany, although its peculiar development and abnormal condition had, for the time being, brought the democratic forces to failure and disaster, was yet too highly developed to be governed by a regime which did not grow out of a mass political organisation in the country. The Nazis, although they suffered a set-back at the election following their triumph in July, 1932 (they only polled 11,730,000, and thus lost two million votes within a few months, i.e. on November 6, 1932), were the only hope of consolidating German capitalism. Consequently, an agreement was reached between Von Papen (the confidant of Hindenburg) and Hitler, and by it Hitler was installed as Chancellor by Hindenburg in January, 1933. Immediate preparations were made for a further election in order to present the new government to the country as a “national” government so as to strengthen the popular support. The elections, held March 5, 1933, gave the Chancellor, with the backing of the President, attracted millions of additional Nazi votes. Seventeen million votes were cast for them at this election. The seats in the Reichstag were divided as follows:-

Nazis………………………………………….288

Social Democrats………………………….......120

Communists………………………..……….......81

Centre…………………………………..…….....73

Huegenberg’s Nationalists ……….…..................52

All others……………………………..…….........14

 Total                                                                     647

88 per cent of the total electorate voted.

Thus the Nazis together with the nationalists, with whom they were in coalition, held a clear majority. The question arises: To what extent were these figures representative of national opinion freely expressed?

The Reichstag Fire (February 25, 1933) had been blamed on the Communists, and this party was certainly at a grave disadvantage. Nevertheless, the party lost only 19 seats compared with the previous election (November 6, 1932) and a mere eight seats compared with the elections previous to that (July 31, 1932). The Social Democrats lost only one seat.

This proves not only that the votes cast were, in the main, representing popular opinion (although it must be remembered the facilities for propaganda were almost wholly monopolised by the Nazis and their Nationalist allies), but more important still, despite the fact that Hitler was chancellor and his Brownshirt thugs roamed the streets at will, a considerable section of the German people, mostly the industrial working class, were yet determined enough to declare their opposition to the new regime, and the new rulers were not able to prevent them from doing so. Only later, when the government had managed to pass a special measure through the Reichstag, did they abolish the old constitution and establish the dictatorship of the “Third Reich.”

It is admittedly an impossible task to assess here comprehensively the import of events to which tomes have already been dedicated, and of which some aspects remain obscure. The main conclusions from the foregoing analysis are stated herewith:

Political democracy was born in Germany under most unpromising circumstances and against an unfavourable historical background. Its birth was not the result of a struggle by the workers nor the desire or need of the German capitalist class. It was thrown to the nation by the defeat of 1918 and the temporary impotence of ruling class elements.

Nevertheless, the power of the constitution was such that only a mass movement could break it. The Nazi Party was able to rally those sections of the masses who were most backward politically and who had not yet shed their dependence on absolutism. Their success was contributed to by the weak and compromising character of German Social Democracy which attempted to combine the role of working class reformist party with the guardianship of capitalist interests. The Communists drew a large section of the working class into opposition to the democratic method and so the elements whose co-operation was essential to ensure a popular basis for the Republic, were split from the beginning.

The militarist class or junkers who had been the real power behind the absolutist throne up till November, 1918, were seriously weakened by the army’s defeat. The re-arming of Germany placed them once again into a key position in German politics. This time, however, they were dependent on mass-parties for their link-up with the people; this was provided in the first period by Social Democracy and other Republican parties. The world crisis in 1930-33 barred the world market and access to raw materials to the capitalist class of Germany (most of whom are industrialists). This determined the capitalist and militarist elements to embark on a policy of territorial annexation involving war. The Nazi Party then appeared as a means of ending the violent political fluctuations and preparing the country materially and psychologically for the coming conflict. The Nazis, therefore, could never have formed a stable regime of any permanency. Their rule was bound to involve a series of climacterics leading to war. They were in the last analysis a party of crisis and war.

Finally, the Nazis owed their triumph directly to the world economic crisis. Thus the periodical crises of capitalism now emerge as a powerful force for the shaping of political mass opinion. In this particular instance the circumstances combined to give the spoils to a party of reaction. But the future may well atone for this setback. With the fuller experience of workers everywhere, the crises to come -“planners” notwithstanding – should provide an immense stimulus to the world movement for Socialism.

Sid Rubin

SPGB Meetings (1943)

Party News from the October 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Look Round. (1905)

From the March 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The people of this country always forget and forgive and the capitalist politicians can do and say anything without troubling whether they are acting consistently. Ofttimes they deliberately contradict themselves. It is part of the game.

* * *

Our fearful misgovernment of the Indian Empire has produced one of the most appalling famines on record, yet the English conquerors seem generally indifferent to the sufferings of the victims. … In face of these manifold wrongs the alleged Liberal leaders are silent. What a contemptible gang! … It was very amusing to hear Sir H. C. Bannerman say that the nation was “thunderstruck” at the revelations of Mr. Burdett-Coutts. Had he read “Reynold’s Newspaper” he would have found during the last six months numerous letters from soldiers containing these exact charges. It shows how well he is qualified for leadership, being unaware of the exposures which we have made.

W. M. T., in “Reynold’s,” July 8th, 1904.

* * *

We have no hesitation in saying that any Liberal member who, publicly or privately, intrigues to prevent Sir H. Campbell Bannerman from being the next Liberal premier, ought to be regarded as an enemy to the party of progress. The votes of the Radical Democrats ought to go to the Tory rather than to such a traitor to the decencies of public life in this couutry.

W. M. T., in “Reynold’s,” Feb. 12th, 1905.

* * *

For obvious reasons, lawyers, in particular, require good memories.

* * *

In a recent issue of the “Clarion,” Mr. R. B Suthers waxes indignant at the “raging, tearing, jingoistic screeching” of the “Daily Mail” because that journal perpetrated a provocative headline to a report of a certain rabid speech by a minor member of the Government surnamed Lee. The objectional headline read “Our Naval Eye on Germany,” and was calculated, says Mr. Southers, “to foment hatred between us and Germany” and was therefore “wicked and criminal.” Yet we do not remember to have read a similar condemnation of the “raging, tearing, jingoistic screeching” of Mr. Robert Blatchford, also of the “Clarion,” who, a few weeks back, was so strenuously urging that we should keep our Military Eye on Germany because he thought he could see Germany’s Naval Eye on us, and who was so anxious that we should be in a position to blow Germany out of he North Sea. Mr. Suthers’ just and righteous indignation would be more effective if he had first given some indication of his desire to set his own house in order. As it is, his protest falls flat because it does not ring true and he lays himself open to the retort discourteous of the “Daily Mail.”

* * *

He was going the next day with other comrades to meet the Prime Minister. (A voice: “What’s the good ?”) He did not think it would be much good but if the proposals they laid before him were carried out he believed it would be the means of remedying for the time being some of the misery which they saw around them.

W. Thorne, at Canning Town, Feb. 6th, 1905.

* * *

All the money coming into West Ham had hindered them from carrying on the fight so vigorously as they might otherwise have done, for when they had wiped out a little of the misery the workers had become the more contented and drifted back into the old conditions.

A. Hayday, at the same meeting.

* * *

“What’s the good” of raising false hopes in the hearts of the people and encouraging them to look to the capitalist party to deal with the unemployed problem ? What’s the good of neglecting revolutionary propaganda in order to distribute relief tickets ? Is there not a sufficient number of charity-mongers to do this propping up of the capitalist system ? Hayday, Jack Jones, McAllen, Mercer and others could surely find more useful employment, from a Socialist standpoint, than that of appealing to the exploiters to “lull the cry of toil and spare a trifle from the spoil.”

* * *

Hodge is a poor patient plodder, who lives his monotonous life driving horses and waggons, toiling in damp fields, and drinking in village ale-houses, with sage and onions hanging from the rafters and sawdust strewn over the floors. … He jogs out his plodding, patient, uncomplaining existence until, rheumatic-ridden, he inevitably seeks aid from the rural guardians, to be questioned sharply by the chairman, with the white waistcoat and the double chin, as to his sinful remissness in neglecting to provide for himself in old age. Provide for old age out of 10s. a week and a cottage!—something less than the price of a bottle of champagne squandered by his “better ” in a flash London bar any night.—LONDON OPINION.

* * *

“As Artemus Ward held that an occasional joke improved a comic paper, I hold that a Socialist paper should contain some Socialism,” says Mr. R. Blatchford in the “Clarion.” After this avowal we shall look forward to future issues of that journal with great expectations.

* * *

We greatly regret that Councillor Ewell McAllen, of the S.D.F., is pursuing a line of conduct which is not only calculated to bring that body into disrepute, but also to discredit the Socialist movement in general. At a meeting of the West Ham Town Council last month he ”let himself go” with the following choice interruptions : “Dirty Crow, black Crow!” “You paralysed parasite ! You greasy reptile ! You miserable liar!” “Sit down, monkey face !” “Withdraw, you cur. Monkey face, withdraw. You cur !” Any person of average intelligence can acquire a sufficient knowledge of the Socialist position to be enabled to crush his opponents by irrefutable arguments, without recourse to mere abuse. If Councillor McAllen does not recognise this or has not sufficiently studied Socialism to place himself in a position to argue with its antagonists, then he should surely resign his public position until, by study and reflection, he has become a really “fit and proper person” to champion the Cause.

* * *

The Saturday evening editions of the “King’s Lynn News” have contained some caustic comments on the recent actions of Mr. J. J. Kidd who has suggested that £25 should be raised for the purpose of contesting Lynn, in order to “teach the Liberal Party a few lessons.” We think those who read the letters which we printed in our last issue will agree that this shining light of the S.D.F. Executive should learn the elementary principles of Socialist policy before attempting to instruct the Liberals.

* * *

By the way, this party which is to be “taught lessons,” has been described in the Critical, but not always careful, Chronicle of “Justice” as “having become entirely and hopelessly demoralised, without leaders, without a policy, or principles, or enthusiasm, or initiative, or vigour” and as “absolutely dead and done for.” Why, then, should the S.D.F. worry about it ?

* * *

The “King’s Lynn News” reprints the greater portion of our comments on the Jermyn-Kidd incident and thinks that our “drastic language” is “calculated to make Mr. Kidd throw a flower pot at the neighbour’s cat.” No one more deeply regrets than we the necessity for such “drastic language,” although, of course the S.D.F. will not consider that anything wrong was done. That Body officially supports Liberal candidates and permits its members to do so. Mr. Kidd, therefore, only did that which the Body has already sanctioned.

* * *

In one respect, however, it is necessary to correct the “King’s Lynn News.” It says “Mr. Kidd gets it hot and strong from the official organ of his own party.” Let it be distinctly understood that Mr. Kidd is in no way connected with The Socialist Party of Great Britain. He is, as we have already stated, a member of the Executive Council of the Social-Democratic Federation, which declares that between Liberalism and Socialism there is not only opposition of tactics, but also antagonism of principle, which it is impossible to get over. Therefore to pretend to be on good terms with people who are not going their way and have no intention of travelling in their direction would be to hamper the action of Socialism in regard to matter which they deem crucial. This position was stated by H. M. Hyndman at Holborn Town Hall, on April 9th, 1899. But the S.D.F. has long since ceased to practise that which it preaches, hence the recent split and the founding of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. As a member of the S.D.F., even as one of the Executive of that body, Mr. Kidd did nothing extraordinary in supporting a Liberal, although his methods were somewhat clumsy. No member of The Socialist Party of Great Britain would be permitted to support a Liberal or any other non-Socialist. As will be seen by the Declaration of Principles on page 7, the Party enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist. It is definite in policy as well as principle and for that reason the working-class will, sooner or later, recognise that it is the only party worthy of their confidence and support.

J. Kay

Evolution and Revolution. (1905)

From the March 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard 

There appears to be some confusion of thought among Socialists as to the true value and relative application of the words “evolution” and “revolution.”

Influenced doubtless by Karl Kautsky’s reasoning in his “Social Revolution,” many students of sociology believe that the terms are synonymous. So far from this being the case, the words and the meaning they convey are in direct antagonism, as I shall try to prove.

Before the great French Revolution, society in France was evolving along certain lines, that is to say, a section of the community was becoming rich or profligate, or both, by the degradation, exploitation, and enslavement of the other section. Therefore, the tendency of the evolution of that society was to make a clear and ever more accentuated line of division between rich and poor, aristocrat and peasant.

The Revolution destroyed all that, cutting off for the time being all such tendency. In short, the Revolution put a period to the evolution of society as then constituted.

It may be contended that French society having evolved to a certain point, a change was inevitable. Even so, the change was none the less a revolution in that it altered most effectually the existing order of things, which, left to themselves—that is, had natural evolution been unchecked—would have developed into something quite different.

Here we may see the fundamental difference between evolution and revolution. The former means a gradual growth from that to this, with a connecting link so closely forged that the careful student may clearly see the second evolved from the first.

On the other hand, revolution is a force which comes in at certain periods, completely snapping the connecting link between the old and the new, rendering impossible, for the time at least, the further development of the old. The change revolution produces may of course go on evolving, but we must not forget that revolution brought that particular phase of evolution into existence. In doing this it necessarily destroyed the line of evolution which preceded the outbreak or upheaval, proving that revolution was opposed to evolution on those lines.

But, you will say, the Revolution aided the evolution of the French to a higher conception of equity and brotherhood. Quite so, but that by no means proves that revolution is an essential part of evolution, or that in fact it has any collateral relationship. Perhaps my meaning may be made clearer by an illustration.

If we took a boy from sordid and degraded surroundings and placed him in a refined and cultured environment, we should have revolutionised the life of that boy. His evolution to manhood would continue at about the same rate as if he had been left in the slum, but the evolutionary process would be of an entirely different nature. This change would have been brought about by stopping his old line of evolution and starting him on a new one—in other words, revolution has stepped in and performed its function, which is checking one form of evolution and supplanting it by another.

Now supposing that after the boy had spent two years in his superior environment, we then return him to the slum. That would mark another revolution in his life, and by that act you would be doing your utmost to set up the process of involution, which is the opposite to evolution. In short, you would be trying to get that boy back to the state in which you found him.

What may be said of the individual may be said of nations, and thus we see that revolution can not only elevate, that is, evolve, but it has power to degrade, to lower, to involve; again proving it is distinct from evolution, for were it the same thing it could not act in opposition to itself.

I am quite aware that an individual may rise above or fall below his environment, but that in no way affects the force of my illustration.

Involution is quite as important a factor in this question as evolution, for it has manifested itself, more or less, through every revolution.

For instance, the French people made no practical or lasting use of their splendid opportunities. There was in their Revolution the usual three turns of the wheel. First, the moderate movement, forward, then, after a time, the second, then the extreme party which created a reaction against the revolution, when the wheel moved backwards—involution. First, the Girondists, second, the Jacobins, then the reaction to monarchy.

So, then, we see that revolution can both build up and pull down, the latter power being altogether outside the province of evolution.

This should be quite sufficient to prove that the two words we are discussing do not mean one and the same thing, but let us go a little further.

The capitalist system was not caused by direct revolution : it evolved ; that is to say, it was established gradually, imperceptibly. The fact that the introduction of machinery later on brought about an industrial revolution in no way militates against this statement, for machinery was an outgrowth of the capitalist system, it did not produce it. The change it caused in the methods of production then prevailing, however, constituted a revolution, a revolution which cut off at once the further development of the old machinery.

The same may be said of many other things. For example, gunpowder as an aid to slaughter, was not evolved through the weapons of its day. It was a distinct invention or discovery, and its introduction caused a revolution in the art of war.

The application of steam to locomotion was also a revolution, for it did not evolve through the old stage coaches or any other then known means of transit; it was in fact a separate discovery. But having proved its usefulness, the application of steam has gone on being evolved right down to the present day. Electricity in its turn has produced a revolution in the application of energy.

Neither of these forces became known through a channel which may be termed evolutionary, for neither grew out of its immediate predecessor in the world of dynamics.

Let me give another illustration; the well-known one of the egg and the chicken.

In this case, nature’s design—if I may use such a term in this connection—is to evolve from the germ within the egg a member of the species by which that egg was laid. To bring that member to maturity, or in other words, to evolve it, so that it may in turn assist in the propagation of its species, is surely a natural law.

Anything which interferes with the action of that law is revolutionary, bringing evolution to a halt, either in the egg or the chicken. That is to say, if I break the shell before the chicken is ready for its new conditions, I am displacing evolution by revolution. If I kill the chicken before it is matured, I am doing the same thing.

Evolution, beginning with the germ in the egg, is not complete till that germ has evolved into the fully matured bird, the breaking of the shell when the chicken emerges being a vital part of this evolution ; it in no way constitutes a revolution.

The same may be said of a human being. From conception to maturity is one regular process of evolution, each succeeding stage depending in sequential order on the preceding. The birth of a child, therefore, is an essential part of its evolution towards manhood or womanhood, and is no more a revolution than the cutting of its teeth, the dawn of its intelligence, its first attempt to walk, or in short, any part of its prenatal or breathing existence, each stage, as we have seen, necessarily depending upon the other.

It may be as De Vries says, that catastrophic changes have occurred in the development of organisms, which he avers have suddenly “exploded” and given life to numerous new forms.

That is the point. A sudden change from old forms to new goes to make a revolution ; that which we may term natural and observed evolution being for the time superseded by something temporarily more powerful than itself.

In the birth of a child no such change occurs. The birth takes place, so far as we are aware, exactly as births have always taken place ; there ia no catastrophic change to the child; it was formed in the image of its parents before it appeared. It was intended for a human being, it is a human being; it was destined to evolve to maturity, it will evolve to maturity, unless revolution, which did not attend at its birth, steps in and cuts that evolution short.

I am aware that the evolution of society has always led to the various revolutions within that society, for it is impossible to get away from evolution anywhere or in anything, but we must always remember that revolution has also its evolutionary stages, even though of itself it is no more evolution than man himself. In both, the power to advance comes from a force stronger than themselves, proving that though they are subject to evolution they are yet distinct from it, for surely nothing can be subject to itself.

Another little illustration. A man hews down a tree and plants a sapling, so cutting short the evolution of the tree and aiding the evolution of the sapling. He thus stands as Revolution to that which he destroys and that which he plants, acting revolution’s double part of destruction and beneficence; but who would argue from this that the man is the same thing as the evolution of these trees. A revolution in society is quite as distinct.

Again, if we grow grapes in a hot-house, we can develope them faster than when we grow them in the open, but the stages of evolution from the slip to the matured fruit are identical. The natural development is hastened, but no revolution takes place, unless it should be found, for instance, that a cabbage was growing where a bunch of grapes ought to have been. That we might term a catastrophic change—in short, a. revolution.

Now as the whole of my efforts so far have been directed towards showing the difference between evolution and revolution, I need not pause to combat the belief, held by many, that the present social system, will, of its own inhernt qualities, ultimately lead to Socialism ; but this much may be said : if Socialism evolves from this system, there can be no revolution, for none will be needed.

Were it possible to establish Socialism in our country within the next few years, that would certainly constitute a revolution ; but wait for Socialism to evolve from the present system, and I rather think we are in for a pretty long wait, for to be evolutionary it would have to be established as gradually as was the prevailing order of society ; the State, bit by bit, taking, control of everything essential; the people, department by department, taking control of the State, until the State became the people.

That would be the evolution of Socialism, and in the process it would probably have to-pass through stages of development of which none of us at present have any conception—other systems possibly intervening—and would, doubtless run through many generations in the transition ; for the cream of the power of human evolution always lies with the governors of society, and it is only reasonable to assume that they would stretch every stage to breaking point before they gave way.

Briefly, then, the evolution of Socialism from the present system would mean progress by reform—a higher development of society attained by gradual and easy stages, nobody’s corns being trodden upon in the process. Were Socialism established by revolution, it would have to be by a sudden, and, comparatively speaking, instant turnover.

Therefore, the man who calls himself a Revolutionary Socialist, while devoting his energies to reforms, has no very clear perception of the difference between the two forces we have under consideration. He should style himself an Evolutionary Socialist. Believing, as he necessarily must, that the more reforms he can wrest from the governing class the nearer he gets, to the day of emancipation, he cannot logically term himself anything else.

Where in the past history of the world have beneficial reforms led up to revolution ? Personally, I know of no single instance, and should be much surprised to hear of one. But in any case, to work for, and obtain reforms, and then expect that these reforms will lead eventually to revolution, is simply absurd. To reach Socialism by such methods would be evolution, not revolution.

All revolutions which have not been spontaneous have been planned, the malcontents working hard to gain sufficient numerical strength to strike. A revolution to Socialism from the present system must be brought about in the same way, or it will never be brought about at all. The more society is reformed, the less likelihood can there be of a revolution, and at the best, the further is the day of revolution put back.

I am not here discussing which is the better method to adopt, my main object, as I have already intimated, being to point out the difference between evolution and revolution.

By educating the people into a knowledge of Socialistic principles, we can hasten the day of revolution ; by educating them into a conception of reforms of a Socialistic tendency, we may hasten the day of evolution, but nothing is more certain than that we cannot have both. The question as to which would realise our hope the quicker is another matter.

The man who believes the present system will, of its own weight, evolve into Socialism, should be, by that very belief, a Reformer, in the ordinary accepted sense of the word, for in effect he is saying Socialism may be brought about without the aid of revolution. So it may, in some such manner as I have pointed out, but why then does he talk about and work for the Social Revolution ? Simply, I presume, because he is not quite clear as to the meaning of the words he employs.

The real Revolutionary Socialist, however, cannot believe in the near evolution of society into a State which at present may be said to be its direct opposite in almost every particular. Put the capitalist system into a hot-house and it would not evolve quite so quickly as that belief implies.

Never in the history of the world, so far as I have read, has a single social system evolved directly into its opposite, and it appears unduly optimistic to expect it ever will. Other systems have always come between, and I can see nothing to warrant the belief that an exception is to be made of the present system.

This being so, the man who believes in revolution and works steadfastly only for that, has this advantage over his less determined fellow-Socialist—he knows exactly where he is going. With his objective point ever before his inward sight, he moves along the main line of his belief, sternly refusing to be side-tracked at any intermediate Station of Reform, no matter how alluring the surrounding prospect may appear. For a Revolutionary Socialist, that position is logical, unassailable

On the other hand, his evolutionary comrade—for so, as we have seen, should reforming Socialists be termed—is quite content to be side-tracked, and though frequently switched off on to another line in addition, he does not seem to mind so long as his engine keeps moving from one point to another.

It must of course be admitted that evolution is in perfect harmony with the nature of things, but so also is revolution ; moreover, the principle of revolution is ever in accord with the advanced thought of nations, the intellect of the studious chafing and rebelling against the slow progress of evolution and the frequent set-backs, or reactions, which take place within it.

As I have tried to show, evolution has often been displaced by revolution, and were it possible for a syndicate of capitalists to possess themselves of a machine which would displace a million of men, would they hesitate to avail themselves of the chance ? Not likely. They would consider such a revolution as this machine would bring about a most desirable thing for the nation—that is, themselves. Not a word would be said of attaining such a result by slow and easy stages, or in other words, by evolution. Evolution might go hang. However sudden the change might be, however much misery it might produce, they would not refuse it. Not a word would then be heard about the “natural order of things.”

What, then, is there inconsistent or unnatural in Socialists advocating that the intellect of man shall displace the slow progress of evolution in society, as it does in methods of production or in other directions ?

Nothing at all, and personally, I think Socialists will do well to take a leaf out of the book of their governors, keeping their eyes always fixed on their main object, and not allowing considerations of “natural evolution” to turn them for one moment from their purpose.

H. Philpott Wright