Editorial: Science plus Practice. (1907)

Editorial from the May 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Criticism is not usually the pleasantest of medicines, but in the right proportions it is undoubtedly beneficial. It is, however, most curious that those to whom a modicum of criticism would be most useful have in general the greatest objection to the dose. Thus we have some members of the various “Labour” parties objecting to criticism of their foolish organisations. They object that we criticise other parties too much, and sometimes hint that if we confined ourselves to theoretical and general articles we should have a much larger circulation for our official organ. Strangely enough those who deprecate our criticism of their pet “Labour” parties have no objection—quite the contrary—to our virile criticism of the orthodox political parties. Clearly, then, it is not trenchant criticism to which they object, but solely criticism of themselves.

It is probably true that a larger circulation and much praise could be obtained by masking our opinion of the pseudo-Socialist crowd, and we are aware that spread-eagle journals have been published at a profit by being “all things to all men,” but the object of The Socialist Party is neither circulation nor praise, but the intelligent co-operation of the working-class for Socialism. And in the education of the working class the analysis of contemporary political organisations is necessary and important.

Past issues of this journal show that the importance of the scientific side of our educational work is fully realised. Indeed, the principles of a genuine working-class party could be based on no superficial eclecticism. In view of the unity of all things, its conception of Society must be consistent with all the facts and consistent also with itself. A hotchpot of gleanings of worn-out capitalistic economics such as comprises the stock-in-trade of the average “labour leader,” or a smattering of bourgeois learning and philosophy such as makes the mental furniture of peregrinating middle-class paradoxes, is no material upon which a world wide working-class movement for the regeneration of Society can advance to a successful issue.

The science upon which the working-class can work out its deliverance must be harmonious and consistent as a whole and in logical relationship to the principles of science in general. We are therefore Marxians, since in the philosophy and economics of Marx we have those principles that alone can take their place in the scientific conception of organic and social life. Only Marxian economics can withstand the attacks of the interested apologists of capitalism. All the world over, capitalism rightly regards Marxian Socialism as the enemy, and the revisionists and pseudo-Socialist labour men, whose intellectual pabulum consists of the dregs of capitalist philosophy, are hailed by Press and platform of the ruling class as allies of the existing order against the “dogmatic” Socialists.

The primary importance of science, therefore, we clearly recognise; but just as criticism which is not based upon knowledge is worthless, so also theory, however sound, which is not translated into practice is useless. Your theorist pure and simple is a very pleasant man, he is indeed quite harmless—and as useless ; but let a man with a true and consistent philosophy of things translate that philosophy into deeds, let him illuminate contemporaneous events with the light of his philosophy, and straightway he is transformed into a most unpleasant and “dogmatic” person to those in the wrong and to those whose practice is at variance with their theory.

Our Declaration of Principles shows definitely where we stand. It has not been, and we believe cannot be successfully attacked, and on it we consistently base our political policy. We are not, however, Simon Pures, for we know that mistakes are too easily made. A sound organisation will indeed learn from them and, if need be, rectify its policy. But it is not because they have made mistakes that we oppose so-called “Labour” parties, but because of their persistent pursuit, in spite of protest, in spite of bitter working-class experience, of a policy of confusion and error. It is not because they have once halted by the way that we oppose the pseudo-Socialist parties, but because while professing to be based upon Socialist principles they persistently and, through their leaders, consciously violate those fundamental principles in their confusionist and place-hunting policy. Theory, we urge, must be wedded to practice.

The rank and file of these organisations we believe to be mainly disinterested and truth-seeking but as yet ignorant of the whole truth and hypnotised by personality, and it is our duty to place the truth before them and to break the spell that binds them. Both abstract science and criticism find thus their rightful place in our propaganda; frank and sincere criticism in order that error and charlatanism may be destroyed, and Socialist science as the basis of sound principles and policy.

It is true that the working class are outside and largely ignorant of all existing organisations, and it is of course our first duty to make them Socialists; but we should be truly culpable if through cowardice or mistaken tolerance we failed to show those we have converted that their new-found faith could not be advanced within such organisations as the “Labour Party,” the I.L.P. and the S.D.F. For the spineless vote and subscription catching policies of these parties, their alliances with sections of the capitalist class, and the fact that they devote practically the whole of their energies to the furtherance of dozens of quack measures rather than to Socialism, show plainly that they are hopeless for the revolutionary Socialist movement. Indeed, if we failed to warn the workers of these pitfalls in their path, it would be worse than cowardice—it would be downright treachery.

Slave v. “Free” Labour. (1907)

From the May 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Caesar,” said a planter to one of his Negro slaves, “shin up thet thar tree an’ thin out ther branches some.” The Negro showed no dispo­sition to reply, and being urged with language customary of the time and place, answered, “Yaas, Massa, me go plenty quick, Massa, but dis chile ‘im tink, s’pose Cassar ‘im fa’ down—dat’s berry bad job fo’ Massa: Caesar ‘im cost lot o’ money. Spec’ Massa better send Irish Mike. If white man fa’ down dat aint no loss t’nobody, nohow.”

Population and Pauperism. (1907)

From the May 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

According to a statistical abstract issued by the Board of Trade, the United Kingdom was in 1905 fifth amongst the nations of the world in point of population, being exceeded by Russia, the United States, Germany, and—strange to say—Japan. “Whereas we had 43,221,000 people in 1905, compared with 39,221,000 in 1895, the corresponding figures relating to Japan are 47,975,000 and 42,271,000 respectively. Many people, including the Bishops, profess to be seriously alarmed at the decrease in our birthrate ; but the curious thing is that those who are most concerned about our birth-rate are doing their best to further reduce the population by promoting schemes for emigration. If such schemes only dealt witb “undesirables,” they would be an unmixed blessing ; but their promoters are only too careful to let it be known that “No wastrels need apply” ; and, as a matter of fact, such would not be accepted on the other side, even if they managed to elude observation on this. What, then, is going on is that the bone and sinew of the country is being sent away, while the weaklings are left behind to swell our workhouse population and crowd the shelters of the Salvation Army.

We have no means of knowing how pauperism is dealt with in the other countries of the world ; but our own poor we have “always with us.” It would appear, from a recent return, that there are at present in London more than 128,000 paupers, or at the rate of 26 per 1,000 of the population, this mass of pauperism being greater than in any year since 1872, except 1904 and 1905. It appears, too, that while out-door pauperisn is decreasing, the rush to the workhouse continues, and that there are now in the London workhouses 78,603 paupers—which is the highest number ever recorded. Many of the workhouses are either overcrowded or full, and the Guardians are at their wits’ end to know how to deal with the overflow. The ratio of paupers differs in a remarkable manner in the different workhouse centres of the Metropolis. Thus in Hampstead it is as low as 8.5 per 1,000, while in the Strand it is as high as 76.4 and in Holborn as 49.4. Again, 15.1 in Fulham compares with 47.5 in Poplar and 47.3 in Bermondsey; while Wandsworth is as low as 17.1 and Camberwell (in the same district) as high as 32.9. In the Western district Paddington comes out at 15.8 and Chelsea at 31.2, or just double; while Kensington at 17.0 compares with St. George’s at 29.3, and with Westminster at 24.8. No doubt there must always be a wide range in districts so differently circumstanced; but the excessive ratios in the Strand and Holborn seem to call for special explanation. Outside London the number of paupers relieved on July 1, 1906, was 731,344, and this, added to the number in London, makes a grand total of 865,794 for the United Kingdom, being at the rate of 25.1 per 1,000 of the population, as compared with 26 in London alone.

Financial News

Books Received: Trade Union Law. (1907)

Book Review from the May 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Trade Union Law, by Herman Cohen of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-law. 2nd edition, Cloth, 6s. net. (Publishers, Sweet and Maxwell, Chancery Lane, W.C.)

Mr. Cohen endeavours to make plain the state of the law regarding trade unions, and shows, incidentally, that the meaning of several sections of the new Act is open to question. To us the ambiguity of the law appears calculated ; indeed, the law has yet to be passed through which, in a technical sense, it is impossible for a coach and four to be driven.

Many of the “labour leaders” fondly imagine that if a capitalist government could but be induced to pass certain laws all would be well. They are, however, oblivious of the fact that all capitalist laws (so far as the workers are concerned) are doubly damned ; damned by ambiguity in the making, and damned by capitalist interests and control in the administration.

The ruling class are past masters in the art of bluff, and even if they, as a working-class soporific, pass any law they know that their political control enables them by judicious administration to make every such law serve capitalist interests.

The book before us (which can be obtained at greatly reduced rates through the London Trades Council) consists of 200 well printed pages and gives the text of the Trades Disputes Act, 1900, and of the various other Acts of Parliament directly affecting Trade Unions, together with explanations, comments, and the citation of cases in point. A useful book for the social student.

Books Received: Socialistic Lessons. (1907)

Book Review from the May 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialistic Lessons. Boggart Mill. By F. H. Rose, 20 pp., Id. Pioneer Press, Manchester.

An illustrated story upon a basis of spiritualism, wherein an old and disused mill becomes the scene of the revenge of the spirits of departed factory children upon their masters and foremen whose spirits are chased to hell. The story is interestingly written but it is not easy to see why it deserves the title of a “Socialistic Lesson.”

On Co-operators and “Divi”. (1907)

From the May 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “In Focus” paragraphist of the Co-operators monthly, The Wheatsheaf, deplores in the March issue the fact that “Some co-operators care nothing about . . beauty and fragrance and expansion of life” which, it seems, are as nothing beside a 3s. “divi.” “What” be goes on deprecatingly “if quality is reduced or prices advanced or wages kept low or depreciations and reserve funds neglected, or stocks inflated or expenses carried forward,or educational committees thwarted, or the poor kept out of the movement ?—dazzling ‘divi’ makes amends for all.”

Why, certainly. If the Wheatsheaf writer thought to find it otherwise he is very much out of focus. What does he suppose co-operators take up their shares for?—”beauty and fragrance and expansion of life” ? Not much—not, that is, unless “beauty and fragrance and expansion of life” are secured for the individual co-operators through their dividends. They are in the business for precisely the same reason that the shareholder is in any other joint-stock concern—for what they can get out of it.

If it were asserted that 99 per cent. of co-operators were such first and foremost for dividends, it would probably be an understatement. I am not, of course, concerned to deny that “beauty and fragrance” and a few other odds and ends are tucked away in the. lumber rooms of their co-operative being. And I doubt not that upon show days the contemplation of these musty virtues and worm-eaten ideals is most grateful and comforting. But that any of these qualities enter into the effective every-day calculations of the average co-operator no one who knows the average co-operator on his every-day side will be prepared to assert.

What is the attraction held out by the average society—by every society of my knowledge—to induce outsiders to take up shares ? High dividends. What the bait in which the hook is imbedded ? Large profits. What is the virtue extolled above all other virtues by the great men of the co-operative movement like Holyoake ? Self-help and thrift and a house of your own out of the profits of the store, and so on. In the circumstances the really surprising thing to me is that anybody professing knowledge of the real inwardness of the movement should give expression to such hopelessly antiquated views as those of the “In Focus” writer.

I say hopelessly antiquated because at one time it was the correct thing to emphasize the idealistic side of the movement. But that was many moons agone. To-day co-operation is frankly a business, and the only ideal known to business is larger profits. Of course there is nothing against the “co-op” working its way to any success possible as a business, in the same way that any other capitalist concern works. The objection I raise is against the attempt of some of its apologists to cant about its moral effects as a progressive, enlightening, uplifting force as against the immoral effects of profit-mongering capitalism, while all the time they prate their societies are dangling “large profits” carrot-wise in front of the noses of the proletariat.

I suppose the soft and gentle co-operator—if he is very soft—believes that there is some special virtue in his business which relieves his “divi” of the coarse and vulgar stigma of robbery which attaches to all other forms of profit. I suppose it is inconceivable to him that his quarterly or annual “share-out” is derived from precisely that same method of exploitation of the working-class producer which he deplores on special occasions with such lachrymose lamentation. I suppose he lays the flattering unction to his soul that the mere fact of being employed in the elevating atmosphere of a co-operative store is sufficient compensation for the happy shop assistant he employs, whose conditions in other respects differ in no material degree from those of most other shop-assistants. Or is it because our co-operator has to pay in excess of outside prices for so many things of inferior quality that he thinks he has made sufficient sacrifice for the movement, and cannot be expected to pay high wages or provide better conditions, particularly when his employees are receiving as good a wage as he (the co-operator) is himself getting from his own capitalist employer.

However that may be, the outstanding fact remains that the co-operative movement is a business dependent for its success upon its ability to enter the capitalist arena in effective competition with capitalist, undertakings for trade. It may provide for the workers employed slightly better conditions in some respects than obtain in some other capitalist concerns. But it will do this, as capitalist Cadbury has done it, primarily because it has been shown to pay and only afterwards, and only then perhaps, for the sake of “beauty and fragrance and expansion of life.” But it will always, because it must maintain its essentially capitalist basis—there is no such thing as a Socialistic oasis in a capitalistic desert. Its dividends will always represent labour exploitation—there is no such thing as profits dissociated from robbery. And altho’ perchance it may exude a little something recognisable to its members as “beauty and fragrance and expansion of life,” there is no hope in it at all for the working-class until they have attained that level of mental development by which alone they will be able to appreciate their position and their power and give expression to that appreciation by taking over in their own interests as producers the whole of the means by which they are able to create and distribute the wealth of the world.

To that end it is merely folly to allege present day co-operative societies contribute. All they do is to bring into existence a class of petty capitalists whose interests as such, clashing with their interests as members of the working class, must tend to maintain that condition of muddled thought upon which the continued domination of the capitalist absolutely depends. For the reasons, therefore, (1) that the co-operative movement enlists its membership largely from the wage-earning class upon an anti-working class appeal; because (2) the ignorance manifested in the response is, so far as possible, maintained inside the movement; because (3) working-class ignorance is the one barrier which we as a Socialist party have to break down before we, in common with, the rest of our class, can move forward to our freedom; for briefly these three reasons we are and must always be opposed to the co-operative movement.

Agra.

Watford Wobblers! (1907)

From the May 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The article by Comrade F. Hesley in the last issue is to the point. It serves to emphasise statements we have often made in our local reports as to the condition of inextricable muddle and (to us) transparent make-believe in which our local opponents are floundering.

Such opponents ! List to the initials of some of the organisations in which they are enrolled : S.D.F., I.L.P., F.S., L.R.C., L.C., T. & L.G., S. & L.E.C., L.L., W. & D.P.A., W.H. & H.C.

I fear I have only given a few. But omissions are pardonable. They grow so rapidly. This week’s list will probably be incomplete next week.

They are all engaged in setting the working-class house in order, these opponents. And all of them have different notions of the way to do it. Because all of them have different ideas as to what the disorder is. Therefore it is hardly surprising if the working-class house remains untidy. Is it ?

But all of them have a common epithet for use against us. It is an epithet coined by their leaders to cover their lack of argument. It is their only argument against us. It is—impossiblist!

When we say, “dear friends, you are on the wrong track,” they say—impossiblists ! When we offer to prove they are making a confusion and calling it an order, they reply—impossiblists ! When we urge them to consider a more excellent way they cry out upon us—impossiblists !

It is the common tie that binds them together. Yet they are not grateful to us for providing them with it. Quite the contrary. I suppose they feel that it isn’t a very strong argument after all.

Hesley has reported the muddle at Hyndman’s meeting. He has indicated the confusion into which a simple question can throw them. This doesn’t surprise me. I know ’em. I’m only surprised that they didn’t call him “impossiblist.” Perhaps they were so confused that they couldn't even think of that.

Let me augment Hesley’s article by a further instance. This time it will be a case indicative of our opponents’ high standard of veracity. Or perhaps it is only a low standard of memory. The reader can judge.

Writing in the Watford Critic for April, G.T.H.K. refers to the results of the recent Urban District Council Elections thus : “Remember this is the first occasion of a Socialist candidature for the Urban District Council in either of these wards. Both Mr. Drew and Mr. Judge in the King’s Ward . . . ran as plain Labour candidates last year without mention of Socialism.”

Notice that “is.” The italics belong to G.T.H.K. He is quite certain about it. This is the first time.

And observe the Misters. They make assurance doubly sure. They were not Socialist candidates. Therefore they are not Comrades Drew and Judge. Only Misters. Surely this is the first time.

Let us see. And remember that, the Watford Critic is the local organ of the S.D.F.

This is from the Critic for March, 1906: “King’s Ward will be contested in the interests of Labour by two of its finest exponents. . . . They are consciously working hard and continuously in the sacred name of a down-trodden humanity. In this they have a fixed purpose and will be no trimmers.”

On this I will ask two questions. Can any but Socialists be among the finest exponents of the interests of Labour ? Can any but Socialists work hard for down-trodden humanity without, consciously or unconsciously, trimming? I pause for G.T.H.K’s reply.

The Critic again. April, 1906: Drew and Judge “are avowed Socialists and members of a militant Socialist organisation—the I.L.P.”

Now G.T.H.K. Is that true? If so, this is not the first occasion of a “Socialist” candidature. If not, where were you last year to allow the statement to pass unrepudiated ?

Shall I tell you where you were ? You were organising the election work of Drew and Judge. You, a member of the S.D.F. then, as now ! And you were introducing your comrades Drew and Judge at a public meeting as two able exponents of Socialism whom you were very happy to support !

Now, what’s your game? Yes ! yes ! I know I’m an “impossiblist,” but what’s your game ? Is it that you want to obscure the fact that as compared with last year’s results your party’s candidates were this year snowed under ? Or what ?

Is your point that although Judge and Drew were Socialists they did not run as such ? If so you stand confessed as the champion of fraudulent candidatures. And if your present view is that such candidatures are wrong and harmful, why are you associated with an organisation that is to-day working with the parties responsible for such candidatures ?

I pause for some more replies. When I get them I shall have a little more to say. If I don’t get them I may still have a little more to say. And I think G.T.H.K. will be interested in that little more.

Anyhow, this is the local position. It is synchronised in the case cited. A condition of mess, muddle, and make-believe. Of paltering piffle and prevarication. Of contortion and confusion confounded.

And when we say this sort of thing is stupid and stultifying we are “impossiblists.” When we say that in a multitude of organisations there is no virtue, we are “impossiblists.” When we say the truth must be spoken and not burked or blinked, we are “impossiblists.” When we say that Socialism is the only remedy for working-class ills, that to advocate less at any time is futile and disappointing and dangerous, we are “impossiblists.”

Well! well! we are the “impossiblists.” The S.D.F., I.L.P., F.S., etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum are the “possiblists.” So must it be. But I should like to hear G.T.H.K’s explanations, I’m sure they would be helpful.

B.R.

Editorial: Where They Stand on Conscription: Labour Party, Liberals and Communists (1939)

Editorial from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The attitude of the Labour Party towards Conscription as shown by the votes at the special Conference in May was exactly what Socialists expected. The Executive’s resolution condemning conscription because the voluntary system has not failed, and at the same time approving the “participation in all steps necessary to secure the proper protection of the civilian population in time of war” was carried by 1,967,000 to 574,000 (Daily Herald, June 1st.) An amendment which deplored the action of the E.C. in according support to the Government’s National Service scheme and National Register, and called for a cessation of all further support of National Service schemes (with the exception of A.R.P.), was defeated by 1,767,000 to 729,000.

At the Liberal Party Conference, according to the Manchester Guardian’s report (May 13th, 1939), “after a long debate the Liberal Party Conference at Scarborough yesterday adopted a resolution ‘reluctantly’ accepting conscription.”

An amendment favouring uncompromising opposition to conscription “was overwhelmingly defeated.”

The Communist Party, as was also to be expected, came out in favour of conscription but not under a Chamberlain Government. Their official statement, published in the Daily Worker (May 24th, 1939), contains the following: —

“The Communist Party has fought Chamberlain’s Conscription Bill on the grounds that Chamberlain’s introduction of Conscription is designed, not for the purposes of strengthening the military forces of a Peace Front against aggression, but in pursuance of his reactionary policy of collaboration with Fascism abroad and attack on the working-class and democratic movement at home.

The question of Conscription cannot be treated as a question of abstract principle, irrespective of the Government which operates it.

. . . under a different Government which genuinely stood for peace and resistance to Fascism, the question of compulsory military training would take on a different complexion. The voluntary principle is no absolute democratic principle. . . .

In all the great struggles of the people—in the English Civil War, in the French Revolutionary Wars, in the Russian Revolution, in the War of Spanish Democracy—the principle of compulsory military service has been applied.”

The statement also calls on the workers to “decisively reject the pacifist propaganda which proposes the futile path of individual resistance to conscription.”

A few days later, June 3rd, the Daily Worker was quoting Lenin and Liebknecht in condemnation of Conscientious Objectors.

One quotation from Lenin has a special interest. Lenin wrote : —

“An oppressed class which does not learn the use of arms, to possess them, and to become practised in them, is only fit to be oppressed, ill-treated and handled like slaves.”

The interesting point is the demand that workers should “possess” arms. There used to be a Communist slogan “Arms for the Workers,” but when the Bolshevik Government had got firmly in the saddle it took the Russian workers’ arms away from them. Are we to understand that if and when the Communists persuade the Labour Party, the Liberals, and Mr. Winston Churchill, etc., to form a Popular Front Government, the Government will let the workers keep their arms ?

Notes by the Way: From Mosley to Cripps (1939)

The Notes by the Way Column from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

From Mosley to Cripps

Capitalism’s crises, and the efforts of reformist politicians to grapple with them, produce curious feats of political tight-rope walking, coat-turning, and somersaulting. In 1931 Sir Oswald Mosley and his associates, including Mr. W. J. Brown, rebelled against the Labour Party leadership, and announced the formation of a New Party, with a new policy. Their argument was that critical times demanded drastic remedies. Socialism must be put into cold storage—”questions of the ultimate goal of society are excluded by the very urgency of the problem which confronts us” (“A National Policy,” published by the Mosley Group). It will be observed that the argument used by Mosley and Brown then is identical with that being used by Sir Stafford Cripps. But why aren’t Mosley and Brown backing Cripps? Sir Oswald Mosley is now a Fascist, and finds himself quite out of step with his old associates. He says that compulsory military training in this country is not necessary, and that “it was being imposed because those who had capital—about £300,000,000—invested in Eastern European countries feared for its safety.” (From a speech at Dalston, May 7th, reported in Times, May 8th, 1939.)

Mr. W. J. Brown, on the other hand, is all for conscription, and is not deterred by the argument that war for Britain means war for capitalist Britain. Speaking in support of conscription at the Conference of the Civil Service Clerical Association, Mr. Brown said: “I hold that the survival in the world even of Chamberlain’s Britain is worth a war, to ensure that it does not go under.” (Daily Telegraph, May 12th, 1939.)

Sir Stafford Cripps finds himself using the Mosley-Brown argument of 1931, but is at daggers-drawn with both of them. He wants foreign alliances against Fascism, but he thinks that the urgent task of the moment is to get rid of the Chamberlain National Government — hence the Popular Front campaign. Speaking at the Labour Party Conference in May last, where he was voted down heavily, he declared that “a Great Britain without a National Government is the Mecca of everyone in this Conference.” (Daily Telegraph, May 30th, 1939.) He thinks that the National Government under Chamberlain represents something nearly as bad as Fascism; but he did not always think that way. In November, 1935, he said of the Baldwin National Government, that it had “done quite well for a capitalist Covernment. . . . There is really very little case at all for an alternative Government within the capitalist system. . . .” (Quoted in “Unity, True or Sham,” Labour Party, 1d.)

That is how they stand at the moment. Where will they be in a few years’ time? Sir Stafford’s brother, Colonel the Hon. F. H. Cripps, in an article in the Evening Standard (May 30th), says that Lord Baldwin in 1930 tipped Sir Stafford as “a future Conservative Prime Minister.” Who knows? Or will it be Brown or Mosley ?

Wages Under Fascism

The Labour Party and Trade Unions and, latterly, the Conservative Press, use the argument that under Fascism wages are heavily and continuously reduced. The Communists, before their new-found enthusiasm for democratic capitalism, used to say the same about wages here. In both cases they never explain how it is possible for an originally low standard of living to be continuously reduced by large amounts year after year. Either the original level must have been very high, or alternatively, the present generation must be rapidly dying of starvation. The truth is that the changes have been smaller in amount than the over-zealous propagandists would have us believe, and it is not, in the long run, useful to employ fallacious arguments against Fascism. The case founded on fact is quite strong enough, anyway. Capitalists, whether under Fascism or democracy, are interested in making profits, and to do so they seek to force wages to the lowest possible level, but even the greed for profits does not permanently blind them to the fact that the worker cannot work efficiently if grossly underfed. Moreover, the forces which from time to time enable the workers to secure upward adjustments of wages, operate under Fascist capitalism as well as in the democracies. One of these is the shortage of labour, which has recently become very much evident, particularly in Germany. Under the influence of that shortage German workers have been able to get wage increases, even in spite of the efforts of the Government to keep wages down and the destruction of Trade Unionism. A similar situation of labour shortage existed in Great Britain during the war, and the method of evasion is exactly the same. Dr. Mansfield, an official of the Ministry of Labour in Germany, an article by whom is summarised in the Manchester Guardian (June 1st, 1939), “reveals that in many industries the official restrictions on wages have been dodged by employers competing for labour. Bonuses, expenses, holiday contribu¬tions, etc., are being offered to entice workers from other firms.”

The Manchester Guardian says that this has become so prevalent that, in the words of Dr. Mansfield, “the State has temporarily lost control of wages and incomes.”

The German authorities have tried to fix maximum wages, but haphazard attempts to enforce them have “caused much tension.” It is safe to say that, so long as the labour shortage continues, the efforts of the Government will continue to be ineffectual since the employers themselves, or many of them, will have an interest in evading the law. Dr. Mansfield also mentions the fact that the increase in the hours of work has not been a success from the employers’ point of view. Output did not increase proportionately, and there was a rapid increase in illness. As a result of this and the accompanying unrest, the authorities have reduced overtime in many factories, and the official organ of the Nazi Labour Front “has proclaimed the eight-hour day as the most likely measure to keep up a steady output in most industries.”

The above relates to a fairly recent tendency.

It is much more difficult to say what has been the total result of Fascism, so far as wages are concerned. Most reports say unhesitatingly that wage levels as a whole are lower, but one competent observer, Mr. C. W. Guillebaud, in his detailed inquiry, “The Economic Recovery of Germany,” thinks that the standard of living of the German workers has been rising in recent years, and is above the level of 1929. All such estimates must be received with caution, because the subject itself is a difficult one, which does not lend itself to simple sweeping generalisations, but, at least, we can reject as false the view that democratic capitalism, compared with Fascism, is working class prosperity compared with destitution.

Another interesting news item relates to Italy. Early in March the Government ordered wage increases ranging from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent., and The Times correspondent in Rome reported that “this general rise in wages, coming so suddenly, is a bitter pill for employers.” (Times, March 9th.)

Doubtless, the wage increase was given largely, if not entirely, to meet past increases in the cost of living—which shows once more how capitalist economic laws operate, Fascism or no Fascism.

Loud Cheers in the House of Commons

In the official declarations of the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Conservatives over a period of years will be found definite promises to abolish unemployment within the capitalist system, or at least to reduce it to small proportions. Each party in opposition has savagely and indignantly denounced the other parties when in power for failing to fulfil their pledges regarding unemployment. On June 5th occurred a little incident which shows just how little the M.P.s themselves believe in the possibility of abolishing unemployment under capitalism. The following is from a report of Parliamentary proceedings, published in the News Chronicle (June 6th, 1939).

“With his customary cheerfulness Mr. Ernest Brown, who has now performed the feat of being Minister of Labour for four years, announced the fall of 152,112 in the number of unemployed in the House of Commons last night.

Members cheered and cheered again when he added that the total figure was now below a million and a half—1,492,281.”

Just think of it. They actually cheered because the number of unemployed is ONLY 1 millions—representing, with their families, from 3 to 4 million men, women and children of prosperous Britain!

Why the League of Nations Failed. A Laughable Capitalist Explanation

Three-quarters of a century ago Marx poked fun at the sentimentally-minded capitalist reformers who wanted to keep capitalism intact, but purify it by abolishing its inevitable effects. We have them with us still, Sir Arthur Salter, in “Security: Can we Retrieve It?” sets out to explain, among other things, that the League of Nations was not foredoomed to failure, “its failures were largely due to accident.” The phrase here quoted is from a long review of Salter’s book, written by Mr. J. L. Hammond (Manchester Guardian, May 16th, 1939). What were these “accidents”? The “first bad accident” was the “fall of the franc,” which “brought Poincaré back to power in France.”

The second bad accident was “the economic depression of 1929 and the financial crisis of 1931.” This crisis destroyed the hopes that had been based on the “new spirit of co-operation.” It produced the National Government in Great Britain, and also the Nazi regime in Germany, which owes its success “to a combination of political resentment and economic distress. Sir Arthur Salter thinks that neither would have sufficed without the other.”

In short, if only capitalism had not produced a series of economic crises and international tensions resulting from commercial rivalries, then the League would not have been hit by these “accidents,” and would have succeeded. And if, of course, capitalism in future could be pruned of its capacity for causing never-ending economic poverty and class-conflict at home and fierce international conflicts of interests abroad, then the League would succeed. What could be clearer than that? Pigs could fly if they had wings, only then they wouldn’t be pigs. Capitalism would be fine if only it weren’t capitalism, but then there wouldn’t be any need for a League of Nations.

From Marx to “Financial Times”

In its editorial of May 9th, 1939, the Financial Times expresses the concern felt by the capitalists at the threatened scarcity of workers—”in many skilled trades connected directly and indirectly with rearmament the demand for labour has already out¬run supply.”

In view of the fact that the registered unem¬ployed still number nearly If millions, or 11.4 per cent., it might be thought that there can, so far, be no question of a shortage.

The Financial Times says, however, that: —

“The normal turnover of labour in the various industries accounts for a short-term unemployment of about 6 to 8 per cent. of the working population, whereas about 4 per cent. has in the recent past been attributable to those affected by structural changes in industry, mostly in the depressed areas. Unless the latter can be found alternative occupation—and this may be by no means easy—the limits of full employment are fairly closely reached when the numbers of unemployed are within 10 to 12 per cent. of the total employable population.”

The conclusion drawn is that we are “getting within close limits of the pool of reserves normally required for the adequate functioning of labour movement inwards and outwards.”

What is, however, more interesting is the following : —

“ . . the unemployed who have presented a harassing social problem to every Government in the post-war period now appear in the guise of an invaluable reserve of labour supply.”

Note that phrase, “invaluable reserve of labour supply.” It exactly sums up what Marx said about three-quarters of a century ago concerning the attitude of the capitalist to the unemployed.

After explaining why capitalism necessarily produces unemployment, Marx continued: —

“But if a surplus working-class population is a necessary product of accumulation, or of the development of wealth upon a capitalist basis, on the other hand this over-population becomes a lever promoting capitalists accumulation and is indeed a necessary condition of the existence of the capitalist method of production. It forms an available industrial reserve army, which belongs to capital no less absolutely than if the capitalists had bred the members of this army at their own cost. For its own varying needs in the way of self-expansion, capital creates an ever-ready supply of human material fit for exploitation, and does so independently of the actual increase in population.”—(“Capital,” Vol. 1, page 698. Allen & Unwin Edition.)

What King George Told the Americans

A correspondent of the News Chronicle in U.S.A. reports the following conversation between King George VI and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Hopkins: —

“There is another Washington story about what the King said to Secretary of Commerce Hopkins when the subject of social reform was being discussed. After Hopkins had explained what was being done here, the King amiably told him, ‘We did many of these things in England much earlier than you have. The capitalists have retained control in America longer than they did in my country.’”— (News-Chronicle, June 16th, 1939.)

King George is hopelessly wrong about his facts, but are we to conclude from his remark that he thinks it would be a good thing if the capitalists had been ousted ?

Catholic Bishop Condemns Rebellion in Ireland, Not in Spain

Those who recall the support given by the bulk of the Catholic dignitaries to the Franco rebellion against the constitutionally-elected Government of Spain will read with surprise a speech made by the Bishop of Ross, Monsignor Casey, at Rosscarberry, County Cork, on May 7th, 1939.

“Saint Paul lays down very clearly the duties of the citizen towards the Government of the country. He tells us that all power comes from God, and that unlawful resistance to the lawfully appointed Government cannot be done without incurring a great crime. You have the privilege of appointing those who are to rule over you. You did so, and any person who resists the Government you have elected, resists it by murder, burning and looting of property, by assault and other violent means.

All such persons, and all who aid or support them, are guilty of great sin before God.”—(Dublin Evening Mail, May 8th, 1939.)

Far from denouncing Franco as criminal and sinner, we find the Pope,, on June 11th, receiving 200 Franco soldiers and thanking them for defending “the faith and civilisation” of Spain. (Manchester Guardian, June 12th).

The “Daily Mail” Tells all About the Russian Parliament

The Daily Mail, which used to be so hostile to everything Bolshevik has changed its tune now that it badly wants the Anglo-Russian pact to go through. One change is the publication of articles on Russia, friendly in tone. One such article (June 1st, 1939) is called “Yes, there is a Parliament in Russia.” It tells of the electoral system and the work of the Russian Parliament; all about the universal, equal, direct suffrage, secret ballot, etc., etc. Well, not quite all, for it omits entirely to mention that the elections are run on totalitarian lines, only the Communist Party being allowed to exist and no opposition candidates permitted.

The omission must have been accidental: or would it perhaps be tactically unwise to spoil the “democratic” alliance by mentioning such things?

Who Benefits from Empire? 

The following is from an article on French Morocco, in the Manchester Guardian (May 15th, 1939). “Not that Morocco has ‘paid’ France as a nation; on the contrary, the cost to the French State has been very great. But occupation has obviously paid the French banks to judge by a comparison of their offices with those of their British competitors; it has paid the French steel companies, who supply the Moroccan railways, and despite the lack of mining concessions it has paid the French mining companies who provided the machinery and direction for the State mines. In a word, Morocco—like other colonies—has provided out-relief for the investing classes. It has, perhaps, profited the 300,000 French people who have settled in Morocco since the war. It has not profited the Frenchman who stayed at home, but it has given him a great achievement—and presumably, that is worth paying for.”

The National Income in Russia and India

The issue of the Economist for June 10th, 1939, reviews two books, one by Mr. Colin Clark, on the Russian national income (“A Critique of Russian Statistics,” Macmillan, 6s.), and the other by Mr. V. K. R. V. Rao ("India’s National Income,” Allen & Unwin, 6s.).

The estimated national income in Russia in 1937 was £4,637,000,000—almost identical with the estimated national income of Great Britain in the same year. The population of Russia is, however, nearly four times as great, so that the average per head of the population is about £28 in Russia and £100 in Great Britain.

As regards the upward movement of the aggregrate national income in Russia, the Economist, after making certain adjustments for armament expenditure and revised population figures, concludes that in 1928 the amount available per head of the population was rather smaller than in Czarist days.

“Between 1928 and 1934 the aggregate national income rose by 16 per cent. whilst the population only increased by 8 per cent. But this increase was entirely due to the expansion of industry. The supply of meat, milk and eggs was halved; that of other foods was barely keeping pace with the increase in population.”

Between 1934 and 1937 the aggregate income has increased more rapidly, although much of the increase has been swallowed up in armaments.

“If defence expenditure is assumed to have trebled in the three years, living conditions might have improved to the extent of 5 or 10 per cent. “

The book on India discloses an appalling condition after long years of British rule. The national income

“works out to a little more than a rupee (1s. 6d.) a day for a family of five, and the figure includes the incomes of both the millionaire and the manual labourer.”

The mass of the Indian population

“live in hovels, have only a few clothes, know no furniture, rarely drink milk, hardly ever eat meat or fruit or other expensive, though nutritious, items of diet.”

The Indian national income is estimated to be increasing very slowly, by about 1 per cent, per annum.

With regard to all estimates of the amount and increase of national income, it is hardly necessary to remark that the mass of the population are not benefited by an increase in the total production of wealth if the additional amount goes to benefit the privileged minority or is wasted in armaments.

Labour M.P. Does Not Like German Trading Methods

During a debate on the Government’s foreign trade policy, in the House of Commons, on June 9th, one Labour M.P., Mr. W. G. Cove (Aberavon) accused another Labour M.P., Mr. E. Shinwell (Seaham, Durham) of wanting “economic war with Germany,” “sheer, naked war.” (Hansard, June 9th, Col. 812.)

Hard words, but certainly justified, as can be seen from the following, which are typical passages in Mr. Shinwell’s speech: —

“. . . Clearly the Government must make up their minds what is their objective in relation to foreign trade. Is it to recapture, our lost markets, no matter where they are …. or are we to allow Germany, by the employment of questionable devices, to prevent this country from re-establishing herself in foreign markets?”

The Government spokesman had said that this country must get its share of the Rumanian and other Balkan markets. Mr. Shinwell said: —

“. . . the right hon. gentleman must do more than that. He must obtain from those markets the greatest possible share, irrespective of the claims of other countries; otherwise our export trade cannot prosper. There is no half-way house. We must go forward.”

And again : —

“If Germany will persist in using devices which adversely affect our foreign trade, we must, for our own protection, employ discriminating devices, whether they are regarded as economic war or not. On the other hand, if Germany will refrain fromemploying questionable devices of that kind, and if Germany will play the game …. it is obviously all to the good that we should assist Germany to maintain her economic position and even to improve it.”

There is only one thing more dangerous than a reformist movement which is passive and quiescent all round, that is, one which develops aggressive tendencies and wants to be more assertive about capitalist foreign interests than the capitalists themselves.

News is still awaited as to the way Goebbels, Goering and Hitler received Mr. Shinwell’s appeal to them “to play the game.” Play the game, you cads!

Edgar Hardcastle

Whither Britain? (1939)

From the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Before the War, the Labour movement of this and other countries had come to regard the progress of democracy as something inevitable. In spite of the lean time democracy has gone through since the suspension of hostilities, both Labour leaders and ruling-class politicians still successfully manage to create the myth that, in England, at any rate, democracy is still the order of the day. Democracy here is said to provide a striking contrast to the totalitarianism of Hitler and Mussolini; indeed, the chief task of our politicians to-day is to maintain that illusion above all others in the minds of people. But the view of the Socialist has always been that, although the growth of capitalism necessitates certain democratic features, anti-democratic elements are also bound up with its continuation. In spite of feverish appeals to defend democracy, signs are not wanting that, behind this façade, the ruling class are getting ready to march along a path similar to that of Hitler’s Germany. There is no doubt that the development of capitalism in recent years has modified much of the normal workings of the system and has thrown up, as a result, new and more complex problems to be solved. The attempts to solve these problems, as always, endanger working-class interests. It is true, of course, that the basis of capitalism is the two-class nature of society, with its contrasts of riches and poverty, and the contradictions which arise from the ownership by a small section of society of the means of wealth production. Nevertheless, the working class should become aware of these changes and what they entail in democratic England as well as Fascist Germany. It is childish to assume that what is happening in Germany is independent of the remainder of the capitalist world. The problems confronting the ruling class in Germany are in the last analysis the problems that confront the capitalist class of the rest of the world. What are these problems? They are the furtherance of the interests of the national sections of the capitalist class in order to maintain or secure what is euphemistically called “a place in the sun,” or, more brutally, to satisfy the insatiable quest for profits. The task before the German ruling class is to secure for itself a privileged position, but it can only do so at the expense of its brother, the English capitalist class.

Thus Fascism is not only bound up with world capitalism but is itself a product of it. The defeated ruling class in Germany, stripped of its former colonies, its territory in Europe annexed, and weighted down by reparations, was forced into a desperate position. The Social Democracy, along with the other political parties, though trying to rebuild German capitalism, had been unable to continue doing so, because they lost working-class support and therefore ceased to be a fitting instrument. The conditions of the working class had not improved, as the Social Democrats promised they would. The task of Fascism became then one of restoring German capitalism to its pre-war strength and at the same time gaining the confidence of large sections of the working class, peasants and middle layers of the population, by promising to free capitalism from the anomalies that ordinarily affect it. The demagogue Hitler promised to provide work for all, to establish economic and national security and to balance out the periodic fluctuations and crises associated with capitalism. Thus, the first task of Hitler on attaining political power was to provide work of some kind for the six million unemployed. It was useless to produce consumption goods depending for their sale upon an increased purchasing power of the people. What was needed was a type that would not be thrown upon an already saturated market. New roads, land improvement schemes, military equipment, such as barracks, guns and aeroplanes, can be produced independently of the income of the masses. It is even possible under those conditions to produce a growing volume of these goods while wages are being steadily reduced. A gigantic programme of rearmament allowed Hitler to revive German industry, to put Germany back on the political map, and further, to fulfil his promises to the masses, through the grim formula of “guns instead of butter.”

So, to-day it can be said that unemployment in Germany is practically non-existent, and the “work for all” slogan has been realised. For gradually the rearmament industries have expanded and unemployment has fallen; indeed, many workers from other branches of industry have had to be drafted into this field of production. To finance this huge programme, methods have been adopted which have horrified our orthodox capitalist and Labour leader alike. They view with dismay the stringent Governmental control and regulation of profits and prices, and of wage rates and supplies of labour. A picture of the state of present-day Germany, from a capitalist standpoint, can be obtained from the following quotation from Lloyds Bank Monthly Review (July and August, 1937): —

“In the National Socialist State all economic activity must serve the interests of the community. Business interests in Germany must, therefore, regard themselves as subordinate to the general policy pursued by the State. Early in 1937 the German people were told that all activities will be governed by the law that the nation does not live for the benefit of the economic system, nor the economic system exist for the benefit of capital, but capital serves the economic system and the economic system the Nation. . . . With regard to the individual, the National Socialists claim that they must put an end to class differences in order to secure national harmony. Individual and class differences are subordinate to those of the national community. Under a Government with full and supreme power of enforcing its will, even to the point of overriding established law, one of the practical results of this theory has been the suppression of strikes, lock-outs and wage disputes generally.”

Thus the Fascists have created a machine which in time may have repercussions throughout world capitalism. Already it would appear that the threat of a rearmed and highly organised German capitalism is compelling British capitalism to adopt similar drastic measures. An article in The Banker (April, 1939) raises certain issues, largely, it is true, from the point of view of the capitalist class, but issues which vitally affect the working class. The writer commences by pointing out that the Government will be a borrower in the capital market of between £350 and £400 million, and the effects of a single borrower, such as the Government, taking such a large amount from the capital market and distributing it amongst a relatively small section of industry, namely, the rearmament industry, will be grave. The demand for workers in these industries will greatly increase; in fact, the writer of the article thinks that the whole of the unemployed may be re-absorbed into industry. This may well be so, when we remember that, even at the present time, there is a shortage of this type of skilled labour, and that, in addition, an increased number of men are required in the armed forces and other defence preparations. As a result of the large sums paid out in the form of wages following on the increased employment and the substitution of full-time for short-time workers, a greatly increased demand for consumers’ goods may be expected. The Government, if it is to keep at the head of the armaments race, will be forced to increase its expenditure, the money being raised either by borrowing or by taxation. In either case, it will be forced to exert a greater control over the capital market. Manufacturers of consumers’ goods will be faced with an increased demand for their products, and at the same time a shortage of the necessary capital and labour to effectively expand production. Prices will tend to rise and the standard of living of the workers fall unless they are successful in securing higher wages, a demand which will be strenuously opposed by the manufacturers and Government alike, for higher wages mean an increased cost of rearmament. The City Editor of the Manchester Guardian says (April 6th, 1939): —

“Unless the Government then assumes the direct control of industrial production and investment the arms output will be curtailed and a general rise of prices will ensue.”

This rise in prices can be offset in three ways, all at the expense of the working class. The social services may be reduced on the plea of economy, the working day can be lengthened without raising wages, as in France, or the standard of living of the workers can be reduced by allowing prices to rise more rapidly than wages. This attack upon working-class standards has begun. The Press reports to-day the strike at an aircraft factory caused by the employment of unskilled girl labour. Workers’ memories may be short but they still remember the dilution that took place during the last War. As is commonplace nowadays, the men have gone on strike without Union recognition, thus losing strike pay, but they already have the support of the workers in another of the company’s factories, from whom they have received a big collection and a weekly levy on their wages until the dispute is over. All workers should realise that this is only a prelude to a general attack upon working-class conditions and democratic rights. There are not wanting signs that British capitalism will require the working class here to follow in the footsteps of the German working class. By specious pleas of patriotism and emphasis on the horrors of Fascism, an attempt will be made to render the trade unions innocuous and to persuade the working class to be drilled and dragooned. And, needless to say, the trade union bureaucracy and Labour leaders will perform the same service for capitalism now as in 1914—note already the discussions between trade union leaders and the Government on the steps to be taken in an emergency war situation.

Although trade union leaders are paying lip service to voluntary effort as opposed to conscription, they are prepared once again to place the movement at the disposal of the State. Mr. Bevin himself agrees that prices must be controlled and profiteering cease, thus fitting in easily with capitalism organised on a war-time basis.

Now, more than at any other time, is it necessary for the workers to think and act along the lines of their own class interests. Safeguarding working-class interests is the best and only way of safeguarding working-class existence. And the action of the working class here may yet, by its example, have a stimulating and regenerating effect upon the working class of all other countries.

Sound working-class action will still prove to be the greatest impediment to the threat of war. Without this action, we must agree with the Manchester Guardian (April 11th, 1939):—

“War apart, it would be idle to predict either the form or the degree of that Governmental control of finance, employment, prices and profits that may be found necessary as borrowing and spending are increased.”

Already three Conservative M.P.s, Mr. L. S. Amery, Sir Edward Grigg and Lord Wolmer, have placed a resolution on the order paper of the House of Commons (Manchester Guardian, April 17th, 1939): —

“That this House is in favour of the immediate acceptance of the principle of the compulsory mobilisation of the man, munition and money power of the nation.”

In a circular to M.P.s, the sponsors state: —

“We feel it opportune that as many members of the House of Commons as possible should assure them (the Government) that we are ready to proceed to all lengths in pursuance of their policy. The time for half measures is past. We believe that all the resources of the nation should be mobilised now against every eventuality. ( ! !)”

So it can be seen that the State, instead of being capitalism’s sleeping partner, is becoming, as in Germany, the active and directing agent for mobilising industry and dragooning and drilling the population along lines suitable for its purpose. In addition, we have our defence dictators, and A.R.P. closely linked with the police, veiled threats of powers extraordinary in times of emergency, e.g., the right to enter individual houses, etc. So it can be seen that Hitler and our ruling class speak the same language when their interests are at stake.

Surely at such a time the voice of the Socialist should be heeded by all thoughtful members of the working class. History has placed the solution in your hands and given you the opportunity to rid yourselves, once and for all, of the poverty and misery and grey anxiety which capitalism entails. You, the working class, are the overwhelming majority of the population. It is you who make everything possible under capitalism, including war. When this is realised in sufficient numbers, you can take appropriate action, not only to dispense with capitalism, but to build a system of society fitted to the needs of a decent existence. By becoming Socialists you will help to swell our ranks, so that, when sufficient numbers are gained, there can begin that last and greatest march of the working class out of the grey menacing shadows of capitalism into the light of a system of society based, not on the dictates of a minority, but on the needs of humanity.

Ted Wilmott

Answers to Correspondents: Is Stalin a Dictator? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent asks: “Is Stalin a dictator, or a democratic leader?”

The Communists would, no doubt, answer that Stalin, particularly since the 1936 Constitution came into operation, is a “democratic leader,” i.e., that he holds a position more or less similar to that of the Presidents of the U.S.A. and France, or the Prime Minister of Great Britain. They certainly would not admit that he should properly be compared with Mussolini or Hitler. 

It is worth while looking at the text of the Russian Constitution for the light it throws on Stalin’s position. In theory the Russian Government (“The Council of People’s Commissars”) is appointed by the two-chamber “Parliament” (“Supreme Council of the U.S.S.R.”). and the Parliament is democratically elected by the Russian population. In practice, as only one political party is allowed to exist in Russia, the elections are no more democratic than Hitler’s or Mussolini’s elections or the periodical plebiscites at which the population are “allowed” to vote for or against those dictators’ decisions.

But although the “Council of People’s Commissars” is supposed to be the Government of Russia, and is described as the “supreme executive and administrative organ of State power” (Constitution, Article 64), it is restricted and overshadowed by another body, the “Presidium of the Supreme Council.” This Presidium is elected at a joint session of the two chambers of Parliament and between sessions of the Parliament (which, in practice, means nearly all the year round), it has all the real power. It interprets laws, conducts referendums, rescinds decisions and orders of the Government (“Council of People’s Commissars”) “in the event that they are not in accordance with the law,” controls the armed forces, convenes sessions of Parliament, etc.

The Presidium consists of 37 members, of whom Stalin is one. (He is not a member of the so-called “Government,” the Council of People’s Commissars.) Stalin’s authority really rests, however, not on the pseudo-democratic forms of the Constitution, but on the fact that he is General Secretary of the Communist Party, the only Party permitted to exist. The Communist Party is the real controlling organisation in Russia, and the elaborate Parliamentary organisation set up under the Constitution is, so far, merely the shadow.

Editorial Committee.

Answers to Correspondents: Can the Workers be Won Over by Socialism? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

J. J. T. R. (Carlisle) doubts “the possibility of converting the masses to Socialism . . . when we consider the barrage of capitalist propaganda in its many forms.”

The case for Socialism rests upon the fact that the evils which the working class has to endure cannot be ended within capitalist society.

Therefore, capitalism itself, by its very helplessness, forces the working class to turn to Socialism. So far the number of Socialists is small. However, these few Socialists are not necessarily more intelligent than other workers. To-day, workers run capitalist industry from top to bottom. A class which is intelligent enough to do that, is intelligent enough to understand Socialism.

As time goes on, the working class will grow tired of supporting capitalist parties, of demanding reforms which still leave them in poverty; they will give more serious” attention to studying the solution of their problems.

At first the movement for Socialism grows slowly. Still, it DOES grow, and it will gradually gather more and more momentum.

Capitalist propaganda will not permanently stand in the way, for it cannot change the exploiting nature of capitalism, it cannot end poverty, it cannot prevent the class struggle breaking out into full view again and again.

C. A.

Answers to correspondents: Should the S.P.G.B. Join the Labour Party ? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (J. T. R., Carlisle) asks why the S.P.G.B. does not join the Labour Party, and carry on its work for Socialism within that Party’s ranks. The answer, in brief, is that the Labour Party’s aim is not the same as ours. We are working for Socialism, a system of society in which the means of production and distribution will be commonly owned and democratically controlled. The Labour Party seeks to reform the capitalist system, replacing private capitalist concerns by State capitalist concerns, and public utility corporations, like the London Passenger Transport Board. The S.P.G.B. is not in favour of State capitalism, but opposed to it. Therefore, in order to carry on our work we have to condemn outright the objects of the Labour Party. Even if the Labour Party would permit an affiliated body to do so (which, obviously, they would not) it would be of no advantage to Socialist propaganda. On the contrary, such an exhibition of political dishonesty would cause doubt and confusion in the minds of the workers, and would hamper us in our work of preaching Socialism.

For fuller treatment of this question readers are referred to articles in the following issues of Socialist Standard, which are obtainable on application to the Literature Secretary at 2d. per copy: April, 1931; May, 1934; April, 1936, and July, 1936.

Editorial Committee.

Answers to correspondents: Abolition of Capital ? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. D’Arcy Denny (Biggin Hill)

We have your letter asking us to explain what we mean by the phrase, “Abolition of Capital,” which, you say, appeared on page 35 of the Socialist Standard, dated November, 1933. On referring to the page in question we find that what we said was, “Abolition of Capitalism.” Under Socialism goods will be produced only for use. There will be no monetary system, and no capital.

Editorial Committee.

The death penalty in Soviet Russia (1939)

From the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our March issue (p. 41) appeared a quotation from Yvon’s “L’U.R.S.S. telle qu’elle est,” a statement taken from Russian official sources, to the effect that “from the age of 12 children guilty of theft, wounding, assassination or attempts thereto, are subject to all penalties provided by the common law.”

A correspondent from Exmouth, who describes this statement as a “wicked attack upon the Russian people and their rulers,” refers us to “The Soviet Comes of Age” (p. 163), which states that “the death sentence cannot be pronounced on a person under 18 years of age.”

We publish the correction, pending further information which may explain how the discrepancy between the two statements arises.

For the benefit of our correspondent we may add that we would regard as a “wicked attack” on Socialism any implication that in a Socialist country boys and girls of 18 could be liable to the death penalty for theft.

Editorial Committee.

SPGB Meetings, Lectures, etc. (1939)

Party News from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

More Fabian Notes. With Some Fabian Notions. (1907)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following letter from a gentleman who suggests that our regard for common honesty will move us to the desired point of publication has been passed to me. If he had appealed to our regard for an uncommon honesty it would have been more to the point. However, here is the communication : —

Dear Comrade,

I am a regular reader of the “Standard” (the monthly, not the daily), and in the current issue I see that one of the features of the March issue is to be an interesting letter on “Why Every Other Political Party is Hostile to the S.P.G.B.”

In part the answer is supplied by some of the writings in the Party’s official organ—your own paper. I admire unfettered thinking, and clear, incisive writing, but I wish to lodge a respectful protest against the column-and-a-half entitled “Fabian Notes” in the February issue. It embodies either a ridiculous misapprehension of a sentence used by Mr. H. Snell (and quoted), or a wilful distortion of his obvious meaning—for the purpose of discrediting the Fabians in general. Even if an individual member did entertain the ideas attributed to Snell, it is grossly unfair to brand the whole society on such evidence.

The quotation from Snell’s speech was as follows : “The government of the future will be by experts and we, naturally, want to be the experts.” In this sentence, “we” most certainly means Socialists generally, and not members of the Fabian Society in particular. Under the Socialist State (unless people should revert to a very simple life—which is unlikely), it is certain that experts will be needed—in manufacture, in the arts, and even in distribution. There will be no government in any sense approximating to the present class government. And during the transitional stage, which has now commenced (with the growth of trusts on the one hand, and of municipal enterprises on the other), it is equally certain that experts are needed ; and it was to this aspect that Snell’s remark had special reference, for if one thing seems specially obvious in this matter, it is that the workers—the real producers—will receive a nearer approximation to justice under a Socialist than under an individualist; but, just as obviously, the Socialist expert is likely to be passed over, if his principles are known and put into practice. The implication is, that the experts must be converted to Socialism, just as the workers must be : and in this direction the Fabian Society is doing sound work (although its work covers much ground in other directions also).

Whether, under Socialism, the expert would be paid at a higher rate than the “ordinary” worker, is a question which is really not raised by Mr. Snell. I would give my own answer to the question by asking another: Why should he be ? That his abilities are of a less common kind than those of the men who work under his direction, supplies no ethical claim for special treatment. Generally speaking, the work of the expert (as of the artist) is agreeable : he is impelled to do it: and he will give his best howsoever he be rewarded. I, and many who think like me, would have a high reward accorded to the scavenger rather than to the expert.

Your leading article, “The Quintessence of Socialism,” gets to the root of the matter. Until all industries are socialised, and their control won by the workers, the nationalisation (or municipalisation) of isolated industries will be of little service. The best to be hoped of the latter is that conditions shall be somewhat superior to those in the corresponding privately-owned industries—and even that is too seldom attained. The moral is : Unite, for Socialism and Democracy; accept all palliatives offered, but be sparing of thanks, for the most that will be conceded falls far short of the just claims of the workers.

Nevertheless, to preach hatred of the bourgeoisie or the so-called “upper” classes or to foster misunderstandings or “bad feeling” between class and class is both impolitic and immoral. All classes include Socialists—genuine Socialists. So far as the well-to-do are concerned—the people who stand to gain nothing tangible from the victory of Socialism—I ask, why decry those who adhere to the cause “for righteousness sake,” and for no other reason ?

Yet another, and a practical reason for preaching class-consciousness rather than class-hatred, is the immense numbers of “hangers-on” of the wealthy—those who produce useless luxuries for the “upper” classes or who minister directly to their comfort. These, too, are underpaid and oppressed : and the serious part of it is that they are rapidly increasing (in consequence of the growing aggregation of wealth in capitalistic hands). Yet their apparent interest, in the immediate future at any rate, lies in perpetuating existing conditions. These also need to be converted—must be converted, if Socialism is to be won ; for they are too numerous to be disregarded. At present they appear to be about the most impermeable classes of the whole community : they are unlikely to be moved by mere rancorous abuse of their “masters,” but in the long run they must be amenable to reason. (As my letter has dealt largely with an attack on the Fabian Society, I may say—to anticipate a possible gibe—that I do not think the Society either tries or expects to make much impression on the classes in question—though ultimately, perhaps, the impression may be made through their masters).

Whilst preaching the Class War, then, it is imperative that the constructive and idealistic side of Socialism should also be emphasised. In the Socialist State, none (save the shirkers) will be worse off than at present—in all that really makes the happiness of existence : but it will uplift the toilers almost beyond their most daring visions.

I plead, therefore, for union and co-operation within the movement—with free but not ill-natured criticism of each other when differences arise.

Yours fraternally,

Fabian Free.

Reply:

As the blushing author of the article referred to I beg to thank “Fabian Free” for his “free but not ill-natured criticism,” the more so because with almost overwhelming magnanimity he gives me the choice of two labels, I am, it seems, either a liar or a fool—whichever I please. (As a lover of “clear, incisive writing” “Fabian Free” will appreciate the merit these easily understood terms possess over “ridiculous misapprehension” and “wilful distortion.”) And that is very sweet and comradely in my good-natured critic. There have been gentle Fabians who have given me no such freedom of selection.

But notwithstanding this much appreciated concession for the sake of “union and co-operation within the movement,” (which the gods forbid that I should attempt to disturb), I will venture a free and not ill-natured rejoinder in the hope that I may be successful in making my “grossly unfair” conduct appear a little less reprehensible. I hope “Fabian Free” will bear with me.

Now it seems that when Mr. Snell said “we naturally want to be the experts” who will govern in the future, he most certainly meant Socialists generally and not Fabians in particular. Did he ? And how does “Fabian Free” know that ? Will he be greatly surprised to learn that Mr. Snell “most certainly” meant nothing of the sort ?

When Mr. Snell made the statement he was describing the special function of the Fabian Society as distinguished from all other Socialist and pseudo-Socialist parties whose origin and work he was at the moment outlining. If his words had any meaning at all they made it emphatically clear that Mr. Snell was of the opinion that the particular duty laid upon the Fabian Society on whose behalf he was speaking, was that of the training of the expert who was, he thought, to govern in the future.

This may, of course, be a wilful distortion or a ridiculous misapprehension of the function of, and grossly unfair to, the Fabian Society, but that is not my affair. “Fabian Free” had better take the matter up with his Executive Committee, who will then probably restrain their unhappy fugleman. But I think it more likely that “Fabian Free” will receive the shocking intimation that the Executive of his Party share Mr. Snell’s view. In which case “Fabian Free” will perhaps apologise to Mr. Snell and withdraw from the Fabian Society—and perhaps not. However that may be, I trust he will not trouble to apologise to me. I don’t matter. Besides, I’m used to being called names—especially by good-natured comrades of other parties. It’s their little way of ensuring union and cooperation in the movement.

For the rest, “Fabian Free” does not appear to have profited by his regular reading of this paper, and therefore fails to realise that “clear and incisive” style which is his admiration and our normal method. His meaning is often, if he will allow me to say so, obscure, and is not made more apparent by repeated use of the word “obviously” or its equivalent. It is a little—may I say—ludicrous, to keep on making the strenuous assertion that obviously it is so-and-so when obviously it isn’t. It is like crying peace when there is no peace. But I will try my ‘prentice hand at digging his argument out.

Let us assume Mr. Snell meant what “Fabian Free” says he meant. So. “The government of the future” applies only to the transition stage. It is for this stage that the Socialist expert is required. Yet in this stage “Fabian Free” agrees the working class can be little if anything better off. Why ? Because while capitalism holds the causes of poverty and working-class unhappiness remain. Therefore your Socialist expert under capitalist conditions, because he can do no more than administer capitalist laws, is of no more use than a non-Socialist expert. And as under Socialism “there will be no government in any sense approximating to the present,” the Socialist governmental expert of the transition period will then find himself without visible means of subsistence !

It seems to a plain person like myself a dreadful waste of effort to labour in the conversion and training of Socialist governmental experts who are useless to day and for ever. They had far better take my advice and apply themselves to the acquisition of some useful trade.

And I cannot allow “Fabian Free” for one purpose to limit Mr. Snell’s statement to a certain machinery in a certain stage and for another to apply it in a broader sense to a different stage. I am quite ready to have at him with a free and not ill-natured criticism on any question of working-class interest he likes to raise, but he must keep to his premise or definitely relinquish it. If Mr. Snell’s statement referred, as I believe it did, to government under Socialism,—that at any rate was the impression left not with myself alone, by Mr. Snell’s clear and incisive oratory,—”Fabian Free” may deal with my article from that standpoint, and I will deal with him—very happy for the chance, I’m sure. (And then perhaps I shall be able to get him to explain what the Dickens he means by his Socialist expert under Socialism being overlooked because his principles were known.) If the statement referred to the ante-Socialist period, as “Fabian Free” asserts, then the question of the remuneration of the governmental bureaucrat does not arise. The industrial expert under Socialism is a different person from the governmental expert. The first, adequately defined, may be allowed. The second is the person we are talking about. If “Fabian Free” desires to drub me on him, let him wade in. I’ve still got an old pencil stump and a piece of paper left to me by the friendly broker’s man.

“Fabian Free’s sixth par is, I admit, a fair contribution to incisive writing and displays at once the unfortunate misapprehensions existing in the writer’s mind. To talk of hatred of the bourgeoisie being impolitic and immoral is piffle. The hatred is simply an expression, a natural and inevitable expression, of detestation of what “Fabian Free” admits is a wrong, viz., the subjugation and robbery of one class by another. To point this out and emphasize its purport is not immoral—if there be any meaning left in that ill-used word. Nor is it impolitic—unless “Fabian Free” desires to suggest that it is unwise to tell the truth. True all (read both) classes may prima facie, include Socialists, but members of the capitalist class are only Socialists to the extent that they vacate their class position and go over to the working class.

I will argue this point at greater length if “Fabian Free” wishes it, later, and will only say here that the number of people who are Socialists “for righteousness sake,” large though it appears to “Fabian Free,” will dwindle almost to a vanishing point under scrutiny, and come out from the ordeal mainly as a congregation of individuals who have decided that anyhow, to use “Fabian Free’s” own words, they will not be worse off under Socialism, but might be considerably better. Holding as we do that material interests are, in the final analysis, at the root of all human actions, we can quite understand the existence of men in the ranks of the bourgeoisie who can see the advantages of Socialism, and are prepared to fight their own class in order to realise it. Their help is not rejected, but it is not necessarily of more consequence than the help of a similar number of the working class. On the other hand, however, it must not be forgotten that men of the capitalist class have come out ostensibly to help but actually to wreck, if possible, the working-class movement. Therefore, recruits from that quarter should be dealt with circumspectly.

The important point to be remembered in this connection is, that the Socialist movement is absolutely and entirely a working-class movement. It expresses the struggle of the working class against the exploiting capitalist class, and must finally result in the triumph of the workers and the extermination of the capitalists.

Nor can we gild the Socialistic pill for the benefit of the flunkey class. Their material interests will probably keep them bound to their masters until pressure of economic forces, already perceptibly operating, compels them to see that their sole hope, also lies in Socialism. They will have to swallow the pill willy-nilly. And if they then discover, as they will, that there is nothing nauseating in the operation, so much the better.

For our part we will tell them the truth (when we can get at ’em) as straight and clear as we tell it to any other section of the people. That is our business—the only reason for our existence. And not even for “Fabian Free,” much though we should value his union and co-operation, will we depart from our habit of calling a spade a spade, or a labour misleader a fraud, or a Fabian a bureaucrat, or an I.L.P.-cum-L.R.C’er a man on the bounce, or an S.D.F. palliative-monger a confusionist.

And that, gentle “Fabian Free,” if you particularly want to know, is in brief the reason why every other party is opposed to the S.P.G.B. and the S.P.G.B. is opposed to every other party.

A. James