Illusion (1939)

Book Review from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The immediate object of “The Great Illusion—Now,” by Sir Norman Angell (a Penguin Special, 6d.), is stated thus: “To question the all but universally accepted axiom that a nation’s military power can be used to promote its economic welfare;” the general aim of the book is in the cause of Perpetual Peace. Any aspiration towards the final extinction of the unspeakable bestiality which attaches to war must command respect. The S.P.G.B. warmly sympathises with the humane outlook and implied determination to make personal sacrifice, if necessary, of members of such bodies as the Peace Pledge Union; at the same time it deeply regrets that talent, sincerity, and enthusiasm should be practically wasted because the factors which make for war are not fully grasped.

“It can be shown quite indubitably,” says Angell, “that capitalism is not the cause of war.” Nowhere does he give an alternative comprehensive source, other than an echo of Bertrand Russell’s feeble bleat about “competition for preponderance of power” (p. 65); it is only too apparent that the individual egomaniac seeks “power” as more or less an end in itself, a fact interesting to the alienist, but political power is obviously directed to a specific end; Angell himself stumbles upon one such end: “In our industrial economy, markets are the main problem” (p. 154). But on p. 166, the astounding assertion is made that “political and military power can in reality do nothing for trade”; “in reality” the Fathers of the American Revolution in 1776 obtained very distinct advantages in trade through the exercise of political and military power; the respectable smugglers of New England, the slave owners of Virginia, through many bloody campaigns, demonstrated to an unkind Motherland that rum and slaves were no longer to be exploited mainly in her interest; “in reality,” yea, verily, Cromwell taught the Dutch, through the cutting edge of Navigation Laws, implemented by a powerful navy, that military power, which had axed a Sacred Majesty, would not brook serious competition for trade on the high seas; “in reality,” modern historical research has revealed, behind the legend of the siege of Troy, not a “fair face which launched a thousand ships against the topmost towers of Ilium,” but a pretty grim struggle for a trade route—this when Capitalism was but a vague stirring in the womb of Time.

On p. 136 we read, “The assumption that military force, if great enough, can be used to transfer wealth, trade, property from the vanquished to the victor, and that the latent power to do so explains the need of each to arm,” is a Great Illusion.

Note carefully “victor” and “vanquished.” Misled by Labour leaders whooping the worker on to war in 1914, few of the working class were under the illusion that any transfer of wealth would meet them in the process of transference, not even to the pitiable extent which rewarded the bluff tar in the good old days of Prize Money. One of Angell’s “Great Illusions,” implicit throughout his book, is based upon the fusion of the two classes with opposite interests in one blessed Union, confounding, like the naughty Arians of old, two distinct persons and “vainly imagining” the substance (swag) can be equitably divided.

The instrument proposed to establish peace has an ancient and fish-like smell—a Federation of Nations. Kant, in a famous brochure in the eighteenth century, set out proposals based upon the idea; curiously enough, he foreshadowed Wilson’s “open covenants openly arrived at,” too. The mediaeval Catholic Church actually accomplished some mitigation with its “Truce of God ” and looked for peace in the direction of a League of Catholic Nations.

Somewhat irrelevantly, Angell quotes the U.S.A. as an example of peace attained by union; here history lands him a neat uppercut; the union of the thirteen states in 1776 already contained the germs of the clash of rival interests, which bore fruit in the awful struggle between the commercial North and agricultural South; here again, Angell can be quoted against himself; most significantly he writes (p. 185): “The British worker, as distinct from the possessor of capital, is more subject to restriction in entrance to Australia than he is in entrance to Argentina or Mexico.” Again (p. 190): “A year or so since, there was in London a deputation from the British Indians in the Transvaal pointing out that the regulations there deprive them of the ordinary rights of British citizens.” What hope for a “Federation” of united effort by capitalist groups hopelessly remote by tradition, by culture, by language even, and hopelessly divided by COMMERCIAL INTERESTS, when, in the British Empire, Rhodes was prepared in the interests of the British Africander, to “cut the painter,” and a Celtic fringe is prepared even now to drive the hardest of bargains with the harassed Sassenach.

Our author himself senses a Big Snag, which may be summarised in the Latin tag: “Who will arrest the drunken bobby?” In a wonderful League of “Peace-loving” nations, what shall be done about the truculent member of the gang, who, nourishing a convincing type of gun, slithers out of the Hall! of Peace with unpeaceful intent elsewhere?

The “International Police Force,” on a small scale, has proved a broken reed in China; Henry of Navarre, in the sixteenth century, played with the idea; that gay dog found that capitalism, now a lusty infant, kicked over the traces of his dream chariot, leaving him free to chase more congenial, if less worthy, objects.

In the enchanted island of Shakespeare’s imagination, Gonzalo discoursed eloquently of a serenely beautiful Utopia; the coarse bounder Antonio discovered at the tail-end only “whores and knaves. . . . The latter end of his Commonwealth forgets the beginning”; Angell sets out to the tune of Perpetual Peace, alack! Under capitalism the finale is inevitably a hideous jazz of bombs and poison gas. Note well, “We must be as ready to FIGHT for code or rule of the road as hitherto we have been willing to fight for OUR territory”—needless to say, “OUR” not emphasised by the author.

Easily procured, it is plainly the duty of Socialists to make themselves acquainted with the kind of stuff which can be translated, into twenty different languages … to the bemuddlement and bemusing of the working class over a huge range. Verb. sap.

Augustus Snellgrove

Mr. Beverley Baxter’s Error (1939)

From the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Beverley Baxter is M.P. for Wood Green and was formerly Editor-in-Chief and Director of the Daily Express. He writes articles for “MacLean’s Magazine,” Toronto. A Canadian reader of the Socialist Standard draws our attention to the fact that in his articles, Mr. Baxter refers to the Labour Party as the “Socialist Party of Great Britain.” Our correspondent adds that as Mr. Baxter “doesn’t on the surface seem especially malicious perhaps he would make a suitable correction in a future article if his attention were called to the matter.”

The probability is that Mr. Baxter, when connected with the Daily Express publications, picked up their habit of calling the Labour Party the Socialist Party and just doesn’t know any better. When his attention is called to it, he will at least no longer have the excuse of ignorance.

Ed. Comm.

Blogger's Note:

Fast forward to 1956 and the SPGB is still complaining in the pages of the Socialist Standard about Beverley Baxter mislabelling the Labour Party as 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain'. Looks like Mr. Baxter was playing the long game, and had a political sideline in trolling both the SPGB and the Labour Party. Fair play.

Communists and the Pope (1939)

From the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Canadian Labour Herald in its April issue, quotes the following two news items, both from the New York Times of February 13th, 1939: —

NEW YORK—”The New York State Young Communist League Convention was brought to a close yesterday afternoon with a resolution expressing sympathy to young Catholics on the death of Pope Pius XI.”

MOSCOW—”The Soviet press to-day criticised Pope Pius XI, as a defender of capitalism. The newspaper ‘Bezboznik’ also condemned him for his crusade against Soviet Russia beginning in 1930 and for maintaining good relations with the Spanish insurgents, and the Japanese government.”

A Reminder (1939)

From the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Next time you have that animated conversation with a stranger, get his address, send it, together with a sixpenny postal order, to the Publicity Committee, and we will send him the Socialist Standard for three consecutive months.

Fascism and Democracy (1939)

From the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

"A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism.” Thus Marx and Engels in the opening sentence of the world-famous “Communist Manifesto.” Ninety years later, however, it is another ; spectre that is haunting the minds of our anti-fascists: the spectre of Fascism.

In an article of this scope it is impossible to go into the social origin and content of Fascism. In the main, it is the concrete, practical differences; between the fascist and democratic forms of political administration that interest the working class. Under Fascism, the traditional forms of working class political and economic organisations are denied the right of legal existence. Freedom of speech, assembly, and the Press, is severely curtailed and made to conform to the needs of a single political party that has, for the time being, secured a monopoly in the administration of the state machine. Under Democracy, the workers are allowed to form their own political and economic organisations and within limits, freedom of speech, of assembly, and of the press is permitted as well as the possibility of the electorate choosing between contending political parties.

Now, unlike many people intoxicated with a newly-found love for democracy, the Socialist Party of Great Britain has always insisted on the democratic nature of Socialism, and on the value that the widest possible discussion of conflicting political views has for the working class. When we refuse to unite with non-socialist organisations for the purpose of defending democracy, it is most certainly not because we in any way minimise or underestimate the importance of democracy for the working class or the socialist movement. It is simply because we are convinced that democracy cannot be defended in such a manner.

And as proof of this contention, the working class has a rich experience from which to draw. The policy of the “lesser evil,” that is, a policy of concessions to, and compromise with, non-fascist parties and elements of capitalism which was pursued and justified by the Social Democratic Party of Germany on the grounds that such a policy was dictated by the necessity of defeating Hitler Fascism : the more recent experience of the same policy operated under a different name, that is, the “popular front” in France, both point to the same lesson. Namely, provided the “Fascist Menace” is real, and not the invention of hysterical and panic-stricken “intellectuals,” the formation of a bloc of non-socialist anti-fascists does not impede the advance of Fascism, but if anything, serves to expedite its progress. In order to make this point quite clear, it is necessary that we should understand the nature of democracy, and its usefulness to the working class. Democracy, in itself, cannot solve a single problem of the working class. Unemployment, poverty, insecurity, and other evil effects of capitalism remain, no matter whether the form of its political administration be democratic or dictatorial. Freedom to cry working class misery from the house-tops will not, in itself, abolish that misery. Democracy is a weapon, potentially invaluable, it is true; but like every other weapon, it can be used either for self-preservation or for self-destruction. And the painful fact is that in Germany—and the same process is going on in France to-day, and may be going on here tomorrow—the working class, lacking in an understanding of how to use the democratic weapon in its own interests, chose to commit political suicide with it instead.

The constitution of the German “Weimar” Republic—already doomed before Hitler took power—was formally one of the most democratic in the world. Nevertheless, so miserable had the existence of wide masses of the German people become, that in the last free election held in Germany a majority of the electorate voted for the abolition of democracy. For in spite of the concern for democracy which is expressed by the Communists nowadays, at the time of that election both National Socialists and German Communists were united in their hatred of what they called “bourgeois democracy.” For the Communists to assert at this time of the day that the downfall of German democracy was due to the refusal of the German Social Democrats to form a united front is nothing less than sheer effrontery; they wouldn’t have touched the then “social fascists” (as they described the Social-Democrats) with a barge pole. The chief difference between the followers of the Communists and Nazis was that they chose different vehicles through which to express their hatred of democracy. Lacking an understanding of their social position, disgusted by the antics and ineptitudes of self-styled socialists, the mass of the German people found the source of the grievances not in the capitalist nature of the social system, but in the democratic form in which it was administered. Hence, in their uninformed despair, they fell an easy prey to astute and unscrupulous demagogues, who never failed to reinforce the belief that democracy was the cause of social distress.

Fascism does not exist in the blue of the heavens like every other social phenomenon, it is related to, and has its origin in, a social background. And that background is the very democratic capitalism that “popular-fronters” and other exponents of working class compromise with capitalism, would have us defend. That capitalism inevitably gives rise to working class problems has already been mentioned; but with equal inevitability it also gives rise to problems of a specifically capitalist nature, such as maintaining the profitability of production; securing new, and retaining old markets; the necessity of forging “national unity” when faced with war with rival capitalist groups, etc. And it is precisely in an attempt to solve these problems that the ruling class has recourse to Fascism. That these problems can be permanently solved is precluded by the nature of the capitalist system itself; but that will not prevent the capitalists from making the attempt. Fascism, then, is a political form best adapted to meet the needs of certain contemporary capitalist states.

As long as the working class supports capitalism and capitalist policies, it will, in the long run, ultimately give its support to that policy best calculated to meet the political and economic needs of capitalism—even though that policy may be fascist.

Democracy for the working class can only be consolidated and extended to the extent that the working class adopts a socialist standpoint. To renounce Socialism so that democracy may be defended, means ultimately the renunciation of both Socialism and democracy. It cannot be emphasised too much, that the struggle for democracy is bound up with the struggle for Socialism, and not the struggle for Socialism bound up with the struggle for democracy.

Arthur Mertons

Death of Comrade Bremner (1939)

Obituary from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are exceedingly sorry to have to announce the death of Comrade Herbert (Jock) Bremner, of Leyton Branch, who died at Woodford Sanatorium on May 6th, 1939.

Our late comrade was for many years a strenuous worker for the cause and only ceased his activities when illness made it impossible for him to continue.

His death in his early thirties came about as a result of having contracted T.B. following an attack of asthma.

He had a lively disposition and was a cheerful and agreeable comrade; he will be greatly missed.

His interest in the Party was maintained to the day of his death.

Members of the Leyton Branch attended his interment at Chingford Cemetery.

We desire to extend our sympathy to his family in their sad bereavement.

Advertising (1939)

Party News from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

During 1937 the Publicity Committee spent £5 on Press advertising; during 1938 the amount spent was £19. These sums are mere drops in the bucket compared with the vast sums spent on Press advertising by Capitalist firms. The advertising appropriation of a large firm may in fact be anything from £5,000 to £50,000. Space is expensive, and a single inch in the column of a national paper costs from £3 10s. to £5 in only one issue.

Press advertising is, however, one of the most efficient means of making contact with people who will become energetic and enthusiastic propagandists of the Socialist case. It is like a fine-tooth comb which can be drawn through the whole of the population, collecting those who are interested in fundamentals—those who are likely, therefore, to be supremely useful in Socialist propaganda.

To illustrate the results achieved with our present infinitesimal expenditure, let us give a short resume of our activities. Small advertisements have appeared in the national dailies, in Sunday Papers read by the politically interested, in reviews like Plebs and Controversy, while articles in the Socialist Standard on certain subjects have been advertised in periodicals which are read by people who are interested in those subjects. Such advertisements cost anything from 6s. to £3 10s. each.

The results have more than justified this advertising policy.

Enquiries have been received from all parts of the world, e.g., from France, Hungary, Norway, Roumania, Palestine, India, Japan, the East Indies and the West Indies, Canada, the United States, Mexico and South America. At home there is hardly a county in Great Britain from which we have not received an enquiry—from the Orkneys in the north to Cornwall in the south—from Carnarvon in the west to Norfolk in the east.

As a result of the correspondence which has ensued, many COMPLETE SETS of our pamphlets have been sent out, the regular readership of the Socialist Standard has been increased, much correspondence has been passed to the Editorial Committee to be dealt with in the columns of the Socialist Standard, and back volumes of the Socialist Standard have been sent out. New members of the Party have been made, including potential writers and speakers for the Party.

Comrades, this work must go on. Due to the exigencies of the forthcoming Parliamentary election, the General Party Fund is low, and so far a sum of only £15 has been allocated for 1939 advertising. But this amount can be supplemented by donations. Hence we make this pressing appeal to you.

Donations, which will be acknowledged in the Socialist Standard, should be addressed to the Publicity Committee. Postal orders and cheques should be crossed and made payable to the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Remember, with £40 we can cover the world once a year. With £80 we could cover the world twice a year!

Blogger's Note:

Via the excellent Splits & Fusion website, I was actually able to find one of the aforementioned SPGB adverts. It appeared in the November 1937 issue of the ILP theoretical magazine, Controversy. Interesting to note that the advert appeared alongside an advert for the magazine, International Review. It's a shame that there's been little or no research about that particular magazine. Based out of New York, I believe it was largely written by European exiles, and if it's known at all today, it's because it first published the pamphlet, The State and the Socialist Revolution by Julius Martov. 

May Day Demonstration (1939)

Party News from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

We thank comrades for their co-operation in making the May Day Demonstration such a magnificent success, and are pleased to announce that literature was sold to the value of £15 0s. 3d., while donations amounted to £2 13s. 1d.

Central Circulating Committee.

SPGB Meetings (1939)

Party News from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

I don't know if I've noted this on the blog before, but by 1939 Clifford Groves had replaced Frank Grainger as the SPGB's parliamentary candidate in East Ham North. But for the outbreak of the war, there would have been a General Election in 1940 and the first SPGB parliamentary fight would have been in the East End of London. 

Fast forward five years, Groves was still the first SPGB parliamentary candidate but it was now contesting a seat in the west side of London. Groves contested Paddington North at the 1945 General Election. With regards to Frank Grainger - also known as Frank Ginger - according to Ken Weller in Don't Be A Soldier, he ended up as a lecturer for the Economic League. I'd be curious to know the time lag between him stepping down as the SPGB's parliamentary candidate, and when he joined the Economic League. There is no record of when he left the SPGB. I do know that he 'rejoined' the SPGB in 1932 via West Ham branch, and had previously been a member of the CPGB and the IWW. 

Other things of note from the meetings and lectures list:

• 'Robertus' was the party name of Robert Reynolds. By 1940 he had resigned from the party because of its position on the war.
• 'Reginald' was the party name of Augustus Snellgrove, a retired headmaster who had originally been an early party member - not a founder member -  and who had resigned over the WB of Upton Park affair. He rejoined the SPGB in 1933, and was an incredibly active speaker and writer. He is mentioned with affection in Barltrop's The Monument, and it's a crying shame that there was no obituary for him in the pages of the Socialist Standard.

Sting in the Tail: Perm x from No. 11 (1989)

The Sting in the Tail column from the June 1989 issue of the Socialist Standard

Perm x from No. 11

It has recently been reported that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a keen football pools investor.

We can only hope that he is a little bit more gifted in his pools forecasting efforts than in his budget forecasts.

For example in his budget of 1988 he confidently forecast that the inflation rate over the coming year would be 4 per cent and that the balance of payments deficit would be £4 billion.

In fact the inflation rate has turned out to be double his forecast and the balance of payments was more than treble his forecast.

Mr. Lawson received a terrible drubbing from his critics so his latest forecast is a little less confident. According to The Independent (11 April):

But Mr. Lawson was less certain of his predictions that the current account deficit would remain at £14.5 billion. The forecast, he said was "a genuine best guess" but "we Just simply don't know" whether It would be achieved.

In Mr. Lawson's defence it can be argued that the vagaries of form of Fulham or Partick Thistle are models of consistency compared to the unpredictability of the capitalist market place.

Libertarian?

Here's an interesting little publication from the Libertarian Alliance: Brian Micklethwait on Why I Support The Contras.

When it comes to fighting Communism, the most important rule is: win . . . it may well, for example, be unwise for the Contras to get caught torturing people, on the grounds that this hurts their support In Congress. But the answer is not for the Contras to surrender: It is for them to fight smarter and not get caught torturing people. If they can fight successfully without torturing people at all, then they should do that as well.

In Sickness and Health

In an attempt to generate funds the Mid-Glamorgan Health Authority has come up with a nice little earner.

According to a report in The Independent 11 April:

After shopping mails and one-armed bandits, contraception machines and the sale of puzzles and games to placate patients during the long wait in casualty, the NHS Is about to add another wheeze to the ranks of Its schemes for generating extra income — the car salesman.

Health is just another commodity Inside capitalism. If you have the money you can afford the £1,000 per night London Clinic, If not you can take your chance In the queue at some under-funded public hospital.

Red Sales in the Smart Set

Andrei Fyodorov lives in Moscow and his ambition is to become an old fashioned capitalist. He is all for the freedom of market forces, and is a real Russian Thatcherite. 

At present he is merely the manager of Moscow's first co-operative restaurant but he is about to branch into sales of computers and imported liquor. He also has a joint venture with Spanish businessmen to open a Spanish restaurant in Moscow and a Russian one in Barcelona.

His answer to complaints that his prices are too high is that he is in a monopoly situation and, like a good free marketeer, will charge whatever he can get away with.

Yet he is not a happy man, for although his workers have some shares in the business they don't work any harder than the ones he knew when he managed a state-controlled hotel.

But Fyodorov is no fool. He recognises that Russia is a long way from becoming a western-style economy because the workers cannot throw off overnight the anti free market history of the last 70 years.

He explains in The Guardian:

Millions of people in this country are against the market. They're afraid of prices going up. They fear inflation. They're against private enterprise because it’s a violation of socialism. Yet we don’t know what socialism is. It certainly doesn't exist here.

As we said, Andrei Is no fool.

Fyodorov and his like are as yet an insignificant force in Russia, but unless the die-hard central planners within Russia's ruling class manage to topple the dominant Gorbachev faction then these would-be capitalists will surely grow in wealth and seek a share in political power.

Holiday Planning

Last year the package holiday operators drew up their brochures for 1989. Thomson's, the biggest operator with 40 per cent of the market, estimated that the market would grow by 10 per cent but now find that It has SHRUNK by 10 per cent.

So Thomson's and its subsidiaries have cancelled around one million of their advertised holidays and some trade estimates put the number of cancellations by all the operators at two million, about 16 per cent of the total market.

Why did this happen? Well, the mild winter means that people don't have the same determination to "get some sun” when the holidays come round, and the big increase in interest rates for mortgages and personal borrowing ensures that many people will simply be unable to afford a holiday.

What it adds up to is that the anarchy of the market has triumphed once again. When the brochures were drawn up interest rates were much lower and the consumer spending spree was in full swing. Also, no one could forecast with any certainty what kind of winter we would be getting. True, the operators have their "experts" who try to take these and other factors into account but really, all they can do is make a guess and then hope.

But now that they've cancelled all those bedrooms in Spain, Yugoslavia, Greece, etc., what if we get a cold wet June or people make a late decision to get away after all? They will be clamouring for a holiday in the sun but the operators will be unable to supply them.

What was that about the perfectability of the market?