An American looks at Capitalism and the British Labour Party (1939)

From the January 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reader (I. R., Roxbury, Massachusetts) writes drawing attention to a book recently published in the United States called “Is Capitalism Doomed?” It is by Lawrence Dennis, a former member of the United States diplomatic service and of the well-known Wall Street firm of E. & W. Seligman. Our correspondent says that, in spite of the intellectual bankruptcy of Seligman’s solutions, the book is as intelligent a defence of capitalism as is possible. “Its great merit, however, is that he attempts to portray as objectively and as accurately as his class interests will permit him a picture of modern capitalism as distinct from the capitalism of yesterday.”

Dennis argues that, “in its old age, senile capitalism must be nurtured by the State . . . with an even diet of two per cent. gruel. Capitalism has run down for want of new worlds to conquer. . . . The State must supply the capitalist machine with markets which it is at present powerless to create for itself.”

He regards heavy taxation as a necessity, the important thing to him being the safeguarding of capitalism, even if this means cutting into the largest fortunes. He states (with approval) that “capitalism and nationalism are individualistic, competitive and non-co-operative, and therefore international co-operation is a misleading idea.” Consequently he regards plans for disarmament and international pacts as foredoomed to failure.

On page 300, Dennis complains that British Labour has been swayed for higher wages instead of for Socialism, and continues: —

“Socialism means work for everybody, even if it be creating things that capitalists do not approve of. The British Labour Party lacked the power to apply Socialism. English capitalism might have been saved from its present plight had the British Labour Party taken a few drastic measures against British capital just after the War.”

This last opinion is interesting, coming as it does from a man whose sole interest is to save capitalism from destruction.

Blogger's Note:

There's a strong chance that 'I. R.' of Roxbury, Massachusetts was Isaac Rab. It's worth checking out the wiki page for Lawrence Dennis. To say he was an interesting 'character' is to put it mildly.

Letter: The Progress of Russia (1939)

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

A correspondent (W. T. Fielding, Shrewsbury) asks us to comment on an issue of the News Bulletin of the Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee. The issue in question (September 10th, 1938) is devoted largely to information and statistics about the progress of Russian industry and services, given in the speeches of the Commissar for Finance, A. G. Zverev, and others. Much of the speeches consisted of figures of State expenditure. The more interesting statements include the following : —

“He stated further that over 80 per cent. of the output of the industry in the U.S.S.R. is being manufactured in enterprises newly built or completely reconstructed during the last ten years. By 1937, the total output of Socialist industry exceeded the pre-War level eightfold. Tsarist Russia occupied fifth place in the world and fourth place in Europe in industrial output; the Soviet Union now holds first place in Europe and second in the world for industrial output.

The continuous progress of the national economy, together with price reductions on consumers’ goods, had resulted in a further considerable rise in the well-being of the people in the Soviet Union; this is shown, for instance, by the projected rise in the total wages of workers and offices employees from 82,000,000,000 roubles in 1937 to 94,000,000,000 roubles in 1938.”

Regarding educational progress, it was stated that there are now 33,000,000 pupils at elementary and secondary schools, and that the number of pupils in higher educational establishments considerably exceeds the number in the higher schools of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan taken together.

Much information was given about agricultural developments, mechanisation, etc. : —

“According to the 1910 census, the peasant farms of Russia had 7,800,000 primitive wooden ploughs, 2,200,000 improved wooden ploughs, 4,200,000 iron ploughs and 17,700,000 wooden harrows.

Now we have 6,158 machine tractor stations, in vehicles, and 104,323 modern threshing-machines, including the latest types. Some 500,000 tractors are working on our Soviet fields.

We now have in our villages our own Soviet skilled workers. We have in the villages of the U.S.S.R. 734,000 tractor drivers, 165,000 combine operators, 124,000 truck drivers, etc.

The peasant from time immemorial dreamed about the land, but he could receive that land only after the victory of the Socialist Revolution. Prior to the Revolution the greatest part of the land belonged to the landlords, monasteries, kulaks, and other exploiters. . . . About two-thirds of the peasants had less than three dessiatines each.

Of the total peasant farms in Tsarist Russia, 30 per cent. had no horses, 34 per cent. had practically no agricultural implements, 15 per cent. cultivated no land.

Now we have in the Soviet Union 243,000 collective farms, uniting over 18,000,000 peasant households (93 per cent. of the total) and embracing 99 per cent. of the total area cultivated by peasant farms.

Prior to the Revolution the landlords and kulaks had 72 per cent. of all the marketable grain. To-day 97 per cent. of the marketable grain is produced by the State and collective farms.

Tsarist Russia harvested annually, on an average, between 4,000 and 5,000 million poods of grain. Our Socialist agriculture already in 1937 produced 7,000 million poods of grain. The number of cattle is increasing year by year in our country. The well-being and culture of the collective farmers are steadily rising.”

The various figures of output, etc., must be considered in relation to Russia’s huge population, of about 170 million people, and in relation to the quality of the products.

Russia claims to occupy second place in world industrial output, U.S.A. holding first place, but the population of the U.S.A. is about 30 million less than that of Russia and it is not seriously disputed that the average quality of American industrial products is higher than that of Russia’s industries, many of which are relatively in their infancy.

The claim regarding the number of students in higher educational establishments is much more impressive because Russia’s population is about 130 million less than the total population of the countries with which comparison is made.

The final test of production is, of course, the standard of living of the mass of the population, and in spite of the rising level, no responsible authority in Russia, as far as we know, claims that it is high by comparison with, say, the standard of living in England or U.S.A. An example is the production of boots and shoes. The U.S.S.R. Handbook (1936) states that in 1934 Russia produced 69 million pairs of leather boots and shoes, and 65 million pairs of rubber boots and shoes. This means that it takes Russia about 2½ years to produce enough leather boots and shoes to provide one pair per head of the population. Production and sales of boots and shoes in Great Britain are about double the 1934 production in Russia, yet the population is only about one-quarter as large. Russian production will have increased considerably since 1934, though it may be mentioned that the production of leather boots and shoes in that year represented a big decline on 1933.

The statements about the progress of Russian agriculture must also be set against the admitted enormous decline in the number of horses, cattle and sheep that took place after 1929, due to deliberate slaughter by rich peasants who were opposed to the collective farms policy. This loss has not been made good.

Avowed opponents of the Russian Government, such as The Times, various oppositionists living in Russia, some visitors to Russia and former Communists who have become disillusioned, allege that the increased quantity of industrial products has been obtained at the cost of quality, for example, by using lower-grade coal and iron ore, poorer quality textiles, etc. Such allegations must be viewed in the light of the source from which they come, but so must the claims of the Russian dictatorship. Until such time as it is made possible for Russian workers freely to organise and to publish their own criticisms of the acts of the Government, the claims of that Government will be open to the charge that they are coloured to suit the interests of the governing clique. Indeed the authorities themselves have publicly admitted that their statistics have been faked by those responsible for compiling them, this being one of the charges against persons tried for alleged “Trotskyism.” A census of the population has just had to be taken again because the first lot of figures were found to be totally unreliable.

On the other hand, reliable testimony about the quality of some Russian factory products is provided by Mr. J. C. Little, President of the A.E.U., and a delegation of working engineers who visited Russia early in 1937. They say that in works they visited the work “equalled in skill and excellence the engineering products of heavy engineering in this country.” (The Times, November 10th, 1938.) It is probable that visitors are shown the more up-to-date works rather than an average selection, a practice not confined to Russia.

One last point is that no defender of the Russian system has been able to explain away the enormous and growing disparity of income between the mass of workers and the favoured group of specialists, officials, writers, bondholders, etc.

Ed. Comm.

Letter: Supporting a Capitalist War for Freedom (1939)

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

A correspondent (S. H. O., Highgate) puts the following question : —

“Suppose, in the recent crisis, one had to choose between a certain suppression of freedom of expression and association (as, for example, is at present enjoyed by the S.P.G.B.) and fighting in a capitalist war, with, nevertheless, a chance of preserving such freedom, what should the Socialist decide to do? 

“N.B.—I am not implying that such was the choice; I am asking you to suppose it was.”

Reply

Our correspondent’s letter well illustrates the difficulty of giving a satisfactory reply to a question based on a hypothetical case. What line Socialists should follow in a given situation must depend upon a consideration of all of the important factors, but in any hypothetical case some important factors are not stated, and the situation itself may be one which, in the opinion of the Socialist, could not happen.

In the present case our correspondent tries to give the hypothetical situation actuality by instancing the recent crisis; but this is not a legitimate parallel, for the recent crisis was not a situation in which the assumed choice of alternatives presented itself.

Our correspondent does not explain how opposition to a capitalist war could make certain the suppression pf freedom of expression, etc. Does he mean that defeat in war by Germany would make that result a certainty? If so, we must reply that there can be no certainty about it. The German capitalist class (like their British counterparts) are interested in the acquisition of colonies and markets, and in weakening the armed forces of their rivals. It is impossible to say what their wishes about the form of Government of Great Britain would be. One guess is as good as another. If a victorious German ruling class shared Mr. Winston Churchill’s view about dictatorship they might even use their influence to prevent it in this country.

Mr. Winston Churchill: “I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war, I hope we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations.” (Daily Telegraph, November 7th, 1938.)

Actually, it is the attitude of the working class which is in the last resort decisive. If Fascism arose in Britain, with or without war, it could only be because the British capitalists wanted it and the workers supported it or were apathetic.

Our correspondent does not mention, and may have overlooked, that the line to be followed by Socialists is not one for British Socialists alone but for all Socialists. His proposal can, therefore, be tested by its application in other countries.

The British-French capitalists would be waging war in defence of their class interests, in alliance with one or more of the Russian, Polish, Turkish, Yugo-Slav, Italian or Rumanian dictatorships. Socialists in those countries would be in a position of having to support their own dictatorships and thus give up their own struggle for “freedom of expression and association.”

But if it is desirable for Socialists to fight in a capitalist war because of the chance of preserving freedom of association in one country, it must logically be equally desirable to fight in a capitalist war because of the chance of gaining such freedom in another country. Consequently, the Socialists in those dictatorship countries would be considering helping the “enemy” group (Germany and her allies) against their own Governments, because defeat of their own Governments might assist the establishment of a democratic or, at least, a weaker Government, and give them freedom of association. (This line was followed by some alleged Socialists in 1914.) Then the Socialists of the world would be fighting each other, all on the basis of the principle contained in our correspondent’s question!

As against such opportunism we say that Socialists must maintain the independence of the Socialist movement and its international solidarity, recognising that the preservation of freedom of expression depends ultimately on the degree of class-consciousness of the workers, and war weakens that class-consciousness.

Ed. Comm.

Answer to Correspondent (1939)

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

Mr. W. E. Bell (Le Havre, France).—We have your letter and your comments on money, production, etc. Our observations on the latter can only usefully be directed towards the underlying ideas.

You find the Socialist doctrine of the class struggle hard to understand, because you do not go far enough below the surface. The great majority of the population possess little or nothing, and they must therefore live by being employed or as dependants of those who are employed. On the other hand, the minority who own practically all of the accumulated wealth are able to live on incomes from property, i.e., on the backs of the propertyless producers of wealth. The two classes have opposing interests, just as slaves and slave-owners have opposing interests.

Your idea that the capitalist manufacturer is “half financially strangled” is not true in fact. The great bulk of the huge fortunes are in the hands of manufacturers and traders, not of bankers. It is also based on a fallacy, the belief that over the whole field of capitalism there is a shortage of purchasing power. We agree that “all we require is access to the earth’s bounty,” but, unlike you, we see that the propertied class (landed, industrial and financial) will stand as one-man to prevent the dispossessed majority from gaining that access.

Ed. Comm.

Answers to Correspondents (1939)

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

Owing to pressure on space, answers to several correspondents are unavoidably held over. Letters are acknowledged from: M. C. (Glasgow), E. J, (Highgate), W. T. Fielding (Shrewsbury), W. E. Bell (Le Havre), J. L. D. (Woodford Green), Mr. Stanley Owens (Highgate).

Umbrella statesmen (1939)

From the January 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A lot of skits have been published about Chamberlain and his umbrella, but the real significance of it has escaped the commentators. It is that, in negotiating peace or war, it is the capitalists or their representatives who carry the umbrellas, but the workers who, when the war has started, are expected to shoulder—not umbrellas— but guns, and to blow each other to bits about a quarrel which can be made or made up by statesmen, who need to be armed with nothing more than an umbrella, a fountain pen, and the passive support of the workers themselves in order to be able to plunge the world into a holocaust of blood such as the earth has never yet seen.

R. M.

Meetings, Lectures, etc. (1939)

Party News from the January 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard