The Front Page quote from the October 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard
" . . . To the Capitalists democracies and dictatorships are only means to an end — the preservation of the property system."
Monday, October 5, 2026
This Month's Quotation: Socialist (1936)
The Russian “Terrorist” Trial (1936)
The Truth About A Great Frame-up
Last month we made some comments on the Russian trial based upon newspaper reports. We now have the official report of the trial contained in a special number of “International Press Correspondence,” Vol. 16, No. 41, September 10th, 1936.
The first thing that one notices after reading the dreary document is that it is not the report of the trial at all. All the accused pleaded guilty and the court proceedings that began on August 19th were simply means for them to publicly express their guilt, call themselves scum, traitors and various other names, and also, most importantly perhaps, blacken the character of Trotsky as much as possible.
The second thing one notices is that this alleged full report is not a full report at all but simply reads as piece of Stalinite propaganda, interspersed with some farcical statement, question and reply on the part of the public prosecutor and the accused.
The third thing that strikes one is that the proceedings that actually began several months earlier in secret. One of the accused, V. Olberg, was examined on February 21st. The public proceedings, according to the information contained in the report, did not commence until all the accused had been examined and re-examined and admissions of guilt extracted from them.
The report occupies 41½ large, costly-printed pages, which are apportioned as follows:-
The Indictment ……………… 7 pagesProceedings before the Military Collegium (the “Trial”) … 18 ,,Speech of State Prosecutor Vishinisky ……… 12½ ,,Final Statement of Accused …………… 2 ,,Verdict ……………… 2 ,,
The proceedings commenced on August 19th at mid-day with the reading of the indictment. After this each of the accused repeated the statement he had made at the secret investigation admitting his guilt, and an exchange of question and answer took place. This was followed by Vishinsky’s speech and final statement by each of the accused. At mid-day on August 24th the verdict was given.
We are asked to believe that this was a properly constituted trial, but just consider the matter. Here were sixteen men, alleged to be on trial for their lives, and whole proceedings only lasted five days! The prosecutor, in his final speech (which occupied nearly a day), address the judges as follows:-
“With all thoroughness, you have subjected to investigation and judicial verification each of these proofs, every fact, every event, every step of the defendants, etc.” (Page 1125)
All this careful verification is supposed to have been done in three days of the trial, as the prosecutor was speaking at the beginning of the fourth, yet there are at least 28 volumes of evidence, as in one place “Vol. 28, file 112 of the Record,” is quoted! They certainly are fast workers! At mid-day of the 24th the accused were sentenced. They appealed. The appeal was disallowed and they were shot on the 25th. So the Court of Appeal must have done some fast work, too, if they also went through the volumes of evidence!
No Documents Produced at the Trial
The only evidence produced at the trial was the statement of the accused and the statements of two witnesses brought forward by the prosecution. One of these was Smirnov’s wife and the other was also a “suspect”! No documents were produced as evidence (apart from statements alleged to have been made by the accused in preliminary investigations). A letter is referred to as having been received from Trotsky and destroyed. An open letter that was not read. No information is given of how the authorities got wind of the “plot” and how they were able, for instance, to extract from V. Olberg on February 21st practically all the alleged details of the “plot.” We use the word “alleged” here for reasons that will appear later.
The lack of information on how the authorities knew of the “plot” is striking, because a good deal of it consisted of private conversations in cars, private apartments, etc. The value of the evidence of the accused may be gauged from the opening of the final statement of Yevdokimov:-
“How can anyone believe even a single word of ours? Begins the defendant Yevdokimov. Who will believe us, who played a base comedy at the fresh grave of Kirov whom we had killed, us who only accidentally and through no fault of ours failed to become the murderers of Stalin, and of other leaders of the people! Who would believe us who are facing the court as a counter-revolutionary bandit gang, as allies of fascism, of the Gestapo?” (Page 1137.)
In his final speech, the prosecutor, Vishinisky, also says of them:-
"But where is there proof of this, how can we believe them when they have surpassed all conceptions of treachery, of perfidy, deceit, betrayal, treason?”
And yet it is the words of the “perfidious”gang that is the only evidence of the plot and of their guilt – no other evidence was brought forward.
Let us consider the point. As there was no evidence but their own, how were they induced to give it? Remorse and repentance won’t fit, because if they are the type the prosecution makes out, they could not have suffered from either, and certainly they would not have deliberately asked to be shot! Of Zinoviev it is said:-
“In spite obstinate denial, the accused Zinoviev was compelled by the weight of evidence which was brought against him by the investigation authorities to admit that ‘The main object which the Trotsky-Zinovievite centre pursued was to kill the leaders of the C. P. S. U., and in the first place to kill Stalin and Kirov’,” (Page 1100.)
What was the “weight of evidence” that could compel a man of Zinoviev’s intelligence to admit the direction of a murder plot? The only evidence given in the report is the unsupported statements of people who “have surpassed all conceptions of treachery, of perfidy, deceit, betrayal, treason”! And all these statements were extracted at secret investigations conducted by the secret police!
One of the principal witnesses, the accused Bakayev, is alleged to have given details of a plot that implicated everybody, and made himself out to be an assassin. No information is given of how he came to do that, and yet Vishinsky describes him as follows:-
“Precisely, Bakayev, who is known as a man full of bitter hate, a resolute man, a man stubborn and persevering, with very great will-power, of strong character and endurance, a man who was capable of stopping at nothing to achieve these aims which he set himself!” (Page 1136.)
What dark and terrible means were employed to get such a man to make an abject confession and to end his final statement by declaring that he “realises the entire gravity of his crime and expects a just and deserved sentence from the proletarian court”? (Page 1138.) Perhaps some day we shall know.
“Confessions” that are Incredible
Let us take a look at the statement of one of the accused, remembering that he is also supposed to fit the prosecutor’s edifying description. While doing so the reader should try and imagine what means must have been employed to extract such abject and self-destroying admissions. Limits of space compel us to make our quotations as few as possible.
“During the cross-examination of Kamenev the court dealt in detail with the policy of double-dealing employed by the plotters in addition to terror in their struggle against the Party.“Vishinsky: How is one to judge the articles and declarations which you wrote in 1933, and in which you expressed devotion to the Party? As deceit?“Kamenev: No, worse than deceit.“Vishinsky: Breach of faith?“Kamenev: Worse.“Vishinsky: Worse than deceit, worse than breach of faith. Do you find this word? Is it treachery?“Kamenev: You have said it.“Vishinsky: Zinoviev, do you confirm this?“Zinoviev: Yes.“Speaking of the motives of his conduct Kamenev stated: ‘I can only admit one thing, that having set myself the monstrous and criminal aim of disorganizing the government of the Socialist country, we used such methods of struggle as we considered corresponded with this aim and which were just as vile and contemptible as the aim we set ourselves.’“Vishinsky: Was your struggle against the leadership of the Party and of the government inspired by low personal motives, by personal thirst for power?“Kamenev: Yes by thirst for power by our group.“Vishinsky: Do you not realize that this has nothing in common with social ideals?“Kamenev: It has just as much in common as revolution and counter-revolution have in common.“Vishinsky: Do you clearly realise that you are conducting the fight against Socialism?“Kamenev: We clearly realise that we were struggling against the leadership of the Party and of the government which leading the country to Socialism.“Vishinsky: Thus you are also against Socialism?“Kamenev: You draw the conclusion of the historian and prosecutor.” (Page 1113)
Now, Reader, can it be possible that you are gullible enough to swallow the above as an example of a genuine confession? The thing is too utterly childish to pass.
According to the statements in the report, the accused are cross-examined. Here is another sample of the cross-examination, which surely speaks for itself:-
“Bakayev tries to make his responsibility appear less in his statement. He says that out of the whole terroristic activities of the Centre he only knew of the decision to murder Stalin and Kirov, and that the first he had heard of the other acts of terrorism, which were in course of being prepared, was from the indictment.“Vishinsky: Bakayev, you were a member of the terrorist Centre? Is that correct?“Bakayev: That is so.“Vishinsky: In the year 1933, you were commissioned to organise the murder of Comrade Stalin. Is that so?“Bakayev: Yes.“Vishinsky: You adopted a number of practical measures in order to carry out this commission, that is to say, to organise several attempts, to organise an attack on Comrade Stalin, which miscarried through no fault of yours?“Bakayev: That is correct.“Vishinsky: In addition you took part in the murder of Comrade Kirov?“Bakayev: Yes.“Vishinsky: Moreover you went to Leningrad on behalf of the terrorist Centre to cheek up on the preparations for this murder?“Bakayev: Yes.“Vishinsky: On returning from Leningrad you reported that everything was in order, that the preparations for the murder were going forward successfully. During your visit you met Kotolinov, Rumiantzev and others?“Bakayev: Yes.“Vishinsky: In addition you met Nikolaiev, gave him directions for the murder, and satisfied yourself that Nikolaiev was a determined person and would be in a position to carry out the task which had been set him?“Bakayev: Yes.“During the further course of the examination, however, Bakayev tried to make his part smaller by stating that he was only a ‘co-organiser’ in the preparations for the dastardly murder of Comrade Kirov.“Vishinsky: You give signals, you check up on the times, you checkup on everything that has anything to do with your signal, you carry through an act; does not all that mean being the organiser of the of the crime?“Bakayev: Yes, that means being the organiser of the crime.“Vishinsky: Therefore, we are right in saying that you were the organiser of the murder of Comrade Kirov?“Bakayev: Well, yes, only I was not alone.“Vishinsky: You were not alone, Yevdokimov was with you. Defendant Zinoviev, you also were an organizer of the murder of Comrade Kirov?“Zinoviev: In my opinion Bakayev is right if he means that those principally responsible for the dastardly murder of Kirov were myself – Zinoviev – Trotsky and Kamenev, who organised the united terrorist Centre. In this Bakayev played big part, but by no means a preponderating one.“Vishinsky: The decisive roles were played by yourself, Trotsky and Kamenev. Defendant Kamenev, do you agree with Zinoviev’s statement that you, Trotsky and Zinoviev, were the principal organisers, and that Bakayev played the part of practical organiser?“Kamenev: Yes.” (Pages 111-12)
“Shoot the Reptiles”
This may be a fitting point to notice that the report is itself a piece of propaganda on behalf the Politburo – the leading members of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party. They are frequently eulogised in it, and whatever there may have been in the statements or attitude of the accused that would tell in their favour at all, no mention is made in the report. Smirnov is a case in point. According foreign journalists who were in Moscow at the time, his attitude at the trial was by no means as abject as the report conveys. The Manchester Guardian correspondent states that Smirnov refused to recant. (Manchester Guardian, August 24th, 1936).
The Moscow correspondent of the Daily Telegraph (August 21st, 1936) also gives a favourable idea of Smirnov’s attitude. This correspondent makes some further remarks that are worth quoting in full, as they throw an interesting light on the proceedings. In order to understand the opening remarks, we should mention that Sokolnikov, Rykov, Tomsky, Bukharin and Karl Radek had already been accused by the prisoners of complicity in the murder plot.
“Strangely enough, to-day’s newspapers suppress all reference to the charges made against these men, and Government officials state that, except for Sokolnikov, they are not yet under arrest. This adds to the general strangeness to the proceedings.“To-day’s papers publish articles and resolutions headed “Shoot the Reptiles,” but nowhere do they mention where the trial is being held. Precautions have been taken to prevent the general public noticing arrivals and departures at the court house.“The 300 people admitted to the court are for the most part newspaper representatives, officials and Secret Police, some in splendid uniforms and others in plain clothes. Some members of the Communist Youth Movement are also allowed to be present. Entirely contrary to all precedent, no photographs have been taken.”
This correspondent describes the arrival of Sofonova, who was brought from prison, where she awaits trial for conspiracy to murder Voroshilov.
“Sofonova, a grey-faced and hollow-cheeked woman of about 35, was dressed in a new drab beige frock with red facings. At the microphone, through which all the prisoners give evidence, she slowly repeated in a dull voice the charges she had made against Smirnov when under interrogation by the Secret Police.”
The prisoners’ evidence was considered sufficient to convict each other, and yet, although it was equally clear in the case of Bukharin and Rykov, we learn since that they have not brought to trial. Another instance of the fake nature of the business. Note in the above that the general public were not admitted to the trial, but some Communist youths were. Was this to give the latter a lesson or because they were too inexperienced to see through the business? Also a microphone was used. People could not see, but they were allowed to hear!
The description of Sofonova giving evidence in dull voice suggests the effects of the secret investigation and what means may have been used to terrify and cow the accused. The Evening Standard writes:-
“Most of the prisoners were near to collapse when the judge pronounced sentence.” (25/8/1936.)
Propaganda for Stalin
Another instance of the extent to which intimidation must have been carried is the obvious putting in the mouth of Kamenev the following self-condemnation and eulogy of the murderous clique at the head of Russia to-day:-
“The morning session of August 20th begins with an examination of the defendant L. B. Kamenev.“‘The terrorist conspiracy was organised and led by myself, Zinoviev and Trotsky,’ testified Kamenev. ‘I came to the view that the policy of the Party, the policy of its leadership had won in the only sense in which a political victory is possible in the land of socialism, that this policy had been accepted by the toiling masses. Our attempt to speculate on the possibility of a split in the Party leadership also failed. We had reckoned on the Right group of Rykov, Bukharin and Trotsky. The elimination of this group from the leadership and the fact that it was discredited in the eyes of the toilers knocked this trump out of our hands too. We could not hope for any serious internal difficulties to overthrow the leadership which had carried the country through the most difficult stages, through industrialisation and collectivisation. There remained two roads: either honestly and completely to put an end to the struggle against the Party or to continue it, without any hope, however, for mass support, without a political platform, without a banner, i.e., by means of individual terror. We chose the second road. We were guided in doing this by boundless bitterness against the leadership of the Party and country and by a thirst for power to which we had once been near and from which we had been removed by the progress of historical development.’“Replying to Vishinsky’s questions the defendant Kamenev related to the court how the Zinovievites had established a bloc with the Trotskyites with a view to organising a terrorist struggle against the Party and Soviet state.“‘We conducted negotiations for a bloc with Smirnov, Mrachkovsky, Ter-Vaganyan not as with authors of independent political directives. They were of value to us as persons who were following with precision and directives of Trotsky. Knowing Smirnov and Mrachkovsky as active Trotskyites, knowing of Smirnov’s trip abroad and of the fact that he had established contact there with Trotsky, we were absolutely convinced that the directive regarding the terrorist policy conveyed by Smirnov and Mrachkovsky and defended by them was a precise directive from Trotsky. On the basis of this and owing to the fact that Trotsky’s directives for terrorism coincided with our own sentiments, we concluded what is referred to here as a “bloc,” and what should be called a close terrorist conspiracy. This conspiracy was built up in 1932 as an organised league which had no other platform and which took as its aim the capture of power by terrorist disorganisation of the government, by elimination and murder of Stalin as the leader of the Party and country and of his closest associates.’” (Page 1112)
The above is a fairly clear illustration of the propaganda side of the trial.
What Were the Secret Police Doing?
Let us now turn to some other points.
In December, 1934, and January, 1935, there were two trials in relation to the killing of Kirov. Kamenev, Zinoviev, Yevdokimov and Bakayev were charged in connection with this business and imprisoned, as were also several others. If there was a group of murder plotters then the government was obviously alive to it and secret police were on the job. In spite of this we are asked to believe that, as late as May, 1936, the plot was still being carried on, partly directed from prison, and that Fritz-David, Olberg, Berman-Yurin and company were still going ahead with the assassination project. Here is the statement from Berman-Yurin:-
“Berman-Yurin: In September, 1935, the congress was to have been convened. I gave Fritz David the Browning with the bullets, so that he would hide it in his apartment. But before the opening of the congress Fritz David informed me that he again was unable to obtain a ticket, but that he himself would be at the congress. We agreed that he then would commit the terrorist act.“Several days later Fritz David and I met, and he said that he had been unable to shoot. He, Fritz David, had sat in a box; there were many people in a box and there was no possibility of shooting. Thus this plan of ours also failed.“In December, Fritz David informed me that recently a messenger from Sedov and Trotsky had arrived, and asked for information why the terrorist action had not yet been carried out. Fritz David gave him exact information, and received instructions to seize some other opportunity, some interview for reception, to which I or Fritz David must without fail secure entry and there kill Stalin. In May, 1936, Fritz David informed Berman-Yurin that he had again had a messenger from Trotsky, a German, ‘who spoke extremely sharply with him, accused him of inactivity, of irresolution, of lack of courage, and literally demanded that he make use of any event to kill Stalin. It is necessary to hurry, no time must be lost,’ he said.“‘At the end of May, 1936, I was arrested, and my terrorist activity was cut short.” (Page1119.)
As one writer has pointed out, the suggestion in the second paragraph above is that delegates at conferences are not allowed to move about freely.
While they were all under suspicion, and knew it, they are supposed to have been traveling freely back and forth reporting and plotting – and they all knew the ramifications and the power of the secret police!
No Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen
All through the business, efforts were made to link up Trotsky as the real director of the conspiracy. Here is Holzman’s statement:-
“After his arrival in Berlin, Holzman told the court, he rang up Sedov, and arranged to meet him at the Zoological Gardens. As Holzman and Sedov did not know one another, it was arranged that each should be carrying the copy of Berliner Tageblatt and the Vorwarts. After the two men met, Sedov proposed to Holzman they take a taxi.“We drove in taxi – Holzman continues his disposition – but I do not remember the secret. Sedov took me into a flat; there was nobody in the flat. It was on the fourth floor. Here I gave him the report and code. … I met him like this six to eight times in the course of four months. ‘In November,’ Holzman continued, ‘I again ’phoned Sedov, and we met again. Sedov said to me: ‘As you are getting ready to go to the U.S.S.R., I would advise you to go with me to Copenhagen, where my father is.’”“Vishinsky: That is?“Holzman: That is, Trotsky.“Vishinsky: You went?“Holzman: I agreed, and told Sedov that in two or three days I would go to him in Copenhagen and stay at the Hotel Bristol, where we could meet. I went straight from the station to the hotel, and met Sedov in the lounge.” (Page 1120.)
Let us consider this statement.
The second paragraph states that Holzman went to a flat with Sedov, but Holzman could not remember the street, although he visited the flat “six to eight times in the course of four months.” How very curious?
The second line in the last paragraph is a misprint. Judging by the report printed in Moscow it should run" cealment we could not go together. I arranged with". This paragraph states that they met in 1932 at the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen. Unfortunately for this statement the diplomatic correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (September 17th, 1936) points out that the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen was pulled down in 1917! Possibly one of those who took part in preparing the case had been in Copenhagen during the War but did not know the dirty trick someone had played in 1917!
The above is an excellent specimen of the flimsiness of the evidence at the trial. The case is full of discrepancies and matters that are too much strain on the credulity of intelligent people.
It is worth remembering that in spite of the efforts of the Nazis in the German Reichstag Fire Trial in 1033, George Dimitrov was able to defend himself and eventually to get scot-free, and this was under what Communists are pleased to call “Bourgeois Justice.” Dimitrov did not appear before a packed court, and he was not subjected to the Russian methods of extracting “confessions.” The tone and nature of these confessions stamps them as the product of the Stalinite group and not of the accused.
This case should help to impress upon the workers’ minds the road Dictatorships, with their secret police, are bound to travel. Once free discussion is killed, Dictators have only one means of keeping in touch with mass opinion – secret police. The power wielded by those who control the latter enable them to perpetrate in safety what dark deeds they wish. Behind the scenes the Dictators struggle for control and it is woe for the loser. Ten years ago, Kamenev and Zinoviev united with Stalin to push out Trotsky. Today Nemesis has overtaken them.
The lengths to which the prosecution are prepared to go, in the effort to link up Trotsky with the German Secret Police, are shown in the case of Valentin Olberg, who is accused of obtaining a passport through the German Secret Police. The following dialogue also further illustrates how well the Russian Government have schooled their victims in self-vilification.
“Vishinsky: Who is Tukhalevsky?“Olberg: ‘Tukhalevsky is director of the Slavonic Library of the Foreign Ministry in Prague. I learned from my brother that he was an agent of the German Secret Police. Tukhalevsky was informed of my visit and told me that he would endeavour to obtain for me the necessary documents. Thereupon I wrote to Sedov in Paris, informing him of the proposal the German Secret Police agent had made and asking whether Trotsky approved an agreement with such an agent. After some time I received a reply sanctioning my action, that is to say, my agreement with Tukhalevsky. Sedov wrote that the utmost secrecy was necessary, and that none of the other members of the Trotskyite organisation should be informed of this arrangement."Olberg received the passport through Tukhalevsky and certain Bend, from Lukas Parades, the Central Consul of Honduras in Berlin, who was staying in Prague at that time."Olberg: He sold me a passport for 13,000 Czech crowns. I received this money from Sedov.“Vishinsky: Had any relations with the Republic of Honduras?“Olberg: No, never.“Vishinsky: Let me show this to you: Is this the passport? (The court commandant produces the passport.)” (Page 1117.)
Commenting on this the correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (August 29th) gives the following details on Olberg’s life:-
“Olberg’s father was Socialist who left the Soviet Union to settle in Germany. He took out German naturalisation papers, but in 1933 he had to leave Germany with his family, and was deprived of his German citizenship.“Valentin Olberg settled in Prague with his wife, living in great poverty. He belonged to no political party, but was greatly attracted by the land of his childhood, Russia. He tried to get an academic post in Russia, and applied for a visa at the Russian consulate in Prague in 1934, but was told that he could not have visa unless he had a passport. It is possible to acquire the passports of certain States by purchase, and this has been done by émigrés who have been deprived of their own. Olberg succeeded in buying a Honduran passport for 7,000 Czech crowns (not 13,000 as ‘admitted’ in the trial). His wife’s parents also contributed a sum which they raised by the sale of old jewellery. That he obtained the passport from the Gestapo is, therefore, untrue.”
The correspondent, quite rightly, says that inaccurate “admissions” like this throw doubt on all admissions made by the prisoners.
Who Are the Next “Traitors”?
Vishinsky’s final speech is packed with fulsome flattery of Stalin and his associates – perhaps he also is thinking of his head! The following is a fair sample of it:-
“The whole country responded to the treacherous shot of December 1st, 1934, with a unanimous curse to the murderers. The whole country – millions and tens of millions of people were stirred and again demonstrated their solidarity and unity, their devotion to the great banner of the Party of Lenin-Stalin. Like an indestructible iron wall the whole land of the Soviets stood up in the defence of its chiefs and leaders, for each of whose hairs the criminal madmen will answer to us with their heads. In this boundless love of the millions of toilers for our Party, for the Central Committee, for our Stalin and his glorious companions, in this immeasurable love of the people lies the entire power of the defence and protection of our chiefs, the leaders, the country and the Party against traitors, murderers and bandits!” (Page 1125.)
If these words mean anything, is it not strange that the opposition should be pursued with such ferocity and disposed of with such haste? In such circumstances how was it possible to work up a dangerous conspiracy? And further, why the desperate anxiety to get hold of Trotsky to wipe him out also?
In conclusion let us note the names of the present leaders of Russia. The prosecutor gives them in the second paragraph of his final speech:-
“Terrible and monstrous is the chain of these crimes directed against our Socialist fatherland, crimes each of which deserves the severest condemnation and the severest penalty. Terrible and monstrous is the guilt of these criminals and murderers who raised their hand against the leaders of the Party, against Comrades Stalin, Voroshilov, Zdhanov, Kaganovich, Orjonikidze, Kosier, and Postyshev, against our leaders, the leaders of the Soviet state. Monstrous are the crimes of this band of people who not only prepared terrorist acts but killed one of the best sons of the working class, one among those most devoted to the cause of Socialism, one of the most beloved pupils of the great Stalin, the fiery tribune of the Proletarian Revolution, the unforgettable Sergei Mironovich Kirov.” (Page 1125.) (Italics ours.)
We now await news of the struggle between these six for power. We are not at present to prophesy which of them will be named as traitors!
Gilmac.
Editorial: Socialism's Message To-day (1936)
As the condition of the world becomes more and more critical and chaotic, men’s minds turn with greater insistence towards remedies not tried before. Yet Socialism—not, of course, the spurious article which goes by that name in Labour circles—is rarely considered at the outset because of the twin fear that it is allied to violence and disorder and that it is not practical.
The fear of violence should not require more than a brief examination. Capitalism itself, whether in war or peace, is so full of violence that no alternative could very well be worse. What serves to hide this is that the propertied class always contrive to represent their violence as “lawful,” even when, as in Spain, it means organising a destructive armed rebellion, or when, as in Jaffa earlier this year, it meant the dynamiting by British authorities of the houses of 6,000 poor Arabs at only a few hours’ notice, leaving them to find shelter where they could, deprived of most of their furniture.
The best answer to the person who associates Socialism with violence and disorder is to instance the S.P.G.B. In 32 years of our existence we have never on any occasion advocated violence, or any form of dictatorship or anti-democratic method. We have never broken up opponents’ meetings, and we allow them the use of our platform to attack our case and state their own. Never have we preached or tried to justify any form of the suppression of the views and opinions of others. Our own past and the principles we preach and practise are the best of all guarantees that Socialists stand for orderly methods of social progress.
Socialists can also easily meet the charge that their principles are not practical. We, indeed, make that charge against all who stand for capitalism. Is it reasonable that millions of human beings should be in want or distress in face of society’s present powers of producing goods for their use? Is it practical to try to hold down these discontented millions by armed force or the methods of dictatorship ? Is it practical to cherish the illusion of the Fascists that you can eliminate the conflict between the haves and have-nots by dressing them in shirts of the same colour, while leaving the economic gulf untouched ? Is it practical to say, as do the Conservative, Liberal and many Labour politicians, that our only hope of peace is to amass still further gigantic forces of destruction, the vicious doctrine that force must be met with force? Is it practical to spend further years raising Labour Governments to power in the vain hope that they will be luckier at trying to administer capitalism than they were before? Is it practical any longer to believe in the capitalist system at all ?
Socialists, with their feet firmly planted on the ground, urge you to give unprejudiced attention to what we say, even if at first glance it appears to be made up of what you have been told are lofty ideal aims impossible to put into practice. In a world where goods can be produced in almost unlimited amount, is it really so impracticable to set about organising distribution on the basis that all people shall have free access to the goods? What is there to prevent such organisation—except that the necessary knowledge and will are at present lacking? Are you so contemptuous of the capacity for social conduct of your fellows (and of yourself) that you believe it impossible to get the population to work without the threat of starvation under the compulsion of capitalist tyranny? Moreover, what practical alternative is there to the reorganisation of society on the lines we advocate? The actual alternative held out by the so- called “practical” reformers in the Labour Party and other non-Socialist Parties is nothing else than a preparation for a new world war between the capitalist democracies and the dictatorships. Unless the workers of the world adopt the principles of Socialism showing the way of escape from capitalism to emancipation they will be drawn into a blind, fratricidal struggle about the minor differences between one kind of capitalism and another.
Socialism offers possibilities of life for the whole population such as the world has never known before. The road to Socialism is the road of persuasion, and of democratic organisation in a Socialist political party internationally organised. Socialists know the goal and know that orderly democratic methods are the way to achieve it. Socialists alone are the practical men and women who have the key to the future in their hands, a key that can be used whenever the majority come over to our side.
The Trades Union Congress (1936)
The sixty-eighth annual Trades Union Congress was held at Plymouth in September, under the presidency of Mr. A. A. H. Findlay, General Secretary of the United Pattern-Makers' Union.
It is an indication of the trend of trade unionism in this country that, in recent years, the time of Congress has been taken up, to an increasingly larger extent, in debate and discussion on political affairs and international questions. This year’s conference was similarly occupied. The dominant issues were Spain, national defence, dictatorship, and the Communist demand for a united front.
The Spanish Civil War
The President, in his opening speech, referred to the present struggle in Spain, and said: —
“Our hearts,” he continued, “ go out in honour and respect to our comrades in Spain, who are making their magnificent fight in defence of constitutional government.”— (Manchester Guardian, August 9th, 1936.)
A telegram, approved by Congress, and sent to the Spanish Premier, read: —
This congress, representing the organised workers of Great Britain, profoundly moved by the heroic struggle of the Spanish people for the maintenance of freedom and democracy . . . In the confident assurance that they embody the unconquerable will of the Spanish nation to defeat the forces of Fascism and tyranny, we pledge afresh our utmost support to the Spanish people.
Such is the sentiment. But when it came to a showdown, to a question of translating sentimental platitudes into practical assistance, Congress showed its helplessness and complete inability to give any
material help to the Spanish workers. What the Spanish Government needs is arms, in the shape of battleships, aeroplanes and guns, with which to fight the rebel military forces. Congress could not provide these. However, to be consistent with its resolution of “utmost support," it might have adopted a policy of supporting the demand that the British Government supply arms to the Government in Spain. It did not do so, but carried, by 595 votes to 7, a resolution supporting the Government’s policy of neutrality, that is, of withholding the supply of arms. An amendment favouring a policy of intervention was defeated on a card vote by 3,029,000 votes to 51,000. Intervention here meant supplying the Spanish Government with arms.
In the discussion that followed, Sir Walter Citrine said that the great need of the Spanish Government was to be supplied as rapidly as possible with war material to which it was entitled under international law. That it was felt that action should be taken to restrain Italy and Germany from supplying munitions to the Spanish military rebels. This could only be effected by placing a naval blockade round the coast of Spain. He continued : “ . . . I could not say ‘yes' to that.” (Daily Herald, September 11th, 1936.) Nevertheless, Sir Walter did say “yes" to the stupid telegram which pledged “utmost support" to the Spanish people, and which could only be dangerously misleading to the Spanish workers and Government. He also stated that the policy of neutrality was initiated by the Popular Front Government of France, and that the French Government had had a long-standing agreement with the Spanish Government to supply munitions, yet on July 25th (which was only one week after the civil war broke out) it decided it could no longer do so. He expressed the view that the overriding motive was clearly that the French Government was convinced that if it went on supplying Spain in the emergency with the munitions that the Spanish Government needed, there would in all probability be an outbreak of war in Europe.
Certain aspects of the question had apparently escaped Sir Walter Citrine’s notice. Were Congress or the “neutral” powers able to exert sufficient pressure to compel the Fascist powers to observe neutrality, then that pressure could have been exerted to have prevented them from supplying arms to the rebels in the first place. There was, in fact, no essential difference in the policy of neutrality embodied in the resolution which he supported and the policy of intervention in the amendment which he opposed. There would be as much “danger to the peace of Europe" if the policy of neutrality had to be made effective as there would be in the policy of intervention. The neutral powers, Great Britain and France, are not willing to risk war whilst there is “no direct threat to their interests. The enormous cost of war and the possibility of loss in markets and colonies induce an attitude of caution in international affairs and an anxiety to avoid doing anything that would provoke war. Which is quite unlike the swashbuckling sentiment of the British Governments when Empire building was in its heyday. Germany and Italy have less to lose and can afford to take advantage of the weakness, temporary or otherwise, of the other great powers, and with less fear of retaliation. Nobody believes that if Germany and Italy accepted the neutrality agreement that they would keep it. It is doubtful whether Sir Walter Citrine does.
A Recruiting Speech
In the debate Mr. Bevin scored as a jingo. “We are satisfied,” he said, “ that we are not going to meet the Fascist menace by mere resolutions. . . . We are not going to meet it by pure Pacifism . . . the whole of the democratic powers had to say to Hitler and Mussolini * Don’t take us too cheaply.’ ”
And during the discussion on foreign affairs he said: —
“We have been on the retreat as democratic powers.“We have weakened our prestige. There has been an assumption that we would never defend ourselves.“ That is not true.
“ Fascism is not going to saddle itself on the whole earth, either by intrigue or the methods employed in Spain.”—(Daily Herald, 11.9.36.)
The Government has probably noted that speech for use in future recruiting literature.
The Communists and Spain
Other interesting facts which came out were: That the British Communist Party had not raised its voice to demand that Russia should send munitions to Spain. That the fact that the Russian Government had accepted the neutrality agreement and had operated it had never been mentioned by the French Communist Party. That the Russian trade unions had ceased collections for the Spanish workers on the instructions of the Russian Government. That the international fund for relief amounted to £45,000, of which £13,381 came from Britain. This represents a fraction of a penny per head of the trade union membership of Great Britain. (Daily Herald, September 11th, 1936.)
Future Labour Government. Mr. Bevin’s Boast
Resolutions favouring the abolition of the means test, the forty-hour week, the raising of the school-leaving age to sixteen, the abolition of the six-day waiting period for unemployed workers applying for insurance benefit, were approved. Congress knew that the passing of these, resolutions anticipated the policy of a possible future Labour Government. In fact, speaking to the resolution in favour of a forty-hour week, Mr. Bevin said: —
“The resolution did imply that if after the next election they secured the return of a Labour Government they would expect that Government to introduce the 40-hour week.”—(Daily Herald, 10.9.36.)
And later: —
“ Never again must a Labour Minister be sent into office without all his plans prepared.”
The latter statement is in the nature of an ultimatum or a threat. As Mr. Bevin gave it as his opinion that the Labour Party lacks the virility of the trade unions, perhaps he considered the threat necessary. The statement certainly gives ammunition to the opponents of the Labour Party, who maintain that it was the Trade Union "caucus” who insisted upon the Labour Party not entering the National Government in 1931, against that party’s own wishes.
It is to be hoped that workers will remember Mr. Bevin’s words when the next Labour Government is elected—particularly if he is in the Cabinet. The last Labour Government found its pledges embarrassing, and said so, and asked the workers not to press their claims. The bill to raise the school-leaving age, which was introduced by the last Labour Government, particularly showed that lack of “virility” to which Mr. Bevin referred. It was wrecked because of the dissensions between the rival religious factions within the Parliamentary Labour Party. The waiting period for the unemployed worker and the means test were then in operation and were justified by Labour Government spokesmen. Mr. Lansbury stated that he was not in favour of an unemployed man having assistance unless some kind of means test were applied.
Trade Union Soul-Saving
However, the fear of losing its members, votes, and trade union financial backing, might induce an effort in a future Labour Government to attempt to carry out its pledges. In the opinion of Sir Walter Citrine, the trade union movement “saved the soul of the.Labour movement in 1931,” when the Labour Government fell. However, having said it, it is to be hoped that Sir Walter will be as successful in keeping it unsullied in the future. Incidentally, his statement is a tacit admission that members of the Labour Government were in favour of entering the National Government in 1931, and only refrained from doing so because of pressure from the trade unions.
Trade Union and Co-Operative Societies
Discussion, on the General Council’s report dealing with employment of trade union labour by co-operative societies and firms working on cooperative society contracts was interesting. Some of the discussion, as reported by the Manchester Guardian (September 11th, 1936), is as follows: —
Mr. A. G. Tomkins, of the Furnishing Trades’ Association, said it was not correct to say that with the exception of a few small societies the goods sold were made under fair conditions; it would be more correct to say that the larger the co-operative society the bigger difficulty they nad in preventing “ rat ” furniture from being sold.Mr. W. Birch, of the Distributive and Allied Workers, Hyde, urged the General Council to take an active part in negotiations for conciliation machinery between the C.W.S. and the unions having members employed by it. It would be a great achievement if they could establish a fifty-shilling minimum for the men concerned.
“ Rat ” furniture is furniture made under sweated conditions of labour. In this case in workshops which contract for the co-operative societies. The Daily Herald reported Mr. Tomkins as having spoken on the General Council’s report, but completely omitted the statements reproduced from the Manchester Guardian's report above. The Herald also omitted from its report of Mr. Birch’s speech the statement that “it would be a great achievement if they could establish a fifty-shilling minimum for the men concerned.”
Communists and the United Front
When Congress discussed the General Council’s report opposing a united front with the Communists, Sir Walter Citrine made a scathing speech. He said that one of the most amusing spectacles which contemporary political history would reveal was the attempt made by the Communist movement to ingratiate itself with the Trades Union Congress and Labour Party.
“After years of derision of the principles of the Labour movement, after using gallons of ink in denunciation of Labour’s leaders, after abuse of its unions as pillars of capitalism and reformist organisations, after denouncing its puny attempts to capture Parliament—regarded by the Communists as entirely ineffective as a means of emancipation of the people—after all the years that we have experienced since 1925, now we have the curiously incongruous spectacle of the Communist organisations wanting to come into our midst and be part of the movement they have so derided.“The Communist party in Great Britain, as in every other country in Europe, is the mouthpiece of the Soviet Government. Everything that the Soviet Government decides will be repeated, parrot-like, by the Communists." . . . And when they speak here they are expressing the Russian Government’s point of view.”
Membership
The Council’s report showed an increase in trade union membership by approximately 300,000, but London, while it has 2,500,000 industrial workers, has only 350,000 trade unionists.
One last thing about the Congress. No Socialist voice was heard to penetrate the confused ideas and oratory, shedding light with the Socialist explanation of events.
Harry Waite
"Food, Health and Income" by Sir J. B. Orr (1936)
The great and widening gap between capitalist luxury and working-class poverty is one of the significant facts of capitalism. From time to time more or less official bodies for various reasons manifest concern in the indifferent health of the working-class. One of the latest investigations is embodied in Food, Health and Income, the joint work of Sir J. B. Orr, a leading expert on nutrition, the Rowett Institute and the Market Supply Committee. It is a dear and scientific analysis of much available information. Written without working-class bias, it is an apt commentary on the state of the working class under capitalism to-day; all the more useful in that the standard of nourishment used is one high enough to maintain “a state of well-being such that no improvement could be effected by a change in the diet.” All previous examinations have used a minimum standard—the smallest allowance on which life can be supported. The attempt has often been made by writers using the latter to show that workers’ diet is, in general, satisfactory. One such account stated that only 0.02 per cent, of the persons in a depressed South Wades mining area were suffering from malnutrition (British Medical Journal, January 4th, 1936). A minimum standard is also the basis of unemployment scales. A committee, under the chairmanship of Miss E. Rathbone, M.P., showed in December, 1935, that these scales were too low even for a “ down to the bone ” expenditure.
The present enquiry divides the population into six income groups. The income per head is the family income divided by the number of persons supported.
and Income”
It is worthy of notice that while in Group VI not quite one-third or less is spent on food, in Group I upwards of two-fifths of the income is so spent; and yet this high proportion still leaves that-section of the population underfed in every particular.
The sum spent on meat, milk, fish, fruit, and vegetables increases steadily with income. Butter, however, is a luxury often beyond the means of those in Group I, but replaces lard, margarine and dripping in Group VI. Cheese also is replaced by more expensive foods in this group. Where dear, but nourishing, foods are unavailable, cheap foods, often devoid of certain essential factors, such as potatoes and bread, have to do duty.
Sir J. B Orr says: "It looks as if either the purchasing power of this group is so low that the consumption of even the cheapest foodstuffs is limited, or, what is more probable, the appetite in the lowest income group is below the average. One of the first signs of sub-optimal nutrition is diminished appetite.” (p.29)—that is, that a poor diet is rapidly reflected in loss of appetite.
In the upper groups, not only is the quantity of food consumed greater, but the quality is higher. In determining the requirements for health of the essential nutrients, the standards compiled by Stiebeling, of the Government Bureau of Home Economics, U.S.A., were used. These detail the amount of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, vitamins, and calories required. The reasoned conclusion of Sir J. B. Orr is that “the average diet of Group I is inadequate for perfect health in all the constituents considered; Group II is adequate only in total proteins and total fat; Group III is adequate in energy value, protein and fat, but below standard in minerals and vitamins; Group IV is adequate in iron, phosphorus and vitamins, but probably below standard in calcium; Group V has an ample margin of safety in everything, with the possible exception of calcium; and in Group VI the standard requirements are exceeded in every case.”
It is obvious that much disease must be the direct outcome of an indifferent diet. There is evidence that rickets, bad teeth, and certain anaemias are much commoner in the lower income groups. Moreover, the liability to a great variety of diseases is higher when nourishment is low. It is instanced that “children with rickets show a higher incidence of complications, and a higher death rate from some common diseases, such as whooping-cough, measles and diphtheria, than do those in the same environment without rickets ” (page 43).
In a group of measurements quoted, public schoolboys of 17 are an average of 3.8 inches taller than ”employed males,” and at 13 Christ's Hospital boys are an average of 2.4 inches higher than council schoolboys. While height is partly determined by hereditary factors, in a number of experiments the height of children has been increased by giving additional milk. In one instance, the rate of growth in children so fed was about 20 per cent. greater than in those not having extra milk.
Well may the author hold in his conclusion that “these findings .... raise important economic and political problems.” But they are not problems to be solved by “economic statesmanship.” They are the problems of capitalism, which is concerned with production for profit and offers the workers no more than is necessary to maintain in efficiency the capitalist system. By uniting to abolish this system, the workers themselves can take charge of the forces of production, so that food and all necessities of life fall into the hands of those who need them, not for profit, but for use.
C. J. Kilner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)