Socialist Party to stand five candidates (1996)

Party News from the September 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the coming General Election the Socialist Party will be putting up five candidates, the highest number yet in a parliamentary election. Two will be standing in Scotland, two in the North East and one in London.

The seats and candidates are

Glasgow Kelvin:      Vic Vanni.

Livingston:               Matt Culbert.

Jarrow:                     John Bissett.

Easington:                Steve Colborn.

London Vauxhall:    Richard Headicar.

Around 40,000 election addresses will be distributed by the Post Office in each of the five constituencies, but this will only be during the election which must take place sometime before May next year.

In the meantime preparatory work has started, with meetings, literature stalls and leaflet distribution in the constituencies. If you want to help with this, or want further information about the socialist campaign, the contact persons for the constituencies are:

• Glasgow: Vic Vanni, Flat A, 26 Baker Street, Glasgow G41 3YE. Phone:0141-xxx xxxx.
• Livingston: Matt Culbert, 53 Falcon Brae, Ladywell, West Lothian, EH54 6UW. Phone: 01506-xxx xxx.
• Jarrow and Easington: John Bissett, 10 Scarborough Parade, Hebbum, Tyne & Wear NE31 2AL. Phone: 0191-xxx xxxx, or Harland Wear, Telephone 0191 xxx xxxx 
• London: Gareth Thomas, 185c Northcote Road, London SW11 6QF. Phone: 0171-xxx xxxx.

If you are not living in any of these areas but still want to help the Socialist election campaign one way to do so is to make a contribution to the Election Fund. The amount in the fund at the moment is £4,656, not much compared to what the pro-capitalist parties will have to spend. The more money we have the more effectively can we make the voice of socialism heard.

Cheques (made payable to “The Socialist Party of Great Britain”) should be sent to: Election Fund, 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UN.

Tolpuddle Rally 1996 (1996)

Party News from the September 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

This year's Tolpuddle Rally, to remember six Dorset agricultural workers who in 1834 were transported to Australia for attempting to form a union in order to defend themselves against their bosses, was held on 21 July.

Whilst the number of socialists who attended the event this year was disappointing, several members from the Bournemouth group made an early start in order to reserve a space for our literature stall.

Events such as Tolpuddle are good for meeting fellow workers who have at least seen the need to organise to defend themselves against the effects of capitalism. Members of the Labour Party were there in, as usual, considerable numbers. Those who stopped at our stall had one thing in common, anger at what was going on the Labour Party. Democracy and New Labour seem to be incompatible. No debate on policy, cut down as much as possible on internal elections. Such things are seen as a threat to the only thing that matters to Blair and his shadow bandits, power to run British capitalism. Labour members seem to have little or no hope that a Blair government will do anything to let us know there has been a change of government.

From our point of view we had a good day. Discussed with many interested workers the case for socialism, sold socialist literature and distributed leaflets.

The main impression we came away with was that many workers were angry and disillusioned at the complete lack of alternative seemingly on offer at the forthcoming general election. We hope that the many workers who came into contact with socialist ideas at Tolpuddle this year will come to the conclusion that a viable alternative exists in the form of the socialist movement.

Ray Carr

50 Years Ago: The Waning Status of the "Intellectual" (1996)

The 50 Years Ago column from the September 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not many years ago the "intellectual," with his "middle class" delusion, was convinced that he had a fundamental identity of interest with the capitalist, but experience began to raise doubts; some sections, including bank clerks, commenced to form defensive organisations. That was a step forward. Lately there has been a giant stride forward.. For the first time bank clerks have engaged in a strike on a large scale. The Irish bank officials have been on strike for five weeks, coming at last into the main stream of the class struggle and taking a belated step towards recognising the fundamental identity of interest of all those who depend for their livelihood upon the sale of their mental and physical energies. In the not far distant future the other grades of workers afflicted with the "middle class" obsession will be forced to accept a similar outlook and the halo surrounding the "intellectual" will finally disappear.

Gilmac.

[From the article, The Waning Status of the "Intellectual", by Gilbert McClatchie, Socialist Standard September 1946.]

This Month's Quotation: Karl Marx (1933)

The Front Page quote from the September 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The great duty of the proletariat is to conquer political power."

Karl Marx

Let Brotherly Love and Tithes Continue. (1933)

From the September 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Up and down the English countryside a tithe-war is in progress. Farmers, and other holders of land subject to tithe, say they cannot and will not pay. They have organised a national association to defend their interests. Against them stands the Church, with its back to the wall, demanding its money. The Church invokes the law-courts and the police, and at its behest bailiffs seize the land, stock and crops, of the debtors. The answer of the farmers to forced sales of goods is an aggressive boycott of the auction. Massed picketing and veiled threats of violence are usually sufficient to dissuade intending buyers from making bids.

The history of tithes is long and complicated. They go back for many hundreds of years, and it is disputed whether in England they began as the voluntary gifts of pious churchmen or as a compulsory levy. In any event there is no dispute as to their form. The landholder subject to tithe had to donate each year one-tenth of the produce of his land, one-tenth of his calves, lambs, wool, milk, eggs, grain, and so on. At first this stream of wealth was divided into four parts; one part each for the bishop and the parish priest, one part for the upkeep of the church building, and one part for the poor. Subsequently the bishops were otherwise provided for. The tithes were then divided into three parts; one-third for the parson and two-thirds for the monks, to be used by them for their own upkeep, for the entertainment of strangers, and for the relief of the poor. There is no doubt that by this time at least the relief of the poor was not a voluntary act on the part of the monastic houses but was a duty imposed on them by the Crown. In receiving tithe and using part of it to relieve the poor, the monks were acting as agents for the King, as is shown by a statute passed in the early years of the fourteenth century, during the reign of Edward I.

When the monasteries were suppressed at the time of the Reformation about one-third of their tithes were seized by the Crown and handed over to laymen.

The whole of the remaining two-thirds came to be payable to the clergy.

Until 1836 tithes were, for the most part, paid not in money but “in kind." In that year the Tithe Commutation Act substituted a money rent-charge, varying with the price of corn, for the payment in kind. In 1891, owing to the difficulty experienced in the collection of tithe, the obligation was transferred from the tenant to the land-owner.

Both in 1836 and under various later Acts the clergy were given the benefit of relief from part of their liability for rates payable on the tithes received by them.

Under the Tithe Act, 1925, the tithe payment, instead of varying with the price of corn, was for the first time stabilised on the basis of £105 for each £100 of tithe-rent charge; with an additional payment of 4½ per cent. a year to provide a fund for the extinction of tithes over a period of 85 years.

The annual cost is now £3,300,000, of which about two-thirds is payable to the clergy and the remaining third to other receivers of tithe whose rights were acquired from the monasteries at the Reformation. It is this £3,300,000 which is the grievance behind the present dispute.

The Church—A Declining Industry

The Tithe-payers' Association makes the claim that the burden of tithes is ruining the farmers. While it is true that some farmers cannot pay their tithe, it is obvious that we must look further than this for an explanation of the dispute between the tithe-payers and the Church, for the total amount of tithe represents only a very small percentage of the annual income of the farmers. On the other hand, a sum of over £2 million a year is of the utmost importance to the Church. It represents the livelihood of thousands of the clergy.

The fact is, that during recent years changes have been taking place affecting both the farmers and the Church. Many of the former have been badly hit by the post-war slump in the prices of agricultural products. They receive a declining income from the sale of their products but have to pay a fixed charge to the clergy and other recipients of tithe. Their position is doubly difficult in the many cases of farms having been bought on borrowed money at the high prices of the War years. On the other hand, the farmer’s inclination to withhold tithes has been strengthened by the loss of prestige and popularity on the part of the Church and its ministers. The Church is a great commercial concern which, so to speak, has its capital sunk in a declining industry. As Dean Inge puts it, the Church used to be a monopoly undertaking and is now trying to exist under conditions which have deprived it of its monopoly.

It sells an article which has not kept up with the changing demand of the twentieth century. “Spiritual consolations” and the kind of social activities provided by the Church are as definitely out-of-date as horse-’buses, lantern lectures and tallow candles. The hold of the parson is relaxing. The torments of hell and the delights of heaven alike pass over the heads of a generation brought up on war and war-novels, on the cinemas and wireless. Cinemas and wireless have captured the field, hence the interesting results of most of the votes on Sunday opening. In one town after another we see the Councils—composed of elderly persons, often active Church workers—voting against Sunday cinemas, only to have their decision heavily reversed when it goes to a poll. The clergy try to hold back the tide, but what can they do against new needs and 'the cinema combines? They are like the little shopkeepers trying to fight Woolworths, Boots, Selfridges, and the other giant concerns which are fast devouring them.

In a variety of ways the influence and the income of the clergy have been diminished. Now comes the final blow of the campaign against tithes. In reply, the Church militant shows what it is made of, and fights for cash, as it never fought for anything else. As Marx so cruelly said, ”the Anglican Church will more readily pardon attacks upon 38 of its 39 articles than upon one thirty-ninth of its income.”

It is Written in the Bond

The tithe-war is rich in incident. There is the Rector who assented to a farmer sacking one of his unfortunate labourers in order to be able to afford to pay tithe. The Rector said that he could not afford to let the farmer off what he owed, “and that it was a just debt.” The Church authorities, as a whole, have taken up the same legalistic attitude, standing strictly on the letter of the law. Shall not Shylock have his pound of flesh ?  Is it not written in the bond?

Where they do allow some remission it is only on the ordinary commercial principle of taking 75 per cent., because there is no possibility of getting the whole. Yet prominent Churchmen, including Lord Parmoor, state that the burden of tithes is unduly heavy in view of the unforeseen fall in prices.

One case has, however, come to light of a tithe claim being abandoned entirely by the parson to whom it was owed. An old shoe-maker was a tithe-payer to the extent of 3s. 6d. a year. It was the custom to hold an annual ”Tithe Feast," presided over by the Vicar and held at the village “pub," which all tithe-payers were entitled to attend. The old shoe-maker was relieved of his obligation to pay tithe because, as he explained, “they lost money over him" at the annual spread.

Attempts to seize farmers' property have been resisted, with the consequence of numerous cases of assault, some of which reach the courts. In one case of distraint it was disclosed that an original debt of £20 for tithe was increased to £700 through legal costs charged against the debtor in a series of actions to enforce payment.

The attitude of the Daily Herald, official organ of the Labour Party, has been amusing. Its desire to sympathise with the farmers, whose votes it wants, is equalled by its anxiety not to antagonise the supporters of the Church. So it presents the delicate problem of how to give the farmers more without giving the Church less; and as that problem is truly baffling, it demands that the Government shall instantly do its duty—and appoint a Commission! Happy memories of the late Labour Government, with its dozens and dozens of Commissions and Committees of Inquiry, probing into this question and the other.

Why do the Christians so Furiously Rage Together?

It is an entertainment to see how the followers of Jesus fight for filthy lucre as bitterly as any poor benighted heathen. Where is that otherworldliness, that spirit of self-denial that the clergy never fail to recommend to workers who come out on strike?

Christians, were you not commanded to love one another? And do you now send your message of love by the bailiff’s men ? O, ye of little faith! Do you not know that strife can be avoided by the exercise of Christian charity and forbearance? Why, yes, of course you know, for did you not, with the Archbishop of Canterbury at your head, found the Industrial Christian Fellowship for no other purpose than to show the cantankerous workers how to avoid industrial strife, and how to live at peace with the employers?

Lastly, there is the case of Mr. George Middleton. As First Church Estates Commissioner and Chairman of the Tithe Committee of Queen Anne’s Bounty, it falls to Mr. Middleton to defend the Church. This he does in letters to the Press urging the farmers to respect the sanctity of contracts and the rights of private property. What makes his case interesting is that he was a Labour M.P. and an official of a postal workers’ union until he had the good luck to slip into his present position at £1,200 to £1,400 a year, plus cost of living bonus; a job which literally lasts for life. There is no modern nonsense about needing young blood or being too old at 70 or 80 for the First Church Estates Commissioner’s job.

Mr. Middleton is a supporter of the Industrial Christian Fellowship referred to above, and an advocate of peace between employers and employed, but as Chairman of the Tithe Committee of Queen Anne’s Bounty he wages fierce war on tithe defaulters.

Idle talk among ex-soldiers often strays over the question which of the Monarchs, Ministers and Generalissimos won the real prizes of the War in which their loyal followers perished. By common consent it was the defeated ex-Kaiser, with his fortune of millions serenely ending his days in retreat at Doorn. If a similar question were to be put about the fruits of the great Labour Party victory which put them into office in 1929, it can hardly be doubted that Mr. Middleton, wafted into this placid backwater at the Ecclesiastical Commission, was one of fortune’s special favourites.

However, let it not be supposed that we are filled with bitterness towards the clergy or towards the Mr. Middletons. They are only trying to make the most of the opportunities capitalism offers them in the particular circumstances in which they happen to be placed. They are responding to the pressure of material conditions. It does not matter in the least, either to us as Socialists or to the condition of the workers, whether this individual or that secures what plums of office there happen to be. The Church, like any other concern run on business lines, has its highly paid bishoprics and its minority of pleasant livings for the influential few. It also has its rank and file, who live under conditions very much akin to those of the rest of the black-coated workers; with a large minority whose pay is so small that they have great difficulty in making ends meet and “keeping up appearances.” Capitalism being what it is, what can the parson do but try to hold on to his livelihood and demand payment of tithe? And what can the farmer do but try to help himself by whittling it down?

Our quarrel is not with the men, but with the system. Our message is directed to the working class, who alone can alter things. To them we say that it is useless, and worse than useless, to denounce the man who takes the opportunity which capitalism offers while at the same time at the elections upholding the system itself. Capitalism compels us all to struggle for survival and teaches us to kick each other down in the fight for greater security and a better livelihood. The only way to end the wolfish struggle is to end capitalism.

If we dwell on the weak and illogical position of the Church, it is in order to show that the solution does not lie there, but only in Socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: Tales Told by the Lady's Maid. (1933)

Editorial from the September 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Those whose knowledge of the domestic servants of the rich is coloured by their reading of the luscious disclosures published from time to time in Sunday newspapers, will suppose that the normal first step taken by a valet or lady’s maid on being dismissed is to rush round to the nearest journalist to arrange for a series of articles headed, “Through the Keyhole,” “Our Dissolute Peerage,” or “Disgusting Orgies in Mayfair.” It is much more likely that these thrilling stories are written by the newspaper staffs or by professional writers, and that domestic servants are a much-maligned body of people. They may be far too scrupulous to make use of their knowledge of the weaknesses and foolishness of their employers. If, indeed, it is scruples only which hold them back they can easily get rid of these by modelling themselves on some of the politicians, for example, the former colleagues of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.

It was inevitable when the split occurred in the Labour Cabinet in 1931 that the two groups should tell each other a few home-truths, with some venom and the maximum of publicity. Lord Snowden, Mr. Thomas and Mr. MacDonald hastened to disclose that most of the Henderson group had been willing to agree to almost all of the economy “cuts.” As this was a really devastating blow, to which no adequate answer has been found, or is ever likely to be found, many of the big and little Labour men, peeved by loss of office and (in many cases) loss of parliamentary seats, fell back on the device of ”telling the real truth” about their former leaders.

It would not be true to say that all of them did this, but the offenders have been fairly well distributed among the various sections of the Labour Party. Some of the worst offenders are Mr. Hamilton Fyfe in Reynolds' Illustrated News, and Mr. MacNeil Weir in Forward, Mr. Weir was Parliamentary Private Secretary to MacDonald, and, therefore, had access to many of the inner secrets. Professor Laski made his contribution also.

From these disgruntled people we have now learned the most surprising things. If they are to be believed they knew all along that MacDonald was childishly ignorant and credulous, extremely vain, a word-spinner to the point of incoherence, unduly fond of the company and flattery of the Peerage, a mere tool of big business and the bankers, obstinate yet easily turned from his path by hints from his political opponents, arrogant and unapproachable, always indifferent to the hardships of the workers, always dishonest in his political enthusiasms, a worshipper of applause and a seeker for limelight, and altogether a most unattractive, uninformed and useless person. Similar things were said of Thomas and Snowden.

Now there may be some, even a lot of truth in all these statements. Not being personally acquainted with Mr. MacDonald we are not in a position to say. What we can say has to do with the ex-valets rather than the masters. If these things are true how comes it that the whole band, from Maxton to Henderson, and from Bevin to Clynes, went on year in and year out following MacDonald, re-electing him leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party, praising him extravagantly and vowing that never before was there a man so deserving of trust and confidence? How did the stupid and incompetent MacDonald so easily bamboozle all these clever fellows? They say that they always saw through him, yet he, apparently, twisted them round his little finger! What were they?—innocent victims or criminal fellow-conspirators? Did MacDonald take them in—in which case they are plainly unfitted for the hurly-burly of politics—or were they consciously helping MacDonald to take the workers in?

In short, when they told the workers all those years to have faith in the tried and trusty Socialist MacDonald, were they ignorant dupes or deliberate liars ? This, includes the Communist Party, which supported MacDonald for several years. It also includes Mr. Maxton, of, whom Hannen Swaffer writes in the Daily Herald (July 31st) that when the National Government was formed, Maxton told MacDonald in a private conversation, “I always knew you were not a Socialist, Mac. I can’t think worse of you now that you admit it.”

Will Mr. Maxton tell us why—knowing that MacDonald was not a Socialist—he told the workers at election after election that MacDonald was a Socialist, and was deserving of working-class support? Was it because MacDonald's name at the head of l.L.P. appeals for funds enabled them to tap his rich friends ?

All this spate of disclosures intended to discredit MacDonald, Snowden and Thomas has at the same time shown up the rottenness of many of their former colleagues.

Unemployed Workers on the Continent. (1933)

From the September 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

The apologists of capitalism in this country often aver that the workers here are better off than in other countries. A correspondent of The Times has recently been making a tour of France and Italy investigating the conditions of the workless there. In Italy most of the 1,200,000 unemployed belong to the Fascist party on account of the rations given to their unemployed members, and the correspondent remarks: “You will realise that the unemployed single men probably get more in actual relief than our own unemployed." In France, the official figures show that more than half the unemployment is in Paris and the surrounding Department of the Seine. “In Paris, the unemployed single man gets from 10 to 12 francs minimum a day as dole, and if he is living in lodgings, the keeper of his house gets another four francs a day for his room. Multiplied by seven days each week, this makes, even with the exchange, an allowance considerably above our own." But apart from such slight differences, capitalism is everywhere the same. It weeps at the large number of idle workers whom it cannot employ at a profit, while it grudgingly doles out the barest necessities of existence.

R. M.

Letter: Russia's Future. (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Russia’s Future.

Why not a development towards Socialism? 

A group of workers in New York have put the following interesting questions about Russia: —

A group of workers—20 all told—are interested in your viewpoint on the following questions :—

1. Can the Soviet Union ever become economically self-sufficient ?

2. Can Socialism be built in Russia alone ?

The argument we were presented with recently was that—starting out with its present enormous resources and labour power, and the money it may borrow abroad, the Russian State will sell Russian products abroad, turn the part of the surplus value that is left after the payment of interest, State expenses, etc., back into its industrial enterprises, developing its industries to the point of satisfying all national needs till in time there is attained the nearly total economic independence of the country from the rest of the world. This will offer the basis for Socialism in Russia.

Please answer in detail and in simple language why, for economic reasons, or any other, (1) and (2) are impossible. Have your explanation appear in the Socialist Standard if possible.

Reply.

If the question of self-sufficiency in Russia could be considered simply as a technical question of adjusting the living habits of the population so that they ate, and wore, and used up in other, ways, only articles which could be produced inside Russia, then self-sufficiency would be quite practicable, as indeed it would also in India, China, the U.S.A. or the British Empire.

The question, however, cannot very usefully be considered in that form because in no country is the production and distribution of wealth simply a technical question. In all countries it is as well a political question, involving the wealth and position of separate classes.

Before going further into that aspect, let us put another question. Is Russia becoming more self-sufficient or less ? The answer is that the development of Russia is away from self-sufficiency—not towards it.

Back in the eighties of last century, Russian imports and exports together amounted to only about £100,000,000 a year. For a country of that size it was negligible, as can be seen from a comparison with England’s foreign trade, which was seven times as great, although Russia’s population was several times as large as England’s. Russia then, particularly as regards the great mass of the population, was all but self-supporting.

By 1914 her trade had nearly trebled, showing clearly that Russia, like the other countries, was giving up self-sufficiency. During the six years after the war, Russia’s foreign trade was ruined, and again Russia was practically self-sufficient. Since 1924 her foreign trade-has rapidly grown again, and by 1930 and 1931 had reached a level not very far short of the pre-war level.

The present world crisis has, of course, adversely affected Russia, as was pointed out at the World Economic Conference by M. Litvinoff, who represented the Russian Government. (See Report of his address published in the Monthly Review of the Moscow Narodny Bank, Ltd., London, June.) The crisis compelled the Russian Government to curtail its imports because, owing to the fall in the prices of the articles Russia was exporting, the Russian Government was unable to obtain sufficient foreign currency to pay for the imports it had planned.

This does not, however, mean a permanent increase in Russia’s self-sufficiency. On the contrary, M. Litvinoff held out to the Conference delegates the attractive offer that the Russian Government “might agree to place orders abroad in the near future to the sum of about one billion dollars” (about £200,000,000), which, he said, “would have no small influence in the alleviation of the crisis.” To do this the Russian Government would need easier trading conditions from foreign, manufacturers.

Now that we have shown that Russia is moving away from self-sufficiency, let us ask why. Why does Russia or any other country import some articles and export others? Usually, it is because it is cheaper to produce an article in one country, and in particular areas of the same country, than in other areas or other countries. The cheapness may be due to climate and soil, cheaper labour-power, the presence of coal, iron or other mineral deposits, lower rates and taxes, lower tariffs, etc. (There are, of course, other complicating factors, such as restrictions or subsidies resulting from the military needs of the Governments.) The net effect of these differences is that it is more profitable to the English capitalist to invest his money in, say, machine manufacture and shipbuilding, than it is to invest it in cattle raising in England. The consequence is that certain industries survive in one country and are able to undersell and ruin their competitors in other countries and we get world trade and a large measure of interdependence. Governments often try to impede this development, either in order to help their friends in certain industries by means of tariffs, or for military reasons; and in times of acute depression almost all Governments try to restrict imports as a means of protecting their gold reserves, which they fear may be drained away to pay for the imports, and thus destroy confidence in the financial stability of the Government. If the difference in the cost of producing certain articles in different countries is sufficiently great, the import and export of these articles will surmount all obstacles.

For example, Russia at present is able to produce cheaply oil, timber and various foodstuffs, but cannot yet produce equally cheaply much-needed ores, metals and machinery. Therefore it “pays” Russia to concentrate on the production of certain' articles for export and use the money to pay for imports. On balance this is more profitable than trying to be self-sufficient. The world crisis and consequent slump in prices of oil and grain and timber has hit Russia’s export industries, but even a slight recovery in the world prices of these articles will restore the position of the years before the crisis, when it will again be profitable for Russia to maintain and expand her industries producing for export.

Our correspondents envisage the possibility of Russia “developing its industries to the point of satisfying all national needs.” This assumes that the conditions favouring the development of Russia’s foreign trade are disappearing or will disappear, but is there any reason to suppose that this will occur ? The mere growth of Russian production due to an all-round increase of productivity in all branches of industry and agriculture, mining, etc., will not make foreign trade any less profitable, for it will be accompanied by a parallel increase of productivity in industry all over the world. If it pays Russia to import machinery paid for by the export of oil or timber, any increase in the productivity of the Russian timber or oil industries will lead to a growth of foreign trade, as also will any increase in the productivity of the machine manufacturing industries outside Russia. On the other hand, Russia’s foreign trade would decline in volume if her machine manufacturing industries became more productive (that is cheaper) than the foreign machine manufacturing industries, or if the Russian oil and timber industries become less productive than their foreign competitors.

From what we know of the way in which agricultural and industrial technique advances all over the world, we can say with some certainty that for many years to come no changes are likely to occur of so revolutionary a nature that they will destroy the factors militating against self-sufficiency in Russia or any other comparable area.

The second question relates to building Socialism in Russia alone. Here again we can say that if Socialism depended only on the technical possibility of maintaining the life of the population on products within a given area like Russia or U.S.A., there would be no impossibility about Socialism in Russia alone. In fact, however, Socialism pre-supposes a whole range of conditions which are wholly or mainly lacking in Russia. It pre-supposes a population which has exhausted, and knows that it has exhausted, all the main possibilities inherent in capitalism, and knows and wants Socialism.

Russia, owing to the relatively backward condition of its industry and agriculture and to the fact that the overwhelming mass of its population has not spent its lifetime under conditions of highly developed industrial capitalism, has not exhausted the possibilities of capitalism. So far, therefore, from welcoming Socialism, the mass of the Russian population wants nothing better than to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of expanding capitalism. The efforts of the Government, carried on for sixteen years, to crush, placate, or remould the peasants, are evidence of the magnitude of the force against which Socialism in Russia would have to struggle. The attempt of the Bolsheviks to force an unwanted social system on an unready population, by means of its control of the State machine and the armed forces, will fail, as Marx said it would.

Our correspondents can perhaps grasp this best by considering the impossible task of forcing Socialism on the population of the U.S.A., a country far better equipped in every way than Russia for such an experiment.

Edgar Hardcastle

Answers to a Correspondent: How Should Socialists Vote? (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

How Should Socialists Vote?

Several questions have been put to us by two readers at Brighouse, Yorks. The first concerns the use of the vote.

Must a Socialist refrain from voting at the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections until such times as the S.P.G.B. membership warrants its own candidates’ standing ?

If so (and we gather from your paper that such is the case), do you not thus help establish a permanent Imperialistic Tory rule? In advising your readers and members not to vote, surely this has the effect of strengthening the anti-Labour parties.

Reply.

If the S.P.G.B. case is sound then the Socialist must vote for Socialist candidates only, and if there are no Socialist candidates then not vote for any of the non-Socialists, whether Liberal, Tory, Labour, Fascist or Communist. The only object of the Socialist Party of Great Britain is to achieve Socialism, which necessitates first gaining a majority of convinced Socialists and then gaining control of the machinery of government. To win over the workers to Socialism involves convincing them that capitalism and all the parties which take part in administering capitalism are undeserving of working-class support, and that Socialism is literally the only thing worth fighting for. How could we do this if at the same time we were telling the workers that the difference between Liberal and Tory, or between Tory and Labour, is worth fighting for? Our certainty that in the long run the workers will come over to Socialism is based on the impossibility of any party making capitalism run smoothly and in a way satisfactory to the workers. But if it is in fact an impossibility to make capitalism satisfactory to the workers, then it inevitably follows that any party which associates itself with the administration of capitalism must sooner or later find itself an object of working-class hatred and discontent. In other words, every party which becomes the Government under capitalism is bound to fall into disrepute with the workers. The only possible and logical course for the S.P.G.B. is, therefore, the one it adopts of dissociating itself from the Labour Party and every party which is prepared to administer capitalism. Our strength is bound up with our independence and with the fact that we have never misled the workers by telling them that capitalism can be made to work to their advantage.

Our correspondents draw the unwarranted conclusion that the attitude of the S.P.G.B. helps the Tories. Actually our membership is drawn from men and women who were formerly in all the capitalist parties, or in no party at all. The Socialist Party grows at the expense of Liberals and Tories, Fascists, I.L.P. and Communist, as well as at the expense of the Labour Party and the unorganised. The possibility of Socialists voting for any non-Socialist candidate does not and cannot arise. If those who proclaim themselves Socialists were to vote later on for non-Socialist candidates, it would be because they had ceased to be Socialists—or had never understood Socialism—and in that event, having lost their political bearings, they are just as likely to vote Tory as to vote Labour. Take, for example, those so- called Socialists who voted for the National Government.

Finally, we would remind our correspondents that all over the world there are Governments of the kind they describe as “Imperialistic-Tory.” Who was it made those Governments possible? Obviously not the small minority of Socialists, whose votes are so few that they could not make any difference to the result of elections. No, what made those Governments possible was, among other things, the disgust and disillusionment created among the workers, by the attempts of Labour Governments to administer the capitalist system.

Is the Labour Party the lesser evil? 

Now, agreeing that some economic system must operate until the establishment of Socialism, and that system is capitalism, is not the Labour reformism type (with all its faults) preferable to the shade that extends beyond to the Hitler extreme?

For International policy alone, is it not worth our while to support the Labour Party?

Reply.

This question, like the first one, takes no account of the impossibility of making the workers satisfied with capitalism. Because of that every party which comes into office on a wave of discontent and temporary popularity, is fated to be kicked out of office after a brief term—discredited, disliked, disheartened and disunited; to give way to another party rising on a new wave of discontent. To say that the Labour reformism type of party is preferable to other parties, up to Hitler's party, is to overlook the fact that all of these parties are reformist parties of the same general type. No political party can nowadays gain power unless it appeals successfully with a programme of reforms to the mass of the electors. Hitler is playing this game strictly according to the rules. Indeed, his promises of drastic reforms and Socialism in a few months, and his pretence of bustling energy show that he has beaten the Hendersons and Webbs and Maxtons, and the other reformist leaders at their own game.

The reference to the international policy of the Labour Party is somewhat staggering. The party which entered the war-time coalition Governments, and shares responsibility for every action of those Governments at home and abroad, is not in a position to boast that it is in any respect more enlightened than the Liberals and Tories. The international scene is not to be changed by fair words and humanitarian sentiments uttered from behind the ramparts of the British armed forces. International discord exists because of capitalism, and the two Labour Governments in Great Britain, with their five new cruisers, their bomb-dropping on native villages in Iraq, and their “continuity" of suppression in India and elsewhere, were quite unable to remove the discord or materially alter international relationships. They were regarded abroad simply as the mouthpiece for British capitalism.

Trade Unions and Politics.

We note the S.P.G.B. agrees with Trade Unionism and such protective activity for the proletariate under the present conditions.

Can you, then, deny the view that those unions, to be most effective, must send representatives (at present Labour) to Parliament?

Reply.

We do most emphatically deny that the trade unions have become more effective through sending Labour M.P.s to Parliament.

The majority of the men and women workers are not supporters of the Labour Party, but are sympathetic to the Liberals, the Tories, or to no party at all. The way to get the workers to come together most effectively in trade unions is to emphasise their common interest as workers. This cannot be done if the unions are affiliated to one party—the Labour Party—and supporters of other parties are made to appear almost unfit for trade union membership. A great deal of harm is done to the trade unions through their support of the Labour Party. (A few unions have tried to get over this difficulty by running candidates as Liberals and Tories, as well as Labour.) The dangers of the position become most obvious when a Labour Government is in office. When that happens the influence of the Labour Party is at once used to prevent the unions from embarrassing “their" Government, that is, to prevent them pressing demands for higher wages.

It is not denied that against these big disadvantages the presence of trade union representatives in Parliament has certain advantages, but the disadvantages are far weightier. From the Socialist point of view one of the most serious is that the trade union M.P. almost invariably comes to regard himself as speaking for the “industry," so that we see so-called non-party groups in Parliament, representing the railways, the mines, agriculture, road transport, etc. Periodically this brings its natural consequence in the shape of trade union M.P.s in one group backing the employers against a similar group in a rival industry. This has happened, for example, in connection with the rivalry of railways and road transport.

Such a position cuts right across the lesson the Socialist is trying to teach, that the interest of the working-class is opposed to that of the capitalist class.

Socialism in one country. 

Can one country, having elected a Socialist Power, and the rest of the world remaining capitalistic, operate Socialism within its own borders? 

If not, what would that Socialist Government do?

Reply.

The possibility of one country having a Socialist majority long before other countries need not be seriously considered, and certainly it is idle to consider it now when the number of Socialists in all the countries together is almost negligible.

The factors which govern the growth of the Socialist movement (the contradictions of capitalism, the more and more glaring evidences of wealth and poverty, the inability to plan production and distribution or to abolish unemployment, and the carrying on of Socialist propaganda) operate everywhere under capitalism. There is no sign that the Socialist movement will grow more quickly in one than in another of the more developed capitalist countries. If it should happen then it will not be a question of a Socialist Government deciding what it will do about the matter, but a question of the whole international Socialist movement deciding what it will do about it. They will have to decide in the light of all the conditions then existing. As we do not know the conditions we cannot prophesy what decision the Socialist movement will arrive at.

Ed. Comm.

Answer to a Correspondent: Some questions about Socialism. (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some questions about Socialism.

(Reply to E. S, Dorset.)

(1) Under Socialism there would be no persons living on incomes derived from the private ownership of property, whether in the form of rent, interest or profit. The landlord, like the owner of shares, derives his income from the wealth produced by the working class.

(2) You ask whether there would be taxation under Socialism, and if not, how would “social services” be carried on. Taxation is only necessary in a social system in which there is a privileged class and a subject class. Taxation in a modern capitalist country exists in order to enable the Government to maintain armed and civil forces, pay interest on money borrowed from investors, and meet the cost of so-called “social services," i.e., old-age pensions, health and unemployment insurance, etc. The latter would, of course, be unnecessary under Socialism, for each person would have free access to the necessaries of life, and the old and infirm would, therefore, not need private or State charity. Under Socialism all services would, in the real sense, be “social services,” for all able-bodied persons would co-operate in the production of wealth, to be consumed by the whole population, without distinction of class. There would be no investors.

(3) When goods are produced for the purpose of being freely available to all the members of society, there would be no place for a money system. A money system can exist only where there is private ownership of the means of production and of the products.

(4) The danger of war can only be removed by abolishing the underlying causes. The underlying cause of war in the modern world is capitalist economic rivalry. When goods are produced for use and not for sale at a profit, the incentive to seek foreign markets or areas of foreign investment will disappear, and with it the danger of war between rival groups of capitalist nations. Those who misunderstand the nature of modern wars, and regard war as if it were a method of preventing individuals from creating disorder, doubt the possibility of abolishing war by abolishing private ownership. Society would, under any system, have to take steps, if necessary, to prevent individuals or minorities from acting contrary to the basic needs of society, but action of that kind, when private ownership is abolished, would not bear any resemblance to modern war. Modern war is not a process of suppressing law-breakers, but a clash of interests between rival capitalist groups. Neither in its objects nor in its methods can it be compared with such suppression of anti-social conduct by individuals.

(5) Workers would not be “graded as regards wages," for there will be no wages. Wages are the price paid by the capitalist when he buys the labour-power of the workers. Under Socialism there will be neither a capitalist class nor a working class, but all will be simply members of society.

You ask if a man with a technical training will be paid more than a man without such training. Under capitalism the employer has to pay wages according to the requirements of each particular kind of worker. This is based ultimately on the cost of producing each kind of labour, i.e., the food, clothing, shelter, etc., of the workers and the cost of training. Under Socialism, if society needs a certain number of men and women trained for particular kinds of work it will see to it that the desired number are trained to meet the needs of society. No question of paying higher or lower wages, or any wages, can arise.

(6) You ask if the owners of industrial concerns will be compensated. Once you grasp clearly what Socialism is you will see that it is not a question of whether compensation is, or is not, desirable. Compensation is impossible.

Under capitalism the one basic feature which distinguishes capitalists from workers is that the capitalists possess the privilege of living without working, that is, of living on the wealth produced by the workers.

Socialism is impossible until that privilege is taken away, and having taken it away there remains no conceivable method by which the former capitalists could be compensated. They must either retain their privilege—which means capitalism, or they must lose it in order to make Socialism possible.

On the other hand, the loss of capitalist privilege will usher in a system of society in which all members of society—including the ex-capitalists—will have a degree of comfort and security, and possibilities of leading a full life. The ex-capitalists will possess the same opportunities as everybody else, more that that they cannot have.

Ed. Comm.

Answer to a Correspondent: Parliament and Local Government. (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Parliament and Local Government.

Our correspondent, "Precision," writes again, but adds nothing to his former criticisms of the attitude of the S.P.G.B. We have nothing to add to our previous replies.

Ed. Comm.

 

 

Blogger's Note:

"Precision" had letters (and replies) in the June and the August 1933 issues of the Socialist Standard.

SPGB Bloomsbury Branch (1933)

Party News from the September 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

News in Review: Adlai Stevenson (1965)

The News in Review column from the September 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

Adlai Stevenson

If Adlai Stevenson was truly the witty and learned man he was reputed to be, he would have been appalled at the mush of vulgar cliches served up as his obituaries.

All the obituarists were agreed. Stevenson had everything but success and the tragedy of his life was that he never made the White House, because he had so many good ideas, he was so liberal, so peaceloving, that it only needed him to become President for the whole darn world to be an unrecognisably better place.

This old, drab story is the basis of many of the obsequies of men who spend their political lives in opposition and never in government. We heard the same regrets when Hugh Gaitskell died. Apparently a cruel fate is always denying us the benefits of being ruled by humane and capable men.

It should surprise nobody that the journalists never ask why the supposedly humane men never get to the top or why, if they do make it, they always cease to be humane.

The truth is simple. Capitalism requires that its administrators comply with certain priorities and if humanity is among them it is a long way from the top of the list. If a man gets power—as often happens—on a plausibly humane programme he must quickly change his ideas.

This is why Johnson’s policies have changed, and why before him Kennedy’s changed and Roosevelt’s changed. Stevenson did not have to change his for the simple reason that he never got power.

And as for that, it was not so much a case of Stevenson having admirable principles which were never applied because he did not get to the White House, as of Stevenson not getting to the White House because his policies did not match up to capitalism’s needs.

Tucked away into a comparatively unnoticed job, Stevenson could look after his dignity. He could discreetly let it be known that he had his reservations on United States policy on such issues as Cuba and Vietnam. Nothing was changed by this, nothing was even disturbed. It was all very cosy, and it allowed a cultured man to live his life in peace. It also allowed those obituaries.

An insignificant corner is the place for such reservations, and for a witty and learned man—if indeed such animals exist in politic’s jungle world.

The brave ones

One essential for a successful politician is the ability to sell the electorate the old gag “heads I win, tails you lose.” And it is clear that the Labour Party, in the midst of the financial crises of British capitalism, are learning the truth of this.

It is really quite simple. If a Minister does something which he thinks will be well received among the voters (higher pensions, lower income tax, more houses) he claims that this is entirely the result of the government’s wisdom and ability.

Heads, in other words, they win.

If, on the other hand, the government imposes measures which are going to be unpopular (higher taxes, housing cuts, higher national insurance payments) their approach is different.

These, they say, are also a result of their wisdom and ability. Much as they regret having to bring in the measures, they do it all for our benefit; somewhere in the future which we never seem to reach, we shall gain a great deal from the privations which we suffer today.

Meantime, the politicians are quick to claim another sort of credit for their unpopular measures. Such things, they say, show that whatever else they may be none can deny that they are men of courage.

Thus Mr. Wilson, on Mr. Callaghan’s Budget last April 11th:

“He told a cheering audience that it was a courageous and purposive instrument designed to strengthen Britain and to strengthen the pound.” (Daily Telegraph 12/4/65).

Thus Lord Stonham on 10th July last:

“By courageous and decisive action we have weathered the storm we inherited, and as our policies bear fruit . . .” (Guardian, 12/7/65).

In other words, although it is tails it is we, and not they, who have lost.

This kind of two-timing propaganda, thrives on the short memories and the apathy of the voters. It thrives on their forgetting, for example, that however high or low taxes may be the condition of the working class remains the same.

This condition does not depend on the day to day financial juggling of capitalism’s latest set of administrators, but on the social situation—the class position—which the working class necessarily holds in capitalist society. Whatever government is in power, and whatever they do, has no effect on this.

When the working class have grasped this fact, they will have seen through the politicians’ deceits. As a start, they might realise that when a Minister says that he is going to do something courageous it is time for the rest of us lo run for cover.

Mr. Heath takes the Tory helm

Mr. Edward Heath, the new Conservative leader, is said to be a moderniser; a strange recommendation to a party which waited until 1965 to select its leader by ballot. Heath’s reputation is largely based on his forthright debating ability, his personality appeal, which Conservatives judge to be electorally attractive, and his determined application of policies which he conceived to be in the overall interests of British Capitalism without regard to sectional interests.

Mr. Heath was at the centre of controversies such as the abolition of retail price maintenance and the British application to join the Common Market. With bad luck, Mr. Heath’s part in these two issues may well have led to his political death. As it is, Tories are now pointing to them as examples of Mr. Heath’s courage, sincerity and modern approach. In fact, being modern or old fashioned doesn’t come into it. Whatever alleged doctrinaire differences are puffed up and attributed to various personalities in Government, actual policies largely arise from the economic requirements of situations that Governments find themselves in. The practical necessity of these policy demands are made equally on both grammar school bright boys and plus-foured squiredom.

In spite of the interest centred on the contest for the leadership of the Conservative party, and in spite of the avalanche of press comment and speculation that went on, the only new thing about Mr. Heath is his face. Of course new faces have their usefulness in creating the illusion of a fresh determination to grasp fresh opportunities. They provide the renewed hopes without which capitalism would be even more intolerable. For as many faces that become jaded in the depressing aftermath of anti-climax and failure, there is always a new one to replace it. Enter Mr. Edward Heath.

To say that Mr. Heath is a flexible realist whose mind is unshackled by doctrine is another way of saying that he holds no firm political principles. Indeed he is the administrator par excellence. It is not for Mr. Heath to question the basic drives and ends of modern society. The objects of profit and private ownership are accepted without demur. He is the business organisation man in Government. At their widest, his differences with Mr. Wilson or any other reformist politician boil down to a quibble over technique of administration and even these are largely contrived for electoral considerations. As ever the watchword will be mind public opinion, but administer capitalism.

Reformist parties like the Labour and Conservative parties consider that personalities in politics are important, and in electing Mr. Heath, conservatives were concerned not only to create a bright image for the future but also to provide a means of escape from the discredited past. From this point of view, Mr. Heath seems to fulfil requirements.

It seems probable now that in accepting the leadership of the Conservative party two years ago, Sir Alec Douglas Home played a stop-gap role on the promise that he would resign “as soon as the time was right for me to go.” At that time, the claims of men like Heath and Maudling were too weak to withstand the influence of men like Butler and Quintin Hogg, especially under the existing means of appointment. Yet in spite of their prestige, both Hogg and Butler were undesirable candidates, apart from other reasons, both wore the tarnished mantle of the MacMillan era.

During Home’s stop-gap term of office, the claims of Heath and Maudling to Conservative leadership became more credible, and at the same time, Conservative M.P.’s were given the means to elect their leader by ballot. In the meantime, the political fortunes of Butler and Hogg have evaporated. Conservative M.P.’s now have the man they want.

But this is politics carried on at a trifling level that is completely removed from serious consideration of the important social problems of the time. Though they command wide interest, these paltry manoeuvrings don’t begin to touch the problems of war, poverty and frustration that arise from world capitalism. The task is to abolish capitalism, not to appoint new office boys in the running of it.

Thomson erupts

In the House of Lords on July 21st, 1965 it became apparent that Lord Thomson, who owns a lot of newspapers and who has been on television and who is a very rich man, could contain himself no longer.

It was not that he had anything irrepressibly original to say—he was actually riding a very old hobby horse which is ridden a thousand times a morning on all the Tube trains going into the City of London.

It was that mangy old nag the selfish, lazy, stupid British working man who never puts his back into it, who is always on strike (but who seems to manage to buy a car and a washing machine and a television to watch Lord Thomson on his strike pay) and who is generally no good.

“In other advanced countries,” (Lord Thomson speaking) “business is highly professional, management is completely dedicated to success. It completely dominates the lives of the executives.”

Now anyone who has ever come across an executive who is dedicated to success, and whose life is completely dominated by his work, knows what a ghastly human being Lord Thomson was praising.

Some dedicated men have considered it part of their success to support dictators and others have done their bit to make our lives that much less tolerable by replacing something beautiful like an unspoiled coastline or a rolling valley with something ugly like an atomic power station or an underwear factory.

Others have dedicated themselves to convincing us that our troubles were due to night starvation or that the only way to keep our teeth was but brushing them with chlorophyll or that nobody is switched on unless they have a tiger in their tank.

What Lord Thomson’s standard of success amounts to is a ruthless, single minded drive for profit—for the scientific, technological exploitation of human beings, organised by machines and by dedicated sociologists, psychiatrists, technicians and any clean-collared graduate who falls for the patter.

We may be excused if we insist that human life should, and can, hold more than this.

As a matter of fact Lord Thomson did drop a hint, at the end of his speech, about his idea of a successful and dedicated man:

“I greatly appreciate the actions of George Brown. I think he is trying to do something in the interests of this country and he has my complete support in every respect. I regret that some employers and some trade unions are not co-operating with him.”

Yes!

Double-think on disarmament (1965)

From the September 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

Most of the people who have read George Orwell’s gloomy novel Nineteen Eighty Four have probably assumed that it was a warning of things to come. Perhaps that is what Orwell intended. Yet he must have been aware that much of what he wrote was not prophecy; it was happening at the time, and it is happening still.

One outstanding feature of Big Brother’s dictatorship was the way in which words were distorted until they came to mean their opposite. The Ministry of Truth propagated lies. The three principles of Ingsoc were: War Is Peace; Freedom Is Slavery; Ignorance Is Strength. This is so blatant that there was no need for Orwell to be at all elaborate in attacking it. Yet the same sort of distortion happens today and nobody considers it worth debunking in a best selling novel.

Consider the word disarmament. The meaning is clear enough. It is a word in constant use by all sorts of governments to describe a distant ideal which, they say, they are aiming for and which they would attain if it were not for the obstacles being put in their way by other governments. Political leaders often announce, with the air of men revealing a fundamental secret, that was is needed is a disarmament conference, but nobody else is interested in attending one. Sometimes the nations actually get around the conference table and the reporters tell us they are talking about disarmament.

All of this convinces the sort of people who would be deceived by Big Brother that there is a chance of the rival states of capitalism discarding their armaments. But despite all the talk and the promises, and despite the frequent use of the word, no country ever gets to the point of actually disarming. Indeed, the very governments who claim to have an interest in the matter go for the most powerful weapons in the world, which is more or less the same as saying that War is Peace.

A recent example of this has been provided by the Labour Government who, as we all know, have not got a department actually called the Ministry of Truth. The programme on which the Labour Party fought the last election said:

“First and foremost will come our initiative in the field of disarmament. We are convinced that the time is opportune for a new break-through in the disarmament negotiations . . .

We shall appoint a Minister in the Foreign Office with special responsibility for disarmament . . .”

Now it is Mr. Wilson’s proud boast that his Government are keeping the promises they made last October and sure enough he did appoint a Minister of Disarmament. This man was one of Mr. Wilson’s little surprises—a journalist who, given a Life peerage, was tucked away into his corner at Whitehall and left, in the words of Labour’s manifesto, “. . . To stop the spread of nuclear weapons . . . achieve controlled reductions in manpower and arms . . . stop the private sale of arms . . .”—which nobody can say is an unambitious programme.

This, then, was Labour’s way of taking the initiative on disarmament. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that matters were not so simple. The new Government announced that, even after making several reductions, they were still going to spend more on armaments than ever before in peace time. A few months later they showed how anxious they were that other countries should follow this example; they appointed a “super salesman” to sell British-made arms abroad—and salesmen, of course, thrive on their customers’ increased expenditure.

In this, the Labour Government acted with the same speed as in the appointment of Lord Chalfont. It soon became known that the job had been accepted by Sir Donald Stokes, the managing director of Leyland’s, a firm already well entrenched in the weapons trade. There was no doubt that the Government were as solidly behind Sir Donald, in his efforts to persuade countries not to disarm, as they were supposed to be behind Lord Chalfont in his efforts to do the opposite. The super salesman was pleased to tell us:

“They are giving me a big staff, all the staff I need, and I have been promised assistance and co-operation from Government level downwards.”

Sir Donald did not speculate on what would happen if everywhere his staff went they were turned away by governments who had been under the misapprehension that the Labour Government wanted them to disarm. (There was, of course, no need for him to speculate on the opposite; everyone knows what happens when the weapons salesmen are busily successful.) Neither did he mention that Mr. Wilson, who often attacks trade union rules which keep two men doing a job which could be done by one, has gone one better than the unions by creating two jobs which in theory cancel each other out.

In fact, the Government’s mind is anything but confused. Disarmament is so remote a possibility that it can be ignored, or at best treated derisively. But for political reasons some sort of a gesture must be made. There is nothing original in Labour’s actions, other than the fact that they have appointed a Minister. And what is that worth? Lord Chalfont may not actually get to the bonfire, but he is no more than a dummy, a November guy dressed up to attract the voters’ pennies. The real world of capitalism, with its rival economies and its disputes, is more correctly represented by Sir Donald Stokes.

Weapons, just like all other wealth produced under capitalism, are commodities. The need or fancy which, in their own unique way, they satisfy, spring from the wars which capitalism inevitably produces. The companies which make armaments hope to make profits from them. Sometimes they fail; sometimes—like Ferranti’s and the Bloodhound—they succeed.

The arms market, like those for other commodities, is often affected by government policies. The Western Powers have a strict embargo on exports to China; the Labour Government have prevented sales to South Africa. The armaments companies naturally do not like this interference and sometimes, as a recent biography of Bazil Zaharoff made clear, they manage to sell their wares to enemy countries in defiance of their governments’ wishes.

In other cases, governments actively help their armaments firms to produce and to sell their goods. Up to now British firms have been left largely to their own resources in the export markets. They had to wait for the export-driving Labour Government to give them the extra push to go out and prove to the world that British weapons knock down, blow up, sink, bomb or simply kill, better than any others. The reason for this support is that the Government feel the British industry is being deprived of its slice of a very rich cake.

The entire arms export market between now and 1967 may be worth £1,500 million, a lot of it in Europe. The American industry is already bidding strongly, with their own super-salesman and a big and energetic staff. One of their current projects is to persuade NATO to take American weapons as their standard equipment, which would be a bitter blow to the British weapon makers. This high pressure selling has provoked Mr. Wilson to complain, and to organise his own bunch of salesmen to operate at a similarly high pressure under Sir Donald Stokes. This is probably very welcome to the armaments firms over here—as Robert Heller commented in The Observer: “. . . it’s not often you get the free services of somebody else’s super-salesman.” But it can be reconciled with Labour’s professed interest in disarmament only by the same mental processes as justify the Big Brother slogan of Freedom Is Slavery.

The Government may well argue that they are not the only hypocrites. Every state pays lip service to disarmament, even while they are arming to the teeth. The French Government celebrated this year’s Bastille Day with a display of nuclear weapons and other military delicacies which have absolutely no connection with Liberty, Equality or Fraternity. The Soviet Government recently took the initiative in recalling the Geneva Disarmament Conference, but before anyone starts to cheer this as an example of the Kremlin’s interest in disarmament they should remember that the Russians share the responsibility for the same conference breaking down last September. It is apparent that other motives lie behind the reopening of the talks.

Nuclear weapons are not simple. Contrary to popular belief, they cannot be made and fired by a solitary madman out of a science fiction paper-back. They are the products of a developed industry, backed by considerable technical knowledge. At one time, only the most advanced countries could hope to have nuclear weapons, but now the situation has changed. At the moment five countries have the Bomb and, according to Lord Chalfont, there are about a dozen others with the knowledge to make it; within the next 15 years the number of nuclear powers may more than double.

This is one of the current problems of the big power blocs; they call it the “proliferation” (Orwell would have been proud of that word) of nuclear weapons. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union wants to see the present military power balance disturbed by the rise of other nuclear powers. China is only one of those which could become a dominant menace by the development, and perhaps the use, of a fashionably powerful nuclear weapon. The West German Government, while protesting its own intention not to make the Bomb, it trying to use this act of self-denial to add weight to its campaign for the reunification of Germany. How far is Bonn prepared to go in this explosive dispute? The Russian and American ruling classes clearly have a common interest in trying to control these threats; if the Bomb has to be used, they want to see that is is with their consent.

What the Geneva Conference is actually doing in talking about a treaty to prevent non-nuclear powers becoming nuclear, is trying to control and reverse a process which the nuclear powers themselves began when they first made their Bomb. Russia and Britain did not regard “proliferation” as a problem as long as they were among the non-nuclear powers; they were working hard to spread atomic weapons in their direction. But as soon as they mastered the Bomb they became interested in restricting the number of nuclear powers. Their claim to be interested in disarmament is worth no more than the title of Ministry of Peace, given by Orwell to the department which waged perpetual warfare.

If disarmament conferences are complicated affairs this is but a symptom of the tangled interests and the involved disputes which are capitalism. The conference cannot succeed because capitalism is always at war. One of the latest to testify to this is Lord Watkinson, who used to be a Conservative Minister and who is now the chairman of the British National Council’s committee for exports to the United States. This is what he said on July 13th last:

“The situation facing Britain at present can he summed up as “export or bust” . . . The Government must he convinced that, whereas war is a possible occurrence, the trading battle goes on the whole time.”

It is impossible to imagine the sort of world which Lord Watkinson described laying down its arms. The perpetual trading battles of capitalism breed its wars, and so make armaments necessary. The capitalist powers talk about disarmament but this is only another example of words being distorted to accommodate a blatant hypocrisy. The fact of the matter is that while the politicians talk and make their promises the arms pile up and become more powerful. 

It is not yet 1984, but the people who support this system—the people who make the weapons and who use them and who make all the other wealth of capitalism—are as deluded as Orwell’s party members. It is not an overstatement to say that capitalism survives by virtue of the working classes conviction that War is Peace, that their Slavery is really Freedom, and that the whole murderous Ignorance of it all is Strength.

Ivan

To the brink in Vietnam (1965)

From the September 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the Second World War broke out the Socialist Party of Great Britain had no hesitation in declaring its opposition. We maintained throughout that war the same position as we had taken in 1914. We based our attitude on the Socialist principle of International working-class unity and argued that the war resulted from the commercial rivalry between capitalist nations over such things as world markets, spheres of influence and investments, and mineral resources, etc. From the Socialist viewpoint workers do not own countries, empires or vested interests, they do not own the wealth which they alone produce nor the factories and so on where production takes place. Therefore, when rival capitalists fall out, as they constantly do, over the division of the wealth they have plundered from the workers, no working-class interest can be involved. Further, the workers in every country have a common interest in uniting together to get rid of their common enemy, the world’s capitalist class, by bringing to an end the system that exploits and degrades them.

This attitude brought us much scorn and bitterness from the war-supporting members of the Labour and so-called Communist Parties. These and other self-appointed champions of the working-class had joined forces with the avowedly capitalist parties to win the war. They argued that democracy was at stake and therefore the interest of the workers was involved in defeating Fascism and dictatorship. There is always some plausible sounding get-out to make it appear that this war “is a just war”; the readiness of workers to accept such stories is what makes war a continuing possibility.

For the “Communists” however, this new found love of democracy only came after the Daily Worker (23/8/1939) had hailed the Russian pact with Hitler as a “Victory for Peace and Socialism,” and completely ignored the fact that Russia was itself a dictatorship where no vestige of democracy existed. The “Communists” having survived their former friend Hitler, are still suffering from political double-vision concerning democracy. The Socialist Party of Great Britain maintained that war could not be used as a means of defending democracy or of maintaining freedom. We pointed out that talk of freedom and democracy was just an ideological cover-up for the commercial ambitions of the rival capitalist classes, and that peace could never be other than an illusion as long as capitalism remained. There would always be new line-ups, new power-blocks as enemies became allies in the continuous quest for markets and profits. Throughout our existence we have insisted in face of all the clamourings for “something now” that the thing for world workers to do “now” is to recognise their identity of interests and unite for Socialism. Thus ending in one move the foul system which produces and reproduces all the day-to-day issues they clamour about.

There are countless examples from capitalism to prove our position to be the only sound one and, conversely, that all the arguments of our opponents are dangerous nonsense.

The most blatant current example is provided by the war in Vietnam. American capitalism is embroiled in a blood¬bath which, as usual, the propaganda machine describes as a fight for freedom. The double-talk and hypocrisy have failed to hide the real nature of the regime in South Vietnam, which is openly referred to in the British newspapers as a dictatorship. On July 4th the Sunday Mirror published an interview with a self-confessed murderer named Nguyễn Cao Kỳ. Under American patronage this thug became the tenth Prime Minister of South Vietnam in 20 months. In the interview he declared that his only hero is Adolf Hitler and boasted about shooting anyone who got in the way. The interview sparked off a chain of reactions, but the Sunday Mirror (formerly the Sunday Pictorial which supported the Second World War did not condemn this American stooge. The situation emerges where America, having fought the Second World War allegedly “to make the world safe for democracy” against Hitlerism is now backing up a Hitlerite in the name of “freedom.” The politicians of capitalism are, however, nothing if not thick-skinned. The embarrassment does not seem to have been too much for the British Government or the House of Commons. The day after the interview appeared, Mr. William Warbey, a Labour M.P., raised the matter in the House, but the Speaker, Sir Harry Hylton Foster, refused a debate. Another Labour member, Mr. Frank Allaun, tabled a question for the Foreign Secretary, seeking to break off diplomatic relations with the Government of South Vietnam “whose Prime Minister has declared the policy of following Hitlerian principles.” But as the Sunday Mirror points out, “Mr. Stewart is unlikely to agree.” The Labour Government cannot afford to be squeamish about supporting a dictatorship, they are committed to running British capitalism and they need the goodwill of American capitalism economically and militarily. Just as capitalism once made bed-fellows of Russia and Nazi Germany, it now does the same for the Labour Government and Hitler’s latest admirer. Cynicism and hypocrisy are inescapable for all who would retain capitalism. Democracy and freedom are ruthlessly trodden under foot and become empty words in the battle for propaganda advantage.

We seize the opportunity to again affirm —

“That the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers.

“The Socialist Party of Great Britain pledges itself to keep the issue clear by expounding the CLASS STRUGGLE, and whilst placing on record its abhorrence of this latest manifestation of the callous, sordid and mercenary nature of the international capitalist class, and declaring that no interests are at stake justifying the shedding of a single drop of working-class blood …”  (Extract from SPGB Statement on War, August, 1914)

Harry Baldwin