Brick Walls at the Foreign Office (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

On March 9th, after five and a half years as Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin retired from the Foreign Office. This date was also his seventieth birthday and, therefore, was a traditionally significant date in the life of this man who has spent almost all his life in the Labour Movement. A convenient moment, indeed, to review briefly his commonly accepted success in this field.

From being a worker in the docks and an active trade unionist he eventually became the Dockers’ Leader and General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union—a foremost figure in the struggle of that section of the working-class on the industrial field against the employers, for higher wages and better working conditions. His political allegiance was given to the mouthpiece of the trade unions on the political field—the Labour Party. With the growth of this Party Ernest Bevin grew in political influence eventually reaching in the last World War the position of Minister of Labour and National Service in the National Government. From being in a position of receiving the lash across his shoulders he now held the stock of the whip in his hand.

In the years that had passed there had of course been no fundamental change in the economic basis of the country, or the World, in which he lived. Known to the workers as a strong trade unionist and regarded as one of their best friends in their struggle against the constant pressure of the capitalists to obtain more work for less wages he was chosen as the best person to receive their confidence in the war-time drive for greater production. His work in this sphere involved him in the execution of impositions and restrictions on the working-class so that greater production could be wrung from their sweating hides. He was chosen as the executive officer to give effect to the Churchill doctrine of “blood, tears, toil, and sweat,” particularly the latter half of it. It is of no use to call into question Mr. Bevin’s sincerity; all his life his cherished ideals have been those of a rescuer of the oppressed and downtrodden. Unfortunately the greatest sincerity is not enough—a knowledge of the causes of things is the key to the understanding of them and the solution to any problems arising from them. In particular, knowledge of the cause and development of the capitalist system and of the position of the working-class in this system is essential to any real approach to the solution of the problems that beset the working-class. This Ernest Bevin lacked.

It is not surprising, however, to find an article in the Daily Herald (March 10, 1951) headed “Idealist who had to turn Realist.” It is, and always has been, the failing of reformers to consider the real approach to the solution of the main problems facing the workers, namely, their poverty, their insecurity and their participation in wars, to be that of attempting to remedy the hundred and one various small ways in which these problems manifest themselves on the surface. They never attack the cause of these problems, which is the capitalist system itself, and claim that those who do, as does the Socialist Party of Great Britain, are the idealists!

With the Labour Party’s overwhelming victory at the polls in 1945, Ernest Bevin went to the Foreign Office, apparently still an idealist (according to the Daily Herald.)

In the article mentioned it states that “when he took on the job of Foreign Secretary, he had a clear idea of what he hoped to do. The first job, of course, must be the making of the peace treaties, the settling of the new frontiers, the building of an efficient Four-Power system in Germany. Then there were such problems as Palestine and Anglo-Egyptian relations. In his buoyant optimism he hoped that all this would get tidied up in a few months. Afterwards he thought he could get on with the real work of a Foreign Secretary—not have to worry about “power politics” but give all his mind to international, social and economic co-operation.

As the article later states, “these high hopes were never fulfilled. They all depended on Soviet co-operation in the making and keeping of the Peace.” As is common knowledge, disillusionment came quickly. At times the attitude of the Soviet statesman made him angry because he resented being accused of imperialism; because “his old belief in the democratic and peaceful intentions of the Soviet Government was being shattered.” Despite this frustration of all his hopes he went doggedly on, “still hoping that patience would bring a change.” After the conference in Moscow in 1947 Bevin said, “ It looks as if we may get an Austrian treaty. And if we do. that could be the beginning of an understanding.” This did not materialise, instead came the extended developments of the “Cold-War.”

As the article says, “It was then that Bevin realised that there was nothing for it but to accept and face an ugly situation in a spirit of hard realism.”

What does all this really mean?

This giving up of “ideals” was looked upon as an exception in the days of 1931 when MacDonald, Snowden, and other Labour leaders went over to the National Government in order to deal with the “real” problems. But what was thought, by supporters of the Labour Party, to be the exception in 1931 has certainly proved to be the rule during the intervening twenty years. Attlee, Bevin, Morrison, and other Labour leaders time and time again since 1939 have discovered that they have had to go against ideals they previously professed, or, as they would claim, the day when these ideals can be fulfilled must be postponed because some impediment exists which must be dealt with first.

Before 1914 the Labour Party could be called mildly pacifist, but their decision to support the Kaiser’s War put paid to that ideal for a while. From 1918 to 1939 it again became ideally peace loving but the Nazi “threat to democracy” again upset the apple cart. Since 1945 it has become a peace loving Party (whilst making a noisy clangour with its sabre rattling), but finds that the regime it adopted as its blood brother from 1917, “Socialist” Russia, is acting like a cuckoo in the nest. The pacifist ideal the Labour Party always has to discard when it comes to the conclusion that the only “real” solution to the differences between national groups lies in war. Their support of war is an important matter for reflection for it is in wartime that governments are forced to exploit the workers even more than “normal.” This increased exploitation is brought about by means of lengthening the working day and introducing more efficient methods of production enabling the workers to produce more goods in the same time. At the same time there is a shortage of man-power arising from the transfer of men from production to the armed forces and also the need for greater production. To enable the necessary production to be carried out smoothly it is necessary for the government to introduce all kinds of restrictive measures to prevent the working-class taking advantage of the "nation’s distress.” The most damaging of these restrictions prevents the so-called freedom of contract between employee and employer. Workers are prevented from leaving their jobs without permission, and strikes are made illegal unless the government are first informed to enable them to deal with the matter.

Ideals, such as opposition to conscription and to the maintenance of restrictive practices in trades and many minor reforms, have to be sacrificed on the altar of Mars.

The threat of war to-day is once again turning the Labourites from4 "idealists” into "realists.” This continual turning of the coat cannot be avoided. Their ideals may be the betterment of the working-class but they do not understand that the position of the working class cannot be improved within the capitalist system, nor the problems which this system throws up be solved unless the system itself be abolished. So long as they see no need to abolish the capitalist system, so long will the system exist and continue to throw up all sorts of "scapegoat” problems. Even if one problem is dealt with and seems to have disappeared, it will be found to re-appear in another form. Consequently, despite all their high ideals there will always be a multitude of problems, large and small, which will demand a “realist” approach and prevent the ideals being realised.

Morrison has gone to the Foreign Office in place of Bevin, no doubt with the same ideals as Bevin had when he started, but there is also no doubt that he will leave the Foreign Office a disillusioned and disappointed man. The problem of war cannot be solved in the Foreign Offices of the world. Wars in the modern world arise from the conflict and strife always present in the economics of capitalism. To sell goods capitalist nations must have markets, to produce goods they must have readily available supplies of raw materials: to protect the goods that are produced, the goods to be sold, and the property they own, the capitalist class must use armed forces to protect the strategic routes and supplies in the world. Wars are the struggle for the self-preservation of the competing national capitalisms when they are no longer able to achieve their economic aims by peaceful methods.

Any Foreign Secretary who believes that he can solve this problem, who believes that he can achieve permanent world peace, before capitalism itself is abolished all the world over is bound to fail in his task.

The only solution to the problem of war lies in the understanding of the cause of war. Not, of course, by one Foreign Secretary, but by the majority of the world working-class. Only then will the real problem be really dealt with.

N.S.

God Behind The Iron Curtain (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Vatican and many Protestant prelates in the Western bloc thunder against “Godless Communism" but their diatribes are out-of-date, for the Communist Party has adopted God as one of its allies. The Daily Worker admitted this in a recent editorial when it wrote, “The Communists and the genuine Christians have much in common. They can find ways of working together to achieve a peaceful world.” (Daily Worker, 29th December, 1950.)

It is true that in the early days of the Russian Revolution the Bolsheviks tried to liquidate religion, to tear down the ikon from the peasant’s hovel and replace it by a picture of Little Father Lenin. The programme of the Communist International adopted by the Sixth World Congress in 1928 contained the following attack on religion, “The fight against religion, the opium of the people, occupies an important position among the tasks of the cultural revolution. The fight must be carried on persistently and systematically. The proletarian power must withdraw all State support from the Church, and abolish the influence exercised by the Church.” (“Lenin on Religion” published by Lawrence and Wishart.) But religion could not be liquidated. The people of Russia were not Socialists and they shared with people all over the world the poverty, insecurity and frustration of capitalism. In their ignorance many of them turned for hope and consolation to religion with its message of the transience of human suffering and everlasting bliss in a world to come. The Second World War gave a fillip to religion in Russia and in 1943 Stalin made a non-aggression pact with Christ by approving the formation of a Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church. Since then the Patriarchs of this Church have been faithful servants of the Russian state. As good lieutenants of the God of Battles they gave enthusiastic support to Russia’s war effort; as humble followers of the Prince of Peace they have been prominent at the Peace Conferences which have been staged to support Russia's current foreign policy. And judging by the amounts that some of them have been able to invest in Russian War Loans they have benefited materially as well as spiritually.

In Czechoslovakia, too, religion prospers under State patronage. The clerics who oppose the Government share the same fate as rebellious laymen, but those who are prepared to serve both God and Gottwald are well looked after. According to “Prague News Letter,” a periodical published in Prague (1st January, 1951) “All church expenses such as electricity bills, bell-ringers’ and organists’ wages, candles and wine are . . . met by the civil authorities” and . . . “several hundred million crowns were spent on other ecclesiastical needs, such as the maintenance of theological faculties and seminaries.” The same paper informs us that “ All priests have rent-free houses;” and the “average salary of priests in the Prague diocese . . . is about 6,500 crowns per month.” “Czechoslovak Life,” another journal published in Prague (December, 1950), states that this amount is “nearly twice the average industrial wage,” and the Czechoslovak minister. Josef Plojahr, himself a Catholic priest, declared that “Czechoslovakian priests are the best paid in the whole world, and not only the Catholics, but the priests of all other religions.” (“Soviet Weekly,” March 1st, 1951). It is hoped that this information does not become too generally known in clerical circles or there may be a mass invasion of Czechoslovakia by poverty-stricken Anglican curates. And what shall we do without our padres?

The Socialist Party alone maintains its hostility to all forms of religion. It considers all religious beliefs to be incorrect and a barrier to the acceptance of the Socialist case. Therefore one of the tasks of a Socialist is to show the falsity of religious ideas and not to compromise with them. A Socialist cannot be religious, and when Socialism is established religion will be dead, for the overwhelming majority of the world’s population will have become Socialists. If anyone remains who wishes to tell his beads or sing his hymns he will be tolerated. But a world of enlightenment and security will not provide fertile soil for the growth of religious ideas, which flourish in the rubbish heap of misery and ignorance.

J. M.

Persian Oil (1951)

Editorial from the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Consternation has been aroused in British financial and government circles by the decision of the Persian Parliament to nationalise the oil properties of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., in which the British Government has large holdings and a controlling interest. In addition to the investment aspect British capitalism needs oil for industry and for naval, military and air bases in the Middle East.

The British Government announced that it has “a right and a duty to take all measures to protect legitimate commercial undertakings overseas,” and sent a “firm” note of protest to the Persian Government. In drafting the note the Government was in some slight difficulty. As the Daily Mail (16/3/51) jeeringly asked, how could a Government of nationalisers logically object to nationalisation. But the difficulty was overcome in the following tortuous wording of the note:—

  “It is necessary, first, to draw a clear distinction between the principle of nationalisation and the expropriation of an industry which has been operating in Iran on the security of a regularly negotiated agreement valid until 1993, and, relying on that security, has in all good faith spent enormous sums of money in development.
  “His Majesty’s Government are advised that under the terms of its agreement the company's operations cannot legally be terminated by an Act such as ‘ nationalisation."' (Text of Note. Times 17/3/51.)

Mr. W. N. Ewer, fomer critic of imperialism, was likewise ill-at-ease, and in his article in the Daily Herald (17/3/51) in which he condemned the Persian Communist-led Tudeh Party for their demand, “Throw the robbers into the sea!” was forced to employ the lame argument, “What would happen then to the 60,000 Persians working on the oilfields does not seem to worry Tudeh leaders.”

But other Powers, U.S.A. and Russia are also involved. If Persian capitalism pulls off this major stroke the other countries in the Middle East where American oil interests predominate will copy the example; not to mention the fact that American oil companies operate on the island of Bahrein which, though under British “protection,” is claimed by the Persian Government to be Persian territory.

Already in Iraq a similar threat to nationalise the oil industry has been made, which would affect American interests. American capitalism like British needs Middle East oil for military uses.

The Persian Government’s plan is that the nationalised oil industry would be operated by foreign technicians, since Persia has few of her own, and the contract would be offered to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. A Persian Government spokesman who announced this, added the warning note that “if British technicians would not operate the oil fields for Persia the invitation would be extended to the U.S.” (Sunday Dispatch, 18/3/51.)

There is, however, a major reason why the British and American Governments are likely to stand together over this issue for, in the background, stands Russia, whose expansionist aims in Persia, hitherto thwarted by American-British pressure on the Persian Government, may now seem to have the prospect of success. It has been hinted by the same Persian Government spokesman that one of the reasons for nationalisation is to forestall a revival of the Russian demand that they too should have oil concessions in Persia.

The real cream of the controversy is a Daily Worker editorial on 17th March, 1951, headed “Loot from Persia.” Starting off with:—“There has never been a case of more barefaced imperialist robbery than Persian oil,” the Daily Worker goes on to point out that the 1933 agreement between the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. and the Persian Government “will forever stand out as an agreement signed under duress with British cruisers and torpedo boats standing by in the Persian Gulf to make sure that Persia signed on the dotted line.”

The reason why this Communist indignation is so curious is not that its description of the 1933 agreement is untrue but that the Daily Worker does not even mention the attempt by the Russian Government in 1946 to bludgeon Persia into signing an agreement by identical methods.

In that year, with Russian troops in occupation of Northern Persia, the Persian Government was forced to sign an agreement establishing a Russo-Persian Oil Company giving Russia control of North Persian oil for 50 years. (This would have carried Russian control up to 1996 as against 1993 for the Anglo-Iranian Agreement).

Relevant clauses from the Russo-Persian Agreement, published in Soviet News by the Russian Embassy in London were as follows:—

  “1. In the course of the first 25 years of the activity of the company 49 per cent. of the shares will belong to the Iranian side, and 51 per cent. to the Soviet side. In the course of the second 25 years 50 per cent. of the shares will belong to the Iranian side and 50 per cent. to the Soviet side.
  2. The profits made by the company will be divided in accordance with the ratio of the shares of each side.
  3. The period of the activity of the company is 50 years.
  4. When the period of the activity of the company expires, the Iranian Government will have the right to buy out the shares of the Soviet side or to continue the period of activity of the company.”

(Soviet News, 13th September, 1947.)

Having signed the agreement while Russian troops were in occupation, the Persian Government, backed by America and Britain, complained to United Nations and having got the Russian troops out repudiated the Agreement.

Like the British Government now, the Russian Government sent “firm” notes of protest to Persia.

No secret was made of the part American capitalism played then in ousting Russia from Persia. The Manchester Guardian (3/2/1948), in an editorial rather critical of American policy, said:—

  “In general the United States Government has advised Persia against making any concessions to Russia and in particular has encouraged the Persian Government not to ratify the Russian Oil Agreement.”

On the present dispute the Daily Mail facetiously asked whether the Labour Government would “send a gunboat up the Persian Gulf ” in the event of Persia failing to compensate the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. It may prove to be more than a jest. If America and Britain put pressure on Persia and the Russian Government claims the right of armed intervention on the ground that its own security is threatened (a right the Russian Government has before claimed under the Russo-Persian Treaty of 1921) the attempt of Persian capitalism to stand up to the rival powers and play one off against the others may end with Persia being occupied by Russian troops in the North and British and American troops in the South, as happened during World War II.

Passing Comments: Tito (1951)

The Passing Comments Column from the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Tito

In the last analysis, the Stalinist opinion of any country depends solely on whether the country concerned accepts unquestioningly the leadership of Stalin, or not. What is laudable in Bulgaria becomes blameworthy in Yugoslavia. Indeed, the very same attributes which are supposed to make Poland and Rumania Socialist countries earn for Yugoslavia the label of “Fascist.” The nationalisation of industry, the suppression of free speech, the dictatorship of a single party, all these, when found in Albania and Hungary, show those countries to be People’s Republics, while, when found in Yugoslavia, they prove conclusively that Tito is a tyrant and a reactionary. The latest example of this occurs in connection with the nationalisation of industry. When jt was announced in November 1947 that the Polish government had agreed to pay compensation to British shareholders in respect of shares that they had held in Poland’s nationalised industries, the Daily Worker made no complaint; but on March 8th, 1951, the Daily Worker comments sourly on the payment of compensation by Yugoslavia for exactly the same purpose. The same measure, in fact, which is praiseworthy in Poland warrants, in Yugoslavia, the statement that British capitalist interests “appear to have found Tito’s methods of nationalisation quite helpful.”

#    #    #    #

Guarantees

The leaders of the Western world claim that, in their hands, the atom bomb and large armed forces are guarantees for peace. The Soviets are making the same claim. “The Great Soviet Encylopaedia” says that “the atomic weapon in the hands of the U.S.S.R. is one of the decisive measures for the defence of peace” (Daily Express, 7-3-51). These arguments may be useful in persuading the workers on each side of the Iron Curtain to accept further reductions in their standard of living, but they are not new. As far back as 1911, General von Schlieffen said of the German army: “On the fear inspired by this army, depends the peace of Europe.”

The peoples of the world could do without these guarantees of peace.

#    #    #    #

The Family

What, in the orthodox view, are the glories of our Western way of life? Among them the Sanctity of the Family finds a prominent place.

But look at this news item: “A six-year-old girl, Robin Strasser, was taken from her mother in New York and given into the care of her grandmother by order of the Supreme Court Referee, today, because of her mother’s Communist activities.” (Daily Express, 9-2-51).

Theories are all right in their place: but when it comes to the case of a person who is against the regime, the Sanctity of the Family and the feelings of a six-year-old child are alike blatantly disregarded.

#    #    #    #

Back to Work

“General von Falkenhausen was convicted of having authorised the execution of 240 Belgian refugees while he was German Military Governor of Belgium and Northern France, and having deported Jewish and Belgian workers” (Manchester Guardian, 10-3-51). For this, the General was sentenced to twelve years’ hard labour: and since there is a Belgian law allowing a good-conduct prisoner Ho be released after serving one-third of this term, the time the General will have to spend in jail may be as low as four years. Lieutenant-General von Ravenstein, a former Panzer Division commander, is horrified at the judgment: he has remarked publicly that he would be very proud if he had acted “in the way General von Falkenhausen acted in his lifelong service for the Fatherland.” Von Ravenstein went so far as to say: “If we old German soldiers are appealed to now to become active again in military affairs, none of us will be ready for such work after this sentence.” 

Is this a threat or a promise? For if the “work” von Ravenstein mentions is of the same order as that for which von Falkenhausen has just been sentenced, few ordinary people will be worried by his statement.

#    #    #    #

Sanctuary—from what?

In one of his reports to the Security Council General MacArthur has remarked on "the avidity with which the North Korean citizens have sought sanctuary behind the United Nations lines” (Observer, 25-2-51).

This, in his opinion, is because of their “complete aversion to Communist rule and their fervent desire, at whatever hazard, for refuge within the protection of the United Nations.”

General MacArthur should know that the Chinese and North Koreans are far weaker in the air than the Americans, and therefore cannot bomb cities behind the enemy lines so efficiently. But it seems not to have occurred to him that the refugees may be inspired more by a desire to escape American bombing than by any choice they may have made between Chinese and American imperialism.

#    #    #    #

Sleepless nights?

The outlook before the British people is gloomy. Nationalisation has been found to be no solution for the problems of the working class, though, in certain rundown industries, it has solved very satisfactorily the problems of the managers and the investors. The increasing world tension brings with it further shortages and sacrifices, and the threat of the atomic bomb. But the British workers are not suffering alone. They have their companions in misery: for example, his majesty the King.

The Daily Express draws our attention to the situation in which the King finds himself (9-2-51). Britain’s total “bill for the Monarchy,” it says, is just over £1,000,000 a year: of this the King himself draws £410,000. “Out of the grant the King must pay salaries, pensions, and expenses of the Royal Household, and gifts to charities,” What is left—£110,000—is the King’s Privy Purse, his personal fund for expenses.” Well, the King has been overspending by some £60,000 a year, so the Government is generously taking over an annual £40,000 of the royal liabilities; and the King is making economies to the extent of £20,000 a year.

So the working class family, as it plans to save a few shillings on the weekly budget, may take comfort in the fact that the King himself is voluntarily cutting down his rate of personal expenditure from £2,100 to £1,700 a week.

Alwyn Edgar

All Quiet on the Western Front (1951)

Film Review from the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Any work of art which presents the truth about modern war is a rarity, and therefore Socialists should view the film “All Quiet on the Western Front” with particular interest. Made in 1930, directed by Lewis Milestone, it is based on Remarque’s famous novel of the 1914-1918 war as seen through the eyes of the ordinary German soldier.

The film opens in 1914, amid the patriotic fervour of the first days of the war. Whilst a military band blares outside a school, we see a group of youths inside all eagerly clamouring to join the army. Only one of their number tries to make a stand against them, but afraid of being called a coward, he reluctantly joins them, bewildered and terrified.

A brilliant sequence follows of the training of these volunteers, and here Milestone shows us how each individual is gradually converted into an automaton in uniform. This is one of the key points of the film, and is developed later in the battle scenes.

After a period in the trenches, where they get their first shattering experience of modern war, these youngsters retire behind the lines for a rest. Here the film becomes most interesting and outspoken. Whilst the soldiers are wolfing their rough food, they discuss the war and its causes. Some of the men think they are fighting because of the natural wickedness of the enemy, whilst others do not know why they are at war at all. One by one they speak, and we realize that all these men have been led blindly into a holocaust they do not understand. Eventually one of them says that the politicians and financiers are to blame, and that they should be the ones to do the fighting. This whole scene is most movingly and truthfully presented.

The greatest sequence of the film follows—the famous “Charge Across the Trenches.” The French attack, and move in hordes across No Mans Land, mown down by the German gunfire. The camera moves along the German trench, looking out on the advancing infantry, and with superb cutting and camera movement, Milestone shows us the ghastly carnage. We are made to feel that all these figures, the oncoming French, the Germans, the machine-gunners, the soldiers in the terrible fight with bayonets and bare fists, are not individuals, but a mass of men converted into brute animals, acting as animals do. A French soldier runs up to the barbed wire and places his hands on it, preparatory to leaping over. A shell bursts, and when the smoke clears, we see just a pair of hands dangling on the wire. The Germans are pushed back, but counter-attack. Now we are in the French trenches, and the camera moves along in the. opposite direction, showing the slaughter of the German troops. In this way is shown the link between the German and French soldiers, that they are really brothers.

The rest of the film is devoted to the deepening horror felt by the German troops, in particular the principal character (played by Lew Ayres). He is at first shown as an idealistic boy, but at the end he becomes an embittered man, revolted by his experience.

The film naturally suffers from the inexperience of the actors, unskilled in the then new sound-film technique. This is especially true of Lew Ayres, noticeably in the tragic scene with his mother, and also when he is trapped in a shell hole with a dying French soldier.

Despite these faults, “All Quiet on the Western Front” is a good film, and its recent general release is doubly welcome. It should remind any workers who may have doubts, what war means to them.

Derek R. Bowen

More about savages (1951)

Down to Drink by Parnell Dempster, 1949

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

An art exhibition of a remarkably high standard was held in London recently. It consisted of pencil and crayon drawings, abstract patterns and nature-study notes, the work of seven to fourteen year old children of Western Australia. Not European children but black fellows’ offspring. To use one writer’s phrase “the flotsam and jetsam of one of the most backward races in the world, living under desperately miserable conditions, absolutely untaught.” A group of human beings shunned socially and ill-treated physically by their "superior” white brothers.

It would appear at this stage to be simply a picture of little geniuses producing works of art in spite of awful conditions. Reminiscent of the English species starving in garrets. But what of the contradiction the picture points? Man surely only responds to some stimulus, and excels in those things to which he has access. And Aborigines are no exception.

Precisely. These children have come under the influence of two Europeans who treat them kindly, an experience previously unknown to the native Australian. And of greater importance is the fact that they approached the children as teachers, not preachers. Over a period of four years they taught what they could. For conditions were appalling. Very few materials, cowed pupils, and severe climate being only three adverse items. But striving against all this they progressed, concentrating on art needlework and nature-study. The last mentioned was very fruitful for the school was set in land where animals abounded.

As the work progressed, the children’s response became evident. The note-books of eight year-olds would equal the average standard of many London fourteen year-olds. The drawings are really lovely—some are so adult as to almost cause doubt of origin. Perspective of incredible truth and delicate colours are common to all the pictures, as is also, the animated portrayal of kangaroos and men.

It is essentially an intelligent response. Work is balanced, clean and beautiful, the calligraphy amazingly clear and even. When asked by visitors to produce a picture, the children settled to the task with great concentration for as long as two hours. Nor looked up from their desks when people came round and watched them.

Another point of special interest, was the non-acquisitive attitude of these children. Given chalks and paper as presents, they left them in the schoolroom, when going home. It was explained to them that these were personal gifts but this they were unable to appreciate. No doubt as capitalism engulfs these simple creatures, this pleasant trait will quickly disappear.

Opponents might here utter the time-worn argument that conditions and poverty do not affect capacity, that they are no barrier to brilliance. But as socialists maintain, results occur only under suitable conditions. This article tries to show that the experiment in the dry-wastes of Western Australia backs up this contention. Possibly the only pleasant things in life to the Aborigine are the trees and sun and leaping animals, and it is these things about which ideas are expressed in simple pictures and patterns. To express it differently these people respond to a limited environment, sans books, sans houses, sans machinery, sans practically everything, in an intelligent, though limited way. A man who can tell by the appearance of leaves, how long since a kangaroo passed by, is not a cretin, as is proved by the performance of his children when in school.

Evidence has yet to be found of a division of Homo Sapiens which is congenitally backward.

M. L. Brown

Blogger's Note:

An unfortunate choice of title for an article that is arguing against supposed racial difference, which was the order of the day in polite society. Did a bit of digging, and my educated guess is that the article refers to an Art Exhibition/tour that originated out of the Carrolup Native Settlement in Western Australia. More details on the background of these young artists and this stain on Australian history can be found at the following links:

• The Carrolup Story
• Carrolup child artists

Mr Cube The Economist (1951)

Tate & Lyle's Mr. Cube

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Tate &  Lyle, Ltd., have recently had a large size advertisement appearing in the daily press. The advertisement consists of a series of cartoons entitled, “Where all the money went in 1950.”

It is an attempt to show that out of a gross income for the year amounting to £84,435,000 only £618,000 was left for net dividends to stockholders, equal to 1/7 of a farthing for each pound of sugar sold.

The advertisement states that, “ Tate & Lyle, Ltd., employ 8,500 workers.” If you divide the net dividend of £618,000 by the 8,500 workers you find it amounts to over £72 per head.

Taxation on profits amounted to £1,228,000 which again divided by the number of employees equals over £144 per head. This is used for running the capitalist state machine.

The total profits before taxation amounted to £2,196,000, wages and employees benefits totalled £3,700,000 which with the so called Prosperity Sharing Scheme made a total of £3,818,000 paid to the workers.

This can be expressed as £2,196,000 Unpaid Labour over £3,818,000 Paid Labour.

The rate of Surplus value being just over 57 per cent.

This is being generous to Mr. Cube, as one cartoon states that “£1,770,000 went in overheads and special expenses which includes money spent in self-defence.”

Special expenses can cover a multitude of sins. (One of them is the advertisement). One thing that can be certain is that the workers produced the wealth for these expenses.

The series of cartoons can easily mislead workers who do not look into the figures closely, however the expression unpaid labour over paid labour clearly shows why Mr. Cube takes such an interest in economics. —He is a bright little chap.

D. W. Lock

Blogger's Note:

Mr. Cube (see the above illustration) was a genuine cartoon character devised as a clever and effective company propaganda ploy by Tate & Lyle against the Labour Government's supposed threat to nationalize the British Sugar Industry. More details on this obscure bit of British political history can be found at the following link, Mr Cube the sugar lump.

Twixt The Devil And The Deep Blue Sea (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Critics of the Labour Government are rapidly increasing in number. With daily increases in the cost of living, whilst wages climb at tortoise pace in pursuit; with the ever growing threat of war and the prospect of devastating atomic warfare; with some essential foodstuffs and other commodities being rationed down to infinitesimal quantities, the Labour Government stands accused of being the cause of it all. That is the fate of all politicians who undertake the job of capitalist government. The government of the day, whether it be Conservative, Liberal Labour or Coalition, always bears the brunt of criticism for the prevailing bad conditions. Socialists do not subscribe to this idea. They do not claim that the problems that confront the workers today arise because of the Labour Government, but rather, in spite of a Labour Government. These problems arise from the capitalist society in which we live and governments are powerless to prevent them.

This does not mean that a government has no power to affect the prevailing conditions. The outbreak of war may be advanced or postponed by a particular government policy. Governmental action can cause the meat ration to be increased or it can cause it to dwindle to an even less amount. One government might cause a few more houses to be built than would another or one government might impose import duties where another would remove them. One could introduce harsh anti-working-class legislation whilst another could repeal it. Although a capitalist government can modify, amend, adjust and generally tinker around with the problems that confront it, it is powerless to remove them.

Amongst the critics of the Labour Party are many erstwhile staunch supporters whose votes help to put that party in power. It is not in the least unusual these days to hear Labour Party supporters vehemently denouncing the government for doing things that should have been left undone and not doing things that should be done. They will readily admit the shortcomings of Labour ministers and oppose the Labour Government's policy. They will agree that socialism is the only solution to working class problems, but—BUT—as it is not possible to establish immediately they intend to support the lesser of two evils, the Labour Party in preference to the Conservatives. “The lesser of two evils"—how often the workers have been hoodwinked by that notion! As though one capitalist political party was even a little bit preferable to another. As though there is anything to chose between them as far as the workers are concerned. As the Irishman is reputed to have said, “The only difference between them is that they are all alike.” Looking back over the years of working class struggle, under all kinds of governments, should be sufficient evidence that the workers' position is not altered whenever there is a change of government Giving the workers the choice of two political parties, each competing for the job of administering capitalism, is like giving the Christmas goose the choice of being roasted or boiled.

If it were true that one particular party was likely to be less harmful to working class interests than another, there is still no means of telling which one it is. The German workers in 1932 selected what they considered to be the lesser evil when they elected Hindenburg as president in preference to his opponent. Hitler. But a year later Hindenburg appointed Hitler to the chancellorship of Germany and the German workers had both evils to contend with. After nearly 30 years of Labour Government in New Zealand the workers there have apparently come to the conclusion that there is a lesser evil than the Labour Government and have kicked it out. Working class supporters of the Conservative Party will, of course, claim that their party is the lesser evil. The fact of the matter is, that all capitalist governments are evils from the viewpoint of the working class, and the minor differences that exist between them are reflections of the sectional interests of the capitalist class. The promises, plans and programmes that they present at election times are only possible of fulfilment if the capitalist system allows. Whether a particular government smites the workers with a velvet gloved hand or a mailed fist depends on the capitalist needs of the moment. In times of crisis for the capitalist class it will be as ruthless with its workers as it dares and the government then in office will have to do the dirty work. If a government is at all inclined to leniency in favour of the workers, all the might of the combined sections of the capitalist class will be turned to achieve that government’s destruction. But as Labour Parties, like Conservative Parties, are parties of capitalism, they can be relied upon to serve capitalist interests in opposition to the workers. If capital needs increased production, it is the job of the existing government to see that it is increased; if capital wants wages frozen, it is the task of the government to put them in the refrigerator; if capital is forced to fight for its fields for investment and its markets, it is the job of the government to whip up the workers and send them off to kill or be killed; and if the workers embarrass capital by striking, it is the job of the government to use the troops that it controls to “ preserve law and order.”

International capital will drag governments around by their ears. The Rumanian Government, just before the last world war, was re-shuffled a number of times first at the dictates of German capitalism then at the dictates of British. The members of the political organisation known as the Iron Guard were first taken into the Rumanian Government, then turned out and later brought in again. The British Government is now leaning heavily on American Capitalism. The British army will operate under an American general and the British Atlantic fleet will take its orders from an American admiral. Because American capital wills it. Just as, where British capital holds sway, there can be found native armies officered by Britons. No matter what the politicians may say, the position would not be seriously altered if any other party formed the government.

Socialism is the solution to the workers’ problems and until they establish socialism they will have to put up with capitalism and all its attendant evils. The great need is to convince the workers of the necessity for socialism and that will not be done by telling them to support a capitalist party because it is considered to be a “ lesser evil ” than some other party. By that means they will be giving support to the capitalist class to prolong this system and delay the establishment of socialism. By supporting the capitalist parties the workers are forming the tail-end of capitalist politics. Those who urge them to do that and betraying working class interests.

The workers must be urged to break completely with the political parties of capitalism, whether openly pro-capitalist like the Conservatives or avowedly pro-labour like the Labour Party. They must be brought to realise that they must join a political party, separate from and opposed to the capitalist parties. Socialism is an immediate necessity. As long as capitalism lasts there will be wars, poverty, insecurity and all the rest of the evils that flow from this system. There is no “lesser evil ” to be found by supporting any one of the capitalist parties in preference to another.

If a man is robbed by two thieves, it is in his interest to regain his property, not to take sides with one thief or the other in their differences about the share-out of their loot, even if one of them has got a kind-looking face. When be tries to get his stolen property back he will soon find that the two robbers will sink their differences and gang up to prevent him recovering his goods. They will both be vicious and he must oppose the two of them or else find himself "between the devil and the deep blue sea.”

W. Waters

Pay As You Learn (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

It must be obvious to most that in the world today the Western and Eastern powers are antagonistic toward one another. The gymnastics of the Four- Power deputy Foreign Ministers in trying to arrange an agenda in Paris recently, both side striving to get that which is most favourable to themselves, is an example of this.

Since the end of the hot war in 1945 there have been many conferences. But under the lofty tones of Peace, Freedom and Democracy that leader writers love to tag on them, the points under discussion have been the old ones of access to markets and sources of raw materials.

At the same time however, the business of Capitalism continues. Despite the recognition by the government that Russia may in the future be an enemy of war, trade still exists between the two countries.

In point of fact the good old “Allies” themselves whilst trying to re-arm and run “business as usual ” come into conflict. On March 3rd, 1951, Mr. Strauss, Minister of Supply, and Mr. Wilson, President of the Board of Trade, journeyed to Eastbourne to speak to some 500 or 600 industrialists at the Dollar Convention, organised by the Dollar Export Board. In their speeches they were both concerned with the supply of raw materials.

  "Mr. Strauss denied that the Government had failed to guard against scarcity of raw materials.
  Long term agreements with Rhodesia and other Commonwealth countries had assured British imports of copper, aluminium, and nickel for ‘a long time ahead.'"
   "Mr. Wilson agreed that ‘the raw materials problem constitutes far and away the gravest of all the economic problems we have to face in 1951.'
    He said that upon the outcome of the current Washington talks on international allocation of raw materials very largely depended the ability of this country and its partners in the North Atlantic community to maintain industrial production and the defence effort. Anxiety over future supplies of raw materials to industry, rather than the state of the country’s balance of payments with America, has unquestionably dominated all the discussions." (Observer 4/3/1951).

The Observer's correspondent Nora Beloff reporting on the Washington talks referred to by Mr. Wilson says

   “British officials are highly sceptical of the outcome of the commodity talks now starting in Washington. They believe there is little chance that an assortment of technical committees can reconcile the split between the British and American views on the remedies.”

(Observer, 4/3/51)

These highly competent, clever types, have come to the conclusion, that, when allies are re-arming against a common enemy (guess who) it is perhaps, just a little foolish to scramble against each other for raw materials, and thus send prices bomb-high. Both Britain and America claim that they are prepared to accept controls on prices and distribution. At the same time, however, both claim that the other is responsible for the situation today. For example, America is "niggly" at the price of Malayan rubber and tin, and Australian wool The British reply is that to control prices, America would have to contract to bulk-purchase from these countries over a period of years. To this the Americans say, that Congress, which has only two years to run, could not accept anything that might tie the hands of its successors. The British representatives in pressing for long term agreements recognise that the boom period of to-day in these countries and commodities will not last for ever.

A report of the Preparedness Sub-committee U.S.A. Senate analysing domestic and world tin supplies says

  “That control of most of the world’s tin reserves was held by a relatively few British. Dutch. Belgian and Bolivian corporations with interlocking connections across national boundaries!
   The report alleges that for the past 30 years these producers had joined to restrict production so as to ensure a satisfactory price, and that frantic speculation had driven the price of tin from 75 cents just before the Korean war to nearly two dollars a pound.”

(Observer, 4/3/1951)

The report concluded, “We are no longer in a position where we must buy tin at any price." The truth of this statement appeared four days later when the City Editor of the News Chronicle (8.3.51) reported that tin had fallen by £125 to £1325 per ton.

Whilst at home the present meat ration forces vegetarianism upon us, the Australian Meat Board have just published figures for the half year ending December, 1950, showing that, compared with 1949, the exports of lamb to Britain fell from 2375,000 carcasses to 521,000. The reason of course being the high price of wool. So even the Tories and Empire wallahs (must help the mother country of our great commonwealth you know) when faced with the economic realities contained within capitalism dive in and make a kill, though not the lamb of course.

At home almost daily the Government announces further restriction and shortages, everything being subjugated to the demands of the re-armament programme. It must be a very naive person who does not comprehend that ultimately these highly costly arms will be used in another world war—whether you call yourself an aggressor or defender.

Of course as usual, “we" must all play “out” part in paying for this Defence programme. As Mr. Gaitskell like his predecessor is never tired of telling us. Trade Unions are asked not to ask for wage increases, not withstanding the increase in the cost-of- living.

If you acquiesce in the continuance of capitalism, and accept the possibility of a third world war, then some of you will pay with your lives.

Ray Guy

Reflections On Argument (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Early in the New Year the B.B.C. started a weekly series of half-hourly talks between opposing members of the House entitled "Argument." The first contestants in the ring were Dr. Chas. Hill (Lib. Cons.) and D. Houghton (Labour). The talks were originally scheduled to run three consecutive weeks but this was extended to four "owing to the wide range of interesting matters under discussion." Next came Barbara Castle (Labour) versus Lord Hailsham, followed by Tom Driberg (Labour) versus Randolph Churchill. At the time of going to press the last team have two more weeks to run so the Arguments continue. The B.B.C. announced the series as "discussions between two controversialists from opposing sides of the House on topics of interest." The whole thing boils down to a weekly half-hour of verbal skirmishing, the theme song of which should be "Anything you can do I can do better." The modus operandi consists of making derogatory remarks in varying degrees of intensity regarding the opposing Party’s misdeeds past and present Also digging up an incorrect or indiscreet statement made by a member of the opposing Party, thus setting him at a disadvantage and generally "taking the mickey."

The series have served one useful purpose, namely to emphasise how trivial are the points of divergence between the two Parties and how little these "topics of interest" need concern the workers. The second of the Hill-Houghton talks receive attention in the February issue of the Socialist Standard. In their fourth venture a rather subdued Dr. Hill addressed Houghton as "my dear boy" almost as if he were soothing a nervous and highly-strung patient in his surgery. He suggested incentives and rewards for work "well done," and bemoaned that overtime was sometimes cancelled out by Income Tax. He pointed out that before the war, miners only worked three days a week and now they cannot work long enough. The story of boom and depression was lobbed up and discussed, as if it were a new and startling discovery.

The subject matter of the first argument between Barbara Castle and Lord Hailsham was the branding of “Red" China as an aggressor, and the lady was in a terrible twitter because “it could do no good to stick a label on China." Lord Hailsham addressed her in the tone of one humoring a wayward and fractious child. His drawling repetition of "my dear Barbara" must have caused listeners to speculate as to whether he was endeavouring to gain time in order to muster his argument or waste time because he was experiencing difficulty in formulating one. Their second talk was on the "Shortages under Socialism." We must digress a moment to once again nail the lie, whether deliberate or due to ignorance that the present Government is or ever will be, Socialist. To continue, Hailsham sneered at the “Socialist Government” and said that present day shortages were due to their inefficiency and bungling. Barbara Castle not in the least discomposed nattered away and told us several times over in various ways that the shortages were due to more of the people having more under “Socialism.”

At their third meeting they discussed that “very important subject, should W. Germany be re-armed now?” Barbara Castle gave a decided negative and Hailsham dramatically posed the question, “How long will it be before you forgive them?” (The Germans.) He then got around to the necessity of arming against Russia, and sounding very blood thirsty he averred that we should "arm and arm and arm,” whilst having talks with Russia. The lady was of the opinion that we should have talks first. Their fourth and last argument was an inquest on the “Dark days of Tory misrule,” the period between the two wars. To do Barbara Castle justice, she said she would have preferred not to dig into the past but to argue on a topical subject. However the inquest went forward and unemployment figures were quoted for that period as 14 per cent., against 1 per cent, to 1½ per cent. present day, which according to Barbara Castle was entirely due to Labour planning. Lord Hailsham begged to differ and said the lee-way of the war has taken up the slack so no credit was due. He also attacked the Government as being responsible for the “steadily deteriorating international situation.”

The first foray between Tom Driberg and Randolph Churchill posed the burning question (which is keeping us all awake at night!), whether it was right that an American Admiral shall have supreme command over the Atlantic Fleet. Tom Driberg defended his Government's policy in this matter and agreed that it was of “ vital importance.” He pointed out that the Western operational part would be under a British Admiral, and recalled that Winston Churchill put “our” Pacific Fleet under an American Admiral during the last war. Randolph Churchill scrubbed round that one and instead sobbed over our present day small Fleet which he said was entirely due to the Labour Government's lack of planning. He also deprecated Attlee's leadership as “not good enough” with America, and Driberg pointed out that he (Attlee) had succeeded in moderating American policy regarding the branding of China as an aggressor. The Chairman called the controversialists to order for making it a duet and Driberg informed the world in general that he was not going to lose his temper. However all was calm and serene at their next meeting which posed the question, “Are we better fed under Labour Government than we were before the War”? This gave Randolph Churchill a chance to take a pot shot at that sitting target, the meat ration, which he said was due to the Government's mismanagement. He admitted hardship before the war, but said it was not due to any one Party. He attacked bulk buying and said that Webb had been “unlucky” but that he had also miscalculated. Driberg said that stock piling in America, due to the Korean War, caused the meat muddle and pointed out that the world population was increasing at the rate of 20 million a year and that food production was only just making up lee-way after the destruction due to the war. Randolph Churchill put in a plea for private traders, not bulk buying and sang Lord Woolton's praises as Minister of Food during the war. He also fired a final shot at the Government by pouring scorn on their payment of millions of pounds in compensation to butchers.

Taken by and large the arguments are becoming progressively more genteel. The slight differences in policy of the two Parties become more apparent with each broadcast and this must be obvious to Labour supporters. As their first uncritical enthusiasm has died down it must become increasingly clear that however much the Government may wish to consider the interests of the workers, Capitalism is too strong for them and in addition to Party differences they are drawn into international disharmony along the road that eventually leads to war. The worker who understands the socialist position is not distracted by the stew pot of Party politics or international rivalries. These fat red herrings across the trail of politically ignorant workers postpone the day of true understanding when all workers will tread the only road that leads to peace and security for all.

F. M. Robins

A Labour of Sisyphus (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

The position of the working class in capitalist society is like that of Sisyphus, the mythological king of Corinth, who was condemned to constantly roll a huge stone to the top of a hill, and when he got it there, it always rolled back down again. His task was unceasing. To-day a minority of the population, the capitalist class, own the means and instruments for producing wealth. It necessarily follows that the vast majority of the population, the working class, must sell their labour power to this minority. In return they receive barely enough to keep them at the customary standard of living. If they were to receive more than was sufficient to keep them they would attempt to free themselves from that economic enslavement. The working class then must produce wealth for the capitalist class and receive in return just sufficient to bring them back to the factory to produce more wealth for their masters—a labour of Sisyphus.

The tremendous productive capacity of man's labour power applied to modern industrial equipment together with the working class receiving only the necessities of life results in the great difference in income that exists between most members of capitalist class and most workers.

Reformers seeking to bring about a more equitable distribution of income put forward the plea for taxation. They maintain that by taxing the “rich” and establishing social services a large redistribution of income between the two classes could be effected. But Douglas Jay, now financial advisor to the Treasury, wrote in a book called “The Socialist Case,” “ some may argue that whatever the statistics of income and property show, a huge redistribution of income has been achieved in the last twenty-five years' by means of national taxation and the social services. . . . It is consequently rather startling to find, on an impartial examination of the facts, that there has been scarcely any redistribution at all.” (p. 45). A few pages later he quotes the “Economist”:—

  “The poorer classes of the community have therefore received back from the Exchequer approximately as much as their increased contribution. But there is very little sign that the system of taxation has effected any redistribution of income between rich and poor.”

(From Budget Supplement, 13th April, 1935, “The Socialist Case," p. 50.)

Then Mr. Jay sums up with, “All authorities are agreed, however, that the great bulk of the social services are paid for by the working classes themselves, and that there has been only a very slight shift in their favour even since before the war.” (Page 51.)

And the Labour Party after all this experience still cling to the view that taxation and social services will bring to the workers a bigger slice of the “national cake.” After the first five years of Labour's majority Government the responsible ministers claimed that taxation had reached its peak. The rich couldn't be taxed any heavier. All the social services and reforms that had been on the Labour Party's programme since its formation had been brought about. Yet Mr. James Griffiths, Colonial Secretary, said at the Labour Party Conference held in Margate:—

  “The ownership of wealth has by no means been adequately shared out. Far too much of the nation’s wealth is owned by too few people." (Daily Herald, 4/10/50.)

And Sydney Silverman at the same conference said, “There are hundreds of thousands of our fellow workers whose wages make a bitter mockery of our claim that we are providing fair shares ” (Daily Herald, 4/10/50).

The other side of the picture is filled in by the Tribune, a Labour weekly:—

  “Flicking over the pages of those same popular dailies . . . in this grim austerity Britain with its food shortages, housing shortages and labour shortages, the Government’s guiding philosophy of fair shares for all worked out in practice so that one could still have a house in town run by eight servants, a mansion in the country, a cottage by the sea, pocket money on a scale that comfortably covered details such as £3,000 a year on presents to a lady friend, another £1,000 a year thereabouts to the same lady and when after all you decided not to marry the woman, £20,000 to console her for the loss of a good thing." (February 9th, 1951.)

The “Economist” in an article examined the report of the EGA. Mission “Facts about the British Economy” and stated, “since it is the lower income groups which benefit mainly from social expenditure the report says, 'the social expenditures are chiefly financed by transfers of income within the lower income groups in accordance with variations in the patterns of consumption, family size, etc., rather than by transfer between different income level.' " (1/4/1950)1

Labour Party supporters and other apologists for capitalism maintain that even if the wealth the workers produce was divided equally among all members of the population, the increase in the average worker's income would be insignificant.

But this isn't the socialist's argument. He recognises the potential productive capacity of mankind with modern machinery and realises how production is misused in present society. He takes into consideration the waste that goes on under capitalism. In a system based on private ownership where goods are produced for sale a vast number of workers are engaged in all the multiple tasks which arise from the sale of commodities and the realisation of the profits contained in them. The waste of productive effort in the cheap shoddy goods the majority of the community must buy.

In a society based upon common ownership wealth would be produced solely for use. All members of society would be occupied in producing things to satisfy their needs. This is possible with the present industrial machinery. All that is required is that the workers realise this and take steps to bring it about.

Jim Thorburn

Wake Up and Live (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

In these days of peace-talks and war preparations, Socialists are amongst the few who remain unenthused on learning that the four major capitalist powers are going to meet and “ talk things over.”

When the radio and the newspapers build up hopes of “lasting peace” or “friendship and co-operation” socialists listen with a critical ear. From past lessons we know the strength of peace treaties when markets are endangered by the cheaper goods of a competitor. So when the big bad wolves of capitalist society face each-other over the conference table, we don’t expect anything but a patch-up job, a stalling action which can only postpone the evil day when hostilities break out once more. 

Each side claims to be the true pursuers of peace and each is ready with excuses to blame the other if at any stage the talks break down. The working class of each country will be given a running commentary by their respective masters so that if the talks achieve temporary settlement the Russian workers will be told how brilliant diplomacy and love of peace on the part of their delegates was responsible. If no agreement is reached, that will be due to "American and British Imperialist warmongers.” The American, French and British workers will be correspondingly hood-winked by their respective rulers. 

If workers really want to know what all this diplomatic nattering is about they will be well advised to read the pamphlet “The Socialist Party and War"; this will tell them all they need to know about it and enable them to see through the wordy, smoke-screen laid down by the ruling class which sends millions of workers to their deaths under the false pretences of “democracy,” “freedom” and “better worlds” etc. When markets, raw-materials, ports and trade routes which make vast profits for their capitalist owners, are threatened, no peace treaty is worth the paper it is written on. As the result of economic causes, Germany attacked Russia while a so-called peace-treaty was in operation. 

The pamphlet mentioned gives scores of other examples where political leaders have come right out with their intentions which are always guided and motivated by the economic interests of the class they represent. In 1925, Britain’s Tory Home Secretary, the late Lord Brentford, said without any qualms, “we did not conquer India for the benefit of the Indians. I know it is said at Missionary meetings that we conquered India to raise the level of Indians. This is cant. We conquered India as an outlet for the goods of Great Britain. We conquered India by the sword and by the sword we shall hold it.” The French Marshal Lyautey was equally frank about the aims of the French capitalist class in Morocco, namely to extend their trade. Profits once more—not ideals. 

If Russia’s stooges in Malaya expand and snatch Malayan wealth from the British master class it would be members of the British working class who would go to defend it, to "hold it by the sword” and they would be told not only at missionary meetings but by the press, screen and radio that they were struggling for freedom against aggression. The same thing applies to any other “ trouble spot” in the world when a similar position arises. The Gromykos and the Jessups can talk till they gasp but they cannot talk themselves out of capitalism with its economics which lead to war. 

While goods of every kind are produced for sale and profit, markets to sell them in and the raw-material to make them will always have to be defended at the cost of working class blood. The remedy for this terrible state of affairs rests in the hands of those who suffer most, the workers, for when the earth’s resources are the common property of all mankind and they are used solely to satisfy man’s needs, wars and the diplomats who go with them will be a thing of the past. Once more, regardless of the word-spinning at Capitalist conferences, the Socialist message holds good. Workers of the world unite for Socialism. You have nothing to lose but your chains. You have a world to gain.

Harry Baldwin

To Members and Sympathisers (1951)

Party News from the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

An Appeal

At a Party Meeting held in Central London on the 19th January, it was decided that the Executive Committee proceed with the purchase of premises in Clapham for use as the Head Office of the Party. The need for new premises arose a year ago when the lease on Rugby Chambers expired. An extension of one year was obtained, and that year is now at an end. The lease could be renewed, the landlords informed the E.C., at a rental of £357 p.a., payment of rates at approximately £60 p.a. and provided that the premises were redecorated, the cost of which would have been in the region of £400/450. In addition, the display of bills, posters and advertising matter generally on the outside of the premises was prohibited.

Faced with this alternative, the E.C. decided to purchase suitable premises and those at Clapham High Street were chosen. Much more space will be available there for the routine tasks of the Party-tasks which increase in size and number as the Party grows. The room for E.C. meetings is much larger and there will be ample space for those members who attend Head Office on E.C. meeting nights. In addition, there are eight other rooms which can be used for storage and despatch of literature, meeting rooms for the various committees, a room for the library, and so on. The possession of suitable premises can materially assist the Party in its growth, and the main object of our organisation—Socialist propaganda—can go ahead unhampered by cramped quarters.

Those are the facts: now for some figures. The new premises were bought at a cost of £4,000. Following appeals to Branches and members, approximately £2,700 has been subscribed towards the cost. This represents a generous response by the membership as a whole, but more is needed. The balance of the purchase price could be borrowed from bank or building society, but, if this sum can be subscribed, it will relieve the Party funds from having to bear the considerable strain of making mortgage repayments on the loan. Interest alone on £1,300 (i.e. the balance required) amounts to £1 per week. It is highly desirable, therefore, that, wherever possible, the Party is freed from the necessity of using its funds in this manner. Accordingly this further appeal for funds for the new premises is being made.

To those who have already given we say “ Thank you—and can you give again?” To those who have not yet subscribed, “Can you and will you?” iTo those who find themselves unable to help the Party in its day-to-day tasks or to attend Branch meetings regularly or frequently; to Central Branch members whose contact with the Party is necessarily restricted; to all those who, for one reason or another cannot do all they would like to help the progress of Socialism, we say “This is a fine opportunity. This is an occasion when the Party needs help and you can supply it.”

Finally, a word to those readers who understand and sympathise with the aims and principles of the Socialist Party of Great Britain but who are not members. The help of all is needed.

The acquisition of these premises represents a large step in the progress of the Party, but it could mean a heavy drag on the Party’s funds. This can only be avoided by sufficient money being subscribed to cover the full purchase price and, in addition, the legal costs, cost of removal, decoration and furnishings. The extent to which the Party can flourish—free of binding financial restrictions—depends completely on how much you will give.

Please give quickly and generously. The address for your subscription is: E. Lake, Socialist Party of Great Britain, 52 Clapham High Street, Clapham, S.W.4.

Thank you,

Funds Organiser.

He Believed (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

A fundamental human desire is to be correct, and in the quest for this correctness a man may be forced perhaps several times to reconsider and revise his opinions. To do otherwise, to hang on to outworn ideas out of misplaced loyalty or pride is sheer dishonesty and frequently a forerunner of dogmatism. At the same time it is wise for an individual perceiving a flaw in his ideas to elucidate the facts of both his old position and the new and examine them carefully lest he finds himself jumping straight out of the frying pan into the fire; or as in the case of Douglas Hyde, out of the Kremlin and into the Vatican.

Douglas Hyde was a well-known British communist, for many years news editor of the Daily Worker, and as such an unprotesting subscriber to its policy. When Russia threw in her lot with Germany in 1939, he faithfully swallowed his ideas of a “war for freedom.” Russia was invaded. He spewed them up again and cried for a “strike in the west” but of course, for no strikes at home. He supported the Labour Party in the ’45 landslide and later opposed it. Then one day he perceived certain contradictions so glaring that even he couldn’t stomach them. Slowly he transferred his affections and capacity for, believing in the unreal to the Roman Catholic church.

And “I Believed,” recently published by Heinemann. Ltd., is his story. 

The national press received it warmly, but it is doubtful whether their joy was over Mr. Hyde’s redemption. More likely was it welcomed as more grist for the mill; fuel for the immediate task of preparing their readers for a future war with their erstwhile allies. In a world imbued with a complex of "leadership,” a leader changing camps is something great and his words must be taken as gospel.

It is interesting to note that several newspapers made great play of the Communist Party’s morality or lack of same. We used to read similar tales of the Nazis, all calculated to raise the indignation of the masses at the “unBritish” behaviour of the enemy. Yet in the same issues these papers reported several sordid court cases including one unsavoury “breach of promise ” without a word of editorial comment. Presumably those people involved were not members of the Communist Party.

However let us get back to the book itself. So far as Mr. Hyde as an individual is concerned, self styled communist or catholic he is our opponent, but his story, and one must admit his apparent sincerity, may serve as a useful guide to why so many workers can subscribe to the fantastic aims and claims of the Communist Party yet still from time to time change their allegiance to organisations which seem diametrically opposed to it.

Right from the word “go” the Communist Party has been primarily the overseas instrument of Russian policy and propaganda, and its ultimate aim to “Sovietise ” the country in which it operates. In a jargon of Marxian phrases and Lenin’s writings it has justified every move of Russia and its own subsequent recantation. At the same time it has sought to build up its membership and the main method used is not one of explaining socialism (which in view of Russia they hardly dare do) or even of finding reasons for the series of crises that have permanently been with us since the first world war and their inception, but by exploiting working class indignation at these recurrent crises and concentrating upon sectional issues in what they refer to as the “day to day” struggle. As Hyde puts it “A strong resentment against social injustice was another of the things which drove me into the Party.” 

Under these circumstances they are not fussy whom they take. A signature upon the dotted line is all that is needed. When Hyde joined he was still a practising Methodist. When one considers that the International Class War Prisoners Aid (later International Labour Defence), the National Unemployed Workers Movement, the “No More War” movement and various organisations crying for Indian independence were but few of the organisations and committees inspired by members of the Communist Party, the hotch-potch of ideas and misconstructions that centred itself at King Street is not surprising. More recently when the Union Movement returned after its seven year enforced vacation we witnessed a Communist Party revival in the Jewish section of the East End, and also this ubiquitous body as the stalwart champion of better pay for nurses.

But a party membership based upon such shifting premises can never boast of a large stable membership. As the spotlight of world events changes its position one section of the membership drifts out another flows in. It is a transit camp and we must concern ourselves with the permanent staff, that hard core which remains stable when all the rest have gone.

Excluding those who are possibly careerists, we cannot doubt their almost fanatical sincerity. Showing a complete disregard for themselves many have been victimised and persecuted by their employers and more than once imprisoned. Yet still they have carried on and it is difficult to analyse their outlook.

Above all things is Russia, a light in a world of darkness as is Mecca to the Mohammedan. There is the home of “socialism” they say, to be protected not only from military assaults but also those of logical argument. Within the party they are compelled to toe the “party line” in whichever direction it may go and it is in this way that it may be compared with the church of Rome, unswervingly obedient to the bulls of Pope Stalin and encyclicals of Cardinal Palme Dutt.

Mr. Hyde chooses to call this fanatical devotion “Marxism” and throughout his book he throws the word about with the liberality of a drunken Scot on New Year’s Eve. In his eyes every step, thought or action made by the Communist Party is either “cold, ungodly Marxism” or “dialectics.” He claims to have read Marx. Perhaps he got hold of a different edition because as we see it Marxism is not a gospel but the findings, namely the materialist conception of history, the labour theory of value and the theory of the class struggle, of a nineteenth century political-economist who was sometimes wrong. One thing is certain. He did not advocate the state capitalism of Russia.

This is not the first time a man has changed his religion. When the confusion of twenty years had taken its toll Douglas Hyde found himself in a wilderness. A chance reading of catholic writers exposed for him a certain affinity of ideas especially about architecture and music. As the “communist” religion withdrew the catholic religion seeped in. At no time was there a vacuum which may have succumbed to reason.

In the closing chapter he writes, “ If I knew from my own experience that communism is wrong I as a writer must say so. That did not mean that I should suddenly start writing as though all my old comrades and colleagues whom I had been proud to call my friends were now a bunch of crooks and morons. At all costs I must hold fast to what I felt to be the facts, those which I knew from my own experience to be true, the belief that the most evil thing in communism is that it claims some of the best and moulds their minds and twists their consciences so that they can be used for the worst”(Our italics.)

Such a highly emotional paragraph, charged as it is with sentiment, could be applied to almost any religion, ancient or modern. Indeed, it is the penalty for belief without reason.

Ronald.