The Busmen's Problem: New Unions or old (1938)

From the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Readers of the Socialist Standard will remember the bus strike of May, 1937.

The Busmen's Rank and File Movement, an unofficial “ginger up" organisation, operating within the Transport and General Workers' Union, had secured a majority on the Central Bus Committee, the negotiating committee of the London Bus section of the Union. When the General Executive Council of the T. & G.W.U. granted powers to the Bus section to strike for a 7½ hour day, this committee was the one upon which fell the responsibility for the conduct of the strike. After four weeks the G.E.C. withdrew the powers previously granted and sent the Busmen back to work. An agreement was negotiated on the basis of proposals which the men had rejected only a few days before the end of the strike.

Following the strike an enquiry was held by the union into the activities of certain of the more prominent members of the section with the consequence that a number of the leading Rank and File Movement members were suspended from office and others expelled from the union. These suspensions and expulsions were subsequently endorsed by the 1937 Biennial Conference of the T. & G.W.U.

Mr. W. J. Brown, Secretary of the Civil Service Clerical Association, offered his services to the London Busmen if they desired to form a breakaway union. His offer was rejected by the Rank and File Movement leaders.

Responsibility for the conduct or misconduct of the strike is in doubt. Lacking further evidence there are no grounds for accepting the conflicting statements made by either side. Many Busmen were disgruntled at the treatment they had received, and when, on February 18th of this year, the National Passenger Workers' Union was formed, it was from this disgruntled element that this organisation recruited its membership. The promoters of the N.P.W.U. are, in the main, ex-members of the now disbanded Rank and File Movement. Mr. W. J. Brown is the Hon. President.

In a pamphlet entitled, “A Real Union for Passenger Workers," the promoters of the new organisation state their case. Briefly it is ". . . that the Transport and General Workers' Union has not only not been an asset, but a positive obstacle in achieving a remedy . . ." for the grievances of the Busmen, and that ". . . there is no hope of ever making the Transport and General Workers' Union an effective instrument to this end " (page 13). The existing Central Bus Committee of the T. & G.W.U. replied with a pamphlet, “The T. & G.W.U. IS THE REAL UNION for Passenger Workers," in which it is claimed that “this union IS an effective instrument to this end.” Further literature appeared, but nothing else of much interest was contributed to the argument.

It is not the business of The Socialist Party to take up the cudgels on behalf of either the new Transport Union or the old one, but there are certainly factors relating to this position which require examination in order that the workers may learn from the experience.

For a breakaway union of this kind to be successful, from the Busmens' point of view, the first necessity is that the bulk of the Busmen should pass into it. At no time have there been grounds for expecting to be able to gather all the Busmen into a new organisation. If those responsible for the breakaway considered otherwise they deluded themselves. Alternatively, they must have conceived that the Busmen split into two camps could be no worse off than they were under the leadership of the T. & G.W.U. In fact that is their claim in the pamphlet mentioned. But is this so? If it is, then no harm has been done.

That the London Busmen have grievances which have not been remedied is undoubtedly true, but it is equally true that they have been able to maintain their wages and working conditions at a level which would certainly have been lower were it not for their resistance. This has been made possible by the readiness of the Busmen for united action. Negotiations have often faced them up with the need for united action and their readiness for this has frequently resulted in success. The result of negotiations by a union always reflects the preparedness and the ability of the members to act in unity. If the Busmen have not been involved in a larger number of strikes it is because of this ability to act unitedly that a single organisation has been able to afford them. Negotiations on behalf of a body of men split up into two camps will reflect the weakness that this position gives rise to, since the ability to act unitedly is destroyed. So, with two organisations in existence, antagonistic to each other, the conditions of the Busmen are menaced. Numerous times in the past the London Busmen have been engaged in disputes which have not received the official sanction of the T. & G.W.U., but the Busmen were at no time disunited among themselves. That is why their unofficial strikes have so often been the means of gaining them some slight improvement in their working conditions. Now they are disunited amongst themselves.

If the new organisation can capture the membership then, of course, the split will be healed. But will such a new organisation be able to offer more than the old, or will it embody the same weaknesses? If it can offer more then it is reasonable to expect that in time it will attract all the transport workers to its ranks.

The form which the new organisation would take, assuming, of course, that it secured recognition, would be determined by the circumstances in which it had to work. It would be bound by certain limits, which, if it attempted to go beyond them, would only serve to wreck it. These circumstances under which it would be bound to function are dictated by the needs of the industry. In this instance, by the needs of capitalism organised as a public service.

Recognition must be sought, but will only be conceded if the organisation is capable of disciplining its members and binding them to agreements. Where the membership is taught to expect so much from its leaders, as in the case of the T. & G.W.U., the leader must be in a position to pledge his membership and sign agreements in their name. With any such organisation based on the principle of leadership this must apply. The membership will look for agreements as the result of successful negotiations, with the consequence that the leadership will tend to degenerate into the function of special pleading. It is a matter of time, with developments along these lines, when the new union would become indistinguishable from the old. Leadership is the weakness of the older organisation, it can well become the weakness of the new.

The supporters of the National Passenger Workers* Union claim that permanent officialdom will not be tolerated in that organisation. All officials are to be elected. The constitution of the N.P.W.U. is modelled along similar lines to that of the old London and Provincial Union of Licensed Vehicle Workers. That union was absorbed by the United Vehicle Workers, which eventually amalgamated to form the Passenger Section of the Transport & General Workers' Union. This development was, to an extent, in line with developments in the passenger carrying industry. Attempts to build a new union along the lines of the old Licensed Vehicle Workers' Union should be critically examined to be sure that such a step, instead of being a step forward in working class organisation, is not really a step backward.

The elective principle of securing officials prevailed in the old L. & P.W. of L.V.W., but was not found to be so very beneficial. Negotiators require to have great experience to be able to explore all that an agreement implies. The gaining of such experience is rendered difficult where the elective principle applies. There is the further point that elected officials have to pay much attention to attempts to usurp their positions by other job seekers. Intrigue, scandal and carping criticism are the weapons so often used by would-be officers that the time of an elected officer is all too frequently devoted to combating such schemes as his opponents embark upon in an endeavour to bring him into disrepute with the membership. It is not always the experienced man who gets elected under such conditions, but the most popular man, the man who is often the most unprincipled and unscrupulous.

A full-time official of a union is an employee. A capitalist, when he requires an employee, goes to the labour market and selects the man who is best suited to serve his purpose. He employs the man and dispenses with him when he no longer suits. The trade unions have found this to be the most satisfactory method of staffing their offices. The elected official on the union administration staffs has practically disappeared. On the executive side the elective principle is necessary in order that the organisation shall retain its democratic basis. The Executive Council must always remain an elected body and, as such, it can only reflect the degree of understanding and the amount of activity of the members.

When officials have to go to the membership for re-election they quite often find it to their advantage to keep their members ignorant of many affairs and they find an apathetic membership a great help towards re-election. Active minorities within a union’s ranks are always regarded with disfavour by the official element. Even where active minorities exist, apathetic majorities will often be the means of keeping incompetent and unsatisfactory officials in their jobs. The Vigilance Committees of the old Vehicle Workers' Union found this to be true, as also did the Minority Movement and, later, the Rank and File Movement. Should it be necessary to repeat the lesson ?

One function of trade unions is to endeavour to obtain some security of employment to its members. The members must expect to have to guarantee some security of employment to their officers. An apathetic membership allows officials to entrench themselves in their jobs by surrounding themselves with cliques and by adapting a union’s constitution to suit their purpose. The London Busmen, and, for that matter, the workers as a whole, still appear to want to be led. Thus can more be expected from a new union than can be obtained from an old one? Just a change of leadership with the right to be able to change it again when desired is rather poor satisfaction.

The pamphlet issued by the National Passenger Workers’ Union contains a criticism of the officials of the Transport and General Workers’ Union. It claims that they have done nothing for the Busmen. That means that in maintaining their wages and conditions at the present level, despite attacks by their employers, the Busmen have no one to thank but themselves. It means that the men have by their own effort, and without official aid, been able to defend their position. That being so, there must be scope for the Busmen to express themselves in the Transport and General Workers’ Union. If there is not, then the credit must go to the officials.

We fear that too much is being made of the domestic grievances of the Bus Section of the Transport Union and not enough attention paid to its functional results. The interests of the Busmen are likely to be sacrificed in the struggle over domestic affairs.

Advocates of the breakaway union continually make reference to “progressive unionism.” The impression they convey is that trade unionism can lead to some condition of society wherein the workers’ lot will be a satisfactory one. Trade Unions can be considered progressive in only two senses, in their ability to adapt themselves to the changing conditions of capitalism, i.e., to the growth of Transport Boards, etc., or by their ability to improve the conditions of life of their members. In either direction the T. & G.W.U. can make good claims despite its many faults and weaknesses. As regards a union being progressive in any other sense, those who consider this possible are living in a vacuum. They are Utopians.

Men do not join a union merely because they desire to be members. They join because a union offers them the means of improving their working conditions by collective bargaining. Trade unions exist in conditions where the worker sells his labour power to the capitalist. They serve to regulate the conditions of sale. So long as the worker has to sell his labour power to live, so long will his status be one of an exploited wage slave. No trade union organisation can alter that. The poverty, insecurity and other attendant evils which beset the working class will remain as the source of the grievances which trade unions cannot eliminate, no matter how “progressive” they may consider themselves.

Emancipation for the worker lies in the abolition of the relationship of buyer and seller of labour power. This achieved, then trade unions as a means of regulating this relationship will become redundant.

Arguments are being advanced in favour of a breakup of the existing trade unions in this country. The criticism of the promoters of the N.P.W.U. against the T. & G.W.U. to the effect that the Busmen are at the mercy of the various other trade and industries who constitute the majority of the membership of the older organisation, is partly justified even though exaggerated. With the workers still subjecting their class interests to sectional, trade interests, and with various trades represented in one union, conflict of opinion is sure to arise. The fault lies more in the lack of class consciousness by the workers than in the nature of the union organisation.

The old, old lesson must be repeated. Active minorities cannot push or drag the workers against their will. Impatience to achieve something worth while is admirable, but when it causes men to act prematurely it is often disastrous. Many sincere and hard-working fellows become the dupes of unscrupulous and self-seeking schemers because they are too impatient to spend the time getting down to the task of convincing their fellow workers of the need for a certain line of action.

When the workers give up their sectional outlook and realise that they have a common class interest, then they will establish a new social system in the place of Capitalism, but this will be achieved by political organisation. Until then we suggest that all workers, if faced with a similar position to that of the London Busmen, should look before they leap. They may be acting without due regard to all the circumstances which surround them; just jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

W. E. W. & F. W. J.

Blogger's Note:

With regards to the authors of this article, 'W. E. W.' was Bill Waters, a longstanding and very active member of the SPGB, who also happened to be a militant rank and file trade unionist in the bus workers' union over many decades. My (educated) guess is that 'F. W. J.' was the initials of Frederick William Johnson who, before joining the SPGB in 1931, was a member of the Communist Party. Johnson retained his membership of the SPGB from 1931 until February 1962, when he had to resign his membership because he emigrated to Australia. Waters also joined the SPGB in 1931 and retained his membership of the Party until his death in 1970. (There's a pitifully short obituary for Waters in the March 1970 issue of the Socialist Standard.)

Why did this particular rank and file union dispute receive so much coverage in the pages in the Socialist Standard? Arguably, it was because there were SPGB members involved in both sides of this union dispute. Though it's not mentioned in the article itself, one of the prominent leaders of the breakaway union was an SPGBer, Frank Snelling. Snelling, a former member of the Socialist Labour Party, was from South London - he originally joined the Tooting Branch of the SPGB in 1929 - and was an on/off member of the SPGB up until he was lapsed from membership in 1952. 

Adam Buick goes into greater detail about this dispute - and the debate amongst party members involved in this dispute - in his review of Ken Fuller's book, Radical Aristocrats: London Busworkers from the 1880s to the 1980s,  which appeared in the April 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Notes of the Month: Behind the Struggle in Spain (1938)

The Notes of the Month column from the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Behind the Struggle in Spain

The Workers' Age, New York, May 14th, publishes the following from Humanité, official organ of the Communist Party of France: —

“On March 15th the Spanish Government received from Paris something quite different from a sign of sympathy; it received advice to capitulate. . . .”

The Workers' Age comments on this as follows : —

“Who gave the Spanish Government this advice to capitulate to Franco and his allies? The then People’s Front Government of France, the Government of the Socialist, Leon Blum, the Government supported by the very Communist Party whose spokesman now rails against it! ” 

No one would seriously dispute that the Communist Party will only "rail” when they consider it good tactics.

The information quoted from Humanité indicates something more than that. Spain is the cockpit where rival capitalist powers outside of Spain are fighting out a semi-imperialist quarrel; it illustrates how the struggle taking place there is used as a bargaining counter by powers whose interests are bound up with seeking direct or indirect political dominance or in preventing it being established by rivals. France has been attempting to negotiate a pact with Italy on the lines of the Anglo-Italian agreement. It is not unlikely (at any rate, it is quite possible) that the advice to the Spanish Government to capitulate was, like the closing of the French-Spanish frontier, a hint to Mussolini that the French Government would sell out its interest in Spain as expressed in its resistance to German and Italian dominance there, in exchange for an agreement with the Italian Government. An agreement, quite obviously, which would limit Italian threats to French capitalist interests or compensation for them elsewhere.

It is tragic that such a struggle in which the Spanish capitalist Government might easily have emerged victorious over the semi-feudal political remains of the older propertied classes in Spain, with obvious advantages to working-class organisations, and without a protracted war, is overshadowed by the super-imposed struggle of rival capitalist powers, to whom even immediate working-class interests are only a secondary question in the struggle.

No more Atrocity Stories

In an article in the Daily Telegraph (June 9th) Mr. Churchill shows what excellent service the anti-Nazism and anti-Fascism of the Labour and Communist parties in this country is rendering to British capitalism. He says:—

In 1914 the well-to-do and so-called ruling classes were at first more convinced of the duty to fight than the wage-earning masses. It required the German atrocities in Belgium to rouse the whole people. Now it is somewhat different. The wage-earning classes are resolved not to submit to Nazism or Fascism, and there is more doubt and division in the other ranks of society. (Our italics.)

When Mr. Churchill says ”The wage-earning classes are resolved not to submit to Nazism or Fascism,” he expresses, confidence that organised workers will follow the lead of Labour and Communist leaders. He is probably right.

But note the unconscious irony in the suggestion that, after twenty years of Labour Party pacifism and advocacy of disarmament, Labour leaders can be so relied upon to urge workers to fight that atrocity stories (real or manufactured) might be unnecessary.

An Ugly Lie

A journal called the Seaman (June 22nd) has an article called “The Fifth Column,” by a slimy gentleman who signs himself "Peter Petroff,” and who is obviously either a Communist or has Communist leanings, together with an excessive dose of the Communist disease of downright lying misrepresentation. In the article which pretends to comment on the Spanish situation and Nazism and Fascism, he expands on what he describes as the activities of the ”Fifth Column.” This is expressed in the insidious and cunning tactic of posing as the friend of opponents who would be stabbed, in the back at the first opportunity, as shown, for example, in the activities of supporters of Franco in Spanish Government territory, or. of Nazi agents and spies in Great Britain. The article goes on to say: “ The propaganda of the Fifth Column is widespread. Its agents are to be found everywhere; even Labour organisations are not immune. Lately the small Socialist organisations are being invaded—at times from an orthodox S.P.G.B. platform a Nazi speech may be heard." (Our italics.)

Just that: no evidence, not even a hint of justification for the statement. It has angered some of our friends, who have written and asked us to do something about it.

We shall quite naturally take the matter up with the publishers of Seaman and other journals responsible for lying statements of this kind. Having a respect for working-class intelligence, however, we suspect that most workers know what credence to place upon statements coming from opportunists who mouth Socialist slogans while waving Union Jacks; who fantastically attack mediocre and pink Labour candidates at by-elections as agents of Trotsky; who heralded Caballero as the “Lenin of Spain" and afterwards denounced him as one of Franco's “ Fifth Column."

“ Petroffs"article also appeared in “Labour." published at Transport House.

Nationalisation and Prosperity

From Forward (July 16th, 1938):—

“It is evidence of the wisdom of the settlers in Queensland, and the source of their present prosperity, that 94 per cent. of all the land remains publicly-owned."

We would make a bet that when the next world crisis arrives and has its inevitable effect on the “prosperity" of the settlers in Queensland, that Forward will have little to say about their wisdom.

An I.L.P. M.P., and the Communists

“ The difference in method between Hitler, Franco, Communists of Spain and Stalin is similar to that between Chamberlain, Churchill, Simon and Malcolm MacDonald."

Thus Mr. McGovern, M.P., in Forward (July 16th, 1938), after having accused Spanish Communists of organising “ the imprisoning and murdering of their Socialist and Anarchist opponents." Mr. McGovern might ponder on the question that Communist policy and practice is not unconnected with Communist theory and aims, and that his party, the I.L.P., is at the moment posing as the true propounders of Bolshevik theory and practice. 

Should Insurance be Nationalised?

The monthly editions of Fact are interesting and informative little books. The June issue, “The Insurance Man and His Trade," is a particularly good example of the publisher's excellent value for money. Most people take insurance and the large profits from it for granted as inevitable necessities. Therein lies opportunities for doubtful practices. Canvassers driven to get more business press policies upon the ignorant (and on these matters most people are ignorant), which are illegal and which the insurance companies refuse to pay out on when called upon. It is estimated that at least half-a-million a year is pocketed by the insurance companies and societies every year by these means. Of the amount paid in by workers, as much in some cases as nearly eighty per cent. is taken up in expenses. The lowest estimate is thirty-nine per cent. Compared to Government Health Insurance, the expenses are four times greater, though the income to Health Insurance is £20,000,000 less than the income to the companies and its benefits are £5,000,000 more. Another abuse is the so-called “free policy," which is given to the insured when he or she can no longer afford to keep up payments on a policy on which perhaps many pounds have been paid. When settlement of the policy is made the insurer is faced with the unpleasant fact that the policy is worth only a few shillings. In fact one instance is given where the insurer, having ceased his weekly payments a few weeks before the date when the policy officially lapsed, received nothing when settlement was made because the payments owing were considered as a debt and deducted from the few shillings which were the nominal value of the policy! Similar abuses seem to affect every sphere in the insurance world.

It is always interesting to the Socialist to know the process by which the possessing class obtains its wealth, particularly of a commercial undertaking graced by directors from among the wealthiest and the highest in the hierarchy of the capitalist class.

Quite naturally the revelations made by Fact have prompted the supporters of Nationalisation into enthusiastic activity. They are proposing that the State takes over life insurance and organise it on a similar basis to Health Insurance. On the face of it not a bad idea on general grounds. But one very clear and insistent fact seems to have escaped attention. That is the worker who has spent a life of toil in producing all the marvels of wealth for his Capitalist masters can only provide the few pounds needed for his burial by contributing a few pence each week to an insurance company or, as in other countries, to the State. That state of affairs exists because he is poor. Nationalisation does not propose to end that.

Think it over, Nationalisers!

A Communist who would Fight against Russia

The policy of reformism and compromise with capitalism has driven Communists into some queer corners. After having toasted the King’s health in Moscow at a banquet given in honour of Mr. Anthony Eden, after glorifying Nationalism and showing how patriotic they can be, anything might seem possible. But the news from the U.S.A. concerning Earl Browder the American Communist leader, surpasses any previous position. According to the New York weekly newspaper, Workers' Age (July 9th, 1938), which describes itself as “a paper defending the interests of workers and farmers," the following is the testimony of Earl Browder given before the McNaboe Joint Legislative Committee in New York City.

Questions to Browder:—

“If it came to a war between the United States and Russia whom would you bear arms for?” 

Answer:—

“I refuse to admit the possibility of such a war." Pressed further by McNaboe, Browder said:— “ Under any conceivable possibility of war I would fight for the United States."

Under further examination Browder admitted that that had not always been his attitude.

It is not the intention of the “ S.S.” just to jeer at Communists when driven into a comer. It is our job to note how they got into it. And that is simpler. Never having accepted Socialist principles as a basis for political activity, the acceptance of one compromise after another has ultimately driven the Communist .Party into the position of stoutly defending capitalism. When the present period of capitalism has passed, the Communist Party, if it survives it, will be embarrassed by any mention of its present equivocations.

It is no defence of the admission that he would fight for the U.S.A. against Russia for Browder to “refuse to admit the possibility of such a war.” Even as a hypothesis Browder’s admission unmasks the Communist Party’s rabid Nationalism and political opportunism.

Such is the outcome of treading the slippery slope of compromise and reform.

Paralytic Phrases

M. Blum, at the Congress of the French Socialist Party, said: —

“ I should like national unity to prevent war. There are moments when it is necessary for the whole of France to give the Government sudden authority in its dealings with her potential adversaries.” 

He went on to say that the expression “collective security” was ridiculed, but he still clung to the hope. It must be “pushed to its logical conclusion, which meant the acceptance of a risk of war to prevent war.”

That “war to prevent war” is suspiciously like the phrase ”war to end war,” which will be remembered by those who are yet not so old.

The Co-Ops. and Profits

An American friend writing from Jacksonville, Florida, having read the article, “What is Wrong with the Co-operative Movement " in the March “ S.S." sends us a leaflet issued by the Florida Co-operative Council and asks our opinion about it. The leaflet announces the introduction of a “ Co-operative Credit Union,” which is described as a “democratic savings bank with loan privileges." Its purpose is very noble and uplifting, it is to prevent its customers from “ having to pay from 20 to 42 per cent,.interest on personal loans.” Now it is painfully true that millions of workers in America and elsewhere have to seek credit in order to live. It would appear that the Florida Co-operative Council desired no more than to prevent impecunious workers being exploited by the money-lending sharks who grow fatter as the worker grows thinner. But read more from the leaflet about the “ Co-operative Credit Union.” ” It will pay four per cent. on Time Deposits ”. . . and “ interest on personal loans will not exceed one per cent. per month on the unpaid balance.” The difference between four per cent, and twelve per cent. is eight per cent., which, whilst it is lower than the rates of interest of the small-town and back street money-lending sharks, is also rapacious plunder when compared with the rates of interest of banks and financial institutions. Our correspondent expresses the opinion that the policy is “short-sighted and unethical.” On that we will not try to adjudicate. It does, however, show that the Co-operators are capitalist trading institutions pure and simple, and that they will adopt all the tricks of competitive capitalism.

The Mad House

During the last two months of 1937 and the first two months of 1938 Germany bought 700,000 tons of iron ore monthly from France which was used largely for armaments. In March the German orders were reduced to 70,000 tons. Thereupon the trade unions of Meurthe-et-Moselle and certain great industrialists appealed to the French Government for help in persuading the Germans to buy the original large tonnage.—World Events (June 15th, 1938). From Forward (July 9th, 1938).

Only capitalism could produce a situation where workers in one country provided the materials for the workers in another country with which to blow the former to bits

The Progress of the “Daily Worker”

During the Derby race week in June the Daily Worker boosted its tipster “as instrumental in getting for the unemployed worker a few extra shillings.” Forward (July 16th, 1938), commenting on this, asked why the Daily Worker did not take the advice of its tipster in order to get the £464 which it had announced had to be raised “ within the next few days.”

And why not take it further and demand that the tipster take the place of the U.A.B. ? 

Harry Waite

John Strachey's What Are We to Do? (1938)

Book Review from the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

“What Are We To Do ? ” by J. L. Strachey. Gollancz, 10s. 6d., and Left Book Club.

In this book we have a considered statement of the present policy of the Communist Party, the policy of the People’s Front. And as such it serves to demonstrate, if demonstration were needed, the complete political bankruptcy, poverty of thought, and dishonesty of purpose of the Communist Party. Above all, it is an awful warning of the fate that can overtake an “ intellectual ” who embraces a party instead of a principle.

The first part of the book is devoted to an examination of the growth and development of the British Labour movement, while, at the same time, seeking to analyse its failure to accomplish anything in the permanent interests of the working class. The second part is devoted to what Mr. Strachey considers to be the remedy, and the working out of a programme suitable for a People’s Front.

Capitalist societies, remarks Mr. Strachey, spontaneously generate Labour movements, which, in the end, are driven to aim at a new form of society, which they call Socialism. The fate of any particular Labour movement will depend on the kind (!) of “ Socialism ” it adopts, then, you see, the Labour movement has the choice of different kinds of “Socialism,” some better than others, no doubt, but, nevertheless, all Socialism. All we have to do, then, is to see that the existing Labour movement—and by that Strachey means the Labour Party—adopts the right kind of Socialism. Preferably the variety propounded by Mr. Strachey himself.

“ Of any comprehensive Socialist philosophy,” we are told, ”. . , the pre-War Parliamentary Labour Party was destitute,” page 43 (our italics), “ but that, on the whole . . . we may say that the post-War British Labour Party was Socialist; but that its Socialism was of a peculiar Fabian or British variety” (page 118). Notice the precision of language, the clarity of thought! The entire book is characterised by such equivocal and ambiguous language, and this, as we shall presently show, is not an accident, but a necessity imposed on Strachey by the task he has set himself.

What are the facts? The Labour Party is not, and never was, a Socialist Party. Its main function, the sole justification for its existence, is that it serves as the political expression of a working class seeking reforms within the capitalist system. But, unfortunately for the trade union and Labour Party bureaucracy, the capitalist class demands its quid pro quo. In return for the privilege of holding, as Mr. Strachey has said elsewhere, “ he umbrella of social reforms over the heads of the workers," capitalism requires that when capitalist expediency demands it the influence and control over the workers which accrues from this privilege should be used in making a worsening of conditions acceptable to the working class.

For this reason it is necessary that a fairly close understanding exists between the capitalist State and the Labour Party and trade union bureaucracy. Mr. Strachey once knew this full well. Indeed, he went so far as to claim in his “Coming Struggle for Power,” page 293, that ” These organisations ” (i.e., Labour or Social Democratic Parties) “ have now become . . . the principal and essential bulwarks of capitalism . . . the machinery of the trade unions and Labour Parties has become an apparatus, not used by the workers to control the capitalists, but by the capitalists to control the workers. ...” Now, on page 25 of “What Are We to Do?” he says that the modern capitalist class exercises pressure against the existence of trade unions, and that they will make “. . . resolute efforts to suppress all forms of working-class combination.”

Mr. Strachey used to hold the view that “All the more moder employers realise, however, the inevitability of trade union organisation. Accordingly, they do all in their power to strengthen the hands of the existing unions ” (“Coming Struggle for Power,” page 336).

But the Labour Party, and this applies to all reformist organisations masquerading as Socialist Parties, fulfils another very valuable function on behalf of the capitalist class. It serves to canalise, to render harmless and ineffective the anti-capitalist sentiments of the masses. And this also Mr. Strachey once knew quite well. Then, did he not tell us—he is speaking of the Labour Party— “That a very extensive political machine has been created. Hundreds of competent orators tour the country with unexampled frequency, expressing, liberating, and thus very largely dispersing, the anti-capitalist impulses of the workers n (”Coming Struggle for Power,” page 299). And the fact that the Labour Party and trade unions are largely working class in their composition and support does not make these bodies any the less anti-working class in their politics. To quote Mr. Strachey once more: ”. . . unless the whole social democratic machine was in quite a real sense working class, it would be unable, any better than an ordinary Liberal Party, to cater for the increasingly anti-capitalist mood of the workers” (”Coming Struggle for Power,” page 300).

Why, then, does Mr. Strachey, against his better knowledge, seek to prove that the Labour Party is a Socialist Party, but that all that is wrong with it is that its brand of Socialism is the wrong one? Because he seeks to justify the affiliation of the Communist Party to the Labour Party as something which would be in the interests of the working class. (And so perhaps it would be, but not quite in the sense Mr. Strachey would have us believe.) Then, if all that is wrong with the Labour Party is that its choice in “Socialism ” was unfortunate, who can better put the matter right than that body of “social scientists,” the “New Model Party" . . .  the Communist Party?

It is curious to note that Mr. Strachey is at great pains to establish that which the Socialist Party of Great Britain has been asserting ever since its inception, namely, that it is lack of Socialist knowledge that prevents the workers from achieving their emancipation. Thus we read (page 60): “ In the real world a working-class movement can only come to a comprehension of Socialism by means of an active process of freeing itself from the domination of capitalist ideas." Again: “Nothing was lacking to the organised British workers except knowledge and the will, faith, self-confidence and power that knowledge alone can give ” (page 144). And we can heartily agree that “Until they equip themselves with a political knowledge; with, above all, an adequate, comprehensive, Socialist science, the men and women who do the hard daily work of the British working-class movement will always have to accept any policy which a small group of leaders at the top chooses to put before them.” And that, Mr. Strachey, applies not only to the Labour Party and trade union movement, but every word to the Communist Party as well.

It is also interesting to note that unlike most Communist Party members, Mr. Strachey does not subscribe to the idea that it is impossible for the majority of the working class to reach an understanding of Socialism. “For the relative blindness of the workers," we are told, “. . . to the full implications of the struggle in which they find themselves engaged is curable. It is the prime duty of those who take on the heavy responsibility of leadership in a working-class movement to take off the bandage with which capitalism blinds the eyes of the workers. But, instead, the existence of that bandage is made the excuse for every inadequacy, for every inaction, and for every surrender." “ What Are We to Do?" (page 285). Apart from the question of “leadership," this would make an admirable text for all those "revolutionaries” who are more concerned to prove that the working class can never understand Socialism than to put the matter to the test.

In spite of this, needless to say, unacknowledged agreement with the Socialist Party of Great Britain, that does not prevent him indulging in the usual cheap sneers. On page 309 he invites “anyone who wishes to see how far sectarianism can go, (to) study these societies." Our record, Mr. Strachey, is open for inspection, WE have nothing of which to be ashamed, to conceal from the working class. But what about YOU, Mr. Strachey, and the Communist Party in whose name you speak ?

The programme Mr. Strachey formulates for the People’s Front is based on the defence of peace, democracy, and the national standards of living. Peace is to be saved by “rebuilding the system of collective security, and in no other way"; the national standard of living is to be defended and, presumably, improved on, by the adoption of a string of reformist nostrums, the majority of which, indeed if not all, would meet with the whole-hearted approval of no less a person that Herr Hitler. As a matter of fact, Nazi Germany has adopted most of the measures outlined on page 339. And this advocacy of reforms is justified on the specious plea that such reforms are incompatible with the further existence of a “declining" capitalist system. “ For events will show fast enough that even those reforms and ameliorations to-day involve a large measure of Socialism! " As Mr. Strachey remarks (page 331): “ Men who are by no means Socialists will support a Socialistic measure—as, say, the nationalisation of the mines, or the compulsory acquisition of slum property for giant rehousing schemes” (our italics). Agreed, Mr. Strachey, non-Socialists will support such measures, precisely because they are not Socialist and have nothing in common with Socialism.

Although Strachey has serious doubts as to the possibility of maintaining peace and capitalism at the same time, this does not prevent him from urging all those with anti-war tendencies to organise for the purpose of achieving that which, even in his view, is impossible. He exhorts us to put the matter to the test of experience, but unfortunately he does not indicate at what point experience will show the futility of endeavouring to eliminate effects (war), while leaving untouched the cause (capitalism). It simply doesn’t occur to this political genius to pursue the only worth-while policy, that of telling the working class that wars are the outcome of the struggle between hostile capitalist States, or groups of States, and that this struggle has its origin in the greed for raw-materials, spheres of investment and exploitation, and for markets where the surplus-value wrung from the working class may be realised. The only honest way is to make dear to the workers that so long as capitalism exists so will war or the possibility of war—and that not all the “peace alliances," not all the “collective security,” will alter this indisputable fact.

Mr. Strachey is not in the least dismayed that his much-vaunted collective security might conceivably lead to war. In discussing sanctions and their likely effect, he says, page 196: “It was perfectly clear that the fear of war did not in 1935 restrain the leaders of the British Labour movement from opposing Fascist aggression.” And then goes on to say: “In this our leaders were perfectly right” (our italics). Yes, Mr. Strachey, the task of converting the workers into cannon fodder for the purpose of defending the interests of their own capitalist class is a task in which our “leaders" will never fail. How long will’ it be, Mr. Strachey, before you, together with the Pollits, the Gallaghers, the Bevins, Daltons and Citrines, are urging the workers to sacrifice their lives in defence of one form of capitalist administration (democracy) against another form of capitalist administration, namely, Fascism?

Our standpoint on these matters is quite dear. A social system which can only exist by ruthlessly exploiting and condemning to poverty and insecurity vast masses of the people in the interests of a minority, a system which uses the most refined scientific methods for fashioning instruments for accomplishing death and destruction on a colossal scale, which condemns women to the production of human cannon fodder, or makes them cannon fodder themselves, such a system, no matter under what political guise it may be administered, is clearly in irreconcilable conflict with even the most elementary interests of the majority of the people. Fascism or Socialism, Peace or War? When all is said and done, the final answer to these and similar questions rests with the working class, and with the working class alone. The Socialist Party of Great Britain has dedicated itself to the task of seeing that the working class gives the right answer, and it is the duty, and should be the privilege, of all who understand the Socialist position, to give us their whole-hearted support in this work.

For Mr. Strachey, “ Socialism is an abstraction." And no doubt it is—for him. But in the task indicated above there is nothing abstract—it involves the fearless recognition of social realities; it means hard work and a grim determination to reach our goal. But this is something the Stracheys are not prepared to face.

This does not constitute an exhaustive review of the book in question. To deal with all the evasions, half-truths, and dishonest ambiguities would demand a volume. Mr. Strachey has travelled far since he wrote the “Coming Struggle for Power," and he has not improved in the travelling. But perhaps we can best conclude by saying of Mr: John Strachey what Mr. John Strachey once said of the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald : “ One would not . . . like to say . . . that he had abandoned Socialism. It is rather that he has emptied the concept of every shred of meaning."

Arthur Mertons

The City (1938)

A Short Story from the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

He was very proud of his city. As one of its honoured citizens he had an “ open sesame " to most of its places of interest and he had invited me to spend a few days in examining its treasures. There it lay, bathed in sunshine, on a beautiful morning in early summer. Magnificent. Glorious. Wonderful was the view it presented on both banks of a famous river. Our first visit was to the Cathedral for, as he said, “ It was most fitting that we pay our respects to the House of God before we went further afield to the houses of man."

Presently we emerged from a long avenue of delightful trees which were already showing well in their new dress and, Oh! what a poem in stone confronted us with the sunshine lighting up its delicate traceries.

It would take a facile pen and a ready writer to describe its many charms and the marvel of its fashioning. Even its gargoyles were pleasant to look upon, whilst the entrance and its towers were extractors of cries of sheer delight. We entered, and as the light fell softly through the stained-glass windows on the eastern side one felt a delicious calm and restfulness in the joy of it.

Here was a masterpiece of Art which put to shame the crudities of Nature. A pile of splendour raised to an Idea. “ What say you of it?" cried he with rapture. “ Exquisite,” said I, “ but lead on."

From the House of God to the palace of the reigning monarch was but a few moments' journey, and my friend having secured permission to enter passed with me into the splendidly laid-out grounds, and later into various parts of the palace itself.

The whole ensemble of palace and its environs were gorgeous in the extreme. Acres upon acres of grassy and well-kept lawns.

Flowers rich in colour and delicate in perfume. Plants and vegetables fit to adorn a king’s table and apartments grew in profusion in their allotted beds. Thousands of rooms filled with works of art from the world over. The artistry and intelligence of thousands of human beings resulting in the production of articles to gladden the eye and staggering in their multiplicity and range. What stupendous efforts had been made to build and maintain this wonder palace. A king and queen lived there.

What an auspicious opening to a round of sight-seeing. There was just a promise that one might have a surfeit of good things from the city’s store before one had finished. The princely houses. The ducal mansions. The luxurious abodes of the financiers. The delightful villas of the merchants. The enormous and stately hotels. The towering stores and shopping centres, displaying costly dresses and brilliant gems, were there in enormous number. Of other institutions and buildings which claimed our attention there were many, all of which paid eloquent tribute to the people of the city in their desire to make it the greatest of its kind and a standing challenge to the world.

There were libraries, replete with books and manuscripts, which were a pleasure to its citizens and a source of deep learning to scholars from the rest of the world. Art galleries from which in serried rows spoke the masterpieces of the centuries. Museums which told on their shelves and in their cases the history of the earth and the gambols of the dinosaurs. Zoological gardens which were stocked with animals from every clime, showing their natural habits in conditions as near as possible to the country of their birth. Wooded parks and extensive open spaces in plenty, and sweet gardens were there without stint. Educational facilities were many and eagerly sought after.

Three whole days had been occupied in visiting these places of interest and charm, and what ecstacy one had felt in the doing of it. My friend beamed with pride as he saw my marked appreciation of it all. "What do you think of it ? Does it not exceed your wildest dreams?” he enquired elatedly. “ It does,” I replied, “ but have you shown me all of your city?” “Well! Yes! All that is really of importance,” he said rather hastily. “ Then suppose we spend a day or two in exploring the unimportant," I answered.

Accordingly, on the following morning we set out on a visit to No-matter-land, and this is what rolled before our eyes.

Slummy sites which made one feel sick at the mere passing. Mean streets, filthy hovels, awful abodes, smoke, stench, grime and grit. Miserable-looking brick boxes with a few small compartments, more or less weatherproof, which were called homes and which were fearfully overcrowded. Here and there buildings which aimed at a more respectable status, but which bore without and within them signs of a fierce struggle against poverty and penury. Cheap musical instruments and tawdry furniture. Rubbishy pictures and trashy books, common ornaments, tinsel and glass. Cheap cotton cloth, shoddy dresses. Silks which had never known a worm. Grubby food. Fly-blown meat. Dust and disease-germ-covered eatables of every description attracted your attention as they were exposed in the shops for sale.

Miles and miles of these streets in which underfed and ill-clad boys and girls, dirty arid muck-covered, disported themselves. Graceless women in evident despair, disgust or distress, their pale faces and attenuated forms showing dearly the long one-sided fight against illness, child-bearing and domestic economy.

Men whose heavy labours had sapped their last ounce of energy and intellectual appetite sought escape from the tedium of their lot in many diverse and unedifying ways.

Hospitals and charitable institutions working to limit endeavouring to give adequate amelioration and convenience to humans whose whole existence was united to the demon pain.

Prisons, workhouses, mental homes and semi-State-aided philanthropies all busy administering to the needs of a vast community living perpetually in economic distress. My friend was dumb as we passed through these places, and he was relieved when the journey was over.

I had not forgotten the fashioning of the House of God, nor the aesthetic splendours of the Palace, nor the hundred and one pleasing things which had been our first delight.

Turning to him, I said: “ Who are the people who spend their lives amid all this squalor and poverty?"

Lowering his head to hide his pain-stricken face he answered: “ These people, my friend, are they who have built the House for God, the Palace for the King, and filled The City with its treasures."

B. F. L.

East Ham Parliamentary Area (1938)

Party News from the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

In the late 1930s, it was the intention of the East Ham branch of the SPGB to contest the East Ham North parliamentary constituency at the forthcoming General Election and, as evidenced above, serious and systematic activity was undertaken to target the area with socialist propaganda. Frank Grainger was selected as a  Party candidate - only to be replaced later by Clifford Groves when he dropped out of Party activity - and a General Election would have been held in 1940 at the latest. However, war intervened and the next General Election did not take place until 1945, by which time the SPGB had switched their attentions to Paddington North in West London, where Clifford Groves had the honour of being the first SPGB parliamentary candidate.

The SPGB did eventually contest the East Ham South parliamentary constituency when Harry Young was the  party's candidate at the 1950 General Election.

General Open Air Propaganda, August. (1938)

Party News from the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Editorial: Socialists and A.R.P. (1938)

Editorial from the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

The capitalist class is perhaps the most harassed property-owning class that history has produced. Problems and fears press in upon it from all sides. The individual capitalist may wake up one morning and find himself dispossessed of his ownership or of his share (part ownership) in some industrial undertaking which he never saw, of whose processes he was entirely ignorant. He might be fleeced by the sharks of his own class and nationality who are the more cunning; or his investments in some distant part of the earth might be stolen from him by the growth and expansion of some new capitalist power, like Japan in China or Italy in Abyssinia. It is very distressing—for the capitalist. The distress is the more manifest when threats to their ownership press acutely upon any one national section of the capitalist class. Socialists do not share the distress of the master class. Rather do they seize the opportunity to show that capitalism’s contradictions can only disappear in Socialism.

One persistent problem for the capitalist is to ensure the acquiescence of the working-class in the property-owning rights of its masters. But capitalist interests demand much more than that. If any national section of the capitalist class is to survive in its struggles with its competitors it must have a working class willing to defend its interests. It is the perpetual concern of the capitalist class to arouse that willingness. It is a task which inevitably brings out capitalism’s contradictions. For example, there are many thousands of workers attached to various religious organisations who are opposed to war despite the assurances of Archbishops that it has the approval of the Almighty: there are many thousands of working-class supporters of the various political parties who see through the smoke screens of pretence set up by their leaders. (The Editor of “Forward,” for example, espouses an attitude to war approximating to the Socialist position despite official Labour Party policy.) These tendencies are possibly more widely spread than before the war, 1914-18. The reason is not far to seek. Modern war brings whole populations within the area of military operations. All have to be regimented and disciplined in one vast co-ordinated military machine. It adds to the problems of the capitalist class that the conditions which more and more demand loyalty to its interests at the same time makes that loyalty difficult to ensure. Nevertheless the immediate difficulties of the capitalists are perhaps not insurmountable. Attempts are being made to canalise opposition to war into channels which are linked up with the preparation for war.

Air Raid Precautions provide an example. Here the opportunity arises for many who claim to be opposed to war to engage in an activity which does not appear to be in conflict with their opinions. The situation is on a par with the conscientious objector who would agree to certain war work on humanitarian grounds, but would object to being a soldier.

The position of the Socialist Party on the question is quite clear. We are opposed to war not on humanitarian grounds, but on the grounds that wars arise out of the struggle between competing sections of the capitalists over the question of the possession of the wealth of the world and matters relating to it. Being opposed to war on these grounds we are therefore opposed to preparation for war. Moreover, we shall express our opposition to it at every opportunity. That is not to say a Socialist will never be found taking part in the prosecution of war as a soldier or in some other form of war activity. The pressure exerted in a war-mad world where the majority were against him would perhaps be too strong for resistance in some cases. But this is no argument against the correctness of the Socialist position. Our attitude on war cannot be toned down because we happen to be in a minority or because any other attitude at any given moment appears to be more consistent with the humanitarian instincts of social beings. The Socialist attitude to war and war preparations is sound because the degree to which it became accented by the workers would to that extent make war more difficult (if not impossible) for the capitalists to pursue. It does not appear likely that workers are yet in a position to accept the Socialist position on war in any great numbers. Nor would it be reasonable to expect workers who do not accept the Socialist case against capitalism generally, to understand and accept our attitude to war. Nevertheless, that provides no grounds whatever for compromise. To water down our opposition to war in any of its aspects would be to lessen the possibilities of its more general acceptance should conditions develop favourably for it.

A Thought for the Times (1938)

From the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is evening. One of those warm evenings after rain. There are heavy clouds over most of the sky with a steely reflection from the sun, which is sinking in a dull red mist. On the lake the swallows are swooping and skimming along the surface of the water in swift waves of flight. The swallows are numerous and they dip to the water, rise over the island, and circle back again. Here and there a boat moves quietly along with the soft, leisurely plash of oars. Strolling by the water one is filled with a peace that it seems impossible to disturb.

Three girls pass by talking. One of them is German and she is saying to her companions, in the quaint English of a foreigner: “I learnt English first, and then French."

Suddenly the quietness is broken by the throb of an engine, and an aeroplane wheels in a circle out of the clouds above. Immediately an element of dread stirs one to give a frightened glance up. There is something ominous in the drone of the engine overhead. Is it a bombing machine? Whatever it may be it is a harbinger of the force that can shatter to pieces this peaceful scene.

The three girls have crossed the bridge and are strolling along on the other side of the lake, talking to each other with the animation of joyous youth. They have no quarrel with each other, although they belong to different nations that may be at one another’s throats at any moment.

What is it that stirs up peaceful and friendly people to make war on one another? War with all its bloodshed and destruction; its maiming of youth and desolating of homes; its glorification of poor shivering boys in trenches, longing pitifully for the home fires so many of them never live to see.

What are wars for, anyhow? What was the last great war fought for? Not national glory, not democracy, not even to safeguard the rights of small nations. No! Those things were, and are, only blinds; clouds of high sounding phrases to hide the sordid reality. That reality behind the false, enticing phrases was—profit. The struggle between sections of wealthy capitalists for freedom to exploit and wring profit from the work of property less wage workers in different parts of the earth.

Mr. Chamberlain, speaking at a National Government demonstration at Kettering on July 2nd, described the present world situation in the following words:—

   It is a striking fact, and a tragic one, that at the present time foreign affairs are dominating the minds of the people of this country, almost to the exclusion of subjects which, in ordinary times, would have occupied their whole attention. Indeed, we are not alone in that respect, for I think all the peoples of the world are asking themselves this same question : “Are we to be allowed to live our lives in peace or are we to be plunged against our will into war?”
  When I look round the world I must say I am appalled at the prospects. War, accompanied by horrible barbarities, inflicted either wittingly or unwittingly upon civilian populations, is going on to-day in China, and much nearer to us in Spain.
    Almost every week we hear rumours of war on this question or on that in other parts of the world, and all the principal nations are spending their precious savings on devising and manufacturing the most efficient instruments for the destruction of one another. I wonder whether, since the world began, has it ever seen such a spectacle of human madness and folly?—(Sunday Times, July 3rd.)

These are the words of the Prime Minister of the Government of one of the oldest and most important imperialist countries. The only solution he can offer is to build up mightier armaments “to preserve peace.”

This is the inglorious end to which centuries of civilization has brought the most advanced nations of the earth.

Does capitalism deserve to be supported any longer? It brings hard work, misery and desolation, in peace and in war, to the mass of the people. It is time those who bear the sufferings took time to think how those sufferings could be abolished. The only way to do so is to destroy the source from which they flow—the private ownership of the means of production.

Gilmac. 

"New" Ideas With Whiskers On Them (1938)

From the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the second week of July the News Chronicle printed an article deploring the miseries suffered by emigrants to Canada and discussing a new scheme that proposed to bring organisation into the matter.

Looking through an old magazine (The Lady's Magazine) for January, 1820, the writer came upon the following: —

   A difficulty has long presented itself, in contemplating the subject of emigration to Canada, and other Colonies, and parts of North America, that while, on the one hand, we are told of the abundance to be found in those countries, and the room which they offer for innumerable emigrants; on the other we find that, of the multitudes who have gone in quest of the promised blessings, a vast proportion have encountered the severest distress.

The writer then goes on to explain a scheme proposed by a Mr. Kendal for assisting emigrants and providing them with information. Institutions for this purpose were to be established in London and in the Colonies.

That is over a hundred years ago and still the same problems arise and with them the same bright ideas for abolishing the problems—problems that defy abolition as long as capitalism, with it's passion for exploiting wage labourers, remains.

Gilmac.

Communist Welcome to King and Queen (1938)

From the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

L'Humanité  (July 19th) comments on the visit to Paris of the King and Queen of England as follows:—

   King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, who acceded to the Throne following an attempt to gain personal power by Edward VIII—an attempt thwarted by British democracy—will to-day be the guests of Paris.
   We communists rejoice whole-heartedly at the manifestation of Franco-British understanding of which this visit is the occasion. Peace, we believe, can and must be preserved by the union of democratic nations. England has her place—an essential place—in this circle of peaceful peoples.
    . . . We remember that it was England who, after 1871, generously welcomed Camélinat and the exiles of the Commune. And when we go to London our steps naturally turn to the cemetery which shelters the remains of Karl Marx, founder of Scientific Socialism.
    But, above all, we keep in our memory the programme of “Mein Kampf": that is to ''Isolate France," that is to say to separate her from Great Britain, such is the dream of the leaders of the III Reich. The interests of Peace demand that this scheme must be prevented. We applaud the visit of these rulers in the measure in which it is devoted to this end.
     But it is not to this reactionary England that our sympathy and good feeling is extended during these festival days;.  . . .
       . . . Our good feeling is extended to that England which fights on the front of Collective Security; that England in the name of whom leading bourgeois such as Lord Cecil, Churchill, Lloyd George, and prelates like the Dean of Canterbury, pronounce regularly such grave warnings          Long live an Entente of the Democracies! Long live a circle of Peace.

Anyone that knows anything about the present fomenting struggle between the capitalists of Europe knows that the visit of the King and Queen to Paris was a piece of Anglo-French (democratic) big- fist shaking at (Nazi) Germany, and only distinguished in degree from the methods of the latter.

W. A. T.

Stepfather Stalin (1938)

From the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

May Socialist Standard quoted Tom Mann’s 

“The great march past was extremely impressive, every section of the fighting forces in full equipment, telling of millions of others, ready on the instant to spring to the defence of The Fatherland.”

A few facts (mainly derived from Soviet sources) will assist the reader to glimpse what this ”Fatherland” means for the Russian underdog.

It is difficult to convey to the average reader the obstacles which are deliberately placed in the way by the Soviet Union to prevent the truth leaking through; there is, after all, a long tradition among the governing clique in Russia of hiding facts skilfully; even the cute Catherine “the Great” could be taken in as to the real condition of the peasantry by her cunning ministers (all the sinister features of the Soviet regime have their roots deep in the past). Sheer weight of suppression of free speech and a rigid censorship of writing, eked out by shameless misrepresentation in other countries by their respective “Communist Parties,” renders the task of getting the truth across an exceedingly difficult one; it must be grasped that branches of the "Comintern” outside Russia are, in effect, contingents of the Soviet Foreign Office. It is not generally known that the Daily Worker repress advertisements of the Socialist Party, and even of an organ like Controversy, which, at any rate, opens its columns to all parties, including the Communist Party; as significant a straw is the fact that "Intourist” visitors to Russia have to undertake not to stray from a very strictly conducted fold.

But the truth is gradually seeping through. André Gide, a foremost man of letters in France, was prepared four years ago “to die for the Soviet Union”; to-day, on revisiting Russia, he writes: ” It was the steepness of your bluff which made the downfall of my confidence.” BLUFF!!

A member of the Communist Party, at a meeting on Clapham Common last year, said to a speaker of the Socialist Party, on being cross- questioned : —

 "We’ve got to bluff the people” (was he “purged” for blurting out this naive admission indicative of the general outlook of his party ?).

A few outstanding indications of what “Fatherland” means for peasant and proletarian: The News Chronicle of January 4th, 1936, reproduced a photograph of “12-year-old Mamulokat Nakangova, wearing the order of Lenin, which she has received for harvest work during her holidays, addressing a meeting in Moscow." Do the daughters of Kalinin and other surplus-value eaters harvest during holidays? Kalinin (alive up to date) cabled condolences to Queen Mary on the death of George V.

A French miner (Kléber Legay) visited Russia. His report appeared in the Daily Telegraph, December 13th-16th, 1937. (It is simply silly to snarl Daily Telegraph!! Are the facts recorded by the President of the Miners' Union true? Has any refutation been attempted? Motives for inserting report by D.T. are irrelevant.)

“On the way to the Red Square we passed crowds of people, most of whom were poorly dressed, while many were dirty.

   

“Everywhere there were representations of the genius Stalin.” (Visitors to Paris Exhibition last year will call to mind the impossibility of being out of range of Stalin’s mug in the Russian Pavilion.) J. C. Taylor, in Popular Psychological Fallacies (an excellent book), gives evidence of the hysteria produced by this leader worship (p. 187). He quotes “ the poet Kazak Djambul": —

   There is none left with whom the writers can compare thee.
   The poets have no longer enough pearls to describe thee !

Pravda (August 28th, 1936) weighs in with: — (

O great Stalin, O ruler of the peoples,
  Thou who did’st curse mankind to be born
    . . . Thou sun reflected by millions of hearts, etc. 

Which, as Bret Harte remarked, “is coming it strong,” but, as J. C. Taylor comments: “These are the words not of genuine poets, but of men who are terrified into irrational behaviour.”

Disappointed with the dwellings of the “rulers of their country,” the deputation decided to forgo any more visits, but on pressing they consented. “Our visit was a shocking disappointment.” Legay (troublesome fellow) asked a few questions on his own. “What do you eat?" Miner to wife: “ Show these comrades the stewpot.” With great reluctance the contents were revealed: beetroot leaves and potatoes with a little lard. “He refuses to eat it,” added the wife. Discontented, unpatriotic brute; shortly after, the officials “explained” : “The man was drunk”—a son of Belial, flown with insolence and — beetroot juice.

Yvon’s “What Has Become of the Russian Revolution" (One shilling; order from 42, Great Dover Street) should be read by all who desire to learn the facts. A manual labourer, eleven years' experience in Russia and an ex-Communist, he writes with knowledge.

Poor little Kama apparently worked voluntarily during her holidays; the fathers of the Kamas "have to implore their bosses for permission to work during their vacation. . . . We know old fellows who have laboured 50 years in the same factory in Moscow and now get 35 roubles as retirement pension, the price of two kilos of butter." The merry “homes" of Moscow: “In Ural the complaint in every house is 'bed-bugs, bed-bugs.' "

There is a tale told at teachers' meetings of a child in a poor school who refused a picture for a prize because he had no wall to hang it on: his family occupied the centre of a room. They manage these things better in Moscow. Frequent advertisement in newspaper: “ Wanted, an angle” said “angle" being a corner of a “common" room.

Russia’s “houses of rest" for “the people" bring painful memories to some of certain “convalescent homes" in England—the advantages, on the whole, however, being certainly not on the side of Russia. Dormitories contain 30 to 40 sleepers. “You dare not tarry too long on the beach for fear of losing your meal or being disciplined." The final end of “rest" for the people is set forth in a pamphlet issued by the Soviet “trade unions": “The repose of our Socialist worker ought not to be the old 'rest after labour.' but should be transformed into ‘rest for labour, rest for the raising of the workers' productivity'." Sounds very reminiscent of our old friend “Rationalisation,” “Business Efficiency," carried to the n'th degree, but Russia To-day assures us that the bug-ridden homes, eked out by semi-penal "homes of rest," are “the lot of those who toil and dictate to those who don’t."

Little Kama chose her father unwisely. Had she chosen a Stalin, a Molotof, a Vorosilhof, or even a “specialist” worker, she could have shared in sumptuous apartments, “furnished with a special housemaid’s room.” (Note that wages range from 20,000 roubles down to 80 roubles.)

Would the process of “Building Socialism" by the Communist Party of this country entail penalisation of the Kamas for the benefit of the great-brained Pollitts and Gallachers?

Claims for a general wide-spread, all-round amelioration of conditions for the worker must be received with the utmost caution. Yvon asserts: “The Russian worker under Tsarism had simple but plentiful fare, foodstuffs were cheap, daily he ate his food and kasha; he had sugar, lard, tea and good bread in large quantity.” Acquaintance with Russian novels, let alone works of economic writers, like Stepaiak, will bear this out.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain stands four square upon the belief that Socialism can only be attained by a working class invincibly strong through Socialist knowledge; all its activities are directed towards the spreading of this knowledge.

Reginald.

Blogger's Note:

There was a follow up to this article in the December 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard, where a reader in Manchester took exception to some of 'Reginald's' statements.