Here and There: A Labour Party Trumpeter (1936)

The Here and There column from the July 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Labour Party Trumpeter

Mr. Herbert Morrison has been on a lecture tour in the United States of America. His object was to interest American audiences in the League of Nations and the policy of the British Labour Party. According to a report in the Chicago Daily News for April 24th, he said: —

I think there is misunderstanding about the British Labour Party, because you haven’t had many visitors who represent average official opinion of this Party; more of your visitors have represented the extreme Left Wing of the Party or else the Independent Labour Party, which fights us. A British Labour Government would be well fitted to co-operate with your country whether it has a Republican or Democratic Government.

In effect, Mr. Morrison is saying that the Labour Party is “well fitted" to administer the capitalist system. As Socialists we do not need to be assured of this. We have said so for thirty years and more. Members and supporters of the Labour Party who have denied it, might, however, ponder the point again.

 

I.L.P Confusion and Hysteria

The above quotation from the Chicago Daily News was reproduced and unfavourably commented upon in the New Leader for May 29th, in a column headed "This is Capitalism." The I.L.P. boasted for many years that the Labour Party was its child. And a proud parent it was, too. But after thirty years of telling the workers that the Labour Party was “Socialist," the I.L.P. discovered that it was not. After taking so long to discover that the Labour Party is not a Socialist party, it could reasonably be assumed that it would not easily be forgotten. Let us see. The New Leader for May 22nd discusses the various proposals for a "United Front." It dismissed the idea of a "People's Front," such as exists in France and Spain, and which includes Liberals, as unsupportable because of its capital character. The I.L.P. argues for a "Workers' Front."

It is a united Working Class Front without any alliance or compromise with the Liberal and League capitalists.

It is a united Working Class Front between the Labour Party, the Co-operative Party, the I.L.P., and the Communist Party on a maximum agreed programme, with liberty of criticism and action beyond this programme.

It is common action between them on a Federal basis—an alliance of partners, not a rigid and unreal unity such as affiliation to the Labour Party would involve—in order to join forces against our common enemy the capitalist class and its political parties, and to realise common aims.

It will be noticed that the I.L.P. refuses to enter an “alliance or compromise with the Liberal and League capitalists," but will enter a “United Front" with the Labour Party (which it denounces as a capitalist party) "in order to join forces against our common enemy, the capitalist class and its political parties, and to realise common aims." Join with capitalist parties to fight the capitalist class “to realise our common aims." Phew!

Again, in the New Leader, May 29th, Mr. John McGovern, M.P., in a letter to the Editor, complains that the Editor of the I.L.P. inter-party journal, Controversy, deleted a statement from an article by him (McGovern) that C. A. Smith, Fenner Brockway and C. L. R. James had stated that they “would bear arms and join the army if they were in Abyssinia . . .  on behalf of the Emperor."

In his reply, C. A. Smith rises to noble heights: ". . .  I now repeat that had I been in Abyssinia only conflicting duties or sheer cowardice would have prevented my fighting against the Fascist invaders." Twenty years ago the capitalist class persuaded millions of workers to fight in war for capitalist interests with the cry of “Defend poor little Belgium." To-day, Mr. C. A. Smith, a leader in the self-styled revolutionary I.L.P., has let himself into a similar trap. Poor Abyssinia! Drive out the Fascist invaders! For whom and for what end?

Communists and the Labour Party

The Communist Party has applied to the Labour Party for affiliation. The correspondence relating to the application has been published in a penny pamphlet by the Communist Party. In one letter to the Secretary of the Labour Party, Mr. Pollitt says: “The Communist Party, if affiliated to the Labour Party, would certainly work, as many of your most energetic and sincere members are now working, to strengthen the policy and principles of the Labour Party for the achievement of Socialism, in accordance with the democratic principles provided in the Labour Party constitution, and would at the same time in the daily struggle loyally carry out all agreed upon decisions and mobilise all upon whom it has influence to take part."

Mr. Pollitt goes on to speak approvingly of the “People's Front" as it exists in France. He asks of the Secretary of the Labour Party: “Is it not a fact that the United Front has saved France from Fascism ? Is it not a fact that so profound has this experience been that the United Front has broadened out into the People's Front, embracing large sections of the middle class and all who fear Fascism and war."

Notice "embracing large sections of the middle classes." Even Mr. Pollitt, accustomed as he is to right-about-face changes in Communist Party policy, hesitates to point out that a People's Front on the French model means an alliance with the Liberals. Workers whose memories are not so conveniently short as Mr. Pollitt's will remember that not so long ago the Labour Party was referred to in communist journals as "traitorous," “Social-Fascist" and "war-mongering." The Labour Party has not forgotten, and there seems no prospect of a " United Front " just yet! It is an amusing thought, though, that we may yet see the erstwhile advocates of the violent overthrow of capitalism reproaching the Labour Party for being “too extreme." It is really very confusing.

Poverty, Health and Housing

In a review of a book called Poverty and Public Health, by G. C. M'Gonigle and J. Kirby (Gollancz, 6s.), the News Chronicle (June 8th, 1936) gives some interesting figures on malnutrition and housing.

The close connection between wages and health can be seen from the following table: —

Wages 25s. to 35s., death rate 25.96 per 1,000.

"          35s   "  45s.      "      "    19.34  "       "

"          45s   "  55s.      "      "    19.23  "       "

"          55s   "  65s.      "      "    15.13  "       "

"          65s   "  75s.      "      "    13.51  "       "

"          75s   and up,.    "      "    11.52  "       "

The death rate among workers whose wages are less than two pounds a week is therefore nearly twice as high as among workers whose wages are between three and four pounds a week.

Other interesting facts are mentioned. Far example, an investigation carried out in Stockton revealed that a slum population, after being moved to a new housing estate, was showing a death rate of 33.55 per thousand instead of the expected rate of 8.12 per thousand. That is to say, four times as many deaths as should have occurred were occurring among these ex-slum dwellers now living under “ ideal ** conditions. The plight of unemployed workers on new housing estates is particularly appalling. On one such estate it was found that the amount of money available for four was 2s. 10½d. a week per man. Contrast this with the cost of the British Medical Association's minimum diet, which in 1932 was 4s. 10½d., and which to-day. Dr. M'Gonigle says, is 7s. Our reformers, if they face these awkward facts at all, will doubtless advocate more reforms; reforms catch votes anyway.

Wage-Slaves and Health

Labour Management for February has an interesting article called “ One-Day Absenteeism,*' by Dr. Garland, the medical officer at a large factory which employs thousands of women workers. The doctor argues for greater tolerance for the worker who takes an occasional day off from work. The occasional day off would have a “tonic" and “stimulating" effect on return to work. Workers at the factory where Dr. Garland is employed are shut out for the day, and lose the day's wages, if they are not within the factory gates when the hooter blows. On the other hand, if the worker is away on account of sickness for one day or more, she (or he) does not lose her wages. The result is, according to Dr. Garland, that many workers who are absent because of being shut out in the morning, produce medical certificates to explain their absence for the day. Some of these certificates are for complaints that would lay the average person low for several weeks. The panel doctor in working-class districts apparently cannot afford to risk unpopularity by refusing certificates. His income from medical certificates, at one shilling each, even on a small panel of only 1,000 patients, means an addition to his income, according to Dr. Garland, of probably one hundred pounds a year. On the other hand, says the doctor, “The average worker is rarely feeling so fit and sound that he or she hasn’t an odd pain or ache somewhere that can be magnified into gastritis, enteritis, tonsilitis, or some other ‘ itis ' . . . ."

A curious mix-up which reveals how dependent is the position of the medical practitioner and how near many workers are to working no longer in this life.

Changes in Russia

The U.S.S.R. is introducing a parliamentary regime, or at least some of it. The much-vaunted Soviet system of “pure proletarian democracy" is to be replaced by a parliamentary form of government, which, until recently, was looked upon with withering and pitying contempt by the fervent communist. There are to be two chambers, direct voting, the abolition of plural votes (the town workers, under the Soviet constitution, had proportionately more votes than the peasants), the secret ballot, and much of the paraphernalia of western parliamentary government. Any organised group of citizens, we are told, will be able to include names in the list of candidates for parliamentary seats. Louis Fischer tells us in Reynolds News (May 31st, 1936), “The new Constitution contains numerous provisions sensational in their significance. For instance, an interesting declaration will be made about private property."

That declaration should be interesting.

Something else is interesting too. The Russian Government is seeking pacts and alliances with the western parliamentary countries. Shall we yet see another "War to Save Democracy" ?

The Passing of the Crisis

The Ministry of Labour returns issued at the end of May make interesting reading. The number of people at work reached the figure of 10,831,000, which is the highest in the history of unemployed insurance, and excludes the recent inclusion of agricultural workers in unemployment insurance. The number of unemployed was 1,703,941, as against nearly three million, three or four years ago. The facts are significant. Capitalism, once having reached the lowest pitch in the slump, recovered, and is now, once again, going through a period of expansion. There is nothing new in this; it has been the course in every industrial crisis for the past one hundred and fifty years. The pendulum in capitalist production having swung back must, by its very nature, swing forward again. But where are the shoddy economists, capitalist and self-styled Socialist alike, who only yesterday were telling the world that the end of the capitalist system was at hand? Have they relegated the end to an uncertain future date, as the Christians have the second coming of Christ ? The chances are that if the workers allow capitalism to continue long enough to have another crisis they will be prophesying as wrongly, dismally and noisily as ever.

It is curious how events can upset flimsy minds. The New Leader published articles about eight years ago eulogising American mass production methods. Henry Ford, we were told, had shown Marx to be wrong. The New Leader has since discovered many new “lines.” Others talked glibly of the crisis which had lasted since the last war—the mere fact of there being unemployment continuously since then was evidence enough, for them, of a continuous crisis. A little knowledge would show how capitalism really works. The recurring periods of depression and expansion, with the consequent increase and decrease in unemployment, are the very essence of capitalism. These in themselves will not bring it to an end. This will only be done when the.workers understand that the appalling poverty and insecurity which exist side by side with immense wealth in periods of depression and expansion alike, can be abolished by the social ownership of the means of life.

 

The Passing of a Labour Leader

Bruce Clavering has an article in the Sunday Referee (May 24th, 1936), about the life of J. H. Thomas. Certain facts stand out and emphasise how useful he has been to the capitalist class. In 1911, the article says, "the railwaymen wanted to strike. Thomas saw Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer. He launched an impassioned appeal, but Lloyd George was unmoved.  "I, too, am a Welshman/ said L.G.”

“Then the Chancellor made his own appeal. He pointed out that the Kaiser had issued a virtual ultimatum over Morocco, banking on the trouble in England keeping Britain’s hands tied. Thomas responded to the appeal and called off the strike.” 

"During the war he swelled the army with more recruits than almost any other single man. As an Englishman he was a patriot . . . . he achieved the best for his country and for himself.” 

Trotsky’s verdict on Thomas was, “This incredible lackey.”

Whether J. H. Thomas was sincere, insincere, rogue or fool does not interest us. He served the master-class faithfully and well, and in doing so was supported enthusiastically by the railway workers. His usefulness to the master-class and, to some extent, his popularity with them, was because he could command an enormous working-class following.

His life aptly illustrates the perils for the working-class in “leadership” and the need for the working-class to have knowledge of Socialist principles.

Harry Waite

From Trinidad (1965)

From the December 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

Things in Trinidad are warming up. Elections are next year and so far we have four political parties in the fray. The P.N.M. (Peoples National Movement) under the leadership of Dr. Eric Williams, is still the hot favourite to continue, while the D.L.P. (Democratic Labour Party) is losing ground. Although still officially the Opposition, it is led by London-based Dr. Capildeo. A comparatively new party, the Liberals, led by Mr. Farquhar, is gaining what the D.L.P. is losing, and the last-formed party, the

Farmers and Workers Party, is led by Mr. C. L. R. James.

Earlier this year the Government passed a Bill aimed at curbing strikes. The Bill is known as the Industrial Stabilisation Act (I.S.A). The Prime Minister announced there were too many strikes in the country, which interfered with the economy and frightened away foreign or would-be investors, so therefore the Bill is justified. This Act has curtailed the functions of the Trade Unions, as all disputes must go to the Industrial Court for its ruling. There is no appeal against judgment and since all those taking part in strike action in any way can be jailed for long periods, five Trade Unions have got their tails between their legs. As a result the various Unions are divided on the issue, some for the Act, others against it. The trick of the capitalists to divide the working class is self-evident. On the scene at this time is Mr. C. L. R. James, who contends that the I.S.A. is a violation not only of the Constitution, but of the rights of the workers, who are reduced to nothing but slaves. He is joined by Mr. G. Weekes, President-General of the powerful oil workers’ Union, and slowly other Union leaders are following. The Unions have now obtained the services of Mr. Platt-Mills, Q.C., to challenge the validity of the I.S.A. in the light of the Constitution.

To a Socialist one thing is clear. Whatever the outcome—the workers will have nothing to gain.

Corbie, 

Trinidad.

Repudiation (2014)

Book Review from the February 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

State Capitalism and World Revolution. By CLR James. PM Press. 2013

CLR James will perhaps be better known for his book on the slave rebellion in Haiti during the French Revolution, The Black Jacobins, and for his writings on cricket, but at one time he was a leading Trotskyist.

Originally an internal document circulated in 1950 within the so-called ‘Fourth International’ which Trotsky and a handful of his followers had set up in 1938, State Capitalism and World Revolution was a contribution to a discussion on its future political orientation, and it has been republished here. The ‘orthodox’ majority wanted to stick to Trotsky’s own view that Russia was still a ‘workers state’ because of the state ownership and planned economy that existed there and so was better than capitalism and deserving of working class support.

James showed that state ownership and a planned economy was not socialism and that it was absurd to describe as belonging to the ‘workers’ a state in which the workers were oppressed and exploited. He went further and argued that this type of state capitalism was the future of capitalism and that in supporting it the orthodox Trotskyists were in effect supporting capitalism. This was true then and it is still true today.

James was wrong about full state capitalism being the next stage of capitalism (but in the 1940s he was not alone in making this mistake) and also  about still regarding the Bolshevik coup as a ’proletarian revolution’. In the preface to the 1956 re-edition (reproduced here), however, he explained:

  The political conclusions of this economic analysis can be summed up in its total repudiation of the Leninist theory and practice of the Vanguard Party for our era.

State Capitalism and Revolution is in fact a total repudiation of Trotskyism and worth reading for that.

Adam Buick

Stalin — Three Portraits (1940)

Book Reviews from the June 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Stalin: A Critical Survey of Bolshevism by Boris Souvarine (Secker & Warburg, 15s.)
Stalin by Isaac Don Levine (Newnes; Private Lives Library; about 2s. 6d.)
Stalin by Stephen Graham (Hutchinson’s "Pocket Specials,” 7d.)

As an essay in “applied” psychology alone, Souvarine’s work, “Stalin” (Seeker & Warburg, 15s.), would occupy a high place; as a piece of historical interpretation it is in line with Marx’s classic “18th Brumaire.” While its 700 pages demand close attention, it is difficult to suggest how the conciseness which is a marked feature of Marx's work could have been attained here by Souvarine; analysis of historical events to-day is becoming increasingly difficult, complicated as it is (among other things) by powerful political movements claiming to be “Marxist” and “Socialist,” which are Reformist in intent, and therefore essentially capitalist in the outcome.

In Souvarine’s work, Economic Forces, shaping big human ends, are never lost sight of. As far as the working class is concerned, capitalism is a divinity which shapes our ends rough . . . hew them as we will (due apologies to big Shade at Stratford); the potent influence of an historical Past is skilfully but unobtrusively used to shed clear light upon the actors in the November Revolution, and the humble necessary “stage crowd” ranks with sordid “stars” in interest and importance.

It is worth recording that historical analogies suggested on the platform and in the Press of the Socialist Party of Great Britain occur frequently in this work.

From the political point of view, the least valuable result of “Stalin” is the sure emergence of a convincing likeness of this sinister hero of the Communist Party. “We are the Party of Lenin, Stalin and Dimitrov. No other party can produce such Giants, Leaders and Heroes as these” bawls Harry Pollitt (gigantic and heroic features duly glaring out on title-page). After reading Souvarine’s book it would surely be difficult not to reply, “Thank goodness!” To find parallel for dirty intrigue, appalling treachery and sickening cruelty within the Party itself, let alone outside, one has to go back to Elizabethan orgies of foulness and blood as mirrored by the lesser lights of the contemporary drama; it is more than probable that British tradition, outcome of the course of historical development in this country, will save Harry (spite of himself) from developing into “such” a Hero as Stalin in the extremely unlikely event of post-war "leadership” by the footling hangers-on of Moscow in this country. In this expression of opinion, the Brailsfords and the wailing Pinks of the New Statesman, seeking to distinguish the “Communist” from the “Stalinist,” will probably agree.

With unerring skill, Soviet “giants” are reduced to their real stature; undisputed facts backed by apt quotations from official sources do their work—quotations showing deliberate Soviet excisions from previous editions of official works are especially illuminating, not to speak of wholesale suppression of complete works hitherto officially recognised and boomed.

Startling examples of the Communist penchant for eating dirt are given—the peccant Pollitt grovelling in the dust for his “How to Win the War” via the Daily Worker, doesn’t do it with quite the abandon that his Russian comrade manages.

Souvarine trenchantly comments on the outward and visible signs in the Soviet Republic which indicate clearly inward and spiritual dis-grace— read pages 350 onwards. Significantly the author says: “The embalming of Lenin’s remains found its counterpart in the Communist International in the mummification of its founder’s work, the petrification of his thought.”

An example of Souvarine’s penetration is encountered on page 426: “Stalin likes to set going exaggerated demands in order that he may appear in the rôle of mediator, proposing a compromise which can then easily be put over.” In the light of recent events (Finland, for example) this estimate of one side of our hero’s low cunning is startlingly correct.

One thing is emphasised which is too often ill- understood, or simply not known. In Russia, expulsion from Party membership entails “loss of wages and house-room” (page 382). Loss of employment in this country too often entails the horrors of the P.A.C., in the U.S.S.R. it is often practically a sentence of death for the “purged” member; it carries with it the same dire consequences as banishment did in the Middle Ages. . . . It would be interesting to know how this feature of “Communism” reacts within the British Section; more unlikely things in this unlikely- happening war may eventuate which will reveal the extent of dependence.

Incidentally, a statement in a recent article, “The Real Russia,” was challenged; Souvarine may now be cited as credible evidence: “A decree extended the application of the death penalty for delinquents and criminals as from the age of twelve.”

We hope sympathisers and others will do their best to get this magnificent work in their public library—it is a tragedy that 15s. (cheap at the price) renders it practically impossible for private possession by the worker. One name may be missed in reading—the translator, C. L. R. James. What a piece of work! One wee criticism: Why “epigones”? English has a less recondite word for “Big Pots.”

Stalin by Isaac Don Levine.

For those who desire immediate information on the Russian Revolution, two other more modest works may be recommended. The first is by Don Levine (Newnes; Private Lives Library; about 2s. 6d.); the second, by Stephen Graham (Hutchinson’s "Pocket Specials,” 7d.). Both are entitled ”Stalin.”

The first-named is a sober record, with a clearly arranged chronological sequence of events; the author’s sympathies are vaguely "Trotskyist.” Page 168 contains as unflattering a portrait gallery of Communist Heroes as Souvarine’s. Pages 40-41 have a very useful summary of pre-Revolution industrialisation in Russia (considerably greater than is generally known).

Stephen Graham’s “Stalin” is a lively record covering a longer period than Levine; he makes no effort to conceal his loathing for Stalin; his modified admiration for Lenin is rather one outcome of a very pronounced anti-Semitic bias; Trotsky finds some grace, and is damned with faint praise as a Hamlet who never plucked up sufficient energy to apply the bare bodkin to his co-rival for Lenin’s mantle. Liveliness of style is instanced in summaries of character. "Litvinov was of the Potash and Perlmutter type.” “You could not say that Litvinov was a poisonous Jew like Zinovief, or a slimy Jew like Yagoda. He was just a plain, ordinary good-humoured Israelite. There are hundreds like him in New York.” As journalese, good of its kind in spite of crudity and over-emphasis, useful for certain facts.

Reginald