Silly Rivalry. (1932)

From the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

On May Day some demonstrators marched on the Japanese Embassy and were bludgeoned by the police. The Communists said that it was their stunt, and the l.L.P. journal, Forward, told the Communists how silly it was.

“The whole case against Communism might be summed up in the final feature of the day. This was the march against the Japanese Embassy….. The forces of police, foot and mounted, were overwhelming, and all that happened was a disgraceful scrimmage, cruel batonings, broken heads and several arrests.” (Forward, May 7th.)

Now read what the New Leader, the other l.L.P. organ, says :—

“The United Column…..was well over 1½ miles in length and very impressive. (This) is a piquant comment on the efforts of the Communist Party speakers to represent themselves the bold and true leaders as distinguished from the faint-hearted l.L.P. The small group which, after the police charges finally did break through to the offices of the Japanese Embassy, consisted almost exclusively of I.L.Pers and was led by one of the most prominent of the Divisional I.L.P. Propagandists.”

The I.L.P., like boastful schoolboys, thus present themselves to the Communists with the challenge : “We dare you to think of a stunt so damned silly that we won’t do it, too.”

Notes by the Way: The Fabians and the House of Lords (1957)

The Notes by the Way Column from the February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Fabians and the House of Lords

In the Socialist Standard for February, 1907, was an article about the Fabians which opened with a quotation:—

“ The government of the future will be by experts and we, naturally, want to be the experts."

This little gem had been spoken by Mr. H. Snell, of the Fabian Society.

The writer in the Socialist Standard had appropriate comments to make on this typically Fabian proposal for running other people's lives. He began:—

"So now you know, if you did not before, what the Fabian Society are after. Their ‘Socialism’ is government by bureau, and ‘naturally’ (sweet word) they want to be the bureaucrats. ‘Naturally’ they want the plums. ‘‘Naturally’’ they want to sit in the seats of authority and arrange things for the benefit (naturally for the benefit) of the other and somewhat lower orders who do the mere producing."

Our writer hit the nail on the head when he said the Fabians aimed to occupy the seats of authority and in the course of time many of them had their little hour in the Labour Governments, where they showed that their “superior brains” could no more cope with the chaos of Capitalism than could those they affected to despise, the political aristocrats and the business men.

One of the “reforms” supported by the Fabians was the abolition of the House of Lords. They came to be glad that they hadn't succeeded because it was to be a final refuge for a number of Fabians, including Sidney Webb (who wrote the Fabian tract demanding abolition of the Lords), and Attlee, and of course Mr. Snell, who became Lord Snell of Plumstead in 1931 just about the time two million unemployed were wondering how their Fabian trained leader had managed to get things in such a mess.

Macmillan Must Go!

If we were Labour or Communist vote-catchers we would be campaigning for “Macmillan Must Go!" and telling anyone silly enough to believe it, how successful we had been with our last campaign for u Eden Must Go!"

Since the S.P.G.B. was formed in 1904 there have been ten such campaigns for getting rid of a no-good Prime Minister. There have been rather more than ten governments because some of them, after being pushed, pulled or squeezed out have managed to get back again. When we survey the list we marvel at the rich variety. Scots, English, Welsh, and half-American (Churchill); spell-binders like Lloyd-George, and others who didn’t know how to gild the lilies of oratory; philosophical types like Balfour and Asquith and "plain, blunt men" like Baldwin;; semi-Pacifists and war-mongers; business men and professional politicians; the relatively poor and the passing rich; religionists and agnostics; aristocrats and commoners; Tory, Liberal, and Labour.

There are the differences: What of the similarities? They have all had a strange belief that the country was very lucky to have them at the helm. They have all come in generously promising how much better they will make life for the people and have all gone out little lamented.

And what difference has it made in the one thing that ought to be of paramount concern to the workers, the question of establishing Socialism in place of Capitalism? Just no difference at all. That job has yet to be done and it won't matter in the least whether the next Prime Minister who tries to administer Capitalism is Mr. G., or Mr. B., Mr. X or Mr. Y.

“Why We Left the Communist Party”

A group calling themselves the Nottingham Marxist Group, has issued an eight-page leaflet under the above title. As a criticism of the leaders of the British Communist Party from the standpoint of members whose confidence was first shaken by the dethronement of Stalin and then shattered by the Russian Army's onslaught on the Hungarian workers, it is effective enough. But that is all it is. In no way does it justify the claim that the group are Marxist in outlook. Indeed the limited range of their criticism clearly shows that they are not. Their case is against “the politically and morally bankrupt leaders of the Communist Party," but not against the idea of leadership and if it were not for their view that it is in practice impossible to change the leadership they would he working for new leaders in place of the old. They fail to see that a Socialist Party has no use or place for leaders.

They condemn various comparatively recent consequences of dictatorship in Russia and Hungary, but nowhere do they show an understanding of the fact that Socialism is incompatible with dictatorship. They do not explain how it was that they accepted the dictatorship and only woke up to some of its inevitable consequences at a late stage. Above all they do not square their claim to be Marxist with their tacit acceptance of the absurd belief that the Russian dictatorship is Socialism. This ought to have been the central theme of their declaration because every criticism they make stems from the fact that the social organisation in Russia and Hungary is and always has been Capitalism. They do now see that Socialism cannot be imposed by force and they quote from an American Communist journal:—“Socialism . . .  could not be imposed on a country by those means”; but they do not face up to the truth that that was the original, impossible, aim of the Communist group that seized power in Russia, and that dictatorship and a police state were the inevitable outcome of that attempt It was then that the Russian Communists “betrayed” the principles of Socialism, not at some later date, as the pamphlet would have us believe, when the “cult of leadership” was carried to such lengths as to endanger the stability of the dictatorship itself.

The Not-so-Stupid Tory Capitalists

The Hon. William Douglas-Home, writer of successful plays and unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate standing on one occasion as a “Progressive Independent," and on another as “Atlantic Charter" candidate, wrote to the Observer (3 January, 1957) advising the Tories to apply in foreign politics the policy they have used so well at home. He described the latter as follows:—

“. . . they never seem to realise that a controlled withdrawal is precisely what they have conducted with considerable skill in domestic policy since the industrial revolution, and that to this policy, and to this policy alone, they owe their survival. Whereas any attempt to preserve the status quo would have resulted in either their total extinction or a revolution, or both.”

Strikes by Hungarian Workers

On January 13 the Russian imposed government of their Hungarian colony announced a new decree imposing the death penalty for a number of acts, many of which would in most countries be regarded as normal trade union and political activities.

The Manchester Guardian (January 14), quoting B.U.P. and Reuter despatches from Budapest, had the following:—

"The death penalty was introduced in Hungary today for anyone calling a strike, damaging factory machinery, or committing  'any kind of offence directed against the State.’ The death sentence could be ordered for distributing leaflets, or for entering a government factory without permission, according to the new regulations, announced in a supplementary paragraph to the martial law declared in December."

The News Chronicle and other newspapers gave similar versions. Only the Daily Worker (January 14) managed to twist this new decree almost out of recognition. They left out the reference to strikes and reported it as:—

“ Death sentences may be imposed on people who ‘ sabotage or interfere in any way with public utilities and other essential enterprises'. "

But if the Hungarian workers in Hungary may now be hanged for striking, Hungarian refugees in Britain have shocked a lot of people by refusing jobs offered to them and by coming out on strike. The Sunday Despatch (January 16) reported:—

"Eighteen refugees walked out of their jobs at St Albans because they were dissatisfied with their pay. They were receiving an average of £7 a week as cooks, waiters, carpenters and farm workers. Mr. G. P. Bannister, manager of the Employment Exchange at St. Albans, said: ’They expected £14 or £15 a week. Most of them want to go to America or Canada'. "

This sort of conduct will get the Hungarians disliked by the employers and before we know where we are we shall hear the Hungarians denounced as unwelcome agitators. Being spirited in demanding the right to strike in Budapest is not at all the same as continuing to behave like that here.

But British workers ought to be delighted that the refugees do not intend to become a source of cheap and servile labour. And if the incident makes British workers more assertive in trying to raise their wages so much the better.

Exodus to Canada

And while the Hungarians pour in the Britishers pour out as fast as they can, Canada-bound for preference. Rhona Churchill, in the Daily Mail (January 8, 1957), made inquiries and these are her conclusions:—

“ Emigrant applications at Canada’s London and Liverpool offices have now reached 20,000 a week.

John Bull Taxpayer has had enough.

Emigration figures had been falling off. Then suddenly the Butler austerity Budget of October, 1955, doubled the numbers, calling at Canadian immigration offices, the Macmillan squeeze Budget of April, 1956, trebled them, and Suez, with its promise of more Budget austerity three months from now, increased them sixfold.

A quarter of a million Britons, tired of being told for ten austere years: ’Belt-tightening today means prosperity tomorrow,' and, finding that tomorrow never comes, are now actively organising their escape, believing that Britain has no sound financial future to offer their children."

But while the exasperated British workers flee from the rigours of “Welfare State" Capitalism to seek paradise in Canada the Canadian Railwaymen were on strike because they too have grievances against their “free enterprise” Capitalism.

Profits and the Ugly Head of Politics

For a century or more business men, stock exchange speculators and economists have recurrently dreamed of a beautiful world in which Capitalism would function “naturally” without being disturbed by politics. The latest is Mr. A. G. Jenkins, City Editor of the Empire News (January 3,1957).

’’So much for the short-term view. Dividend limitation, nationalisation, confiscation and many other 'ations’ loom ahead when politics rears its ugly head, and for the moment this may discourage buyers of industrial ordinary shares."

Mr. Jenkins thinks Capitalism would be nicer without the serpent of politics and other “ations.” He should think again. If there were no political machine to be controlled by the politicians bent on keeping Capitalism going, our class divided society would disintegrate. One “ation” would, indeed, be taken away, but Mr. Jenkins would not be pleased for it is “exploitation," and if there were no exploitation of one class by another there would be no rent, interest or profit, no Stock Exchange, and no City Editors.

Over in Bombay the great Indian iron and steel concern of the Tata Company knows better. They don’t want to rule out politics; on the contrary they have just appealed successfully to the High Court for the right to make contributions to political party funds.

"Mr. Justice Tendolkar allowed a petition by the company for confirmation of alteration in its memorandum enabling it to make such contributions. He said that expenditure by way of donations to political parties could in the long run be economic.

”The petition said the company was at present carrying out a Rs. 750m. (£57m.) expansion programme and any further expansion would depend on Government approval. The company’s prosperity was therefore bound up with the policy of the party in power.”

(Financial Times, 12th January, 1957). 

The Indian Capitalists, who used the nationalist movement to establish themselves as a Capitalist India, learned all the tricks and devices of Capitalist rule practised by the British ruling class.

The Communists and the S.P.G.B.

Letters written to the Daily Worker by members of the S.P.G.B. have been refused publication recently. This is not in itself surprising but the reason given deserves comment. A letter from the Editor, J. R. Campbell (October 10, 1956) included the following:—

“It is true that the Daily Worker does not propose to publish letters dealing with insignificant political bodies like the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Our space is precious and we have to devote it to more important questions.” 

We can imagine the indignation of the Communists if, say the Daily Herald were to give the same reason for not publishing their letters. And of course we can guess that J. R. Campbell (responsible recently for the suppression of reports from Budapest by its own correspondent) may have other reasons for not wanting the Marxist case against his party to be put before his readers.

One small point about Campbell’s letter is that he addressed the S.P.G.B. member as “Dear Friend” and ended it “with best wishes.”

Another letter (January 7, 1957), this time signed “with all good wishes” by the Assistant Editor of the Daily Worker, Mick Bennett, informed our member that “the role and influence of the S.P.G.B. has declined over the years largely because of its conscious deliberate policy of remaining a small sect devoted largely to the theory that until all the working class have been sufficiently educated in Marxism they will not be able to get rid of Capitalism.”

This implies that the S.P.G.B. used to have more influence and was therefore worthy of the notice of Communists but, except on very rare occasions, the Communist Party has always maintained the policy of ignoring the S.P.G.B. and declining debates. But the official reason given for this in the early days was that there was no time or place for discussion because revolution, here and in the world generally, was "just around the corner.” Privately members of the C.P.G.B. were advised to keep away from discussion with the S.P.G.B.

Bennett's letter (in the last sentence quoted above) re-iterates the Communist’s case that Capitalism could be got rid of in speedier ways than by building up a movement of Socialists. What a pity we can't have from him his explanation of the total failure of Communist governments in Russia, Hungary and elsewhere, to get rid of Capitalism and introduce Socialism.

Brotherly Love from a Christian

A reader sends us an article by Pastor W. W. Kirkby. published in the Elim Evangel (December 8, 1956), called “Ambitious Russia,” which sets out to describe the imperialist aims of the Russian Government; including, so the writer says, the conquest of Israel as a main objective.

It is full of the common misconceptions about the social system in Russia (the writer of the article thinks it is Communism and that Marx was responsible for it), and about the driving force behind the Russian Imperialism (the writer naturally fails to recognise that it is like the imperialism of the rest of the Capitalist powers).

One interesting item is an alleged quotation from Karl Marx in which he is made to say that as “loving my neighbour” has not changed the world, “let us see what hatred can do.” (No source is given).

But just to show how different the Christian and his God are the article ends:—

“Four thousand years ago God declared to Abraham, the father of the faithful: 'I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.'

. . . That principle has been carried out right down the years, and in the future God’s curse is to fall upon atheistic and ambitious Russia.”

Edgar Hardcastle

50 Years Ago: Bert Ramelson buries Lenin (2026)

The 50 Years Ago column from the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard 

What happened when the BBC’s ‘Newsday’ interviewed the industrial organiser of the Communist Party would have been more suitable for the Goon Show, or Monty Python. Bert Ramelson, keeping a perfectly straight face, point-blank denied everything that the Communist Party was founded on and peddled for over thirty years!

True it is, as he said in the interview, that he only joined the CP in 1936; whereas some of us knew it intimately since 1920. However, that should not prevent him (or anybody else) knowing the facts. The interviewer did not know a great deal about the subject, and questioned from a prepared brief.

But even the political department of the BBC had heard that the Communist Parties were founded on ‘Leninism’. That is, seizure of power by an intrepid, resolute minority of ‘professional revolutionists’, leading the working class — who would then lead the ‘toiling masses’ (meaning peasants) to socialist victory. For thirty years a vast mass of pamphlets, books and newspapers flogged the Leninist dogma of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, meaning minority action.

Many able writers waded patiently through Marx’s work to show that, from The Communist Manifesto onward, Marx never used this then-popular French slogan to mean anything else than majority democratic methods. For instance, Lucien Laurat, who in Marxism and Democracy quotes The Communist Manifesto:

‘The first stage in the working class revolution is the constitution of the proletariats as the ruling class, the conquest of democracy.’

No use! For thirty years CP writers and speakers denounced democracy and exhorted the workers to follow ‘Marx’s best disciple’ Nikolai Lenin. Parliament was a useless ‘gasworks’, elections a waste of time (although they regularly took part in them, but ‘only for propaganda, comrade’). The state would be smashed and ‘bourgeois’ parliaments replaced by Soviets, ‘the workers’ democracy’ (…)

Understandably, the interviewer politely raised the question of the CP’s present policy, and its past. ‘Was it not the case that the CP had advocated ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ in the past?’

‘Not any more’, replied Bert. Not any more! And do you know why, dear reader? Let Bert tell you. Because there has been ‘so much misunderstanding of what Marx really meant’. He actually said this. ‘Marx meant the action of the vast overwhelming majority’, said Bert; the CP has not used the phrase in any document since 1950, to avoid any more misunderstanding.

[From article by Horatio, Socialist Standard, March 1976]

 

 

Blogger's Note: 

Regular readers of the blog will know that 'Horatio' was the pen name of the late Harry Young. Harry Young was especially placed to comment on the early history of the CPGB as he was a founder of member of that organisation, serving for a period on its Executive Committee as a representative of the Young Communist League.  In an article in the February 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard, entitled 'Why I joined the SPGB', he goes into greater detail. It's worth a read.

50 Years Ago: The Suppression of the Communists (1991)

The 50 Years Ago column from the February 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

More recently (Daily Worker, March 30th, 1939) they were appealing by personal letter to Churchill, Sinclair and Attlee to get together to overthrow the Chamberlain Government and form a Government of their own in order "to save the country in the rapidly deepening crisis." It may well be said that they got the war they wanted (and then soon ceased to want it when Russia decided to be friends with Hitler) and got the Government they asked for and now it has got them.

So tortuous are the ways of the Communists that it is by no means impossible (the contents of the Daily Worker in recent weeks rather suggest this) that for some obscure reason they now no longer wanted the immunity from prosecution they sought last year by setting up a board of "influential persons" to run the Daily Worker but wanted to be suppressed.

All the same the S.P.G.B. is opposed to suppression of opinion. In our view the way to counter any kind of propaganda, and in the long the only way, is to meet it in the open in unfettered discussion. We are entitled to add that we practise what we preach and have always thrown open our platform to our opponents.

[From an article "The Suppression of the 'Daily Worker' ", Socialist Standard, February 1941.]

SPGB Debate: "Which way to Socialism?" (1986)

 Party News from the December 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

I've posted this notice for the debate with the CPGB separately on the blog — away from the other meetings advertised in the December 1986 Socialist Standard  — for the rather mundane reason that I only just now spotted the notice in the original PDF. It was hidden away . . . which makes you wonder how many people saw the notice at the time when the Standard originally came out?

Unfortunately, I've no idea if there is an audio recording of the above debate but there is an audio recording of an earlier debate with Monty Johnstone. It dates from November 1982; the subject of the debate was 'Did Lenin distort Marx'; and the SPGB representative in that debate was Steve Coleman.

Monty Johnstone was an interesting political figure because he was, to the best of my knowledge, the only member of the Trotskyist Revolutionary Communist Party (1944-49) who returned to the official Communist fold. Interestingly, Eric Hobsbawm doesn't mention Johnstone's lost Trotskyist weekend in his 2007 obituary for Johnstone in the Guardian. Maybe he didn't know? Or, maybe, Hobsbawm right to the very end was doing that CPGB thing of always taking the opportunity to marginalise and hide any mention of the Trots.

Editorial: From Comintern to Cominform (1947)

Editorial from the November 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Communist International, formed in 1919 at a time when Lenin and his associates expected the workers of all the leading countries to place Communists in power, continued in existence as an instrument of Russian foreign policy until it was wound up in 1943, presumably because, with problems of the peace settlement ahead, the Russian Government thought it tactful to remove an organisation that was at that time not very useful but was a source of irritation and alarm to the Allied governments.

On October 5th, 1947, the birth of an Information Bureau was announced (named by opponents the “Cominform”), representing the Communist parties of nine countries, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Rumania, Russia and Yugoslavia. According to the statement issued by the new group (Daily Worker, 6/10/47) it represents “the anti-imperialist and democratic camp, the principal aim of which is to undermine imperialism, strengthen democracy and liquidate the remnants of Fascism.”

It will “elaborate an agreed platform of action” directed against “the main forces of the imperialist camp – against American imperialism, its British and French Allies, the right-wing Socialists, in the first place in Britain and France.”

Again according to the Daily Worker, the communiqué issued by the Cominform “names Attlee, Bevin and Leon Blum among the ‘treacherous leadership’ of the Socialist movement,” It is explained by the Russian Communists that the new organisation “by no means signifies the restoration of a global Communist organisation with a centralized leadership, such as the Communist International represented at the time” (Daily Worker, 11/10/47), but it is evident from the declared objects that the aim is just the same, that of smashing Labour parties as a step towards the conquest of power by the Communist parties in the various countries.

What should be the attitude of workers to the new organisation? Are its aims and methods deserving of working-class support? Is it genuinely a body aiming to defend democracy, to oppose capitalism and imperialism, and to work for triumph of Socialism?

Let us first consider who engineered its formation by what methods. It was formed at a secret meeting in Warsaw in September, held on the initiative of Soviet Russia. The meeting was kept secret, not only secret from the openly capitalist press and capitalist parties of the world but secret also from the working class of the world, including the rank and file members of the Communist parties of the nine countries. The formation of the new body, like the dissolution of the old one in 1943 was decided over their heads and with their knowledge. The rank and file and even the leaders of the British Communist Party only learned of it after its secret decisions had been decided upon. The meeting, moreover, was called by Russian Communist Party officials, acting, of course, on the instructions of the Russian Government. In that country the Government is in the hands of the Communist Party, the membership of which numbers only a very small minority of the population. No political party is allowed to exist except the Communist Party, so that there is no political party to put up candidates in opposition to Communist Party candidates at elections. When, therefore, the Communist Party in this or any other country declares its support for “democracy” that is what they mean by democracy.

From the Socialist and working-class standpoint these dictatorial organisations, arriving at decisions at secret meetings, are wholly evil. Their activities are the antithesis of democracy and their work can only hinder the growth of a genuinely democratic, working-class Socialist movement.

There are, it is true, certain differences between the new organisation and the old. Instead of claiming world-wide scope it is at present limited to nine countries, most of them so placed that the Russian Government is in a position to extract direct and powerful influence on these governments with or without the camouflage provided by the Cominform. Its headquarters are to be in Belgrade, not Moscow, which suggests that the Russian Government will be able whenever it wishes to do so disclaim direct responsibility. As far as influence over the Communist Parties themselves is concerned the actual form taken by the new organisation is not of much account because the Communist Parties invariably toe the line laid down by Russia. They did so under the Comintern and continued to do so when the Comintern was officially abolished.

How little the Communist Parties and the Communist leaders in various countries are able to pursue a line of their own choosing was shown in 1939. The British Communist leaders came out in support of the war against Germany but immediately had to recant, make abject apology, and fall into line with Russian policy. It has been shown again by the Russian Government’s decision to support Jewish immigration and partition of Palestine. In the past the British Communists opposed it, now they must reverse their policy. Speaking in the House of Commons on June 19th, 1936, Mr. Gallacher, Communist M.P., declared: “Palestine can never be a home for the Jews.” He said that the Jews “have been fooled by their politicians who, under the leadership of the Zionist movement and who are the agents for British Imperialism against Arab masses.” He described the revolt of the Arabs against the attempt to set up a Jewish state as “a thoroughly justifiable revolt. It demands the end of immigration of a character which threatens the existence of Palestine.” Likewise a pamphlet published by the Communist Labour Monthly opposed partition as a scheme of British Imperialists. (“Who is Prosperous in Palestine?” 1936, p. 41.)

The Communist Parties are merely the propaganda agents for Russian governmental policy. What they is not a consistent policy based on principle but a policy based on the day-to-day tactics of the Government in its fight against the other imperialist powers.

In home policy there is the same want of principle. They alternatively oppose the Labour Party, saying it is a capitalist party, and support it, saying is a socialist party. In 1929 they described nationalisation as “State Capitalism” and the Labour Party as the “third Capitalist Party” (“Class Against Class,” p. 8), yet now pretend that nationalisation is socialism and ask the Labour Government “how is it that only one industry has been nationalised?” (Daily Worker, 13/10/47.) In 1939 they took the initiative in asking Mr. Churchill to form a National Government along with the Labour and the Liberal parties. When this was done they attacked the Labour Party for associating with Churchill! Then in 1941 when Russia was invaded they supported Churchill and now again discover that he has all along been and enemy of the workers.

The future Socialism depends on the growth of democratic, socialist organisations. The new Cominform, as well as the Communist parties that are at present not affiliated to it, are the enemies of both Socialism and Democracy.

The Socialist Party exposes Mr Chamberlain and his Labour Critics (1938)

Blogger's Note:

 As I just scanned in the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard, which covered in some detail Neville Chamberlain and his actions in and around what is now known as the Munich Crisis, I thought I'd take the opportunity to also post on the blog the full text of the 1938 SPGB pamphlet, 'The Socialist Party exposes Mr Chamberlain and his Labour Critics'.

In its long history the SPGB has not made a habit of rushing out special pamphlets dealing with an 'issue of the day' — that is what the Socialist Standard is in place for  — but the Munich Crisis was self-evidently such a burning issue with the threat of possible impending war that the SPGB felt it was necessary to publish a standalone pamphlet which went into greater detail on the matter. It exposed the hard nosed political hypocrisy of Chamberlain's actions and the double-talk of both the Labour Party and the British Communist Party.

Such turbulent times called for special measures, and the SPGB were to publish another 'issue of the day' pamphlet the following year under the title of 'The Socialist and Conscription'. War was for the working class the issue of the day.

The Socialist Party exposes Mr Chamberlain and his Labour Critics (1938)

 

So the crisis is over. Representatives of the four major European Powers sat round the table and concluded arrangements that carve up Czechoslovakia, freeze Russia out of Europe, and, we are fervently assured, lay the basis of “peace in our time”. Lest there should be any doubt about this peaceful future, a great drive to develop armaments is proposed, and plans are being made to ensure that everybody will have a niche in defensive and offensive operations. The temporary popularity of Chamberlain, the general relief at the banishing of immediate war danger, and the united support worked up on behalf of the Czechs, are being utilised to push forward the increased armament campaign.

On September 30th hysterical crowds went wild with joy and hero-worship. War had been averted, and it was believed that Chamberlain was the man who accomplished that deed. His smiling face appeared on placards, in newspapers, and on the moving-picture screen. His wife shared in his fame, and crowds fought to shake her hand. For a while he was the most popular man in England. Yet the strange part of it is that Chamberlain’s fame is based on the circumstance that apparently his plans nearly went entirely wrong; raised the spectre of war, and eventually brought the Munich instead of the Godesberg Agreement. The British Government have been landed in a position in European affairs that was not expected by them. So far Hitler and not Chamberlain has gained most out of the diplomatic manoeuvres of months past.

What were the real facts of the situation? On what does Chamberlain’s claim to fame rest?

The immediate source of Chamberlain’s popularity is not hard to find. For a few days modern war, with its horrors, weighed like a black cloud on the minds of everybody. The subsequent relief on hearing the message of peace released an uncritical joy that deified the messenger.

What part has Chamberlain really played in this dangerous business?

For a long time the capitalist government of this country has been split into different camps over foreign policy. The reasons for this are too long to go into here. It is sufficient to say that they are partly economic differences and partly differences of view as to what best serves the general capitalist interest. One group favours “minding our own business” and leaving other nations to mind theirs; another group urges a better understanding with Russia and the resisting of the imperialist policies of Germany and Italy; a third group presses for a general pact between England, Germany, France and Italy, and the shutting out of Russia from any influence on European affairs.

The third policy is the one that has been urged by the Chamberlains and their supporters for some time past. It was given expression to by Chamberlain on the eve of the Munich meeting when, in his Parliamentary statement, he criticised the provisions of the Versailles Peace Treaty.

Even while a member of the Baldwin Government, which had taken half-hearted measures to resist Italy’s policy in Abyssinia, Chamberlain made clear his disagreements on foreign policy. Sir Charles Petrie, an admirer of Chamberlain, describes the circumstances of the public statement in 1936 and, at the same time, made plain the nature of the support behind Chamberlain. He describes the incident as follows:

“Mr Chamberlain stepped into the breach. On the 10th June he was the guest of honour at the annual dinner of the 1900 Club, and he took the opportunity to declare against the continuance of Sanctions. The effect was tremendous. An audience which represented the wealth and power of Great Britain cheered the Chancellor to the echo” (The Chamberlain Tradition, page 249).

Since Chamberlain became head of the Government, foreign policy has changed its direction. The efforts of Government diplomacy have been turned towards finding a basis of agreement with Germany and Italy and the weaning of France away from its alliance with Russia.

The Munich conference of the four Powers appears to have been a long step towards accomplishing this object, though it occurred under dangerous circumstances, with the threat of war hanging over it. The fact that Czechoslovakian unity was sacrificed in the process was a small matter to the imperialist powers concerned.

The attitude of the Chamberlain group towards Italy’s Abyssinian venture and Germany’s march on Austria, gave Hitler a hint that further territorial conquests would not be seriously opposed providing these conquests did not interfere with British capitalist interests. When Chamberlain made his first trip to Hitler, on what was wrongly presumed to be an effort to save Czechoslovakian independence, he evidently went with the intention of being a party to the slicing up of that territory. His explanation in Parliament, on the eve of his last visit, makes this clear to those who examine the statement critically.

Taking into consideration the nature of Chamberlain’s foreign policy, as briefly outlined, the war situation out of which he “rescued” peace was largely of his own making.

While the Prime Minister was basking in the sunshine of mistaken adulation, one of his supporters pointed out that the real danger that menaces the interests of British capitalists is outside of Europe. On the morrow of the Munich pacts, while Germany was sending emissaries to Turkey and Yugoslavia, to widen its markets and its sources of raw materials, British politicians were heaving sighs of relief and turning to face “the danger again displayed by the Dominions and India, which has not passed unnoticed in Europe”.

The last remark is taken from an article in the Evening Standard (October 3rd) by Sir Arnold Wilson, who also makes the following significant statement:

“The Parliamentary Opposition parties are representing the redrawing of the map of Europe, now in progress, as a victory for Hitler, which it is, and a defeat for Britain, which it is not”.

This is another way of showing that Chamberlain went to Germany prepared to accede to the plans for dismembering Czechoslovakia. And why not? What does it matter to the British capitalist class whether the Czechs are independent or incorporated in Germany? The “National Honour” idea is a myth only invoked when it suits the interests of our rulers to beguile us with it. If Chamberlain, as is claimed, really set out to help Czechoslovakia, then “National Honour” went down on its knees before Hitler along with Chamberlain. Or, as the Daily Express (October 3rd) put it more genteelly:

“But this fact must be recognised by all: Britain accepted the Munich Agreement because our defences were not in a condition enabling us to take any other decision”.

This plea relating to the defences is being popularised as a means to obtain workers’ support for A. R. P. and similar defensive programmes—with all that these things will eventually mean.

One piece of information, relating to the crisis, that has now some significance was published in the News Review on July 14th, over two months before the crisis occurred:

“‘August, 1914’, is a date poignant with memories. What is it that makes Georges Bonnet, France’s Foreign Minister, so mysterious about August 1938?

To journalists who discussed the holiday question with him last week, Bonnet’s tendered the advice, ‘Certainly, take your holidays in August, but don’t leave Paris if you can help it’.

Though pressed for an explanation, he refused to say more than that ‘there will be a great deal to do,’ and that he himself would be at his desk throughout the month”.

What was in Bonnet’s mind? It could hardly have been war. Was in Godesberg?

The shameless diplomatic methods adopted have misled a number of people into believing that the whole business, including the threat of war, was a fake, deliberately contrived to secure acquiescence in the provisions of the Munich Agreement.

Two writers in the New Statesman (October 8th), J. M. Keynes and Robert Dell, make out a plausible case to show that it was a put-up job. That the crisis and the eleventh hour conference, with its solution, had been arranged beforehand. Although there are curious incidents that lend colour to this view, there are solid objections to it. The risk of war did ultimately enter into the game. Apart from other reasons it is too much to allow that a capitalist government would go into the huge expenses of war preparation, running into over £20 millions, either to lend substance to the shadow or for practice purposes.

The threat of war appeared in the scene because Chamberlain, in shaping his policy, apparently overlooked the fact that Hitler might not be inclined to bargain over territory that he felt strong enough to take if he wished to do so.

One purpose, among many, has been served by the crisis. It has been used as a means for enabling the British and French Governments to recognise officially the Italian conquest of Abyssinia without too much sanctimonious dust being raised about it. Now the way is open for British capitalists to invest freely in Abyssinia and to share with their Italian brothers the wealth squeezed from the Abyssinians.

In this time of stress where did the self-styled leaders of the working class, the Labour and Communist Parties, stand? The answer is easily given. They stood ready, if necessary, to man the guns and shoulder the burden of Empire in the mistaken idea that they were defending democracy against autocracy. Which shows how easy it is to divert movements that are anchored in the shifting sands of mere discontent. Such movements are easily directed into channels that serve the interests of the capitalists. The experience of decades has shown that when the cry “the country is in danger” is raised, the propertyless workers are urged by their leaders to flock to its defence, and to be ready to lay down their lives for a system that does not even guarantee to them the satisfaction of their elementary needs in food and shelter.

Over and over again the workers have been told by the Labour Party and the Communist Party that capitalism is on the down-grade, and that therefore they cannot hope for much improvement in wage conditions. Yet the country has been shown lately to be so wealthy that it could afford to throw away millions of pounds’ worth of goods in defensive measures, when it was believed that war threatened. Under a sensible social system workers would have bread instead of gas-masks.

Now that a great drive for armaments is proposed, the Labour and Communist Parties are logically bound to support it owing to their attitude during the war scare. This fact has been seized upon by all influential newspapers, which point out that the country is united in its desire to build up huge armaments.

Extracts from official sources show clearly the folly and the panic of those who claim to lead the workers.

On September 27th the Daily Herald published an article by the Editor, which contained the following statement:

“If there is war, it will be faced with calmness, with resolution, with unshakable courage. All that could be offered to Germany in honour and justice has been offered—far more than that, indeed . . . But if war there must be, since Herr Hitler is set on war, then it is better that it should be now, when Britain has strong allies beside her and to support her, the united opinion of the civilised world, than hereafter, when Germany, by successful aggression has won the mastership of Europe”.

Again, on September 30th, the Daily Herald spoke officially:

“In these last days two emotions have sustained the British people. One has been the desire for peace, if peace consistent with honour were possible. The other has been the determination to stand firm, if necessary to the ultimate degree—for the great principles of equity and justice in international affairs by which alone civilisation can flourish”.

International Information (September 12th), a typed sheet issued by the “Labour and Socialist International”, contained this statement:

“Whatever the risks involved, Great Britain must take its stand against aggression. There is now no room for doubt or hesitation”.

The above quotations are sufficient evidence of the Labour Party’s readiness to back the Government if war had been declared. The workers should also note also the insistence on “Honour”, “Justice” and “Equity”, all of which, it was contended, would be flouted if Czechoslovakia were split up. It is another example of the fatuity of the utterances of Labour when one remembers the official view of 18 years ago. In 1920 the Labour Party declared:

“Permission to the predominantly German areas of Czechoslovakia to determine their political future should be granted”—Quoted by the Evening Standard (September 16th).

If it were honourable, just and equitable for these areas to determine their political future in 1920, why has it become dishonourable, unjust and inequitable for them to do so now? Above all, why is it necessary that thousands of lives should be sacrificed now for something that was quite proper 18 years ago? The plain fact is that the Labour Party leaders do not know where they are.

The Communist Party is in a like position, and in addition responds blindly to the changing signals from Moscow. On October 3rd the Daily Worker published an article by the Editor. The following extracts from it are interesting as a logical interpretation of the Communist Party’s demand that Britain should stand firm in opposition to Hitler’s designs on Czechoslovakia.

“Had war broken loose on Saturday, as seemed almost certain up till Friday, the corpses of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, would now be strewing the streets of Prague, Paris, Berlin, and even London”.

(. . .)

“That the ‘peace terms’ signed by Chamberlain are such that they strike a mortal blow at the interests and security of the British people”.

(. . .)

“The leaders of the British Labour Movement have to bear a great measure of responsibility for the sullying of British honour. For they who had the power to mobilise a tremendous public opinion, powerful enough to compel Chamberlain to have stood resolutely by France, Russia and Czechoslovakia, fell into the trap of assuming that Chamberlain was intent upon making a stand against Hitler, when actually he had no such intention”.

(. . .)

“There must be no further confidence in Chamberlain. Labour must stand firm in Parliament to-day and give a lead which will rally all the truly patriotic and progressive forces in Parliament against the shameful Munich betrayal”.

Two days later the Secretariat of the Communist Party repudiated the article. But they probably did so because it was too outspoken a statement of the logic of their position—that Britain and France should take a strong line against Hitler. That this would in all probability have led to war is shown by Russia’s war preparations and Litvinov’s explicit statement that Russia was prepared to join Britain and France in going to war in aid of Czechoslovakia if it were attacked.

It must be clear to anyone not blinded by prejudice that the Editor of the Daily Worker (who presumably was familiar with the attitude of the Party of which he was an official spokesman) based his article on Communist policy.

The Communist Party, like the Labour Party, has completely changed its attitude on Czechoslovakia. It has gone even further in its change of front. Consider its present insistence on Britain rallying to the support of Czechoslovakia and resisting the march of “reactionary Fascism”, and then examine the following quotation from The Struggle against War, and the Tasks of the Communists, a 6d pamphlet issued by the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1928:

“In the last imperialist war the Allies made use of the slogan ‘Fight against Prussian Militarism’, while the Central Powers used the slogan ‘Fight against Czarism’; both sides using the respective slogans to mobilise the masses for the war. In a future war between Italy and France, or Yugoslavia, the same purpose will be served by the slogan ‘Fight against reactionary Fascism’, for the bourgeoisie in the latter countries will take advantage of the anti-Fascist sentiments of the masses to justify an imperialist war” (page 14).

“In Czechoslovakia and in the Balkan countries, in Italy, in France, Spain, Belgium and Great Britain (Ireland) there are also oppressed nationalities. The Communist Parties must support the liberation movement of the oppressed nations and national minorities in all these countries, lead them in the revolutionary struggle against imperialism and unreservedly champion their right to self-determination, which must include the right to complete separation” (page 31. Italics in the pamphlet).

It is doubtful if anyone but the Communist Party could make such a blatant and complete somersault in policy. Possibly the greatest joke of the whole tragic business, though it might have been a tragic one, is the spectacle of the Communist Party urging the British and French workers to be ready to lay down their lives in defence of democracy—and “bourgeois” democracy at that!

One thing at least can be said. Chamberlain’s actions were consistent, in line with his views on Czech dismemberment and his desire for unity with European Powers. But the attitude of the Labour and Communist Parties is a complete reversal of their former views. They held previously that Czechoslovakia should be allowed to be split up—in the name of “Justice” and “Liberty”. Now they want it to remain intact in the name of the same deities.

The reversal of policy by the latter two parties, just as much as the tricky diplomacy of the Chamberlain group, should be a warning to workers not to be misled by high-sounding phrases, but to look behind these phrases. Base their attitude on their class interest alone and they will not be led into the support of groups or parties that pursue a policy which obscures the fundamental antagonism of interest between worker and capitalist, of all races, colours and creeds.

The attitude of the Labour Party, the Communist Party, and others of like views, relating to the position of the Czechs, is due partly to fright, which has developed an acute attack of anti-Fascitus. They are prepared to see cities littered with the corpses of hundreds of thousands of working men, women and children, for what? To prevent what would be in the main merely a change of rulers.

While the workers of the world are prepared to put up with capitalism, and all that capitalism means, a change of rule is a minor question. Certainly not worth a war which would put back the movement for Socialism amongst both victors and vanquished. The present position of Germany, Austria and Italy is a striking illustration of this fact.

In conclusion, we must stress the fact that the only attitude for the workers to adopt, if they would free themselves from the horrors of both war and peace, is to organise together for the purpose of establishing a system of society in which the wealth of the world will be commonly owned by all the people of the world.

Here and There: More About A.R.P. (1938)

The Here and There column from the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

More About A.R.P.

Through a sympathetic correspondent, our statement on A.R.P. found its way into a Leeds newspaper and received a reply from an A.R.P. official, who, referring to the correspondent in question, says:—

He is fortunate in living in a country where, despite the many faults, he doubtless finds in it, he can still express his personal opinions as freely and forcibly as he wishes, so long as he respects the bounds of order and good conduct.

I am not concerned with his political creed, but I would point out that in the logical sequence of things he should be prepared, in the event of an Air Raid, not to accept the services of those Volunteers who to-day are giving up time and energy to fitting themselves to be of service to their fellows should the need ever arise.

Our A.R.P. officer thinks that a Socialist logically should not accept the services that A.R.P. offers. Very well. But what about the other side of the argument put forward by our A.R.P. officer, viz., that war preparations and A.R.P. are “a safeguard of peace” ? If preparations for “safeguarding peace” fail and war results then surely the correspondent referred to, who is in favour of peace and opposed to war, could reasonably expect to be safeguarded!

However, the A.R.P. officer dodged the main contention of our article. That is, briefly, that preparations for war, including A.R.P., require a war-willing working class for their success. Without which war would be impossible. As a writer in Controversy (September, 1938), who might also have read the article, says:—

. . . British Capitalism must be reasonably certain of one thing—national unity. It dare not go to war if it is conscious that it may be stabbed in the back by a disloyal working-class.

Our article also pointed out that A.R.P. provides capitalist governments with the opportunity of canalising anti-war sentiments into support for A.R.P. with plausible humanitarian arguments. 

The Controversy article touches this point:—

A.R.P. has two functions, both psychological. First, if support can be obtained for the limited measures for civilian “protection" embodied in the scheme—or for any official measures for protection whatsoever—then the Government can logically point out that there is no reason for withholding support from the re-armament programme as a whole.

There is no logical) escape from this sequence. To support, however tacitly, A.R.P., is in effect to support British Capitalism. And for a working-class party to refuse participation after the first stage is merely to evidence a theoretical confusion, which is no incentive to confidence on the part of the masses.

We are grateful that our attitude on this aspect of the war question flnds agreement outside the Socialist Party.

Fools and Democracy.

Under the heading “Democracy Must Not be Fooled Again," H. N. Brailsford, writing on the Czechoslovakian question, says:—

Twenty years ago Mr. Lloyd George and M. Clemenceau made this problem for us. They included in the Czech Republic 3,600,000 unwilling German subjects.

It was not necessary to do so. This is not a scattered minority. It lies in a compact fringe round the frontiers, and could have been detached to join its kinsmen in Germany and Austria.

For strategical reasons this obvious solution was avoided. The mountains of the Sudetenland offered an easily defensible frontier. The French General Staff and French heavy industry, largely interested in Czech armaments, meant to erect here a formidable barrier against Germany, then a disarmed and pacific republic.

To-day, with Austria within his Empire, it is Hitler rather than the French staff who poses the strategical problem.

He is bent on dismantling or neutralising this fortress that lies on the flank of any German advance eastwards. It bars the road to the oil wells of Rumania and the black earth of the Ukraine.— (Reynolds', September 10th, 1938.)

From that it might be logically assumed that Mr. Brailsford would be in opposition to war. But no; what he says is: “To oppose it may be morally impossible, but Labour, if it is wise, will keep its independence . . . critical and ready when the moment comes to serve the cause of the workers—the Germans as well as the Czechs, the Russians as well as the French."

Why is it morally impossible to oppose war? And why serve the cause of the workers “when the moment comes"—why not now?

Unfortunately, this is the sort of nonsense that is being regarded as “anti-war" and in line with the Socialist attitude.

It looks as though Mr. Brailsford is being fooled.

“Progress" of the Communist Party.

In a booklet running to over one hundred pages the Central Committee of the Communist Party reports to its 15th Party Congress. It is a remarkable document. It is remarkable for its complete omission of any ideas the Party held up to only a few years ago, and for the energy with which it now puts over capitalist ideas and propaganda with all the righteousness of the Salvationist combined with the subtlety of the Jesuits. Gone is the agitation for the violent overthrow of capitalism, the supreme contempt for the “social-Fascist” Labour Party, and opposition to the League of Nations as an agent of the capitalists. The Communist Party is now the standard-bearer for democracy, for affiliation to the Labour Party, for collective security. In respect of the last named it goes further than others and opposes “reconciliation with Fascist countries,” which “bolsters up the National Government and encourages fresh Fascist aggression.” The “Fascist countries” are Italy and Germany, and not those dictatorial capitalist States who might line up with France and Russia in a military alliance. “No reconciliation with Fascist countries" sounds plausible to working-class sentiment, but in practice means that the Communists. will support any capitalist government that will resist German and Italian ambitions. This policy is in line with the foreign policy of the Russian Government, whose interests the official Communist Party in Great Britain cannot oppose.

The writers of this report show outstanding skill in one certain direction. They manage to review working-class activity in this country and throughout the world in a way which leaves the impression that any credit for improvements in working-class conditions is due to the Communist Party, who are the people responsible for taking the initiative. Thus commenting on the fact that three million workers won holidays with pay, the report says “. . . our campaign now aims to extend this provision immediately to embrace every worker.” And even in Africa the crusaders see their influence at work:—

East and West Africa: Whilst we have only irregular contact with these colonies, the recent cocoa war in the Gold Coast and the coffee trouble in Tanganyika indicates that here also the movement is gaining strength.

It is to be hoped that the natives in East and West Africa are conscious of their debt to the Communist Party. And in this way the report almost breathlessly describes the conflicts throughout the British Empire; conflicts which, it is inferred. arise out of Communist influence and leadership.

In a section dealing with “Work Among the Middle Class and Professional Sections,” the report speaks of the need “to mobilise the middle class and professional people on the basis of their own professional interests.” The section also refers to the growth of national movements in Scotland and Wales, and says:

It has been made clear that our Party stands for a policy which preserves the best traditions of the Scottish people, and the Welsh people, resists every attempt to encroach upon their national rights, and demands the fullest opportunities for the development of self-government.

That is, of course, one way of pandering to the ignorance and prejudice of the “middle class and the professional sections,” and of getting the support of reactionaries and any but Socialists.

A “popular pamphlet” dealing with the question before the end of the year is promised. 

Dealing with the Daily Worker, “ such innovations as well-known Scottish leaders of thought I acting as contributors” are to be a feature of certain improvements. Commenting on the present contributors the report says: “John Strachey’s commentaries are still well liked.” There seems to be a touch of unconscious irony in that “still.” 

Communist Party membership is stated to have reached fifteen thousand; Daily Worker sales have on occasions exceeded one hundred thousand.

Those figures express a growth of the influence of the Communist Party and the degree to which the ideas for which its original Russian founders stood have been deserted.

There is no Communist Party in anything but name.

Communists are so misunderstood.

The writer of “ A Worker’s Notebook,” in the Daily Worker (September 16th, 1938), says that some one had rung up the paper to tell them of her experience during a demonstration in Whitehall. She had apparently asked two policemen what the demonstration was about and each had given exactly the same answer: “ It is the Communists, who are demanding war with Germany.” 

“Their unanimity,” says the Daily Worker, “made her wonder whether they were answering according to instructions.”

Touching; but surely even policemen may be forgiven for not being able to appreciate that the demands of the Communists that the British Government, with France and Russia, should go to the aid of Czechoslovakia in the event of German attack are meant to be interpreted as love overtures.

Another Lost Leader.

Commenting on the Czechoslovakian crisis the Daily Worker (September 16th, 1938) refers b pro-Nazi circles in France “ extending from ex-Premier Flandin, a special friend of Chamberlain and Hitler, to Leon Blum. . . . ”

It is only a few months since Leon Blum was head of the “Popular Front ” Government in France and the pet of the British Communist Party.

On Coat-turning.

Mr. John McGovern, M.P., of the I.L.P., has resigned from the negotiating committee appointed by the I.L.P. to discuss terms for the proposed re-affiliation with the Labour Party. In an interview with the Daily Herald (September 1st, 1938) he says:—

“ I am an unrepentant believer in unconditional re-affiliation, and the majority of my fellow members in the East End of Glasgow hold a similar opinion.

“In the present international situation the working classes cannot afford the luxury of dissension, and all who believe in peace, international security and social progress should be prepared to unite under the banner of the Labour Party."

Now, Mr. McGovern is not a newcomer to the politics of the Labour movement.- He sat in the House of Commons as a Labour M.P. during the lifetime of the last Labour Government. After some experience of that Government he saw no disadvantage for the workers in the “luxury of dissension." Writing in Forward (August 2nd, 1930) he said: —

The only time in my life that I have allied myself with the enemies of the workers has been since I came to the House of Commons, and that is by order of the Labour Government, Almost every time I go into the Division lobby I join such tried and trusted friends of t.he Labour Party as Lloyd George, his daughter, Sir Herbert Samuel, etc. They are keeping the Labour Party in office on condition that the workers and the Labour programme are deserted.

Really, Mr, McGovern, isn’t there some explaining to do? Has the Labour Party turned its coat—or Lloyd George—or only you?

Unemployment in India.

India is a country which is becoming rapidly industrialised. In the process she passes through the familiar stages of social development. Millions of workers from the land have been attracted to industrial centres, with the consequence that when the capitalists have no use for their labour they have nothing to fall back upon, and in large numbers are thrown on the streets. According to the Indian Labour Journal (August 21st, 1938), “ they pass their days in hunger, only to be relieved by epidemics and diseases that cannot be prevented by poverty."

“Relieved by" is really a nice, delicate way of saying that workers die as the result of their poverty. In what numbers they die the Journal does not say, but it does estimate the numbers of ex-land workers who are thrown on the industrial scrap-heap in the manner described above. The. number is forty millions!

Fine place the British Empire—for the capitalists!

Robbery with Impudence.

 

Whilst the British and Italians pursue their struggle over Spain, agree to “non-intervention," and assure each other of noble intentions, a report by the City Editor of the News Chronicle (August 29th, 1938), shows one of the underlying attractions in Spain:—

The full text of a triangular trade agreement between Italy, Manchukuo and Japan has just been published in Tokio, according to Reuter’s correspondent. Italy has undertaken to import as from September 1st a fixed annual quota of Japanese and Manchukuan goods. One of the main items will be, soya beans.

In return, Japan and Manchukuo have jointly undertaken to import a fixed quota of Italian goods. These are expected to consist largely of motor-cars, aluminium and mercury,

Note the “and mercury." And remember that the sources for mercury in Spain are in the territory still held by the Spanish Republican Government.

A case of selling the swag before it is stolen.

Harry Waite

50 Years Ago: The Communists and Democracy (1986)

The 50 Years Ago column from the September 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

But who put democracy in danger? In recent years it has been the Communists above all others, yet they are now most vociferous in demanding a United Front to save it. It was the Russian Communists who set the modern fashion of seizing power and installing a dictatorship. It is undisputed that Mussolini, and after him Hitler, learned much from Lenin in the technique of seizing power and holding it by force, supported by mass propaganda and political suppression.

It was the Communists who, year in and year out, derided democratic Government, poured scorn on Parliament and the whole parliamentary system, preached minority revolt and civil war, and in every way idealised the method of violence. Everywhere that their propaganda penetrated they left a trail of hostility to parliamentary methods and a liking for the pseudo-progressive system of armed force and dictatorship.

#    #    #    #

At the 1929 Conference of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Mr. Harry Pollitt made a speech in which he explained to his fellow Communists that “only through armed insurrection can the workers gain power” (see report in Manchester Guardian, December 2nd, 1929). At the same conference, Mr. Gallacher, who now pretends that armed revolt was not intended, said this: —

   "They had talked of a Revolutionary Workers’ Government, but did they realise what was implied? Would the organisation of the workers for the revolutionary Government be a legal one? The task of fighting for a revolutionary Government would be a task of bringing the workers out on to the streets against the armed forces of capitalism.”—(Worker's Life, December 6th, 1929.)

[From the editorial, "The Truth about the Popular Front", Socialist Standard, September 1936]

Slings and Arrows: “ Rats, Lice and History ” (1953)

The Slings and Arrows column from the August 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Rats, Lice and History ”

When the news burst upon an incredulous world that fourteen doctors had been arrested in Moscow for plotting to assassinate Soviet leaders; when furthermore these charges were added to by the accusations that they were in the pay or under the influence of international Jewish organisation, the Daily Worker, ever faithful to its masters in the Kremlin, rushed into print with stout assertions of the truth of all the charges. They denied that any anti-semitic motives were involved. They fervently expressed their belief that in the Soviet Union innocent people could not.be falsely accused and imprisoned. But unfortunately for the Daily Worker, within a few months the Russians themselves changed their tune and the doctors were released. Those who had accused them were imprisoned and charged with almost every crime from faking evidence to exacting, by illegal means, confessions from innocent people; from denying civil liberties and violating the Soviet constitution to fomenting racial prejudices. The Daily Worker, still faithful to their masters announced with pride that these events proved what safeguards there were in the Soviet Union and forgetting their previous support of the charges against the doctors, joined in denouncing the original accusers.

When strikes broke out in East Berlin, and workers were shot in the streets, when an unemployed worker was condemned to death and executed within a half hour of sentence being pronounced, once again the Daily Worker rushed into print to justify the ruthless savagery with which the workers of Berlin had been treated. Nothing is too vile for the Communists to swallow. Once again their masters had let them down, for Dr. Grotewohl, premier of East Germany, admitted that no amount of outside agitation would have succeeded if there had not already existed in the Soviet Zone “an explosive situation caused by misunderstanding.” So much for the Daily Worker's accusations that the strikers and rioters were “fascists and riffraff ” sent in by the Americans to foment trouble.

These swift and sudden reversals of attitude should have taught the Daily Worker the need for caution. But when the second in command of the Soviet Union was arrested and charged with treason and plotting, and was heaped with the most virulent execration, the Daily Worker again came to the defence of the accusers of Beria. “Beria—The Truth,” was the headline splashed across the front page. Are they sure it is the truth? Is it not on the cards that the accusers of Beria may shortly be arrested and charged with extorting confessions, and using illegal means as is the case with the doctors? May it not be possible that Beria will be released and this former hero, present scoundrel become the future hero? Another question poses itself. Will the Daily Worker issue any guarantee as to the integrity of any Soviet leader, and why is it that when the Communists choose leaders, almost one by one they turn out to be traitors? 

Let it be remembered when next the Daily Worker and the Communist Party pretend to represent the interests of the workers, that they are prepared to defend and also to perpetrate any infamy as long as it suits the Russian riding class. They demonstrated this in their support, opposition, and then support of the War; they showed this when they condemned striking miners at Grimethorpe, and they have shown this in their support of the shooting down of strikers in East Berlin. And also be it remembered that when workers struck for more tolerable conditions, the Russians showed themselves to be as ruthless, as anti-working class as any state they term “Capitalist cannibals,” but whose treatment of workers they not only emulate but surpass.

Readers may remember that before the war a book was published dealing with the effects of plague carrying vermin on history. We apologise for stealing its title for this paragraph but could think of nothing more apt.

#    #    #    #

Who are the Workers?

Who has not heard the assertion that the workers are those who do the least work, and constantly demand more money for less effort? Many and varied have been the appeals for increased production, harder work, wage freezes and so on. Yet, although some sections of the working-class have responded nobly to the call, others have turned a deaf ear and pointed out that increased production coupled with wage freezes mean only more dividends for the bosses, and eventual unemployment for themselves. It is to such curmudgeons that we quote the example of a man who has not one job but well over a gross. Mr. J. Arthur Rank, according to the City Man's Diary in the Evening Standard (July 14th, 1953) is a director of one hundred and eighty seven companies. In the face of such supreme effort can any worker fail to give of his best?

The City Man with a fine show of industry himself, works out that if Mr. Rank does a forty hour week he is able to devote 12½ minutes to each company providing he does nothing else. “Over a year, allowing him a month’s holiday he could spend one and a quarter days on average on the affairs of each company.”

You miners who labour in the bowels of the earth, you stokers who work in hot furnace rooms, you clerks who become prematurely bent over your ledgers and all you who bemoan your lot; you with only one job to do and forty or forty-eight hours in the week to do it in spare a thought and perhaps a tear for the man who has one hundred and eighty seven jobs, all of them vital and important, and who can only devote 12½ minutes to each in the week. Think with awe and respect of a man who is such a genius that he can direct the fortunes of all those companies in as little time almost as it takes to make a cup of tea. No wonder he is the wealthy Mr. Rank, while we wallow in the poverty of only one job.

#    #    #    #

Jolly Old Pals

At every General Election since the war, the Labour Party has claimed support on many grounds. Not least of these is the claim that a Labour Government would minimise industrial strife and that the Unions would get such a square deal from their pals in the Labour Government, that strikes would become extinct as a method for settling industrial disputes. They made our flesh creep with tales of what would happen in the event of the return of a Tory Government. Those who remembered the past might well be forgiven for believing these tales.

Just as other claims made by the Labour Party have been exposed as sham and hollow, so this one has received a nasty blow and from none other than Mr. Arthur Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union. At the Annual Conference of the Union Mr. Deakin rose to defend himself against the charge that he had said the Tories were not all “a bad bunch.” He admitted expressing these 'sentiments but continued:—

“With Sir Walter Monckton as Minister of Labour we have had a square deal, and done things which were difficult to do when our own people were in that position."

(Manchester Guardian, 16/7/53.)

Not for the first time has a Trade Union leader discovered that whatever the intentions of his friends in a Labour Government may be, the task of administering capitalism, as well as political considerations, compel a Mr. George Isaacs to say “no,” where a Sir Walter Monckton would say “yes.” And in reverse the Trade Union leader would not wish to put his friends in a difficult position by threatening action, where he could use that weapon on a Tory Minister with possibly good effect.

Will we see Arthur Deakin and others stumping the country asking support for Tories, because they give a “square deal”? What will happen to the Labour Party then?

#    #    #    #

Without Comment

“Would not the Prime Minister agree that the only way to improve the standards of living of the backward races and to avert economic world disaster is to allow all peoples to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest markets because if goods cannot cross frontiers, armies will. Will he set the people free?” Sir Waldron Smithers.

Answer by the Prime Minister: “Those seem to me, on the whole, to be unobjectionable sentiments.”

S.A.

Notes by the Way: What, the Workers think of their well-off leaders (1948)

The Notes by the Way Column from the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

What, the Workers think of their well-off leaders

Writing on the Dock strike Mr. Trevor Evans (Daily Express, 30/6/48) says that Mr. Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union “made the elementary mistake last Sunday morning of arriving at the gates of the dock where he was to address the strikers in a chauffeur-driven, impressive limousine.”

Mr. Evans thinks that the above is the kind of thing that has undermined Mr. Deakin’s influence with the members of the union. Doubtless he is right. On the same day, however, Mr. Alexander Werth, Manchester Guardian correspondent in Moscow, expressed the view that the differences of wealth between the poor and the privileged in Russia have no such effect. “There are,” he writes, ” no murmurs when a chief engineer or a general is given a three-room flat in a new block in Moscow.”

Mr. Werth may be right, hut perhaps it is merely that he didn’t hear the murmurs. As he explained (Manchester Guardian, 25/6/48) that ”many Russian town-dwellers still live in conditions of what we would consider intolerable squalor and overcrowding,” and that in Moscow u four or five to a room is not uncommon,” it seems much more likely that the privileges of the lucky few are resented even if it is not wise for the Russian worker to express his resentment aloud.

The Communists and Unofficial Strikes

Recently the Communists have been giving their support to “unofficial” strikes, as when the Dockers came out. It would be a mistake to think from this that the Communists have consistently done so. Until they decided to come out in opposition to the Labour Government, which they had supported at the General Election and for long afterwards, they opposed unofficial strikes and denounced the strikers as the following examples will show. On 26th November, 1945, Mr. Ian Mackay, Industrial Correspondent of the News Chronicle, quoted from a speech made by Mr. Harry Pollitt at the Annual Congress of the Communist Party held in London on 25th November. Mr. Pollitt said :

“I am going to face you with the direct issue. You are either in favour of the party line as set out in the report or the line that mass strikes are the only way to realise the workers’ ends. If you are in favour of strikes I warn you that you are playing with fire in a way that can help to lose the peace and reduce this country to ashes . . . You can get a coal strike in the coalfields tomorrow if you want it. But if you do will it advance the working-class movement of this country or the prospect of our nation remaining first rate in the family of the United Nations?” (News Chronicle, 26/11/45.)

While Mr. Pollitt was making his speech London gas workers were actually out on .strike.

As recently as September. 1947, when the Grimthorpe miners were out on strike the Daily Worker featured a speech by Mr. Arthur Horner, Communist Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, under the bold heading: “Horner Says Grimethorpe Men Are Wrong.” (Daily Worker, 9/9/47.)

The Daily Worker commenced the report of Horner’s speech with the following summary : “The 140 Grimethorpe strikers were accused yesterday by Mr. Arthur Horner. the Miner’s secretary, of holding their 700,000 mining colleagues to ransom and threatening to destroy all the benefits of the five-day week.” Mr. Horner’s argument was that the Union bad given a pledge to the Coal Board and Government that the miners would produce as much coal with the 5-day week as they did before in 5½ days. If they did not produce the output lack of coal can “bring down the Labour Government.” Of the Yorkshire men he said:

“The attitude of the Yorkshire miners was also wrecking the whole policy of reforms which the Union was aiming at.”

These were hard words for a Union official to apply to his own members and they contrast strongly with his remarks to Lord Hyndley, Chairman of the Coal Board, made at Whitley Bay during the Mineworkers’ Conference. To Lord Hyndley who was on the platform, Mr. Horner said : “By and large we can say you have done well and we will continue to help you to do very much better.” The Daily Herald (9/7/48) reporting this, says it was made “with a slight bow to Lord Hyndley.”

Labour Government and Profit Boom

Under the heading ”Has the Profit Boom Ended?” a City Correspondent of the Daily Herald (27/6/48) wrote that “there is substance in the belief that for some companies the industrial profit boom is at an end, and lower earnings during the next year or two may mean dividends cannot be maintained at the current level.”

The Labour Government holds that it is not only practicable but necessary to plan the running of the social system. They have plans for everything and claim to be able to mould the system to their will. How then did it come about that there has been a profit boom? It would seem either that the boom in profits was in accordance with the Labour Government’s plan, or that it happened because their planning did not work. In either event it leaves them with some explaining to do.

Full Employment, for how long?

The Central Wandsworth Labour Party (Mr. Bevin’s constituency) has published a leaflet urging electors to join the Labour Party if “interested in maintaining full employment and all the other advantages that the Labour Government have gained for you.”

It also tells us that “unemployment is less than it has been since the first count 50 years ago.”

The conclusion we are asked to accept is that so long as we have Labour Government unemployment will remain at the present comparatively low figure of 300,000. It is very doubtful whether Mr. Bevin and the other leaders still believe that they can prevent capitalism from producing its periodic industrial crises, but whether they still believe it or not we shall in due course see unemployment jumping up to the million or two million mark again when the increased production campaigns here and elsewhere have run their course.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan on Tory vermin

In a speech at Manchester Mr. Bevan, Minister of Health, let himself go about the Tory Party. “They are lower than vermin,” he said. (Daily Mail, 5/7/48). For them he had “a deep burning hatred in his heart.”

It was not always so however. In 1940 when the Labour Party decided to enter into coalition with the Tory Party under a Tory Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Bevan said:

“The Government have been in office for two weeks and like my hon. Friend the member for Llanelly . . . I felicitate them upon the way in which they have set about their task.” (Hansard, 30th May, 1940.)

The Press naturally made much of Mr. Bevan’s abuse of the Tory Party but actually a more revealing passage in his speech was one that attracted no comment. He said that Churchill’s policy would mean ”cinemas, mansions, hotels and theatres going up, hut no houses for the poor.” (Daily Mail, 5/7/18.)

It is the last phrase that is significant. Mr. Bevan and the Labour Party charge the Tories with seeking to meet the needs of the rich. The Labour alternative is to try to help the poor by building comparatively low rented (and small) houses for them. It is only Socialists who seek the abolition of both rich and poor, of both the property-owning class and the propertyless working class.

Edgar Hardcastle