Editorial: Wages and Human Needs (1940)

Editorial from the December 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

The apologists for Capitalism are all reluctant to admit the truth about the way wages are fixed. They do not like to admit in the first place that the means of production and distribution are owned by a small minority of the population and that society is divided into a propertied class that lives by owning and a working class that lives by the sale of labour-power to the owners. Nor do they like to admit that wages are fixed in a fierce, unequal struggle between employers and workers, so that the cost of the bare necessities of life of the various grades of workers provides the levels to which wages generally conform. Rather than admit that this is the way Capitalism works, those who defend it give much thought to formulating theories of wages which do not look so brutal and unprincipled. The theories differ in their phraseology. Some try to present the facts in terms of the so-called “value of work” of the different grades of worker, others point to schemes of co-partnership and profit-sharing, etc., but all have in common the assumption that the workers as a whole have little to complain about, although in particular occupations or industries there may be a need for some improvement. Social reformers who accept Capitalism, of whom Mr. Seebohm Rowntree is an outstanding example, have given years of study to the problem as they see it—but without the problem ever being any nearer to solution. Now the war has brought the question of engineers’ wages into the foreground and the theories are being examined again. The employers state that in their view it is against the “national interest ” to grant the wage increase asked for by the Amalgamated Engineering Union. They do not take their stand on “inability to pay” the increase, but on the plea that wages are already high enough and that the Government should exercise control. The view of the Union has been put in an interview with the Daily Herald by Mr. Jack Tanner, President of the A.E.U. :—

“We are still a democratic state,” he declared. “It is not for the engineering employers, or any other set of employers, to say what is in the best interests of the country.

“We are anxious that the industries of the nation, together with the Navy, the Army, and Air Force, should be put on a common basis.

“We raise no objection to the conscription of labour if that is necessary, provided that wealth is conscripted also.

“Take the profit motive out of industry. Let there be a common pool for using all the resources of the nation—employers to be on the same footing as the rest of the community. Let payment from the nation’s resources be on the basis of service and value to the nation.

“If the engineering employers are so concerned about the national welfare, I suggest that they agree that the industry should be nationalised as are the armed forces, so that the conscription of wealth may be the same as the conscription of life.”—(Daily Herald, November 29th, 1940.)

It will be noticed that Mr. Tanner, though he criticises the existing arrangements, offers as an alternative that “payment from the nation’s resources be on the basis of service and value to the nation.”

He is probably unaware that avowed defenders of Capitalism use the same nebulous phrase about “service and value to the nation,” a meaningless form of words which capitalist investors, who claim that they render “service” by their investment, will readily accept on their own interpretation. It also obscures the sectional point of view which permits workers with a non-Socialist outlook to believe that it is possible to measure the “value to the nation” of different types of work, and hence desirable to perpetuate different incomes for different grades of workers.

Coming back to the point of view of the open defender of Capitalism we find The Times (November 30th) expressing itself as follows: —

“In fact any increase of wages in an industry almost wholly devoted to munitions must be paid by the country. The questions to be decided are whether the wage rates and the earnings of engineering workers are fair and reasonable when related to human needs and to wages in other industries, and whether an advance, which the industry could pass on to the taxpayer, would be justifiable.”

The Times approaches the dispute cautiously and with an air of not being committed to either side. This is a reminder that there is a war on. In times of peace the issue would be fought out in the usual way by a strike or lock-out, but now that is the last thing desired. It is indeed one of the difficulties that beset Capitalism at war, for the normal cut-throat capitalist procedure cannot be reverted to when, for military reasons, output must not be interrupted. The employers, the Government, and The Times are all hoping that arbitration will avoid any such interruption, but notice the hollowness of the principle to which the National Arbitration Tribunal is to direct itself. It is asked to decide whether engineering wages “are fair and reasonable when related to human needs and to wages in other industries.” The Tribunal is therefore to take into account all those sections of industry where wage rates are at their lowest; for example, the agricultural workers’ 48s., and the Post Office and railway workers getting in some cases even less. (Mr. Tanner should notice Post Office wages when he pins his faith to nationalisation.) What kind of principle is this? All it does is to accept the fact of low wage levels in some industries and elevate it into a principle for regulating wages elsewhere.

And what of “human needs”? The simple minded, not used to the subtleties of arbitration tribunals, will suppose that human needs can only mean the needs of human beings. Nothing could be further from the thought of The Times ! The Times is not proposing that engineering shareholders, cabinet ministers, millionaire newspaper proprietors, church dignitaries, and arbitrators shall all be ranked together with engineers and labourers for the purpose of deciding what are the needs of all as human beings. What is meant is that the class division of society shall be taken for granted, and that “human needs” shall be considered solely in relation to the needs of that sub-species known as the working class.

This state of affairs will not be remedied until class-divided society has given place to Socialism. Then there will be no wages problem. Class struggle will have disappeared to make way for common ownership of the means of production and distribution and for the application of the Socialist principle, “From each according to his capacity; to each according to his need.”

Notes by the Way: The “Vision” of Firle (1940)

The Notes by the Way Column from the December 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Vision” of Firle

In these days, when the newspapers are telling us that all our time and energy should be given to the prosecution of the war, a number of journalists could be spared by their stunt-hunting editors to inquire into the “vision” that appeared above Firle, in Sussex, on Sunday, October 27th. Affirming that it was another “Angel of Mons,” the News Chronicle sent a special representative to investigate. This is the story (News Chronicle, November 8th, 1940) : —

“All the evidence I have been able to collect suggests that on a still, warm Sunday something strange appeared in the sky above the village.

There was no cloud and there is no evidence of any aerial activity. Four people—careful enquiries fail to reveal any others—claim to have seen the figure of Christ crucified, and on either side of Him six angels.”

Other villagers saw nothing, and the Vicar was sceptical. “Would it not have been seen by hundreds of people in villages all over the district, instead of by a handful in this particular one?” He said he thought “there must have been a trick of the light or cloud.” (Perhaps the Vicar, as a professional religionist, felt that any visions should be witnessed by him, not by laymen.)

Then the Daily Mail took it up, saying that they had received a “flow of letters from people all over South-Eastern England.” The Mail was rather more non-committal than the News Chronicle, and would only go so far as to say that it must have been “something far out of the ordinary.” (November 12th.)

One letter published by the Mail certainly bore out this claim. A writer from Boscombe said that he (or she) “also saw this wonderful sight, but a little different perhaps. The angels appeared in beautiful flowing robes, with arms outstretched pointing to the sky. They seemed to be appealing to those on earth.”

Here, you will see, is that richness of detail that is so convincing. Unfortunately the writer from Boscombe went on to give just one detail too many. He said that the vision appeared “when the sun was setting in a lovely sky.” The original, authentic vision was seen, not when the sun was setting, but in the morning, and the Daily Mail editor had to point this out.

Another witness of the vision had to admit that from Croydon, where he saw the vision, the “figures of Christ and the angels were not so definite,” but this was compensated by the harp —”I did very clearly observe the harp in perfect detail for several minutes.”

Then there was a letter from a headmaster of a school in Gloucestershire. He was, he said, “tremendously interested in the account of the Sussex shepherd’s vision of Christ and the angels. Obviously, as this was also witnessed by others in the vicinity, one can accept it in good faith as a ‘sign’ that Christ has, as we sincerely pray, ‘come among us in His great power and glory’ to succour us.”

Then finally came two letters (Daily Mail, November 12th) that explained the vision and all its detail. One described white trails left in the sky by aeroplanes flying in from the coast, and the writer added : “There was such a fantastical design that you could see not only angels, but any subject that was dear to your heart.”

The second letter was from a Flight-Lieutenant confirming that “the ‘sign’ was merely a trail of exhaust vapour from aircraft travelling in the cold upper air at about 30,000 feet or more.”

All of which goes to show on what flimsy evidence a “vision” and “strangest story of the war” can be built up.

* * *

The “Angel of Mons”

The News Chronicle (November 7th) had introduced its story about the “vision” of Firle with a reference to the “Angel of Mons.” Evidently the editor forgot that the Angel of Mons story was a pure invention and was admitted to be such by its inventor. In an article in the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” (Twelfth Edition, Vol. 32, Page 198), that particular story is classed as “mere propaganda for the benefit of the superstitious,” and as one of the “successful appeals to primitive credulity.” The “Encyclopaedia” writer states that the story, “though published as fiction, was actually taken as fact” (italics his).

So when the News Chronicle calls its Firle story “a parallel of the famous ‘Angels of Mons’ legend,” it was hardly a reason for believing it.

* * *

Celebrating the Bolshevik Seizure of Power

Early in November the Daily Worker printed special articles on the 23rd anniversary of the Bolshevik seizure of power, and numerous meetings were announced at which the anniversary would be celebrated. Four celebrations were, however, not announced or reported in the Daily Worker, the following account being taken from the Daily Express (November 9th, 1940). The celebrations in question were those arranged in Washington, Tokyo, Rome and Berlin by the Russian ambassadors in those four cities: —

“Guests of the four Russian envoys included glittering figures in the capitalist world; occasion was the twenty-third anniversary of the October Revolution which was to end that world for ever.

In Washington nearly a thousand guests crammed the three floors of M. Oumansky’s gaily-decorated Embassy.

British and German diplomats helped themselves from tables heaped with rich Russian food. Japanese and Chinese amiably sipped beakers of sweet champagne.

Turks tried vodka; Italians experimented with whisky-soda; Balkan emissaries drank cognac that was laid down by the Czars.

At Stalin’s Embassy in Rome Count Ciano was the lion of the evening; in Tokyo little Matsuoka, Nippon’s Foreign Minister, took his War and Navy Ministers to the party for another hatchet-burying ceremony.

Berlin’s elite rolled up in force to do honour to M. Schwartzen’s caviare. And poor old Baron Weizaecker, Ribbentrop’s Foreign Office shadow, tendered (Dear me!) his “most cordial congratulations” on the Bolshevik coup of 1917.”

After this last touch it only remains for Stalin’s representatives to tender their most cordial congratulations on the Nazi coup of 1933.

* * *

Not so Cordial Happenings in Russia

In the meantime events of another kind were taking place in Russia. While the Russian ambassadors abroad were hobnobbing with choice gangs of Nazi and Fascist thugs in honour of the Russian “revolution,” Russia at home was showing the kind of corruption to which Bolshevik State Capitalism naturally lends itself. The first case was reported in the News Chronicle from their Moscow correspondent: —

“Moscow, Friday.—Eight people will face a firing squad and 34 others have received prison sentences up to ten years, as a result of the Moscow slaughterhouse theft trial.

Two gangs of thieves working undisturbed for two years, sold artificially-created meat surpluses to State-owned stores whose directors took half the proceeds of retail sales.

Thus, 500,000 roubles worth of meat had been pilfered since 1938.”—(News Chronicle, November 2nd, 1940.)

The other case was reported in the Manchester Guardian twelve days later : —

“Four Russian industrialists were sentenced to death at Kiev yesterday on charges of “damage to the State,” costing 1,240,000 roubles, the Moscow-wireless announces. One of the condemned men was the head of the Kiev State vodka factory, Mr. Galperin. It was alleged that he and his confederates stole petrol and spirit from the factory and sold it to private illegal dealers. Fourteen members of the group were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.”—(Manchester Guardian, November 14th, 1940.)

* * *

The Press and the Night Raiders

The British newspapers never tire of telling the world—and their patient readers—what noble, trustworthy organs of truth they are. Their attitude over the question of defence against night raiders is a little difficult to square with their protestations. Had they merely said that no doubt in time defence would catch up with attack, the history of weapons and methods of warfare would have made the claim a reasonable one. What, with few exceptions, they actually did was to hold out the hope of decisive and almost immediate counter measures, and it was only when readers were getting sick with hope deferred that the newspapers began repudiating each other’s earlier predictions. Here are a few out of a large number: —

“September 20th, 1940, Daily Express—

The Royal Air Force already has a reply to the heavy bombs dropped by the Germans on London this week. The reply will be delivered shortly.

What it is cannot at present be revealed, but it will have a big effect on the future of the air war.

September 23rd, Daily Mail:—

Well, you have heard, I expect, about our secret measures against night bombing attacks. I am not allowed to hint at what they are, but I can assure you that there IS something coming along. It will be sprung on the Nazis as suddenly as our great A.A. barrage was sprung on them a week ago, only the effects are expected to be even more devastating.

September 26th, Daily Herald—

A new type of fighter is coming into service with the R.A.F.

This, with its abnormal ability to stay in the air without refuelling, and its heavy armament, should, to put it mildly, disconcert the Luftwaffe (writes F. G. H. Salusbury, the Dally Herald War Correspondent).

These qualifications may be coupled with a novel method for the detection of the night raider.

A civilian population which is being bombed is apt to be impatient for results, but our experts have not been idle.”

A month later the Daily Herald was soft pedalling on the hope of stopping the raiders. Mr. Maurice Webb (Daily Herald, October 22nd) wrote: —

“I must pump a jet of cold water on all this extravagant talk about new devices to smash bombing attacks.

Novel methods of interception and protection will shortly surprise the Luftwaffe. But those who are hinting at some shattering secret weapon which will solve all our problems are just deluding themselves and others.”

The Times (October 17th, 1940) appears to have been one of the few newspapers which all along took the line that “forecasts of the imminence of miraculous defensive devices are certainly mischievous.”

It would be interesting now to be told by the newspapers which made those forecasts exactly how they justify their action.

* * *

Trade Unionists who Persecute C Os. 

The Manchester Guardian (November 13th, 1940) reproduces a statement issued by the Executive Council of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers concerning the persecution of conscientious objectors by certain members of the Society. The Society’s Greenock branch asked the E.C. to circularise the branches “pointing out that workers who have appeared before the tribunal as conscientious objectors should not be hounded and victimised by members of the A.S.W.”

The Executive very rightly shared the views of the Greenock branch, and have informed branches that “if attempts are made by members to penalise other A.S.W. members they are liable to be dealt with under rule.” The E.C. add: —

“We agree with the branch resolution that “this type of persecution can easily be diverted into other channels to the detriment of the workers generally.” Harassing of men because of their conscientious scruples is obnoxious in any case; it becomes putrid when the persecutors are A.S.W. members, who are, above a certain age, protected by their job from any danger of having to accept military service.”

* * *

Why Not ? 

In a letter to the Daily Herald (November 16th) a reader put the following question: —

“To meet the hard cases of disabled workers, why not pay all contributions to one Government fund for compensation, old age, National Health, disablement and unemployment ?”

The question is one that has occurred to many workers. To them it does appear absurd that there should be separate funds to provide for various evils of working-class existence, each with its elaborate rules, big staffs and complicated organisation. But there is method in this apparent madness. The purpose of the funds is not that of making reasonable provision for the sake of the worker, but that of enabling the capitalist class, through the State, to deal with problems arising out of Capitalism as cheaply as possible; on the one hand preventing discontent from becoming too acute, and on the other avoiding anything which might lessen the pressure that drives the worker to work for the employing class.

The Daily Herald reader has begun to think and asks why not one fund for all purposes ? He will be surprised to learn that Socialists do not favour separate funds or one fund. Socialists make the logical proposal that the system of society should be reconstituted so that every individual should throughout his or her life have free access to the product of the co-operative labour of the whole of the population. Then, as a matter of course, the sick, the aged, and the disabled will be fully provided for not as a favour but as a right.

* * *

The Post-War Housing Problem

Lord Reith, Minister of Works and Buildings, has been instructed to report to the Cabinet on the appropriate machinery and methods for dealing with the problem of post-war rebuilding, for the Government has promised—was there ever a government which didn’t?—to abolish slums as well as make good the damage done by German raiders. It is safe to say that the task of providing houses fit for the workers to live in will not be carried out under the auspices of Lord Reith. To start with, the workers, if they had their choice, would hardly appoint to the task Lord Reith. Indeed, after reading his speech in the House of Lords on November 13th it is reasonable to wonder whether anyone who wanted any kind of practical problem solved would entrust it to him. A typical foggy passage is the following : —

“There must be an eager and even anxious looking forward to the better Britain of our dreams which, in part, devoted men and women were beginning here and there to make come true. One must not overlook what had already been done. The speed and complexity and materialism of life had confused and confounded, and, in some cases, had failed the vision, the divine impatience, the high resolve no longer to tolerate the intolerable. That phrase “no longer to tolerate the intolerable” might be as good a text as any Minister who had anything to do with this subject would find.—(The Times, November 14th.)

Lord Reith is not dreaming of the kind of better Britain the workers need. One feature of his dream is certain to be that monstrous insult to the wealth producers which goes by the name of “working-class houses.” The workers do not want “working-class houses,” but houses fit to live in. Not ugly, stereotyped, inconvenient, cramped and crowded sleeping-boxes, but real houses fit to live in and look at. Lord Reith and the Conservative Party are not filled with divine patience, high resolve, etc., to build such houses. To have that resolve would mean having a determination to abolish the system which has a propertied class and a working class.

If the workers want the thing done they might start by taking the advice given by Captain Balfour in another connection, and applying it to their own condition. Talking about winning the war, he said we must give up expecting plums of good fortune to fall into our hands. Instead, we must “be discontented, be angry, be intolerant” (The Times, November 14th). Or, as Lloyd George used to say, the working class should be “audacious” instead of trusting to fine words and promises from the Lord Reiths of the world.

* * *

Britain’s Ambassadors

Along with much criticism of the Foreign Office and its embassy staffs abroad, Mr. W. N. Ewer, in the Daily Herald (November 26th), makes the point that most of them are “conscientious officials—some able, some not—working, many of them very hard, for pretty poor pay.”

It is quite true that many of these men, having private incomes, are expected to be able to supplement their official pay. The pay of the staffs ranges up to £1,500 for the higher officials, plus large allowances for rent and for entertainment expenses. For the ambassadors, payment ranges up to £20,000 for the ambassador in Washington, but only £2,500 of that is salary, the rest being made up of entertainment allowances. Mr. Ewer might be right in suggesting that by comparison with other countries, and with the incomes of captains of industry, these amounts are not large. It will, however, be noticed that he is tacitly assuming the continuance of Capitalism and the existing relationship between capitalist States. He would no doubt admit that, except on that assumption, the need for all this expensive diplomatic parade disappears.

However, even viewed from a capitalist standpoint, it does not seem that any pay, however small, can have been small enough considering the poor show put up by some of the gentlemen in question. Apart from the actual results of their activities in recent years, it is only necessary to consider some of their recent utterances.

First, Sir Nevile Henderson, formerly ambassador to Germany, speaking at a meeting at Cheltenham on November 22nd. According to The Times (November 23rd), Sir Nevile said—

“That we would never get stable conditions in Europe until Anglo-German co-operation was achieved.

‘When this war has been fought and won,’ he said, ‘we can keep Germany down for a time, but you cannot keep Germany down always. You will not get settled conditions in Western Europe until Germans and British can work together. We are ready to do it. The trouble is, Germany, who has to be taught, somehow.’”

If it is not rude to mention the matter, it could be suggested that Sir Nevile’s job as ambassador to Germany was precisely in order to teach them how to co-operate.

But Sir Robert Vansittart, chief diplomatic adviser to the Government and former ambassador to France and other countries, doesn’t agree with Sir Nevile. He spoke on the overseas wireless on November 24th : —

“We must all drop the habit of making allowances for the Germans; it isn’t fair to ourselves,” declared Sir Robert Vansittart, chief diplomatic adviser to the Government, in an overseas broadcast last night.

“Hitler is no accident,” said Sir Robert. “He is the natural and continuous product of a breed which from the dawn of history has been predatory and bellicose.”

Sir Robert warned against “the hallucination that there is in Germany an effective element of kindly and learned old gentlemen, and of sweet, pig-tailed maidens.

“That is unhappily a myth. The German professors either vanish on the day of battle, or they turn out to be the worst of expansionists.

“Don’t count on the maidens either. You will even find in the Polish black book German girls gloating over the sufferings of the victims.”—(Daily Mail, November 25th.)

It looks as if Sir Nevile and Sir Robert ought to get together and compare notes. Perhaps, though, diplomatic relations have been broken off between them.

Mr. Ewer might explain how foreign representation will be improved by doubling the salaries of these two gentlemen, each with his own view as to the way we go from here.

One other statement made by Sir Nevile Henderson should be placed on record. It needs no comment: —

“When Mr. Chamberlain flew to Germany he had seven cards in his hand. One was a trump; the rest were duds. The trump was the prestige of Britain. The second card was our utter unpreparedness for war. Goring told me that at the time of the Munich conference London had only 14 anti-aircraft guns and nothing to prevent Germany dropping from 1,000 to 2,000 tons of bombs a day on London.”

Mr. Chamberlain’s other “dud” cards included the unwillingness of France to fight, the great unwillingness at that time of our Empire, the idea of collective security, and his own personal detestation of war. He decided on the compromise because it was certainly better than immediate war.”— (The Times, November 23rd, 1940.)

* * *

The Thieving Well-to-do. 

Magistrates from time to time have harsh things to say about workers who pilfer from their employers or from their employers’ customers. It seems, however, that the matter of pilfering has been put into a wholly wrong perspective.

The real wholesale thieves are the well-to-do who frequent hotels, but whereas the worker’s employer prosecutes, the hotels don’t. A reader of the Manchester Guardian who says that for over 20 years he has been associated with two of the most important hotel groups in the country, gives a detailed account of what is considered proper in the ranks of the “highly respectable.” Here are some extracts from his lengthy letter : —

“Guests in hotels do not confine themselves to thefts of soap, towels, and ash trays. They steal electric lamps, nail brushes, combs, notepaper, pens, glasses, coat-hangers, metal and composition pegs from the backs of doors, and even plumbing fittings —in fact, almost anything of light weight which can be unscrewed or simply lifted. As we were able to prove, many a small country cottage or houseboat on the Thames has been partially fitted up with articles purloined from restaurants and hotels in London. Knives, forks, spoons, pepper and salt containers, mustard pots, napkins, and small wine glasses have disappeared by the thousand, and nearly always during the early days of summer when the exodus to the country begins.

But to our soap. The greatest losses were sustained in two first-class restaurants with which I was associated on the occasion of military reunions and at “swagger” banquets when white ties and tails were the order ! “Tails” were ideal for soap secretion and for the purloining of nail brushes. The process is interesting. It runs : Wash the hands dry the soap on the towel, wrap the soap in a piece of toilet paper and drop it into the tail pocket.

To prevent the theft of nail brushes the manager of one first-class restaurant called in an expert designer to devise an unstealable brush. The result was a model three times as large as the customary brush, with an ebony back, loaded with four ounces of lead. The would-be acquirer of this article who hid it in his tail pocket was liable to make his exit from the lavatory walking “at the slope.” In most first-class hotels there is a reserve “fund” of replacements against theft. This fund embraces cutlery, glass, napkins, towels, and all kinds of oddments. One big company had a variety of small trinkets made bearing the firm’s sign and name, and they were left around in accessible places to be stolen. A cheap and semi-artistic product of this kind was considered an advertising investment and a protection for the more valuable articles about the hotel. Soap is going to be still greater temptation to pilferers if this war lasts much longer.”

The next time a magistrate prepares to inflict a heavy sentence, plus some moralising, on an unfortunate worker who has tried to make up his wages by pilfering, the magistrate might pause and ask himself whether he has among his highly-respectable friends people who habitually walk off with hotel fittings and think nothing of it.

* * *

Where’s George ? 

On Wednesday, November 27th, the News Chronicle published a photograph of two smiling gentlemen, the Soviet Premier, Molotov, and Marshal Goering, taken at their meeting in Berlin. It bore the words, “Soviet Premier, Molotov, received by Marshal Goering (wearing medals), when the Russo-German talks took place in Berlin this month.” It was at this meeting that the Bolshevik and Nazi plenipotentiaries declared their continued friendship.

As Goering is the gentleman who howled for the blood of Dimitrov (perhaps one of his many medals was given for that?) it would have been a nice gesture for the Russian Government to have sent Dimitrov along with Molotov; but that, of course, would have offended Goering. Perhaps, too, Dimitrov might have thought that humble visits from himself to his would-be murderer would be carrying the Bolshevik-Nazi friendly policy just a little too far.

* * *

Wages and Hours in War-time

The daily Press gave a good deal of publicity to figures published in the “Ministry of Labour Gazette” (November) of wages and earnings in a number of industries. They selected for special comment the fact that the average earnings of men employed in metal, engineering and shipbuilding trades amounted to 85s. 1d. in the week ending July 20th, 1940, compared with 59s. 5d. a week in October, 1938. They remarked on the fact that this was an increase of 43 per cent., but did not give equal prominence to the fact that the increase was due mostly to the working of long hours. The Daily Herald drew attention to this: —

“It is partly accounted for by advances in wage rates, but the main explanation is the very much longer hours worked last summer as compared with the autumn of 1938.

The Gazette itself puts the average rise in wage rates at 10 per cent, between the outbreak of war and July, 1940.

It was not found possible to get and compare the hours worked, but here is the Gazette on that point : —

The month of July, 1940, was a period when, in many establishments engaged in the production of munitions, output was being speeded up as much as possible, and very long hours, often until a seven-day week was being worked.— (Daily Herald. November 29th, 1940.)

It will be noticed, too, that between September, 1939, and July, 1940, the cost-of-living index figure rose by about 20 per cent.

Edgar Hardcastle

Blogger's Note:

Once again this Notes By The Way column was unsigned, but it was obviously written by Edgar Hardcastle. 

War: Methods of Offence and Defence (continued) (1940)

From the December 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 2

While the Roman republic was carrying all before it the power of cavalry began to show itself, and in the latter part of the Empire it dominated the military situation as the supreme offensive weapon.

The hills and marshes of Italy were not an ideal training ground for cavalry. Like gunpowder, the new offensive weapon came from the East, originating among the Magyars and the Gauls, who developed their horsemanship on the plains of Hungary and the steppes of Russia. When these barbarians first overflowed the Roman frontiers they presented Rome with a military problem that was only solved ultimately by making these barbarians citizens of Rome and the basis of its army. But the solution was obtained slowly and occupied centuries in accomplishing.

It is an extraordinary instance of the cupidity, solidity and power of the Roman commercial class that, in spite of numerous disastrous defeats sustained by Roman arms, the wealth and influence of Rome extended and digested victors and vanquished indifferently into its predatory pursuit of riches. For the grandeur of old Rome was based upon the capacity of its privileged patrician and commercial class of merchants and financiers to contrive that all roads carrying wealth, sweated from slave and freedman, led back to Rome.

In the early years of the Roman republic, while its power was extending over Italy, the heavily armoured Roman soldier, fighting in the phalanx formation borrowed from the Greeks, was irresistible. When, however, Roman conquest spread beyond the borders of Italy the Romans came in contact with foes whose offensive equipment showed up certain weaknesses in the closely-packed phalanx.

The first shock received by the Roman military organisation was delivered by the Carthagenians.

While Rome had been conquering Italy, another State, Carthage, had risen to power in North Africa. The Carthagenian was a maritime power drawing wealth to itself through sea traffic. It was by far the wealthiest State in the Mediterranean area, and Rome and Carthage eventually came to blows because of the growing influence of Carthage and the fear this inspired in Rome that Carthage would obtain control of the narrow strait between Sicily and Italy and dominate the Mediterranean. It was a struggle between two nations whose privileged classes both drew their wealth from usury, commerce and exploitation. But whereas (in those days) the Romans fought Rome’s battles, the Carthagenians never fought theirs, relying upon the huge numbers of mercenary troops their enormous wealth enabled them to purchase.

In passing it is worth noting that there was one important difference between mercenary and native troops that the Carthagenian wars brought home so forcibly to the Roman Government that steps were taken in the course of the war to remedy it. The Roman levies were compulsory and had a tendency to melt away as the soldier-farmer learnt how his land was ruined or his farm legally and illegally taken from him by financiers while he was away on foreign service. The mercenary, however, remained as long as his pay was good, though in defeat he sometimes turned upon his paymasters. As will be shown later on the Romans got out of this difficulty by the revolutionary change of organising a volunteer army.

The first series of battles was fought on the sea the Romans being successful. They introduced a revolution into sea warfare. The old method of fighting was to ram and sink the opponent’s ship—hence the iron beak below the waterline. But the Romans were poor sailors, and to make up for this deficiency, and to take advantage of the fighting skill of their soldiers, they introduced the method of grapple and board. To effect this a narrow movable gangway with a sharp spike at the end was attached to the ship in such a way that one end could be raised into the air and dropped upon the deck of the enemy ship. The sharp spike pierced the deck and the Roman soldiers rushed down the gangway to engage the enemy in hand-to-hand fighting. Against the Carthagenians, who were expert sailors but poor soldiers, it proved very successful.

The Romans then carried the war into Sicily and Africa. Four years were spent gathering and equipping an expeditionary force to attack the city of Carthage itself, and eventually an army of twenty thousand infantry and five hundred cavalry was landed on the coast of Africa. The small size of the cavalry force shows what little reliance was placed upon cavalry by Roman tacticians.

This army was met by a mercenary Carthagenian army which had been carefully trained by Xanthippus, a Spartan in the service of Carthage. When the two armies met the numerous Carthagenian cavalry, which was stationed on the wings of the phalanx, swamped and drove from the field the small force of Roman horse, and then turned inwards on the Roman centre enveloping and almost completely annihilating it. Only two thousand escaped.

The weakness of the phalanx formation was that, if crowded in upon itself by a force striking from different sides and the rear while the front ranks were still engaged, the soldiers became too closely packed to raise their arms and use their long pikes. It was cavalry that showed up this weakness, and the battle in North Africa was the first important victory of cavalry over infantry. The Greek and Roman phalanx had always depended upon moving forward rapidly and keeping formation until they got af the enemy, but cavalry was too mobile to be reached in that way. However, the hills and marshlands of Italy were not good breeding grounds for cavalry on a large scale, and a compromise formation was later developed by the Romans to meet the new form of offensive.

After the struggle between Rome and Carthage had lasted for twenty-two years, the Romans gained a naval victory that for a time set a limit to the encroachment of Carthage. The latter suffered a further setback by the revolt of its mercenary army which was being treacherously hamstrung by its faithless paymaster. The terrible story of the ferocious crushing of this revolt is told by Flaubert in his novel, “Salambo.”

The next important phase in the struggle between Rome and Carthage for supremacy was the period of Hannibal’s march in B.C. 217 from Spain over the Pyrenees and Alps into Italy, and his conquering progress towards Rome. Again cavalry was the ruling factor in Roman defeats. Hannibal’s force, though inferior in size to the Roman armies, was immensely superior in cavalry, and Hannibal planned every battle to make the best use of this force.

Ultimately another crushing blow was delivered to the old infantry formation by cavalry when the heavy Gallic cavalry of Hannibal dealt its sledgehammer blow at the battle of Cannoe. The Roman infantry were again forced into a helpless heap and massacred by a much smaller body of horsemen. The experience of North Africa had been repeated and was to occur on a larger scale once again before the Romans recognised that the day of the heavily-armed infantry was passing and a more mobile offensive weapon had to be forged.

Hannibal’s final withdrawal from Italy was not due to defeat on the battlefield, but to blockade, guerilla and fortress warfare, and the jealousy and suspicions of the ruling groups in Carthage who eventually recalled him.

The next period of interest in this discussion is the time when the German tribes were threatening to overflow Roman frontiers. At first the Roman armies suffered overwhelming defeats. Then an army, raised and trained under a new system devised by the Roman general, Marius, was successful, and the invaders were driven off.

The new military organisation developed under Marius to meet the cavalry menace was a carefully trained volunteer paid force, with its infantry ranks spaced out in three sections grouped as a cohort (six centuries totalling 600 men). Ten of these cohorts formed a legion. The weapons of the legionary were a javelin for throwing and a short sword for close quarters, and his armour a helmet and cuirass. Thus the old armoured citizen-soldier of the phalanx with his pike was abolished and a professional army established in his place. The new legionaries were capable of building fortifications and roads and were the foundation of the system which carried Roman arms successfully all over the known world and built roads and fortifications that still remain famous. It has been asserted that the new army fought as much with the mattock and spade as with the sword. It met all the calls upon it successfully until it came up against the Magyar horse archers and finally the heavily-armed Gothic cavalry in the later days of the Empire.

The disaster that eventually rendered the Roman legionary obsolete was suffered at the battle of Adrianople where the Emperor Valens was defeated by the Goths in A.D. 378. It was the most crushing defeat since the battle of Cannoe and was brought about in a similar way. While the infantry ranks on both sides were engaged the Gothic cavalry, which had been foraging at a distance, received news that the fight was in progress, and, galloping on to the field, rode the legionaries down and forced them into a tightly-packed, helpless mass. Only a few thousand were able to escape.

This Gothic cavalry was a formidable force. With body and limbs clad in mail, and armed with a heavy lance, they were irresistible. There was also added to their equipment a heavy battle-axe which could be thrown or wielded and would penetrate Roman armour and split the Roman shield.

After Adrianople the Roman Emperor, Theodosius, commenced to enlist in his service every Teutonic chief whom he could bribe to enter his service. These war bands obeyed their immediate commanders alone. Thus order in the Roman world eventually depended upon the purchased loyalty of these Teutonic chiefs.

Henceforth for a thousand years heavy cavalry was the ruling power in war.

The limited nature of the subject under discussion prevents us from examining the internal constitution of the Roman Empire which had its share of responsibility for the poor show put up against the German hordes and also for the attempt to digest them into the Empire.

The armoured knights of mediaeval times and their part in the building up of Feudalism will be discussed in the next contribution—that is, providing bombs do not interfere with the production of it !

Gilmac.

Important People (1940)

From the December 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

   "We had our party in a restaurant near Piccadilly, where the 'important people' sought after by all propagandists go to see and be seen while they eat gorgeous luncheons that make ration books look absurd."

— Tom Clarke (Reynolds, October 27th, 1940).

“Forward” and the National Government (1940)

From the December 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

Now that Mr. Ernest Bevin, the T.U.C. leader, is a valued and trusted member of the inner War Cabinet of the British Government, Mr. Emrys Hughes has grave misgivings whether he will be able to look after the interests of the working class.

"As recently as March this year,” writes Mr. Hughes in “Forward” (October 12th, 1940), "Mr. Bevin warned the working class . . . . ‘ that the whole tendency is to create a situation which will enable the ruling class to use this war as a means of thrusting us back to a form of industrial slavery . . . It is essential that the workers should be alive to what is going on . . .  If the bankers and financiers are allowed to have their way and secure control of the country through this Government . . .  then we shall find ourselves shackled.' ”

Apparently Mr. Hughes has no objection to the leaders of the working class taking office in a capitalist government. That which really gives rise to his misgivings is the belief that if it was Mr. Bevin’s intention to safeguard the interests of the working class by entering the cabinet, his efforts are in grave danger of being frustrated.

He draws attention to the fact that all the big capitalist papers welcomed the inclusion of the transport workers’ leader in the cabinet, but points out that as Mr. Bevin represents the T.U.C., the real reason for the welcome is because the Government require him for the purpose of mobilising, placating, and assuring the workers that “this is their war.”

Mr. Hughes laments that the Government appear to have made certain that Mr. Bevin’s power will be restricted to the aforementioned tasks.

Whilst we do not disagree with him on the reasons for Mr. Bevin’s inclusion in the cabinet, we have always rejected the view that it is possible for working-class interests to be served by entry into a capitalist government. Further, we are very critical of what Mr. Hughes thinks are working-class interests and which he thinks merits the attention of the Labour cabinet minister. We will return to the latter point.

What Mr. Hughes seems to forget is the fact that Mr. Bevin entered the cabinet by the grace of the capitalist parties, and with the approval of the bulk of the Labour movement. The latter, it is important to remember, supports the war wholeheartedly.

Therefore it is hardly surprising that his function in the Government is the one which is likely to prove of tremendous importance in the “ Drive for Victory."

All the same it is not difficult to understand the perturbation of Mr. Hughes at the prospect that what he regards as vital working-class interests may be neglected even by a government which includes leaders of the working class.

But he is perhaps unaware that when the war machine is on the move, victory is of paramount importance to the capitalist class, and matters which tend to distract attention from that object are pushed aside.

Now let us consider some of the things which Mr. Hughes believes vitally affect the well-being of the working class, and deserving of special attention by the Government through the medium of Mr. Bevin.

In another article in Forward, (November 2nd, 1940), he states that the perorations of Mr. Bevin are “splendid" and “thrilling," but complains that it is high time that “the oratory crystallised into concrete ideas: into a programme of social and industrial reconstruction for Britain and Europe and the world." He also wants to know a little more about the Minister of Labour's plan for “freeing the world from Nazism and tyranny."

And he appears desperately anxious about the recovery of the coal markets of France, Scandinavia and Italy, “after we have gained the victory over Germany and destroyed Hitler and the Nazi regime." An anxiety which doubtless is shared by the colliery owners, too!

“If there is no plan for the economic reconstruction of Europe so that we can sell Europe goods, then we will inevitably return to the old problems of unemployment, and perhaps even on a greater scale." A business man could hardly show more concern for the future of trade than this.

It is clear that he is concerned with problems likely to arise out of the continuation of Capitalism, i.e., the loss of markets, trade, etc. And it is equally clear that he has no conception whatever of the real problem which faces the working class NOW as well as in post-war years—the abolition of a system that gives rise to Hitlers, Nazism, war, unemployment and the countless other miseries which afflict the working class.

He goes on to deplore “that if Europe is smashed, ruined, bankrupt . . .  agriculture disorganised . . . the industrial workers will not have the purchasing power to buy the food that the farmers can produce."

It is evident from this that despite the obvious concern for the welfare of the workers, he cannot visualise any solution to their miseries excepting in terms of the wages system (his reference to “purchasing power" and the “buying of food"), which system forms the basis of capitalist society. And yet Mr. Hughes regards himself as a Socialist!

Possessed of such conceptions it is hardly to be wondered at that he then proceeds to outline a “ ten or twenty year" PLAN for the rebuilding of Europe, which he thinks merits the attention of the Government through the medium of Mr. Bevin.

Each country is allotted a special role in the production of “ food and goods for all.” Mr. Laski, Mr. Keynes, and Sir John Orr are suggested as the “brains" which could work out the details in order that the plan could be submitted to the world as part of the Peace Aims of the British Government.

In passing we might suggest that a ten or even a twenty year plan will hardly suffice for the “reconstruction" of Europe if the R.A.F., the Luftwaffe, and the Regia Aeronautica continue at their present tempo!

Meanwhile Mr. Bevin doesn’t appear to be much interested in detailed plans for post-war reconstruction, but seems bent on enlarging the scope for Mr. Hughes' flair for planning. Speaking to Midland factory workers on November 4th, 1940, Mr. Bevin is reported to have said: —

   In another six months we shall have passed Germany in aircraft, ships, and guns, and I venture to prophesy that immediately we have done that, the world will move forward to a peaceful time of reconstruction, the wiping away of privilege and the growth of knowledge.—(Daily Telegraph, November 5th, 1940.)

It isn't ten or twenty year plans for the reconstruction of capitalist “civilisation” that the workers need, still less the "declaration of the Government’s War Aims and its Peace Aims" as Mr. Hughes thinks. The workers require an understanding of their class position and all that that implies.

Socialist knowledge alone will ensure this understanding, and once acquiring it the working class will have no need of the “planners" and the so-called experts to point the way to their salvation. The road will be plainly marked—to the abolition of Capitalism and the establishment of international Socialism.

H. G. Holt

The People’s Convention (1940)

From the December 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Communist Party, through the Daily Worker, are giving great publicity to a so-called People’s Convention which is to meet on January 12th, 1941, and will inaugurate a campaign for a People’s Government. The following six-point programme is the basis of the movement between now and the holding of the Convention: —

1. Defence of the people’s living standards.
2. Defence of the peoples democratic and trade union rights.
3. Adequate air raid precautions, deep bomb-proof shelters, rehousing and relief of victims.
4. Friendship with the Soviet Union.
5. A People’s Government, truly representative of the whole people and able to inspire the confidence of the working people of the world.
6. A people’s peace that gets rid of the causes of war.

Among the signatories are, naturally, leading members of the Communist Party, including Mr. Harry Pollitt, Mr. R. Palme Dutt, and Mr. William Gallacher, M.P. Others are trade union officials, present or past members of the Labour Party, officials of the Co-operative movement, etc.

It will be noticed at once that the programme is mostly phrased in general terms, about the only specific item being “deep bomb-proof shelters.” All of the others are items that every member of the present Government could and would support. They declare every day that they are anxious to defend the people’s living standards the war being waged for that purpose and with the aim of securing a “people’s peace that gets rid of the causes of war.”

It is therefore obvious that proclaiming vague aims like these six points tells us nothing. What we want to know is the meaning placed on them and the means by which they are to be attained. In the meantime the signatories, who day by day explain in the Daily Worker why they support the Convention, each give their own interpretation. One sees in it "the destruction of Fascism,” another wants “the conscription of wealth,” another sees in the Convention the means of making the transport industry efficient. Others want no more “appeasement” in foreign policy, action to deal with rising prices, and bigger old-age pensions. The one thing they all agree about is, in the words of Mr. Pritt, K.C., that the movement "is winning the support of people of various parties and of no party at all ” (Daily Worker, October 21st, 1940).

The Trades Union Congress is opposed to the movement on the ground that it is a new Communist Party manoeuvre and that its people’s government is to be one “in which apparently neither the trade unions nor the Labour Party had any part ” (Manchester Guardian, November 18th, 1940).

Incompatible Aims

It will be seen that this "new movement” has not been unwilling to use the familiar old method by which other reformist bodies like the Labour Party and I.L.P. were built up. By drafting its aims in terms which are capable of various interpretations and will cover all kinds of piecemeal demands for reform, the movement hopes to bring together numerous small bodies of discontented people and thus give the appearance of a great united body, driving towards one common aim. Mr. D. N Pritt, K.C., one of the signatories, has promptly made such a claim. He declared in a speech at Newcastle (Manchester Guardian, November 18th, 1940) that "the aim of the People’s Convention was a working-class government pledged to establish a Socialist State and which would eliminate the causes of war.” In spite of Mr. Pritt’s belief there is nothing whatever in the six points committing those who support it to the establishment of Socialism.

Other criticisms present themselves. The movement is to seek the overthrow of Fascism, and also friendship with the Soviet Union which is closely bound in friendship to Nazi Germany!

The movement wants to overthrow the present Government, including its Labour Party members, and is already at loggerheads with the T.U.C. Yet the T.U.C. and Labour Party have declared themselves to be wholeheartedly in favour of all the points.

And what is to be the composition of a “people’s government, truly representative of the whole people”? No names are given, but early in 1939, when the Communist Party was likewise demanding a truly representative cabinet, the three names they mentioned were Winston Churchill, Attlee and Sir A. Sinclair. All three are now in the Government.

What about war? For the first month or so after the war broke out, the Communist Party, in line with its pre-war policy, was proclaiming the necessity of waging war on Germany as the only means of safeguarding democracy and the workers' standard of living.

An Echo of 1917

The new People’s Convention is, of course, an echo—and a faint echo at that—of something which took place on June 3rd, 1917—the so-called Leeds Convention. A similar Convention, called by the same type of person and organisation, met to form workers' and soldiers’ councils, and to "hail the Russian Revolution and organise the British democracy.” It was to begin “a new era of democratic power in Great Britain.” It passed flamboyant resolutions, proclaimed the beginning of a great movement which would sweep away the Government and the war, and after frightening a number of Tories who took it seriously, it just faded out. Historians of the period now barely mention it, and Mr. G. D. H. Cole, although he claims that it set the anti-war movement definitely on foot, has to add "though many of those who took part in it had no really revolutionary intention.” (“A Short History of the British Working-Class Movement,” Vol. Ill, Page 123.) Looking back, and recalling that among the prime movers of the Leeds Convention of 1917 were Ramsay MacDonald, Philip Snowden and H. Alexander, it will not be difficult to understand why the Convention counted for nothing and gave no help to the movement towards Socialism.

The present movement is, of course, an admission that the Communist Party recognises its utter failure to catch the support of “people of various parties and of no party at all” for its own programme, just as the Leeds Convention was a sign of the failure of the MacDonald I.L.P. group to do so in 1917.

The only noticeable difference is that the demands made by the Leeds group in 1917 were far too bold in appearance to suit the organisers of the present movement, so the revival of the political "co-optimists” is on a much censored and toned-down programme. Thus do the “left- wing” groups reach ever lower levels, so that MacDonald-Snowden, low as their political understanding was, appear to tower by comparison with Pollitt and Gallacher.

 Edgar Hardcastle

Why Not Socialism? (1940)

From the December 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Question to Mr. Bevin
Although he is not leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Ernest Bevin, Minister of Labour and National Service, has attracted much attention by his statements on the kind of country this is going to be after the war if the Labour Party has its way. Because of his position in the trade union world, and because of the reasoned nature of his statements, it is safe to assume that what he says reflects clearly enough the mind of those who control the Labour Party. What he says now will when the war is over be translated into the programme of his Party.

People who have listened to his speeches, and large numbers of workers who judge by brief newspaper reports and radio broadcasts, claim to be impressed. “Here,” they say, “is a man who means business. We can trust him to do what is needed to put the world to rights after the war.” What, then, is the Socialist view? Invariably sceptical about the promises of politicians, are we really entitled to be sceptical about Mr. Bevin? To answer the question let us look closely at what Mr. Bevin has in mind. He started well. In a speech at Bristol on October 26th he spoke as follows : —

   . . . We have a right to claim that the society which is established at the end shall be based upon the broadest possible basis, and privilege that we have known hitherto entirely disappears into the common pool. ( Manchester Guardian, October 28th.)

Taken literally that statement could only mean that the post-war society is to be Socialism; especially as Mr. Bevin went on to recognise that “ the problem is not limited to the boundaries of one nation.”

In a later speech at the Rotary Club of London on November 20th (Manchester Guardian, November 21st) he dealt again with this question.

  I think the time has come when we should not be led into the mistakes we made in the last war of merely indulging in high-flown platitudes about “homes for heroes” and things of that kind simply to stimulate the people. Now is the time when thoughtful people ought to be considering the real social implications of the war.

He went on to say that "security cannot be attained by arms. It can only be attained by the enthronement of power with the people,” and he suggested “that at the end of this war, and indeed during the war, we accept social security as the main motive of all our national life.” He denied the possibility of having social security “on the basis of the present economic order,” and said that “if profit can be the only motive then the natural corollary is economic disorder, and that will bring you back to the same position as you are in now, ever recurring.”

Then, after having done so well, Mr. Bevin proceeded to repudiate the logic of his own case, by adding one short but all-important statement: —

   That does not mean that all profits or surpluses would be wiped out . . .

So where are we? Back, of course, with all the long line of well-meaning people who have hoped to cure the evils of capitalism without abolishing it.

It cannot be done. And Socialists who predicted with absolute certainty that the Labour Governments of 1924 and 1929 would of necessity fail, predict equally certainly that if Mr. Bevin’s party now tries to do this they will fail again.

As Socialists we are entitled to put a question to Mr. Bevin and those who share his views. Knowing the evils of Capitalism, and the source from which they flow—the private ownership and control of the means of production and distribution and the production of goods for sale and profit instead of solely for use—will Mr. Bevin tell us why he wants (or thinks it necessary) to stand for the retention, even in restricted form, of the capitalist system? Something else in his speech indicates what his answer would be, for he went on to say that he is horrified at the prospect of “a blind revolution of starving men” (he added that he doesn’t mind revolutions “if they are well directed ”). Socialists want Socialism, and that will be a “well-directed” revolution. It will be directed by a Socialist working class. It is and will remain impossible until such time as there are Socialists in sufficient number, politically organised for their task. So, like Mr. Bevin, we recognise that Socialism is at the moment impossible, for those conditions are not fulfilled.

But whereas we recognise the fact and urge the workers everywhere to recognise the fact, Mr. Bevin thinks to walk round it by allowing the profit system to remain, but appealing to the humanity or fear of the propertied class to exact substantial concessions from them in the direction of greater "social security." Mr. Bevin is living in a fool’s paradise. As soon as their crisis has passed the capitalist class will forget their fears and will want to get on with the business of Capitalism. They will not have the desire to limit Capitalism, much less rob it of its power by providing real “social security” for the workers. The workers have to carry out the task themselves, and the need of the day is to win over the workers to Socialism. Well-meant endeavours to find short and easy roads, or to provide half-way solutions cannot succeed and do not help the Socialist movement.

Edgar Hardcastle

This Month's Quotation: Cardinal Newman (1940)

The Front Page quote from the December 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

   “The strength of any Party lies in it being true to its theory. Consistency is the life of a movement.”

Cardinal Newman

To All Our Readers (1940)

Party News from the December 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

The other day I met an old friend who is a sympathiser of the Party. Although we had been out of touch for a considerable time owing to the conditions arising out of the “air blitz,” his first words were: “Blimey! have you got a Standard on you?—I haven’t seen a copy for two months! ” “Here, wait a minute,” said I. “ What about asking me how I’m getting on since its ages ago we last met? ”

“Oh, you? I can see you’re O.K.—it’s the Standard I’m worrying about. I say," he said with sudden anxiety, “the Standard hasn’t packed up?” and added that he had been bombed out of his home and that accounted for his ignorance of recent Party activity.

I was able to give him a current Standard and was delighted to confirm that I was still my old self by tapping him for a donation to Party funds.

Our many readers would doubtless be just as anxious as my friend if they thought that there was a danger of the Standard “packing up.”

Well, comrades and friends, there is no immediate danger of this happening, but rising costs of production, together with increasing difficulties of distribution, are causing not a little worry.

Therefore I am making this very special appeal to readers to contribute as much as they can spare to a Maintenance Fund that will ensure the future existence of the Standard.

Also I urge every reader to make a big effort to increase the circulation, as this would prove not only of propaganda value, but would assist financially too.

There is no need for me to dwell on the difficult conditions under which the Standard is produced these days. I leave that to your imagination, knowing that you will understand and respond speedily and generously.

H. G. Holt,

Party Funds Organiser.

Freedom of Opinion (1940)

From the December 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

On November 18th Mussolini made a speech to the Italian Fascist Party in which he claimed that the Italian war bulletins were truthful and fair statements of Italian as well as British war losses.

Commenting on this speech in its editorial for November 19th, the Daily Express compares the position of the Press in this country with its position in Italy and Germany and Russia, quite rightly pointing out how impossible it is for any criticism of the Government to obtain publicity in the latter three countries.

We know quite well that the dictatorships owe much of their success to lies and the suppression of opinion, but how do we stand here in that respect? The Daily Express says: —

   The difference between Axis truth and British truth is this—that in Britain we still retain means of proving whether a statement is true or not. Our free Press and unfettered Parliament have a real part in our war effort.

Is this statement in strict accordance with the facts? Of course it isn’t. The Press is only free to criticise up to a certain very limited point. If it says anything that can be construed into an impeding of the war effort it does so at the risk of prosecution under very definite and plainly-worded war measures, and this whether the criticism be based on truth or falsehood. It is also within the power of the Government to suppress any newspaper or periodical it considers a hindrance to the successful carrying on of the war, as it has already demonstrated in particular instances.

Free opinion fares no better as the action taken by, for example, certain local councils in penalising employees who are conscientious objectors, has frequently made dear. And this has "occurred in instances where the tribunals appointed by the Government to examine the cases have, by their findings, expressed themselves as satisfied with the sincerity of the people concerned.

Now, either the Daily Express is playing, on a minor scale, the same tune as Mussolini, or, like the ostrich, it is burying its head in the sand.

In its issue of November 20th the Daily Express published an article on the Indian labour leader, Jawaharlal Nehru, by Edward Thompson, in which that writer argues that Nehru is not even a pacifist but is favourable to the British war attitude and would support it if India were invited to participate with Britain as a “comrade.” Yet Nehru has been sent to four years' rigorous imprisonment for “making speeches tending to obstruct India’s war effort.”

In the Stop Press News column of the same issue of the Daily Express as the one containing the article on Nehru, there is an extract from a speech by Mr. Herbert Morrison, who, referring to Mr. Kennedy, the American Ambassador, said: —

   I was delighted to learn of his repudiation of authenticity of interview. . . . He had seen this country clinging, even in the midst of a life and death struggle, to essentials of its historic practice of free speech and free writing.

A curious comment on this is a statement made in an article by Edward Hutton in the "World Review” for November. Here is what he wrote:—

  “The appointment of Mr. Herbert Morrison has given much satisfaction. He is, after all, a much more sympathetic figure than the pompous Anderson, who was the worst type of character to be Home Secretary during a time when it is obviously necessary temporarily to curtail the liberty of the people.”

On this point it is worth while recalling the words of a writer of nearly a hundred years ago— P. E. Dove. In his “Theory of Human Progression,” published in 1859, Dove put the position in a nutshell when he wrote: —

    Freedom of speech, and of public speech, and in any number of speakers and auditors, is one of the first essentials of true liberty. Wherever it is not enjoyed, liberty is a shadow and tyranny is a substance.

However, it may be conceded that if the conditions stated by Dove were allowed to exist it would be impossible for any government to prosecute war successfully.

Of course, what the Daily Express really means when it speaks of "our free Press” is that, providing one is in favour of carrying on the war one may criticise the conduct of those appointed to do this work, again providing that such criticism is not prejudicial to its successful prosecution. And there are many pitfalls into which the well-intentioned may fall, as the Daily Express has had occasion to show in its columns in more than one instance.

This strikes us as a very provisional kind of freedom of the Press.

Gilmac.