Russia and Democracy (1946)

From the June 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

On March 23rd, under the title “True Democracy,” the Manchester Guardian opened a discussion on democracy when reviewing a recently published lecture by Professor E. H. Carr. This review was followed by contributors from Lord Lindsay, Mr. Laski and Mr. Bertrand Russell on April 20th and May 4th respectively.

The striking thing about all the contributions was that they distinguished an entirely different outlook on democracy between Russia and the Western Countries, but, to all of them, the Russian outlook is accepted as a sincere one, tied up with the view that the Russian rulers are acting on behalf of one section of society alone, the workers, and that their dictatorship signifies the rule of the workers. This, the writers agree, explains the difference between “Proletarian Democracy” and “Bourgeois Democracy.” This, for instance, is the reviewer puts it:-

“It is important, as Professor Carr points out, to realize that the Russians are just as sincere in their use of the word democracy as we and the Americans are in ours.”

We have not the space to examine the many misleading ideas that are foisted upon the Marxian point of view by these writers, but must confine ourselves to the alleged basic difference between the Russian and the Western definition of democracy.

Cutting away all trimmings, democracy simply means a state of affairs in which the will of the majority of a group, a nation, or an international society, shall always prevail. The will of the majority cannot prevail unless circumstances exist which make it possible to know at any time what the will of the majority really is and whether, for any reason, it has changed. This cannot be known unless there is at least freedom of discussion and means existing for this purpose; freedom of equality of voting; freedom to select those who are to carry out the will of the majority; and equality of electoral conditions.

Although in theory these four fundamental conditions exist in the Western democratic states, in fact there are considerable limitations. One needs only to remember the private and business votes processed by some, the enormous influence of a press owned by a propertied minority, the economic penalties suffered by the workers who express their opinion too freely; and the governments who coalesce instead of dissolving. In spite of the limitations, however, there is sufficient democracy in most of the European states and in America to enable the majority of the people to change the basis of society if, and when, they wish to do so. The point is to get them to wish it. It is therefore to the interest of the workers, who form the great majority in the nations, to use these democratic avenues and not to ignore or destroy them.

The Russian Government was, and is, fundamentally undemocratic, and under its inspiration Communist parties of the other countries have worked to discredit democratic institutions. Sometimes the plea has been that these democratic institutions were barrier to the taking over of power by the working class. In fact, however, they were simply the barrier to the taking over of power by the tiny minority, the Communist Party. The workers did not want to take over power because they had not sufficient confidence in themselves and would not know what to do with power if they got it.

At the time of the Russian Revolution the Bolshevik or Communist Party was a small minority in a largely peasant country. By taking advantage of the favourable circumstances and by carefully planned manoeuvres they succeeded in getting control of government power; every action since that date has had behind it the aim of strengthening the hold on power of the leaders of the Communist Party. Some statements of Marx and Engels on the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” were misused to support the false claim that the workers were in control in Russia. In fact the Russian dictatorship is at present the rule of a small group, with Stalin at their head, who have so tightly organised their autocracy that it is difficult to dislodge them. In this, certain peculiar circumstances have played directly into their hands. From the beginning there was a bitter struggle between members of the ruling clique, and the successful ones imprisoned, deported or executed their rivals. The secret police, as in Germany and Italy, was, and still is, one of the principal of props of power. Lately the church is also taking a hand in the game.

With such background, to write of the Russian idea of democracy as being a sincere one is just nonsense. The rulers of Russia are solely interested in keeping their privileged position as rulers and, like the capitalist rulers here, are only concerned with democracy to the extent that it achieves this object. To write of the Russian dictatorship, as the contributors to the Manchester Guardian have done, as being a dictatorship exercised in the interests of the workers is contrary to the facts. On similar grounds they could as logically argue that Capitalists rule in the interests of the worker.

The business of the Communist parties of different countries has been to serve the interests of the Russian Government, and their “day-to-day” policies have twisted and turned and been reversed merrily in tune with the needs of Russia. On this question of democracy, so far as it concerns the parliament, their somersaults have been particularly spectacular. Starting twenty-five years ago with fierce denunciation of parliament as a sham and a snare, they have alternately denounced and applauded participation in parliamentary action. We will extricate two examples of this lunatic policy:-

In 1932 the Communist Party published a 20-page pamphlet entitled “Report on the Crisis Policy of the Labour Party, the T.U.C. General Council and I.L.P.” This report was submitted to the twelfth Congress of the Communist Party. It repudiates parliamentary democracy in the following manner:-

“Revolution for the Communists means the forceful overthrow of the capitalist and the establishment of the workers’ dictatorship, this to be achieved by the organisation of the daily struggle of the workers as the road to the seizure of power” (p. 17).

Any Party which accepts parliamentary democracy, however revolutionary its phrases is an instrument of the capitalists” (p. 20).

“We must expose the sham of parliamentary democracy, and show the positive results of the workers’ dictatorship based upon the workers’ councils. …” (p. 20).

The Daily Worker of March 6th, 1943, tells an opposite story. It opened its columns to a discussion of the oft-recurring enigma “Communist Affiliation to the Labour Party.” Mr. James Walker put the case of the Labour Party and Mr. William Gallacher replied for the Communist Party. In his reply Mr. Gallacher made the following bland statement:-

“Of course we believe in parliamentary democracy. That is why I am in Parliament. That is why I am such a regular attender, and why the Party is so anxious that I should a good account of myself.”

Could blatant impudence and political perfidy go further? It might, but not very much!

In the West the capitalists find that they can rule under democracy. In Russia the Bolsheviks found they could not do so. To veil their dictatorship and obtain support at home and abroad they rigorously applied the censorship and produced quantities of literature urging the claim that the workers are the real rulers who endow their leaders with supreme power and authority on the ground that the leaders know better than they do themselves what is best to be done. This autocracy was then labelled as a new form of democracy, proletarian democracy, though the proletarians have, at the most, only the influence of the dumb, obstinate cattle who may stray this way and that along the road but are always driven home in the end. In social systems based on chattel slavery the slave either acquiesced in his slavery or went under. In Russia the position of the worker is fundamentally similar. No one before has had the brass to suggest that the slaves participated in democracy. It has been left to the twentieth-century dictatorships, with the unbounded cheek of the confidence man, to foist his fantastic view upon an apprehensive and credulous world.

With an extraordinary tenderness towards Russia the contributors to the Manchester Guardian discussion find a basis for Russian views in an idea that has been revived again. Russia, they urge, has not political democracy, but it has economic democracy. This is how Mr. Laski puts the idea:-

“Soviet Russia is a more democratic society than Great Britain. No special privilege attaches either to birth or to wealth, to race or to creed. There is a wider and more profound attempt to satisfy maximum demand than in this country. … The maddening distinction which we make between the high social prestige attached to intellectual labour and the low social prestige attached to manual labour has no meaning. … Access to the courts is not dependent upon the wealth of the parties to an action.”

Democracy is a term that is used to signify the opposite of privilege. Whatever it is called, political or economic, it either means, in the circumstances that are being considered, that everyone has an equal standing or it is meaningless. Mr. Laski is out of touch with the practical world and, consequently, his description of the economic position in Russia is a travesty of the real position.

What economic equality is there between Soviet millionaires, who can command the best food and everything else, and the average poorly paid Russian worker; between the rich, who can take their holidays in pleasant surroundings, and the poor, who must stew or freeze in the cities; between the wealthy writers and the poor manual workers; between the trembling critic of the Government and the ruling group with its ruthless instruments of oppression; between the rich, to whom all the avenues of divorce are open, and the poor, who cannot afford to pay the court procedure, between Soviet ambassadors giving sumptuous feasts and Soviet workers who can barely get enough to live on; between the prisoners in the labour camps and the Secret Police? If there is economic equality in Russia, why, and for whom, do the black markets flourish? The economic democracy that critics and servile adherents alike admire in an illusion, as the ugly facts testify.

While conditions remain such that modern society is composed of capitalists and workers, two classes with antagonistic interest, then the modern democratic state is the capitalist state, the executive committee of the ruling class, no matter what name is applied to the party in power nor what theory it masquerades under.

But the democratic state has been forced, against its will, to bring into being methods, institutions, and procedure which have left open the road to power for workers to travel upon when they know what to do and how to do it. In this country the central institution through which power is exercised is Parliament. To merely send working-class nominees there to control it is not sufficient. The purpose must be to accomplish a revolutionary reorganisation of society, a revolution, in its basis, which will put everybody on an equal footing as participants in the production, distribution and consumption of social requirements as well as in the control of society itself. So that all may participate equally, democracy is an essential condition. Free discussion, full and free access to information, means to implement the wishes of the majority which have been arrived at after free discussion, and the means to alter decisions if the wishes of the majority change.

Conditions such as these have no room to grow in Russia at present. Those who rule there to-day are essentially anti-democratic. They rule by the secret police, the concentration camp, and the executioner. They hoodwink their subjects into believing that that is the best of all possible worlds.

Gilmac.

An Archbishop's Revolution (1952)

Book Review from the September 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Russia is usually thought of as a backward nation. How much backward ? Its rulers have shown themselves a match for Western intellectuals on the United Nations Organisation. While the credulity of the Russian worker in industry is little, if any stronger than that of the British worker. The working-class of both countries have accepted nationalisation, either as Socialism, or as an instalment of Socialism.

It is a good many years since the Labour Party in this country were dubbed Socialist. They protested against the title, with truth, but not overmuch. And they quickly dropped the protest when they realised that many workers, far from being repelled by the name, and notwithstanding their hazy conception of its meaning, were really attracted by its promise of some drastic change in the conditions prevailing at the time— and still are.

We now know that the Labour Party’s notion of Socialism was nationalisation. This fraudulent misrepresentation has brought rich rewards to the Labour Party. It has helped them to become the second, if not the largest political party in the country. As an issue it has raised a smoke screen causing confusion and apathy among their followers. However, modern intellectuals are now going one better.

Julian Huxley in a book entitled “On Living in a Revolution,” E. H. Carr in radio talks entitled “The New Society,” popularised the fallacy that a social revolution is actually taking place under our very noses, while the majority are unconscious of its rapid movement. Now, with a still more significant title, “This Age of Revolution,” Dr. Garbett, Archbishop of York, endeavours to show in a book of 312 pages the sort of revolution it is, and the need to limit its advance, to confine it within the present system. He “rejects as impossible and utopian the Marxist conception of Socialism.”

His opening sentence is not intended to frighten the capitalist so much as to assure the worker that activity on his part is unnecessary. The revolution he has in mind is inherent in the conditions and will work itself out. He says “ We are living in an age of revolution. Fifty years ago we should have used the word evolution. By this we should have meant the continuous progress of the human race through struggle and competition in which the weak would be eliminated and the fittest survive.” By this he infers that in the intervening years economic causes or political reforms have operated in favour of the weak, who are still with us. He then follows with some of the items in the revolution : “Technics, machinery, wireless, internal combustion engine, the aeroplane, weapons of destruction, political changes, social and economic upheaval, etc”

It will be seen that none of these things, nor all of them combined, plus the much advertised welfare system—with its boasted care of the individual from the cradle to the grave—constitute a social revolution, or even the promise of one. They are simply bits and pieces in the evolutionary pattern sketched by a rapidly developing system. Their total effect is to emphasise the contradictions and conflicts within the system, and by increasing the worker’s knowledge and power of discrimination, enable him to understand more readily the rational appeal of Socialism.

A Social Revolution means a complete change—involving the basic principles—from one system to its opposite. In the present instance, from a profits basis to one of production for use. Without private or class ownership in the means of life. And without all the complex machinery of capitalist ownership and exchange.

It is plain that Dr. Garbett has never considered that revolution in the social sense has this very definite meaning. In any case he would dismiss the idea as “impossible and utopian.” On his intellectual plane he could not visualise the working-class as being capable of conceiving and organising such a revolution.

His misuse of the word revolution is frequent throughout the book. On Page 190, he says: “The old Bolshevism believed in revolution from below, such as the upheaval of 1917 had been.” The absurdity of this statement is apparent when we remember that both the Menshevik and the Bolshevik seizures of power only became known to the workers after their accomplishment.

On Page 174 he says: “Post revolution Russia claims to a socialist state. It is a socialist state, for the state owns the means of production and distribution.” This is a misleading statement because distribution is effected by means of exchange as in every capitalist country. Possibly the mistake is unintentional on his part. But as the Russian economy is commodity production its production and distribution is saddled with exchanges which includes profits, wages and of course wage-workers.

On Page 177 he says: “Private property on a small scale is allowed in the socialist state, but there is no possibility of investment except in government stock.” In Russian industry the state owns the factories and rolling stock, pays the wages and allocates dividends on privately owned stock. In other words gilt edged securities for the most active supporters of Stalin and Co.

On Page 181 he says: “The fears of the forced labour camp come now to play the role that the fear of unemployment played under capitalism.” And under Western capitalism is called redundancy and used to increase the mobility of labour.

Although Dr. Garbett “rejects as impossible and utopian the Marxist conception of socialism” he nevertheless asserts that “Marxism is an optimistic creed. It can be hastened by human action.” The Socialist has affirmed that it can be either hastened or retarded by human action. But whether achievement is inevitable or only probable rests entirely with the working- class. His admission that “it can be hastened by human action” seems to register a fear in his mind that it is inevitable.

On Page 230 he says: “Christianity rejects entirely the utopianism which believes that a new social order will automatically change man from his selfishness, acquisitiveness and combativeness into a being who will ever afterwards live in peace and happiness with his fellows. And this is where the Archbishop got bogged in and lost his revolution. Socialism was in conflict with church and state, his most cherished institutions. His imagination that builds mansions in the sky cannot soar to such lowly heights as a society without the opium of the church and the armed forces of the state to render the workers amenable to exploitation. So he quotes holy scripture: “ Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things which are God’s,” and again according to St. Paul: “That they must honour and pray for the Emperor and submit themselves to those in authority.” He then bolsters up the state with the following more up-to-date avowal: “It is usually accepted that the state obtains its authority from God, and exists to preserve peace and to protect its citizens from injury to their persons and property.”

His concern for preservation of state authority is not merely because it “protects its citizens from injury to their persons and property,” but also because the church relies on it for support and protection. For that reason he is opposed to disestablishment. He says: “The establishment is a national recognition of religion that should not be thrown away at a time when aggressive atheism is persecuting Christianity in many parts of Europe.” From this it might be inferred that he had discarded his age of revolution. Not so. He still persists in it, even while retaining the state. He says: “It is no longer a question of making profits for private owners and shareholders; regulations and taxation have cut down severely this form of profit-making, many of the great industries are either nationalised or controlled by the state.”

Now, profits result from exploitation of the workers. The exploitation is just as real whether it takes place under private, company or state ownership. But Dr. Garbett can hardly be expected to see clearly on economic questions when his conception of profit is so hazy and indefinite as the following seems to indicate : “In every generation there can be found men and women who will work without any thought of profit . . . The ordinary man expects some profit from additional skill and harder work . . . The profit motive is so deeply rooted that it is impossible to ignore it.”

The “ordinary worker” is confined to one market —the labour market. His only commodity is labour- power, human energy, the ability to perform some task among the many required in industry. Whether it is pushing a barrow, selling nylons, managing a department in a chain store or handling test tubes at Harwell, all he gets in return is wages or salary, the price of his particular brand of energy on the labour market. Official figures issued from time to time—and published in the press—give approximate amounts taken respectively in profits, salaries and wages, showing that the department concerned is in no doubt as to what constitutes profits. Had Dr. Garbett taken the trouble to examine such a statement he would have discovered that the amount going to profits varies only slightly from year to year. And the Archbishop will be staggered and gratified by the amount, if he is not already aware of it.

Dr. Garbett’s revolution has back-fired. The state is where it was. His church is threatened with an “aggressive atheism” and he has nothing to offer despairing mankind except some Christian advice on the issue of peace and war. On Page 289 he says, quite truly : “It is dangerous folly to imagine that a state bent on war will swerve an inch from its chosen path on account of the pacific utterances and expressions of goodwill of those whom it purposes to destroy.” His answer to that one ? Prayer not to the powers on earth but to power in the sky.

“A fragile barrier the cynics may say.” But the cynics are not alone the aggressive atheists. There must be many, many more cynics than prayer addicts. Page 296 he says: “Prayer for peace is not asking that the peoples may have the wish for peace, for this they already have . . . but it is asking God to move a small group of dictators, generals and statesmen—possibly the actual decision may rest with one man alone—to choose peace instead of war.” Pray Christians, pray like hell.

F. Foan

Emulating The Ostrich (1951)

From the July 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

On 20th May the Sunday Pictorial published an article by Douglas Warth regarding a group of people calling themselves the Society of Brothers. Would-be members of this community, which claims to be self-supporting, sell all their personal property and the proceeds of sale go into a common “pool.” They then work on the 545 acre farm at Bromdon in the Shropshire hills and according to Warth "should never have to worry about war or unemployment, loneliness or personal insecurity, world turmoil or money for the rent. As long as Mother Earth can produce crops to feed and clothe them, they may look forward to a simple life and peace of mind." The article states that they are “exchanging the luxuries and amenities of modern civilisation for the simple security which the Society of Brothers have found by stepping back some 1,900 years.” This last would appear, to say the least of it, to be a slight exaggeration. A picture of half-a-dozen of the Brothers complete with superabundant beards confirms that they unanimously eschew the modern idea of using a razor but apart from this they are up to date with tractors, telephone and wireless. The community has its own school and a carpenter’s shop for the making of simple furniture. The women work in a communal laundry and kitchens. In their leisure time they make a study of economics, history and languages. We assume them to be Christians as there are several “servants of the word” whose duties include the celebration of marriages. These marriages are afterwards legalised outside of the community at the registrar’s office. The children go camping in the summer, visit a coal mine or go to see Nature films. There are 300 acres under crops, cattle, sheep, pigs, hens and a 20 acre vegetable garden. Much of the produce feeds the community but what is not needed is marketed and the proceeds go into the common pool for general expenses. They call in help from outside on technical fanning matters. There are 180 members in all and they are pacifists. The idea is not a new one and this community no doubt derives satisfaction from the way of life which they have chosen, but they are burying their heads in the sand if they delude themselves that they have shaken off all worldly cares. As Warth points out their children are liable to conscription. Furthermore in the event of war their crops, etc. would be subject to controls, also the men of military age eligible for call up. Their pacifist convictions might obtain exemption from service but they would be subject to direction. Experience has taught us that in modern warfare, rural districts do not escape destruction from the air. Shortages and difficulties would hit the community such as scarcity of farm implements, parts for tractors and machinery and rationing of fuel. Even in times of so-called peace, farming is a chancy business with its periods of depression, crop failures, and outbreaks of foot and mouth among cattle.

A very large percentage of present day evils can be laid at the door of capitalist society, and these groups of people who endeavour to escape into a world of their own making are tacitly agreeing to a continuance of that system so long as they can go their own way unmolested (they hope).

Since the 1914 War there have been active pacifist movements in all parts of the world, increasing rapidly since 1945, organising petitions and clamouring for peace. Never in all their previous history have these activities been so amply demonstrated to be absolutely futile and impotent as at the present day. With various comparatively small scale wars on their plates the nations in the western bloc appear to be heading for a global conflict which bids fair to dwarf into insignificance previous records of horror and devastation. The efforts of the pacifists are misdirected and quite useless. Their cry of “peace” is as puerile as a man shouting in a desert. The juggernaut of capitalism lumbers on unheeding to the inevitable clashes, pitting worker against worker in ineffectual and ghastly conflict. The pacifist loudly calls attention to the evils .of war (of, which we are already painfully aware) but stops short of unearthing the cause, i.e., capitalist competition between the nations for trade routes, markets and sources of raw materials. The solution follows logically, i.e. a world wide movement by the workers for the establishment of socialist society.

The slow growth of socialist ideas among the workers is in its way a silent tribute to the efficiency of radio and press propaganda and is not due to the workers’ inability to grasp the cause of their slave position in society. Preoccupied with their very real day to day problems the vast majority accept these ready made ideas unquestioningly and uncritically. Those workers who do interest themselves are more often than not side-tracked into political dead-ends.

In his fourth talk on “The New Society” and reported in “The Listener” of 31st May, E. H. Carr says:—“Propaganda is as essential a function of mass democracy as advertising of mass production. The political organiser takes a leaf out of the book of the commercial advertiser and sells the leader or the candidate to the voter by the same methods used to sell patent medicines or refrigerators. The appeal is no longer to the reason of the citizen but to his gullibility.”

Confusion is worst confounded by the Labour Government calling itself “Socialist.” However, in time, worsening conditions and the ever present threat of war together with the efforts of socialists will speed the ultimate awakening of the workers. We are working for the overthrow of capitalist society which has already drawn too large a draft on the bank of time. Wc ask for your understanding, help and co-operation that the necessary knowledge may be spread to the workers and a world wide brotherhood of man be established in our time.

F. M. Robins

Letters: Is this right needed? (1975)

Letters to the Editors from the December 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is this right needed?

I have received various publicity pamphlets and a few copies of the Socialist Standard. I am, after reading them, very impressed with the ideals and motives for your work and for the fresh insight into social problems which you have. I am however dubious as to your views on religion. I agree that the church can be a voice for middle-and upper-class moderation and as such a threat to the cause of Socialism, but I feel that many people, like myself, do not believe everything they are told by the priests. As such I think that it is the Socialist Party which is wrong on this issue, and I feel that the workers should have the right to worship as they wish.

However, be that as it may, I am, except for that point, a confirmed Socialist and will, through discussion and debate spread the Principles and Object among the philosophical groups which I cultivate. And anyone willing to listen. Keep up the good work, the goal is ahead!

M. Shaw

Carlisle.

Reply

Our correspondent thinks that “it is the Socialist Party which is wrong on this issue” yet he does not offer us a reason why we are wrong. The whole idea of workers worshipping, or even needing “the right to worship”, shows considerable confusion about our position. As materialists (in the philosophical sense) we see the establishment of Socialism being brought about by a majority of men and women who understand and want it, and who realize that no-one else will bring it about for them. In short, they will be prepared to work for this end.

We argue that ideas of God and religion arose basically because men could not explain natural phenomena. They invented a “mirror image” of themselves and endowed it with supernatural powers. The fact is that all gods and religions have reflected the society from which they sprang.

Religious ideas today have become a hangover from the past and are not compatible with science or knowledge. Religion is not an individual thing, but a social phenomenon used by the ruling class in maintaining the status quo, and it should be recognized as such. It is inconceivable that an enlightened Socialist majority will have the slightest need for any kind of religious ideas. Once men understand the material basis of society, then the mysteries of religion start to unravel themselves and the need for a “God” is rendered unnecessary.

One point to note is that Socialists do not “worship” either God or anything else. All our ideas are subject to intense thought and debate which must be based on reality. We do not have “faith” in the sense that Socialism is something we accept without thinking about it, nor do we encourage this approach from members of the working class. Quite the contrary: it is because we think about it and debate that we are Socialists. When the majority of workers also examine the material conditions in the world and how they operate, Socialism will be introduced.

For further reading, see the October 1975 Socialist Standard: “Can Science Benefit Mankind?”

Editors

Misconduct at the wake

I suppose i should thank your correspondent for his remarks about the ILP in the October Socialist Standard (“Ring the Bell, Verger”). In comparison to the treatment meted out to miners’ leader Arthur Scargill, we come off rather lightly. On the other hand, the ILP is delivered a belated obituary notice I would like, however, to point out that in straining the metaphor about the ILP’s demise, R. B. may well have created confusion in readers’ minds as to what actually has happened to the ILP.

Put briefly, the Independent Labour Party underwent a fundamental transformation at its Easter Conference following upon several years of deliberation It emerged from conference as Independent Labour Publications, and in its new  rôle pledged its support for the Labour Party and for socialism. In July the ILP re-launched the Labour Leader, and we received greetings from a wide section of the labour movement welcoming these developments.

The ILP, unlike the SPGB perhaps, has come to recognize the futility of sectarianism and believes that if we really wish to change society then it is necessary to be with the working class, and not expect them to seek you out in the political wilderness. R. B. is wrong if he considers that the ILP sees that there are short cuts to socialism. But nor do we believe that by standing outside the political mainstream anything can be achieved.

Barry Winter

Secretary, Independent Labour Publications.

Reply

Your letter is a cameo of the equivocation and muddle- headedness which have always characterized the ILP. You say it “underwent a fundamental transformation”. Yes: it ceased to be a political party, which is what we were saying.

“Support for the Labour Party and for socialism” is simply incomprehensible and is not elucidated by saying it is necessary to be with the working class in “the political mainstream”. The majority of the working class, including those who vote for the Labour Party, do not understand or want Socialism at present. “The futility of sectarianism” apparently means that you believe in supporting organizations one is opposed to or that are going in the opposite direction; well, everyone to his own idea of futility.

We expect in the near future to publish an article reviewing in detail the lifetime and policies of the ILP. However, there is an embarras de richesses in replying to your rebuttal of our statement that it believed in short cuts to Socialism. Here are three or four to be going on with:

  The Labour Party at the elections of 1922 and 1923 put forward a programme of constructive Social Transformation, which would lay the foundations of the Socialist Commonwealth.

(Six Months of Labour Government, ILP, 1924)  

  Let us rather begin by demanding the fairer division of wealth: let us insist, first of all, on the elementary claim to a living wage, and then enforce the wide and economic changes by which alone it can be realised and secured. The fixing, whether by combined Trade Union action, or by a Royal Commission, of any adequate figure, would drive us at once into big political changes. The demand is a battering-ram levelled at the present system.

(H. N. Brailsford, Socialism for Today, ILP, 1925)  

  But the failure of capitalism can be made a great opportunity to apply socialist principles, and to begin the transition to socialism. That is the spirit in which the problem should be approached.

(Maxton, 1931; quoted in James Maxton — the Beloved Rebel by John McNair, 1955)  

    Immediate Programme:—1. Take the Profit out of War. 2. Introduce Social Equality. 3. Establish Social Ownership. 4. Grant Democracy to the Empire. 5. Make Britain Socialist.

(ILP Election Special, Bristol Central, January 1943)

Questions on principles

I have been reading some literature that contained the SPGB’s Declaration of Principles; and while I would never condemn socialism out of hand, there are several points which I would like to raise.

The first point you make is “. . . and the consequent enslavement of the working class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced”. The working men must actually produce the goods, but a means of organization is vitally essential. As soon as someone steps out of the  rôle of actually producing, you appear to put them in a different class. Do you deny that the job of organization is essential to the efficient production of goods, and that this job of organization needs a capable person with initiative? Therefore I disagree with the words “by whose labour alone”.

Second, the class struggle "between those who possess but do not produce, and those who produce but do not possess”. Are you trying to tell me that all those who work to produce a car, never own a car? Those who work on making ships that may carry bananas, they eat bananas surely. I don’t deny that there is a class struggle, but I challenge you on “those who produce but do not possess”.

The sixth principle declares that the armed forces of the nation “exist only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers”. In what way do the British armed forces act directly against the workers? A standing army is kept for the defence of the country as a whole, and in times of war the rich are not exempt from military service. It is a great exaggeration to say the armed forces only act against the interests of the working class.

If socialism means equality without discrimination and freedom then I, and many, would wish for it. But while I see what I consider to be inaccurate statements of principles by the Socialist Party I cannot give them my support.

Beverley Browne

Lancaster.

Reply

1. As you say, the job of organization is essential to the efficient production of goods, and "by whose labour alone” refers to all aspects of production and distribution and their organization.

2. The second clause in our Declaration of Principles proceeds from the first: “possess” refers to the means of living, not personal requirements. Under capitalism the means of production and distribution are class-owned. The great majority, having no share in that ownership, are forced to sell their labour-power to live: they do not possess but have to produce.

However, their ability to acquire motor-cars and bananas — and houses, clothing and hot dinners — is governed by that situation. The products are not theirs; the wealth they produce is owned by the class which owns the means of production. Members of the working class can have only what they can buy, and that is determined not by their ability to manage but by their wages (and whether they are in employment at all). Socialism means that there will be unrestricted free access by all to whatever is produced, because the means of production will be owned by all.

3. It is “the machinery of government, including the armed forces” that “exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers”. The state exists to give sanction to class ownership and protect it: by law, but ultimately by force. Against whom? The answer is, whoever assails or threatens the capitalist class in each country. The threat most commonly assumed is from another country’s capitalists pursuing their interests in the world’s markets and so threatening “ours” — and you may note that if conflict breaks out it is workers (who have no country) who are killed in huge numbers. However, armed force has frequently been used against strikes and civil unrest.

This is the reason why Socialists aim at control of the powers of government. Ideas of confrontation, advocated by many “militants”, cannot win. The need is to take possession of the state’s coercive machine so that it cannot be used to prevent Socialism.

4. Socialism does mean equality and freedom. It is the only condition on which they can be obtained.

"Stupid" Workers

Quite by chance, I obtained a copy of the SS and was impressed by the contents. An article by RAB on ‘Britain’s Political Crisis’ attracted my attention. I agree with the writer that the working class are politically ignorant. However, I can find no evidence to support the writers optimism concerning the prospects for Socialism.

I have travelled extensively for many years and my job has necessitated mixing with literally hundreds of people.

I have argued with friends and acquaintances in pubs, clubs and homes on the theft, by capitalists, on the working class. Needless to say I am regarded as a crank or lunatic. I was once sacked from a good job because I told my employer that what he said about the working class being dependent upon his class was utter bilge and that the reverse was the case.

At the age of 45 I have come to the conclusion that whilst your ideals are uplifting, your remedy is nonsense.

A friend of mine has suggested that the main reason for your failure to propagate your ideas has been one of communication. Whilst I am cognizant of this difficulty I do not see it as of paramount importance.

The ruling class of this and other countries will continue to manipulate the masses for ever. The form of society may change but never the substance. Whether the dominant class is English, Russian or American does not alter the picture.

You will never free the working class of its shackles simply because they are not aware of their chains. Intellectual freedom can always be extended to those without intellect.

The ruling class govern because they make the rules and can alter or adjust these rules as they see fit. That is why you will never capture Parliament for the working class. You may say that as I understand so may everybody. Roger Bannister ran the four minute mile. I can’t.

The sad fact is the working class can never be saved. The uncharitable thought occurs to me that perhaps it doesn’t deserve to be.

R. B. Butler

Reply

it is true that many keen runners will not achieve a four minute mile but since Roger Bannister it has become a commonplace in athletics. Workers can safely ignore athletics but they cannot hide from the effects of capitalism. It is capitalism itself which makes the Socialist revolution both necessary and possible.

Human society passed through various stages until about 200 years ago capitalism took over from feudalism as the dominant social system. There is no reason to suppose that human progress must now be at an end. On this point we refer you to an article in the August Socialist Standard—Ideas and Understanding— and also to a reply to another correspondent in the November Socialist Standard, headed—Class Consciousness.

On the question of communication, the spread of Socialist knowledge has been hindered by the widespread mis-use of the term Socialism. When it is used to describe everything from state-capitalism to Labour Government it is hardly surprising that workers have only attempted to solve their problems through reforms. For with the exception of a small minority they are unaware that there is an alternative to capitalism. We have every confidence in the ability of the working class to understand the simple and sound proposition that is Socialism. It is after all the working class which runs capitalism.

Our impatience is with those fellow workers who profess sympathy with our case but will not join us because they think others are not capable of doing the same. The point is do YOU understand the meaning of Socialism and are YOU prepared to work with us in The SPGB in order to accelerate the spread of this understanding.

Editors

The Socialist Future

Do you categorically abhor violence in any form in the accomplishment of Socialism? It seems to me that violent revolution has achieved nothing but misery for working people whenever it has occurred. If people want Socialism we have the machinery through the ballot. The absence of candidates is more than a slight problem but only indicates that enough people do not want Socialism yet.

Maybe one reason why people don’t want Socialism yet is that they don’t know what would happen. Your excellent article "The Social Revolution” in the September issue might have been written as a biography of me. But it stops at “only the details are missing”. I stop there too. I imagine the General Election at which Socialism is "returned”. Overnight the exploitation and inequalities of centuries stop. How? by what organization? System? by which people? Surely this is a fair question. What about the day after the Socialist election?

J

Greater Manchester

Reply

You have probably by now seen the November Fifty Years Ago extract on “Revolution and Violence”. The position stated there has been and is still the one held by us: “those who seek to replace capitalism by Socialism do not play the capitalist game of advocating violence”.

We are often asked why we do not supply details of economic and social organization in Socialism. From time to time articles have indicated lines on which affairs might be conducted. We can say there will be no money; everyone will have free access to everything produced; the problems of capitalism — crises, wars, inequality and poverty and their consequences — will be entirely absent. There are two important reasons why we cannot go further. The first is that we do not know. There are a few hundred of us now, and we are working for a society which will be wholly democratic; how then can we anticipate the ideas and preferences of millions in the future? Many of us have our own speculations, but (and this is the second reason) to try making a policy of them would do no-one any good. Haven’t you heard the old joke: “Come the Revolution, you’ll have strawberries and cream whether you like it or not”?

Editors

Various Questions

In a previous issue of the Socialist Standard you stated that people with religious belief are not admitted to membership of the Socialist Party. What is your attitude towards agnostics? I take the view that to deny the existence of God and metaphysical reality is as untenable as blind acceptance of God’s existence. Surely the only rational viewpoint is to realize that one cannot know the unknowable.

It appears that apart from Austria (and perhaps Sweden) your movement is confined to English-speaking areas of the world. Could you give an explanation of this, and also why a predominantly rural, Catholic country such as Austria has a Socialist party while highly industrialized urban countries such as Japan and West Germany do not?

If Socialism involves abolishing the law courts and the police force, how would Socialist society deal with crimes against the individual — murder, rape, g.b.h., etc.? What is your attitude towards drug addiction?

Has the Socialist Standard ever reviewed the following books: Karl Marx by E. H. Carr, 1934; The Marxists, by C. Wright Mills, 1963; The Next Step by Richard Acland, 1974?

Finally, how would you refute E. H. Carr’s allegation that modern economics (circa 1930) had disproved Marx’s theories, especially the labour theory of value?

R. Richardson

Bridport

Reply

1. You say that there is a kind of reality which is "unknowable”, and to recognize this is “the only rational viewpoint”. It isn’t: it is a religious viewpoint under another name. The difference between ourselves and agnostics as well as religionists is that between materialism and idealism. Idealism is the belief that ideas have an existence independent of natural and social courses. Materialism holds that they arise from the interplay of those causes. The choice between these positions is not “unknowable”.

2. Socialists are a minority in all countries at present. If our companion party in Austria were a large one, we should be concerned about there being none in the other countries you mention. As it is, all we can say is that the small number of Socialists there are organized, and there are individual Socialists in other non-English-speaking countries; the counting of heads is not significant.

3. See the article “Is Crime Hereditary?” in this issue. Drugs generally are administered or taken to numb pain or misery, and when the latter is social the effective answer is to change society. Insofar as some drugs are used for reputedly “expanding consciousness”, our concern is to wake up normal consciousness to its proper application.

4. A lengthy review of E. H. Carr’s Karl Marx: A Study in Fanaticism appeared in the Socialist Standard for July 1934. It pointed out numerous errors, misquotations and mistranslations, without reply from Carr. The other books you mention have not been reviewed by us.

5. Carr claimed that Marx’s theories had been disproved by E. Bohm-Bawerk in Karl Marx and the Close of his System, published in 1896 — without, apparently, being aware of the reply to Bohm-Bawerk by Rudolf Hilferding. There have been various publications of Hilferding’s reply; it was published with Bohm-Bawerk’s essay in a single volume by A. M. Kelley (New York), 1949. Theories allegedly superior to Marx’s have been applied, including that of Keynes, who called Capital "scientifically erroneous”; and look at the results.

Editors

#    #    #    #

A. Buick (Brussels): See page 225, in this issue. D. G. Featherston, D. Clark and others: We hope to publish replies to you in the next issue.

Bradlaugh’s Slanders on Marx (1934)

From the December 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

Secularists Condone Murder of the Communards
In his superficial and prejudiced life of Marx (“ Karl Marx : A Study in Fanaticism," reviewed in our July issue), Mr. E. H. Carr attempted to escape responsibility for his inadequate knowledge and preparation by pleading the inaccessibility of documents. He complained of his inability to get hold of periodicals containing “Marx's letters and lesser-known writings," and wrote: —

  To quote one example, I have been completely unable to trace in this country any copy of a short-lived journal called the “Eastern Post," which contained in 1871 a spirited controversy between Marx and Bradlaugh on the Paris Commune.

Why Mr. Carr was “completely unable to trace" the “Eastern Post" is hard to explain, except on the assumption that he did not seriously try. So far from being short-lived, the “Eastern Post" is still in existence, and has been since its first issue on October 18th, 1868. Mr. Carr could have found this out with surpassing ease, and at the British Museum he could have gleaned all the information he required instantly. However, we can be grateful to Mr. Carr's negligence since it has led the present writer to look up the interesting controversy referred to. Here we see Marx, the mental giant, at grips with Bradlaugh and others of the individualists, who, while asserting their loyalty to the cause of “freedom," were enemies of the working-class movement. These men, Bradlaugh, G. J. Holyoake, and G. W. Foote were the personification of bourgeois reaction.

Marx’s “Civil War in France.”
The cause of the dispute between Bradlaugh and Marx was Marx's “Address on the Civil War in France." After the suppression of the Commune in 1871, “Republicans" and “Secularists” fell over one another to express their sympathy for the victims of the cold-blooded slaughter, carried out by the French Government, but while G. W. Foote, for example (“National Reformer," June 11th, 1871, page 378) was condemning the Communards for having endeavoured “forcibly to organise a regular Government in the name of a new social order," it was in reality the idea of the new social order itself—the idea of Socialism, to which they were opposed.

Marx delivered his address, and it was ordered to be published by the General Council of the International Working Men's Association. It described the terror; the slaughter of defenceless women and children in their thousands, so horrifying, in fact, that the correspondents of the English Press exposed the actions of the “government" of France. “The Times," “Daily News,” and other papers, were condemnatory in every way against the butchers of the workers. Marx, in his address, singled out—one of several instances— the bloody guilt of Jules Favre, the Foreign Minister in the Thiers Government—which was, by the way, sanctioned by Bismarck. The Government left Paris, but due to an oversight, some of the private correspondence that passed between the Ministers was overlooked. Favre, in a private letter to Gambetta, admitted that they were NOT defending Paris from the Prussian soldiers, but against the working class, this after his public assertion that we “will not cede an inch of your territory, nor a stone of your fortresses." As a consequence of the seizure of these letters, M. Milliere published a series of legal documents proving that Jules Favre, “living in concubinage with the wife of a drunkard resident in Algiers, had, by a most daring concoction of forgeries, spread over many years, contrived to grasp in the name of the children of his adultery, a large succession, which made him a rich man, and that, in a lawsuit undertaken by the legitimate heirs, he only escaped exposure by the connivance of the Bonapartist tribunals." When Favre returned to Paris after the suppression of the Commune, Milliere was shot!

On July 9th, 1871, on page 1 of the “National Reformer," Charles Bradlaugh, in a review of Marx*s address,

  Deeply regretted that a strong case had been weakened, as we believe it to be, by the introduction into the address of coarse and useless personalities. Surely the reference to Jules Favre’s domestic relations can have but. . ., etc.

In the following issue of the “National Reformer" a reply appeared from George Harris, Joint Secretary of the “ International," in which Harris said: —

  Now, sir, I hold ... it was of the highest importance and imperatively necessary to refer to Jules Favre’s domestic relations, because without such reference his forgery and crime could not have been exposed. Therefore, instead of repeating the real burden of Dr. Marx’s charge, Mr. Bradlaugh simply misleads his readers by speaking only of “reference to Jules Favre’s domestic relations.” Is “forgery,” I would ask, a domestic relation?

This attack produced neither apology nor reply from Bradlaugh. Nothing else was to be expected from him, for his attitude throughout the Commune—and after—was that of a steady supporter of the vile and treacherous Jules Favre. Bradlaugh tried to get out of this mess by saying it was a terrible thing, and asked for pity for the murderer, Favre. He attempted, under the guise of being a "lover of freedom," to protect Favre, who, apart from arranging the cold-blooded murder of Milliere, betrayed the Parisians to Bismarck, carried out Bismarck's instructions, and was also responsible for the massacre of thousands of women and children. This was Favre's friend! No wonder Bradlaugh—after the Franco-Prussian War —hated Marx. Marx had exposed his (Bradlaugh's) friends.

Bradlaugh, no doubt, realised the growing power of the International in European affairs, and the increasing importance of Marx. Bradlaugh had lived on his reputation as a reformer, and saw how his “Republican" propaganda was fizzling out. He therefore began attacking the International and Marx.

Hales, who was Corresponding Secretary of the International, also replied to Bradlaugh. A week later the latter notified his friends through the “National Reformer" (September 30th, 1871), that he was not a member of the International, and that the organisation had few members, and had little influence.

During the second week in December Bradlaugh again attacked the Communards. He protested against class government; he wanted an aristocracy of intellect! On December 16th, 1871, in the “Eastern Post," Bradlaugh, replying to a charge of poking his nose into the private domestic circumstances of a lady refugee from Paris, sought to obscure the issue by ending his letter as follows: —

  I feel indebted to Karl Marx for his enmity. If I were one of his own countrymen he might betray me to his government, here he can only calumniate.

As this letter has never been issued in any work on Marx we take pleasure in giving it the necessary publicity. (Perhaps the Director of Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin Institute will note and see to it that the index of the "Karl Marx; Chronik Seines Lebens" is altered accordingly?) Marx replied as follows: —

   Sir,—In his last epistle to you, Mr. Charles Bradlaugh makes the report of the sitting of the General Council of December 12th—a sitting from which I was absent in consequence of illness—the pretext for discharging on me his ruffianism. He says, “I feel indebted to Karl Marx for his enmity.” My enmity to Mr. Charles Bradlaugh! Ever since the publication of the “Address on the Civil War in France” Mr. Bradlaugh’s voice has chimed in with world-wide chorus of slander against the “International” and myself. I treated him like the other revilers, with contemptuous silence. This was more than the grotesque vanity of that huge self-idolator could stand. I “calumniated” him because I took no notice of his calumnies. My silence drove him mad; in a public meeting he denounced me as a Bonapartist because in the “Address on the Civil War” I had forsooth laid bare the historic circumstances that gave birth to the Second Empire. He now goes a step further and transforms me into a police agent of Bismarck. Poor man! He must needs show that the lessons he has recently received at Paris from the infamous Emile de Gerardin and his clique are not lost upon him. For the present, I shall “betray him” to the German public by giving the greatest possible circulation to his epistle. If he is kind enough to clothe his libels in a more tangible shape I shall “betray him” to an English law court.

I am, Sir,

Yours obediently,

Karl Marx.

John Hales, Secretary of the International, supplemented this letter with another: —

  With reference to Mr. Bradlaugh’s insinuation against Dr. Marx, I say that it is as lying as it is malicious, and with that I leave the matter, knowing that Dr. Marx needs no vindicator. But I would make one remark about Mr. Bradlaugh, “Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.” Mr. Bradlaugh has been on one or two missions to Paris lately. I know of no workmen’s organisations which employ secret emissaries, and as Mr. Bradlaugh has not a reputation for working for nothing, I would ask whether there was any connection between his visits and the recent Bonapartist intrigues. Dirty tools are usually employed to do dirty work, and it is well known that the Bonapartists are not particular as to what instruments they use.

Bradlaugh’s Hostility towards Socialism.

A few days later, on December 19th, Marx was present at a meeting of the International, and called attention to these facts, and also the fact that Bradlaugh, to “prove” a case against Marx, had stripped a quotation from its context. This falsification, said Marx, “was deliberate and intentional.” Marx pointed out that when in Paris, Bradlaugh resorted and dined with the most infamous men in France. Referring to Bradlaugh’s political attitude, Marx said: —

   He could understand the secret of the man’s malignity; he was opposed to a labour movement; he only wished to see a little shuffling of the cards, a little re-distribution of political power, just sufficient to enable him to rise to a higher position, and that he knew he (Marx) represented the labour struggle, a struggle that would effect the emancipation of the people by abolishing classes and class distinctions; that was not what Bradlaugh wanted; hence his opposition.

Following this, "Le Soir,” the reactionary Parisian paper, deemed it necessary to aid Bradlaugh, and circulated a feeble apology for him, as he was a contributor to its columns. The attitude of Bradlaugh’s friends in Paris might be understood when the reader is reminded that when Victor Hugo stood as candidate he demanded a political amnesty for the Communards. Victor Hugo polled 93,423 votes. Bradlaugh’s paper, “Le Soir," opposed Hugo solely on the grounds that he favoured the amnesty. The voters were called “brigands and assassins” by “Le Soir.” 

Marx, on January 20th, 1872, enters the lists once more, and writes to the Editor of the “Eastern Post” : —

   Sir,—In the- “National Reformer” of January 10th, Mr. Bradlaugh says : “We only meant to allege that Dr. Marx had, in former times, given information to his own Government.”
    I simply declare that is calumny as ridiculous as it is infamous. I call upon Mr. Bradlaugh to publish any fact that could afford him even the slightest pretext for his statement. For his personal tranquillity I add that he shall not be challenged 

                                                                                                                Yours, etc.,

January 16th, 1872.                                                                                 Karl Marx.

Bradlaugh realised the trouncing he had received and was anxious to call off the hostilities, and on January 22nd, 1872, was desirous of “submitting the whole question between myself on the one hand and Dr. Marx and the International on the other to a Council of Honour. . . .”

Marx’s final word after the request of Bradlaugh was as follows : —

To the Editor of the “Eastern Post,” February 3rd, 1872.
Sir,
   [Owing to printing errors the opening is omitted.] . . . lous as it is infamous. I did so in order not to justify myself, but to expose him. With the low cunning of a solicitor’s clerk he tries to escape this liability by inviting me to a “ Court of Honour.” Does he really fancy that a Bradlaugh or the editors of the Paris demi-monde Press, or those of the Bismarckian papers at Berlin, or the “Tages Presse” at Vienna, or the “ Kriminal Zeitung” at New York, or the “ Moscow Gazette,” have only to slander me, in order to make me amenable to clear my public character, and even do so before a “Council of Honour ” of which the friends of these “ honourable ” gentlemen must form part.
  I have done with Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, and leave him to all the comforts he may derive from the quite contemplation of his own self.

I am,

Yours obediently,

Karl Marx.

So ended the heroics of the “great” Bradlaugh. We need only add in conclusion a word about one of his supporters, another trickster—George Jacob Holyoake, who, because of Marx’s address, repudiated and attacked the International in a letter to “The Daily News.” This was after Holyoake had tried to enter the organisation, but the General Council refused him membership. This Holyoake denied, but the minutes proved the truth. Weston, who moved the acceptance of Holyoake’s membership, was compelled to withdraw it, and Holyoake was so informed by Weston himself.

Moses Baritz

Another "Life" of Marx (1934)

Book Review from the July 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

Karl Marx: A Study in Fanaticism by E. H. Carr (Dent)

It has generally been accepted when quoting from a book—or books—containing a considerable number of letters, to give the date, number of the letter, the page and volume from which it or they are taken. This facilitates verification. The author of any book, provided he has faith in his ability to present an accurate survey of his subject, would disdain to make assertions unsupported by evidence. When an author undertakes to write a “life” of a man like Karl Marx, he should at least pay a tribute to the well-known sincerity of Marx, who always gave the source of his information, and was punctilious to the extreme. His painstaking sincerity is patent. It is well known that Eleanor Marx, in verifying the quotations in the first volume of “Capital,” was unable in only one single instance to discover the origin. Marx’s assertions were rightly always backed up by evidence. These preliminary observations are necessary because a Mr. E. H. Carr has recently written a “ life ” of Marx, published by Dent’s (“Karl Marx: A Study in Fanaticism.” 327 pages. 12/6). In this book innumerable quotations are made and attributed to Marx and others, but in no instance has Mr. Carr given page, date or volume, to indicate the origin of the quotation. No documentation whatsoever is provided to guide the reader to the source of the information. This is procedure of an ignoble character, because in the progress of the book Mr. Carr has misinterpreted not only the words of Marx, but the sense, too. He has been disingenuous and has violated the principles of good taste. His interpretations are derived—so says the writer—from the volumes recently issued and sponsored by the Marx-Engels Institute, of Moscow. These four volumes contain the original letters that passed between Marx and Engels. Most of the letters are in German, but there are numerous digressions into French, English and Italian. These volumes form the basis of Mr. Carr’s “life” of Marx.

In the book there is an unending series of quotations, but whatever the nature of these quotations, on no occasion is the specific source given to allow an opportunity for verification. In my view there can only be one reason for this policy. It is that Mr. Carr has not read the four volumes: or if he has, is totally unfamiliar with the contents. Even before one reads a word of the preface, one is confronted with a piece of false information. Opposite the title page a photograph of Marx is inset, under which appears the following note: —

From an unpublished photograph.

Actually the same photograph was published in an official work issued some time ago by the Marx- Engels Institute, of Moscow. On page 304 of his book, Mr. Carr informs the reader, when dealing with the volumes issued by the Marx-Engels Institute, that—

  The first version, the so-called Gesamtausgabe, prints the works in the languages in which they were written, and was, until March, 1933, in course of publication at Berlin. The second version is a Russian translation published at Moscow.

On page 305, Mr. Carr adds—

    In a few passages originally written in English, I have been compelled by the inaccessibility of the English originals to re-translate from German or Russian versions.

But had Mr. Carr read the Gesamtausgabe, the German original version, he would know that there was no necessity to retranslate into English, because an English passage written by either Marx or Engels—or anyone else—is retained in its original form, therefore needing no retranslation. Thus, for example, a passage of 11 words taken from a letter from Marx to Engels (line 33, letter 143, dated January 20th, 1852, on page 308 of Vol. I) appears as follows, written in German, English and French!—

   Louis kann den Louis Philippe by no means nachmachen. Et alors ?

In some letters there are additional phrases from other languages. The statement re “inaccessibility” is mere bluff and pretence, for though Mr. Carr later informs us of letters which are written in English, three of which will be specified later, in no instance has Mr. Carr given an accurate reproduction of these letters, though in the Gesamtausgabe they are printed in English..

One essential factor for a clear insight into, and an appreciation of, the correspondence between Marx and Engels, is a knowledge of its chronology and history. One must know that there have been two versions of this series of correspondence. The' previous issue was—

   Der Briefwechsel zwischen Friedrich Engels und Karl Marx. Herausgegeben von A. Bebel und Ed. Bernstein. Bd. I-IV Stuttgart, J. H. W. Dietz, 1913.

Engels made Edward Bernstein his literary executor, on whom devolved the responsibility for issuing the works of both Marx and Engels. (Engels had long begun to arrange and edit the literary works of Marx.)

Bernstein manipulated the correspondence, expunging passages at his discretion, and leaving letters entirely unmentioned. Many of the passages are momentous in the history of Marxism, as we shall see later.

That Mr. Carr makes no reference to the early version is surprising, for it appears to indicate his ignorance of its existence, and, what is more interesting, that he has not read the four volumes issued by the Marx-Engels Institute, of Moscow. All Mr. Carr's protestations are unavailing, for there are scores of instances that prove his ignorance of the letters he is supposed to have read, and upon which he has written this “biography” of Marx. Mr. Carr’s sublime silence about the two versions is interesting. If his “life” of Marx is based upon the correspondence issued by the Marx-Engels Institute, what are we to make of the mysterious fact that there are no less than 110 pages of valuable introductory material in the correspondence—yet Mr. Carr has not made the slightest reference to it!

Moreover, it is difficult to accept assurance from a "biographer" who gives neither page, date, letter, nor volume, when writing of correspondence between Marx and Engels—dating from October 8th—10th, 1844, to January 10th, 1883— in which there are no less than 1,569 letters.

Mr. Carr gives words incorrectly and inserts others not in the original version. Take page 97 of his book, for example. On this page Mr. Carr refers to the letter written by Engels to Marx announcing the death of his sweetheart, Mary Burns. Mr. Carr does not inform the reader that Engels wrote the letter on January 7th, 1863. If he had read it he would have discovered that Engels forgot the turn of the year, and inserted 1862.

Marx replied on the following day (letter 814, page 117, of Vol. 3) in a curt manner. Engels was rather upset, and, on January 13th, sent Marx a severe letter, the ONLY one of its kind that ever passed between the two friends. Let us read Mr. Carr's account. He says:—

   This “frosty” letter, received before Mary was in her grave, struck Engels dumb for four days.
   All my friends (he wrote at length), including bourgeois acquaintances. . . .

Mr. Carr puts the word "bourgeois" in italics. The word "bourgeois" is NOT in italics in the correspondence. The words are in letter 816, second paragraph, page 118, of Vol 3. They begin on line 21, and are as follows: —

   Alle meine Freunde, einschliesslich Philisterbekannte. . . .

In the Marx-Engels Institute version the words are as above. If italics had been used by Engels (or Marx), this is the way it would have been printed—P h i 1 i s t e rbekannte. 

So much for Mr. Carr's literary rectitude!!

Perhaps the survey of another episode may help in elucidating the mysteries of Mr. Carr's qualifications to write as an “authority" on Marx. On page 67, Mr. Carr indulges speculatively anent the activities of Marx in Paris, and the decision to go to England. As usual, he displays his ignorance of the correspondence, and makes statements that are the reverse of fact. In the last paragraph Mr. Carr states that the decision to emigrate was "the most important landmark in Marx's career."

If this decision is the most important landmark in Marx's career, such observation, interpretation, and justification should be sustained by evidence. But Mr. Carr tenders nothing to prove the great landmark. There are reasons for the serious omission—for Mr. Carr again evidently knows little or nothing of the correspondence of this period. His review on page 67 is deficient in that the exact relations between Marx and the French police are not clearly detailed, and Mr. Carr's "disclosures" are inadequate. In letter No. 40, dated June 7th, 1849 (page 107, Vol. 1), Marx wrote to Engels that his [Marx's] correspondence was being tampered with, and advised Engels to write to him under the pseudonym of Monsieur Ramboz, 45, Rue de Lille. In the letter No. 43, pp. 111-2, Vol. 1, dated August 17th, Marx again refers to the pseudonym.

In the next letter, No. 44, dated August 23rd 1849, p. 113, Vol. 1, Marx makes the vital and final decision concerning his future, which Mr. Carr calls the “most important landmark of Marx's career." But once more we discover that Mr. Carr is ignorant of the full contents of these letters. Actually, Marx's decision did not involve him, alone, for it changed the whole course of Engel's life, too.. “The most important landmark" referred to by Mr. Carr, depended entirely upon the letters referred to above. In the August 23rd letter (No. 44), Marx writes to Engels in Lausanne to inform him that he will not submit to the surveillance of the French police, who desire him to take up residence in the isolated Department of Mobihan (Brittany).

In his fulsome ignorance, Mr. Carr states that "Marx thought of joining Engels in Switzerland." This is a piece of invincible ignorance on the part of Mr. Carr for had he read Marx's letter, he would have found that Marx says (line 14, paragraph 2): —

   Nach der Schweiz gibt man mir keinen Pass. (I can get no passport for Switzerland.)

Marx impresses upon Engels to leave Lausanne and go right through to London, where he will join him. Marx is certain of being able to start a literary journal, for which one portion of the money is already available. He tells Engels it seems impossible for him to remain in Switzerland any longer.

    Du kannst nicht in der Schweiz bleiben. In London werden wir Geschäfte maen. . (You cannot remain in Switzerland. We will do business in London.)

This last sentence is of the utmost importance, for, along with the letter No. 43, dated August 17th, 1849, it showed that Marx was certain that the starting of a journal would provide a living for both Marx and Engels. But the sting is in the tail. Marx appends a footnote to the letter, showing that he had no thought of going to Switzerland. He writes—

   Lupus ist bei Dr. Lüning, Zürich. Schreib ihm auch von meinem Plan. (Lupus is with Dr. Lüning in Zurich. Write him also about my plan.)
   (Lupus was the famous Wilhelm Wolff to whom Marx dedicated the first volume of “Capital.”)

Not one word of this is tendered, explained, or referred to by Mr. Carr on page 67 of his book. Obviously, Mr. Carr does not know of its existence. But there is more than that to it. It suggests the source of Mr. Carr's information, too, i.e., the 1913 edition. In his preface, on page VIII, Mr. Carr tenders thanks “to a friend who desires to remain anonymous, but who, while differing from many of my conclusions, has generously placed at my disposal a rich stock of Marxist lore.” It was in the 1913 edition of the letters that the passage in letter 43, and the sentence from letter 44, “In London werden wir Geschäfte machen,” were deliberately omitted. Specific attention is called thereto in the 50-page introduction to Vol 1 of the correspondence issued by the Marx-Engels Institute.

If Mr. Carr had regard for the truth, nothing could have deterred him from giving the page, date, number, and volume from which he was quoting. Let us test Mr. Carr's credentials once more. It concerns an episode of which he writes with exceeding enthusiasm, for which he tenders Marx a surprising encomium. The very instance arouses suspicion. It provides more evidence of Mr. Carr's patent superficiality, and invincible shallowness. On page 109 he refers to Marx's “Eighteenth Brumaire," and says that it

   demands quotations not so much for its political importance as for its literary merits. The contorted antithetical style of Marx’s early period has been left behind. The “Eighteenth Brumaire” contains some of the simplest and raciest of Marx’s writing; and the fierceness of the invective (for Marx always shines at invective) gives it a high place among political broadsides. It may be heartily recommended to anyone who thinks Marx is a dull writer.

Then follows the opening section of the first paragraph of the “Brumaire.” Once again his bluff is exposed. For had Mr. Carr read letter No. 134, which Engels wrote to Marx from Manchester on December 3rd, 1851, he would have seen the origin of the passage which was afterwards incorporated into the “Brumaire" by Marx. It is on page 292 of Vol 1. Let any reader examine the opening of the “Brumaire,” and he can easily follow the quotation.

   alles sich zweimal anspinnen liesse, einmal als grosse Tragödie, und das zweite Mai als lausige Farce, Caussidiere für Danton, L. Blanc für Robespierre, Barthelemy für Saint-Just, Flocon für Carnot, . . etc. (these things occur twice, first as great tragedy and secondly as paltry farce . . . etc.)

Now, Engels wrote that note to Marx within 24 hours of the coup d'état, and yet later accorded the credit to Marx for the analysis. Knowing the miserable proclivities of Mr. Carr in traducing and reviling Marx on the slightest provocation, he missed here his greatest opportunity of calling Marx a plagiarist, etc. But his lost opportunity is entirely due to Mr. Carr not having read the correspondence; an opportunity he surely would have used to bolster his case against Marx; if he had known of it.

The International.

The importance of the “International” is recognised by Mr. Carr, who uses about a quarter of the space of his book to expatiate upon this interesting aspect of Marx’s activities.

On page 184 he bursts forth with this serious diatribe: —

   The origin of the momentous decision to invite Marx—a decision which determined the whole course of the International from its inception to its death— is wrapped in strange obscurity. It is a depressing commentary on the nature of the evidence on which history is based that, in this comparatively straightforward matter, the historian has before him two mutually contradictory accounts from persons who participated, or purport to have participated, in the transaction. Each of these accounts is demonstrably, or almost demonstrably, false: and each has clearly been distorted by the desire of the narrator to exaggerate the importance of his own role.

If it is demonstrably false, why does Mr. Carr use the curious qualification “almost.” If it is “almost” demonstrably false, it isn't quite false. And if it isn't quite false, why worry? The fact is, Mr. Carr has not quite relished his job, and he was in a position of mental suspense in dealing with the matter. Besides, it is clear that he did not appreciate the whole story attributed to Marx. Had Mr. Carr quoted from Marx's letter (No. 876) he might have understood the matter. Had he read the correspondence, he might have quoted the facts, for, in this case, opposite page 196 of Vol 3, Marx's letter is produced in facsimile. Marx tells Engels that a young Frenchman, Le Lubez, about 30 years of age, brought up in Jersey and London, asked Marx if he would care to represent the German workers at the first meeting of the International. Mr. Carr suggests that this story is “demonstrably, or almost demonstrably, false.”

If it is demonstrably false, where is the evidence? Mr. Carr produces none. He produces the other version, this time by Marx's old friend, Frederick Lessner.

We will leave it to our readers as to whether there are contradictions. Mr. Carr quotes Lessner, but from what book or pamphlet, he declines to say. Let us, however, quote from Lessner's “Sixty Years of the Social Democratic Movement" (p. 33):

  The English committee invited also the “Communistische Arbeiterbildungsverein” to this meeting, and at the same time expressed a wish that Marx should attend this international fraternisation of the working men. The “Communistische Arbeiterbildungsverein” sent me to Marx. I informed him of the wish of the English workmen, and after some inquiries as to the conveners and the object of the meeting, Marx consented to come.

Is that contradictory? What authority Le Lubez had to approach Marx is not discussed by Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr's method of presenting material which cannot be immediately identified from its source, ill-befits him to accuse any person, and then submit no evidence to substantiate the accusations.

Not only is there no contradiction, but there is overwhelming evidence that shows how much Marx's presence was desired and required at the first meeting of the International. Both the Marx version and that of Lessner suggest that steps were being taken by various parties to have Marx’s assistance. It is clear there is no mystery at all about Marx’s presence. There is no “strange obscurity” regarding the decision to invite him. True, it is obscure and mysterious to Mr. Carr. Despite all his own trumpetings regarding his firsthand information, in this respect he succeeds in displaying his woeful ignorance and utter unfamiliarity with the accurate sources of information. Mr. Carr does not know that Marx received an official invitation to the first meeting. It proves once more that he has no great knowledge of the literature issued by the Marx-Engels Institute of Moscow, for on page 146 of “Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,” by D. Riazanov, the story is given officially. There it is asked:—

   How did he [Marx] happen to be there? A little note found among Marx’s miscellaneous papers supplies the answer. It reads:—
    Mr. Marx,
    Dear Sir,
      The committee who have organised the meeting as announced in the enclosed bill respectfully request the favour of your attendance. The production of this will admit you to the Committee Room where the Committee will meet at half past 7.
                                                                                         Yours respectfully,

(Signed) W. R. CREMER. 

W. R. Cremer was the Organising Secretary for the first meeting of the International. He invited Marx. So the statement on page 184 of Carr’s book is only “wrapped in strange obscurity” because of the inadequate qualifications possessed by Mr. Carr. In matters historical, Mr. Carr is woefully and abysmally ignorant. Take for example the statement he makes on page 185, concerning Lessner, of whom he writes: —

Lessner had lived in London since the early fifties. . . .

What has Mr. Carr read of the activities of Lessner? He pretends to have quoted from a book of Lessner, but Mr. Carr is as ignorant as an unborn babe of the life of Lessner. Let us deal with this “early fifties” rubbish.

Lessner left London in July, 1848, for Cologne to carry on propaganda in association with Marx and Engels in the Rhineland. After the failure of the insurrectionary movement, Lessner was expelled from Wiesbaden on June 18th, 1850, whereafter he proceeded to Mainz to organise the few revolutionary elements left in the League of Communists. For this same purpose he went to Nuremberg. In June, 1851, he was arrested in Mainz, and detained in custody until a bill of indictment was entered against him 15 months later. His trial commenced on October 4th, 1852. The verdict was given on November 12th, and Lessner was condemned to imprisonment in a fortress for three years. On January 27th, 1856, he was released, making his way to London, where he arrived in May, 1856.

THAT, dear Mr. Carr,.was how Lessner spent the ”early fifties” in London!

Another elementary example of Mr. Carr's “authority” is the reference to Disraeli, in the first paragraph on page 201. He writes : —

   Disraeli, when he dished the Whigs, had gone a long way towards dishing the International—a body of which he had probably never heard.

That is a priceless gem from Mr. Carr, who pretends to possess something akin to universal knowledge of the working-class movement.

Mr. Carr’s assertion means that Disraeli did NOT read the “Times,” or other daily papers. But may we deal with the “Times”?

When the International Congress was held at Lausanne, Marx was able to push his friend, Eccarius, into receiving the sum of 2½ guineas per column for reporting the Congress. On Friday, September 6th, 1867, “The Times” had this head-line:—

    International Working Men’s Congress.
(From a correspondent.) Lausanne, Sept. 2nd. 

Then followed the article. To suggest that Disraeli would not read this is absurd.

Because of the reports that had percolated through Lausanne, “The Times,” on September 12th, published a leading article, dealing with the International Working Men’s Association (page 6, columns 5 and 6). A year later, Wednesday, September 9th, 1868, “The Times,” in its leading article, delivered an attack upon the International (page 6, columns 3 and 4).

Disraeli, who was always pretending to be on the side of the working class, knew all about the International, and aided the organisation to deal a nasty blow at the French Government. Had Mr. Carr read the correspondence between Marx and Engels, he would have known of this, for it is to be found in Vol. 3, page 372 (Letter 1011), December 21st, 1866. In that letter Marx wrote to Engels,. pointing out that the French authorities had confiscated some letters and documents belonging to the I.W.M.A., after the Geneva Congress. These papers were obtained at the border. Many demands were made in Paris for their return, without any success. Thereupon Marx claimed them through the British Foreign Office (Lord Stanley was Minister for Foreign Affairs), as the documents were “British Property.” As Marx says in the letter, poor Napoleon, through the Foreign Office, is to return all. When action by the Cabinet is necessary it means that at least SOME of England’s greatest politicians were aware of the organisations important enough to instigate such action.

There are other cases to show Mr. Carr’s ignorance. On page 201, he refers to the Fenian activity during 1867, and that the International held two meetings., “The Dublin papers were well represented,” says Mr. Carr. What does that mean? Were the newspaper representatives at both meetings? Mr. Carr does not make it clear at all. There is a reason. Mr. Carr has obviously not read the letters that passed between Marx and Engels.

Only TWO Dublin papers were present at the FIRST meeting, i.e., “The Irishman" and the “Nation." At the second meeting none of the Irish reporters turned up at all. At least, so Marx says, in letter 1079, dated November 30th, 1867, page 456, Vol. 3.

We had better not dismiss this Irish business without a further reference to Mr. Carr and the bluff about his translations from Marx’s works(?). On page 305 of his book, we are given an insight into the fine linguistic abilities of Mr. Carr. Says this oracle: —

   . . . In quoting from Marx’s other writings I have made my own translations. In a few passages originally written in English, I have been compelled by the inaccessibility of the English originals to re-translate from German or Russian versions.

So that’s it, is it? On page 202, when dealing with the Fenian movement, Mr. Carr writes of Jenny Marx—as usual he gives no source of origin: —

   Young Jenny Marx in the emotional enthusiasm of the early twenties “went in black since the Manchester execution and wore her Polish cross on a green ribbon.”

Mr. Carr’s quotation is clearly a “translation,” for he uses the words “went” and “wore.” The reader’s attention should be given to this important fact. The changed words predicate the “inaccessibility of the English originals.” Once more Mr. Carr proves his unfamiliarity with the Marx-Engels letters. There would have been no difficulty in printing the correct words, for the whole of the passage which Mr. Carr has had to “translate” is—and was—written by Marx in English. This can be found as a footnote to letter 1075, and is on page 453 of Vol. 3, dated November 28th, 1867. These are the words in the footnote: —

    My compliments to Mrs. Burns. Jenny goes in black since the Manchester execution, and wears her Polish cross on a green ribbon.

Had Mr. Carr seen the letter, would he have made the blunder of introducing inaccurate words?

We have noted many instances wherein he has falsified quotations. We have had abundant evidence of the meagre and deficient qualifications he possesses to adventure upon a “life” of Marx.

Mr. Carr not only persists in misquoting Marx, but, as might be expected, demonstrates that he does not understand Marxism. Space prevents dealing with other aspects of his book in detail. It may, however, be recorded that' he misinterprets the Materialist Conception of History. In one case he expounds it in the very maimer to which both Marx and Engels took objection, and warned their “followers’’ that if their interpretation was Marxism, they (Marx and Engels) were no Marxists. Like most Marx-critics, Mr. Carr dispenses with the knowledge, efforts and abilities of those preceding him, suggesting that his work is, at last! the only correct estimate of Marx and his life. The presumptuousness of Mr. Carr is amazing. Marx’s system of political economy is brushed aside by asserting that Bohm-Bawerk’s “Marx and the Close of his System” is the “classical exposure.” (I wonder if Mr. Carr has ever heard of Hilferding’s reply?) Mr. Carr shows himself incapable of understanding the purpose of Marx’s “Capital,” by stating that Marx wanted to

   demonstrate that the class-hatred of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie is explained and justified by the “exploitation” of the former by the latter.

In conclusion, it ought to be brought to the notice of the reader that not a single one of the large number of reviews of Mr. Carr’s book seen by the writer has shown any evidence of a critical faculty. Not one of these individuals has made the slightest endeavour to examine the book thoroughly. They have accepted Mr. Carr’s errors, misquotations and mistranslations without challenge. This is deplorable for one or two of the reviewers profess “to be” advocates of the proletariat, and ”advanced” thinkers! It is hard indeed to distinguish between the ignorance of the reviewers and that of Mr. Carr.

Moses Baritz