Pollitt Forgets the Past (1944)

From the September 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Pollitt has written a pamphlet on Communist policy in answer to questions asked by a Mr. Duxbury, who describes himself as an “adherent” of the Communist Party. The questioner explains that while he has always tried to understand why Communist policy has suddenly changed, he finds it difficult when “he has to tell people the opposite to that which he has been drumming at them for months.” He comments, aptly enough : “They think—’this fellow is a lunatic.' ” Now, however, Earl Browder’s statement that “Capitalism and socialism have now found a way to peaceful co-existence in the same world” has “knocked the wind out of us.”

His enquiries are met with the fatuous assertion that “the general line of our Communist policy has been proved correct in the course of experience on every major political issue since the foundation of our Party in 1920,” page 6. Correct in what respect? We could, if we wished, examine in detail the contradictory and confusing policies of the Communist Party in those 24 years; it will suffice to mention one issue only. Possibly P.ollitt has forgotten the desperate efforts of the C.P. to keep its policy in line with the rapid changes of Russian foreign policy in the autumn of 1939— we all try to forget nightmares. The Communist Party declared support for the war on September 2nd, 1939 (before it started !—they were eager), but on October 7th they issued a manifesto opposing it because they discovered that it was an “unjust” war. Twenty-one months later they supported the war again. At last it was a “just” war; Russia was fighting in it.

Such major changes cannot be dismissed as merely incidental to their “correct” policy. The truth is that the Communist Party has one aim, and that is support of Russian State capitalism. When Russian interests demand it, Communist policy will change overnight regardless of working-class interests. Perhaps these changes have been beneficial to Russia; if so, Pollitt can claim that their policy has been correct, but it has been a correct policy for Russian capitalism, not for the working class. Socialists do not boast that their policy has been beneficial to capitalist interest. They are concerned with working-class interests only—the Communist Party is not.

In his explanation of Earl Browder’s dissolution of the American Communist Party and his support of Roosevelt, Pollitt says that with a Democratic President peaceful cooperation between Russia, Britain and the U.S.A. is guaranteed. Even were it possible to guarantee peace (and we emphasise that it is not possible), this policy means the support of men who intend to administer capitalism in one form or the other. The Communists are pledged to support the continued exploitation of the working class; no excuse will hide that fact.

One or two points in the questioner’s letter deserve comment. He wants to rally the millions who desire Socialism but will not listen to it if it were preached for 100 years. He wants Socialism before he is 30, and he continues : “I want to catch the fastest bus. Lenin would have made great decisions here.” After advocating unity between the Communist Party and the Common Wealth Party, he says : “The only thing that I can see is Unite and sweep capitalism to hell out of it by vigorous political action.” We want Socialism as quickly as possible, but we know that there is only one fast way—the correct way. These who are merely in a hurry but have little or no understanding of the Socialist case have followed many paths—paths that have led anywhere but to Socialism. Lenin, who is mentioned, was one who wanted to get Socialism quickly. He constantly urged his colleagues to insurrection and emphasised the need for seizing power even with a minority. He also repudiated the need for working-class understanding with the plea that it would take 500 years (Socialist Standard, May, 1921).

Lenin and the Bolsheviks achieved power and made their great decisions; but did they establish Socialism ? Of course not. The economic conditions were not ripe in Russia, but even in a modern industrial system Socialism will not be the outcome of any “great” decisions by leaders or parties. Those in a hurry must realise that Socialism will make headway only when workers are willing to listen to and discuss the Socialist case. Pollitt talks of “unity” so that a division in the “Labour and progressive vote” can be avoided. The Socialist wants votes for Socialisjn. and knows that when the workers want Socialism they will unite and take political action, hostile to all “progressive” or “reactionary” capitalist parties.

Finally, Pollitt says “that the Party is growing, that its meetings, . . . its members are the envy of every political organisation in the country.” Is that so? Do people envy “lunatics”?

Lew Jones

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

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

Behind the Struggle in Spain

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

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

The Workers' Age comments on this as follows : —

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

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

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

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

No more Atrocity Stories

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

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

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

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

An Ugly Lie

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

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

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

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

Nationalisation and Prosperity

From Forward (July 16th, 1938):—

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

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

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

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

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

Should Insurance be Nationalised?

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

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

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

Think it over, Nationalisers!

A Communist who would Fight against Russia

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

Questions to Browder:—

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

Answer:—

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

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

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

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

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

Paralytic Phrases

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

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

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

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

The Co-Ops. and Profits

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

The Mad House

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

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

The Progress of the “Daily Worker”

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

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

Harry Waite

Swan Song of the Communists (1944)

From the February 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Amazing Speech by American Leader

Readers of the London Daily Worker (January 12 and 14) will have learned that the American Communist Party is about to die—at the hands of its own leaders; though whether the leaders do this because Moscow is no longer interested or because Moscow wants it that way has yet to be disclosed. After a quarter of a century of misspent effort and of innumerable twists and turns of policy dictated first by dependence on the early and erroneous theories of the Bolshevists, then by the shifts and changes of the foreign policy of Russia's rulers, the American Communists are returning to a point even further back than that from which they started, the once despised beliefs of the reformist labour movements. Having promised to show the discontented workers how, by following the Communist lead, they could speedily achieve their emancipation, the American Communist leaders after 25 years are now shepherding their flock back into the fold.

After the delegates at a Party Convention had obediently signified their approval of changes proposed by their leaders, the full significance of the new departure was disclosed by the Secretary, Mr. Earl Browder, at a mass meeting in New York called in commemoration of the twentieth anniversary of the death of Lenin. The Times (January 12) reports that the response to Browder’s speech was “ less than enthusiastic.” The audience, not being drilled and disciplined like the Party delegates, may have reflected that the real purpose of the meeting was not to praise Lenin’s theories, but to bury them. The decision to wind-up operates on May Day. The Communists are going to give up any pretence of being an independent political party. Under some such name as “American Communist Political Association,” they are going to accept and work loyally within the traditional two-party system.

This is all because, in the words of Mr. Browder, Allied victory in the war will mean "not only prolonged world peace without precedent in history, but also the flourishing of economic relationships, co-operation and development of economic well-being and social reforms . . .” (Daily Worker, January 12, 1944).

Here is an extract from the Times' report of Browder’s speech at the mass meeting

   Saying that the American people were ill-prepared for socialism, and that post-war plans with the aim of establishing socialism in the United States would not unite the nation but would further divide it, he announced that, for the sake of promoting unity here, so that the policies agreed on by the United Nations at Cairo, Moscow and Teheran could be put into effect, Marxists would not raise the issue of socialism “in such a form and manner as to endanger or weaken that national unity.”
   Mr. Browder added that the Communists had eliminated such measures as nationalisation of the banks, the railways and the coal and steel industries, would change the name of their organisation to "the American Communist Political Association,” and would support in future the candidates of one of the two major parties. Reactionaries, he said, were trying to spread confusion in the democratic and progressive camp by championing free enterprise, but Marxists would not help them by opposing the slogan of free enterprise with any counter-slogan. He went on:—
   “If anyone wishes to describe the existing system of capitalism in the United States as free enterprise, that is all right with us, and we frankly declare that we are ready to co-operate in making this capitalism work effectively in the post-war period with the least possible burdens on the people. We do not draw political lines of division for the 1944 elections on any form of the issue of free enterprise.”—(Times, January 12, 1944.)

Other points are brought out in the lengthier Daily Worker report (January 14). One is that the Communists are going to support “a great united effort in the 1944 elections to guarantee the continuation of Roosevelt’s policies. . . .”

 
They will “not be operating as a 'party'—that is, with their own separate candidates in elections except under special circumstances when they may be forced to act through 'independent candidates.’ ” They are, however, “not . . . entering any other party. The Communists are not joining the Democratic party; the Communists are not joining the Republican party; we are not endorsing either of the major parties, and we are not condemning either of the major parties. We are taking a line of issues and not parties, and choosing men as they stand for or against those issues, without regard to party labels.” (Italics ours.)

An important point to notice is that this new line is not a merely war-time measure: "We are now extending the perspective of national unity for many years into the future. It is no longer an ‘emergency situation' but is merging into a 'normal situation ' " (Browder, Daily Worker, January 14).

About the agreement by Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt at Teheran to "work together in war and in the peace that will follow," Browder makes the remark that "Capitalism and' Socialism have begun to find the way to peaceful co-existence and collaboration in the same world." Those whose memories carry them back four years to the period of the Stalin—Hitler pact of 1939 will recall that this is just the line Communist propaganda was then taking about the friendly co-existence of Bolshevist Russia and Nazi Germany! When that period ended in 1941 the American and British Communist parties dropped their peace slogans and the theories on which those slogans rested, and were ordered into line with the foreign policy of Roosevelt and Churchill. The new turn means that they are now falling into line in home affairs as well.

To see the matter in perspective, let us turn back the last Presidential election in 1940, to see what Browder had to say then about Roosevelt and Willkie and the two parties they represent.

At that time the Communists were opposed to the war. They denounced it as an Anglo-American plot "to make the world safe for Wall Street and the City " (Daily, Worker, November 30, 1940) The American Party was praised on the ground that "alone of all the political parties, the C.P. of the U.S.A. has exposed the imperialist character of the war and has warned against both Roosevelt and Willkie " (Daily Worker, October 28, 1940).

In a speech reported in the Daily Worker on October 11, 1940, Mr. Browder declared that Roosevelt and Willkie, though they were rival candidates, had the same foreign policy (based on that of Great Britain), the policy of encouraging Hitler, pushing Germany into war with Russia so that Russia would be destroyed, and at the same time Germany would be so weakened as to remove her as a threat to Britain. "Only the Communist Party," he said, " has proposed and consistently fought for a foreign policy for our country which could replace the disastrous policy now being followed."

So much for foreign policy—now for his earlier views about the home policies of the Republicans and Democrats. In 1940 Mr. Browder, himself a Presidential candidate opposing Roosevelt and Willkie, issued a statement explaining just what part the two parties play in making America safe for capitalism, and denouncing the traditional two-party system which the Communists have now decided to accept.

The 1940 conventions of the Republican and Democratic Parties restored once more the traditional "two-party system" by which Wall Street (finance, capital and the great monopolists, the "sixty families," the " economic royalists"), controlling both major parties, invites the masses to choose the label under which they shall be exploited and oppressed for the ensuing four years. For the masses of the American people there is no way to advance their interests through either Republican or Democratic Party." (Daily Worker, October 28, 1940.)

On November 4, 1940, the Daily Worker, alleging that at the previous election in 1936 "Roosevelt himself was hoping that the New Deal would bring him Communist votes," went on :—

   But to-day neither Roosevelt nor Willkie will get Communist votes; their policy "of crushing civil liberties, planning a huge arms programme, and drawing nearer to participation in the war is too obviously directed against the liberties of the people.

Just at that time the American Communist Party was compelled, through the restrictive Voorhis Act, to resign from the Communist International, but while doing so it "reaffirmed the adherence of the Party to the policy of working-class internationalism” (Daily Worker, November 20,1940). Now, with the Communist International destroyed on Moscow orders the American Communists are going to back the two parties of capitalism, controlled as they are by Wall Street and big business, and thus join in the game of inviting the workers "to choose the label under which they shall be exploited and oppressed for the ensuing four years."

Some of the possible reasons for the decision can readily be guessed. Their failure to make any headway in elections may have been one factor; in 1932 they polled 103,000 in the Presidential election, but in 1940 their candidate polled only 46,000 votes. More important, however, will be the desire to follow a line suitable to the present foreign policy of the Russian Government. It is obvious that the Russian Government during the past year has been concerned to make itself popular in U.S.A. and Britain, and to avoid doing anything that would strengthen the hands of political groups opposed to the Russian alliance—hence the efforts of Russia's supporters to secure wide publicity for the new recognition of religion and the disbandment of the Communist International. The Manchester Guardian (January 12, 1944) considers that the winding up of the American party is another step which "will make for better feeling towards Russia."

Fully to understand the complete change of policy since 1940, it has to be remembered that at that time, when the Communists were opposed to the war and opposed to Willkie and Roosevelt, they (and doubtless their inspirers in Moscow) had a very different opinion about the way world affairs were going from the one forced on them in June 1941 when Germany invaded Russia. Mr. Browder, in October 1940, thought that the foreign policy he ascribed to Britain and America had failed, and that Russia would be able to keep out of the war because "the Soviet Union had grown too strong and too consolidated to offer a tempting field for military adventures for a Hitler, who likes to have his victories assured before he goes into action." (Daily Worker, October 11, 1940).

Events were soon to prove Browder wrong. Russia was not strong enough to stand alone, without American and British help. Mutual dependence of the three Powers called for a revised Communist Party policy. Subsequent changes, including the present attempt of the American Party to operate alongside Democrats and Republicans, have been in harmony with the position of the Russian Government internally and in its foreign relationships. That, and not the incredible belief in a new world of peace, progress and class harmony which Mr. Browder professes to cherish, is likely to be the real reason why his party has been called upon to make itself a laughing stock by repudiating the fundamental creed on which it was founded. Whether it will establish any sort of stability on the new basis, and whether further developments of Russian policy will lead to still further changes, are two questions time will answer.

We may speculate whether the British Party will follow the American example. The Manchester Guardian points out (January 12):—

  The arguments for it are much the same. Before the Communist International died the maxim of the Communist parties of the world was, of course, "When father says Turn, we all turn." Will our British Communists, like the Americans, prepare to lie down gracefully?

Maybe this time, however, the American and British Communists will turn in different directions, if we may judge by the editorial comment on the American changes published by the Daily Worker on January 13, 1944. The editorial argues that it is a mistake to interpret the American political system in terms of our own because in U.S.A "there is no Labour Party or organised political Labour movement." The main task in America to-day and in the immediate post-war period, says the Daily Worker, " is not the transformation of the social system but the rallying of all progressive forces in order to prevent reaction from turning that mighty country from the path of Teheran." The editorial goes on to give fulsome praise to Roosevelt's New Year speech, which, it says, calls America to a "noble fulfilment" of its destiny. The Daily Worker finds that both the Republican and Democratic parties "include reactionary and progressive elements," yet it plumps for supporting Roosevelt, leader of the Democrats. In view of Browder's 1940 statement that there is nothing to choose between the two parties, this distinction between Tweedledum and Tweedledee is not convincing. Nor is the Daily Worker's argument that things are different in this country because we have a Labour Party. In 1929 (see "Class Against Class"), and for several years afterwards, the Communist Party habitually referred to the Labour Party as the "third capitalist party."

It remains to be seen therefore what new line the British Communists may be required to take—and what peculiar justification they will, in that event, discover for taking it.

To enlighten them in their task of seeking to justify their own and the American Communists’ policy of supporting capitalist parties in the name of national unity, we bring to their notice the following passage from "Class Against Class," the General Election Programme of the Communist Party of Great Britain, 1929:—

    "Three parties—Tory, Liberal and Labour—appeal to you in the name of the " nation." . . . .  No party can serve two masters. No party can serve the "nation" so long as the nation is divided into two warring classes—one which owns the wealth and one which produces the wealth and does not own it. No party can serve the robbers and the robbed at the same time."

Edgar Hardcastle