Donations to Party Funds (1946)

Party News from the January 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Donations Received. (1933)

From the January 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Power of the Radio (1946)

From the August 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

(A reader of the Socialist Standard sends us the following letter, which we publish for the interesting points contained therein.—Ed. Com.)

It must be obvious to everyone that those in control of the Radio exercise a tremendous power over public opinion. During industrial disputes this influence is very pronounced.

Whatever may be said to the contrary, the negative attitude of the B.B.C. towards Marxian teaching is a powerful weapon in the hands of our opponents. This unfortunate circumstance is difficult to overcome. The B.B.C. refuses to grant permission to the S.P.G.B. to broadcast and we are forbidden by law to operate a broadcasting station of our own. The argument advanced against such a proposal is, of course, that if everyone was allowed to set up on their own, chaos would ensue upon the ether. That appears reasonable on the face of it. But why should one side be given the sole monopoly?

The only reply to this is that it is the law of the land, and the reply to this is that as the working class, if the franchise is not a fraud, hold a political majority, hence they like things as they are. However, we must take into consideration that the working class are sadly handicapped. As children they receive their education from schools that support capitalist ideology, every channel of knowledge is polluted, the Press, Pulpit, the Cinema, and now this super force, the radio, gets at the working class night and day. We ask you, fellow workers, how long are you going to stand for this state of affairs, that your champions in the cause of your emancipation are denied the elementary right to free expression of opinion.

F. L. Rimington

Donations to Party Funds. (1931)

 Party News from the July 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Letter: Socialism and Reform. (1928)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. F. L. Rimington (Leicester), in the course of a long letter asks several questions. (1) Would the S.P.G.B., with only a minority of M.P.s in the House of Commons, adopt any “meantime proposals” while working for the return of a majority? The answer is that Socialist candidates would fight elections as candidates of the S.P.G.B. on our programme of Socialism, not on a programme of reforms or “meantime proposals.” They would be elected by the votes of Socialists wanting Socialism, not by reformists still imbued with the idea that capitalism can be “reformed” out of existence. If they or the Party adopted “meantime proposals” the Socialist electors would seek to further their object—Socialism—and thrust us and our meantime proposals aside. Possibly Mr. Rimington or other readers may be interested in the further point as to whether Socialist M.P.s would vote on particular questions arising out of capitalist administration. That would depend on the nature of the question. A situation might, for instance, arise when capitalist parties were divided for and against war. Should such a question arise, Socialist M.P.s would naturally be required to cast their votes against a course which would lead to the destruction of working-class life and health. That is a matter not for the M.P.s to decide but for the Socialist Party to decide on the merits of each case as it arose. The Socialist Party would, of course, make it clear that such action was in line with working-class interest and not based on the reasons which underlie the action of the capitalist parties.

Letter: Money and Price. A Critics Rejoinder and our Reply. (1928)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sir,

Mr. A. E. Jacomb, writing under above heading, fondly imagines that he replies to Rimington, whereas he does nothing of the sort. His greatest coup is a slip on my part wherein, by accident, I inverted the exchange rate of the £1 to the Dollar. Such cheap scoring is beneath contempt; and Mr. Jacomb would have shone indeed if he had succeeded in proving his case that a revolutionary change in the cost of reproduction did not affect the price of a commodity.

Jacomb expresses surprise that gold has price. Later on he says that an ounce of gold is coined into money expressed by the figure £3 17s. 10½d. In to-day’s paper, December 14th, 1927, I see that gold is quoted at £4 4s. 11½d. per ounce. Then he proceeds to mix gold up with currency, and asks, “What, then, is the monetary expression of money?”; of course, that depends upon what the money is made of. The golden sovereign contains gold that actually contains, and is a concentrated embodiment of a large amount of human labour power. Silver and copper coins, say 20s. or 240 pence, do not contain anything like as much. Their relations in exchange are arbitrary, and outside of the countries in which they are in use, their value, which consists entirely of the metals of which they are composed, would be represented as such, unless they could be returned to the country of origin. Of course, it will be meaningless to Jacomb that gold is £4 4s.11½ per ounce, and that it is a bad price; for taking £3 17s. 10½d. as the pre-war price, it means about 8 per cent. rise, whereas, according to the Index figure, other commodities are up 65 per cent. on pre-war. As the various Governments do not appear to contemplate a return to a gold currency, its price may grow even relatively worse, which may account for the Americans dumping it back again.

Price is the monetary expression of exchange value, and there is no divine hand that determines that the monetary expression shall be gold. Look at Germany during the inflation period ; prices equated to a printing press. It needed a mathematician with prophetic genius to know when to hold and when to part with goods— any old metal would have been preferable.

I have an idea that Governments have lost their faith in gold; the fact that it is being hawked to-day at £4 4s. 11½d. makes it look fishy. According to the book, it should be a lot more per ounce. Apparently the most, powerful monopoly, the gold interests, has been broken. The price, £3 17s. 10½d. per ounce, in pre-war days must either have left them a huge margin, else they have struck King Solomon’s deposits, and maybe that in time gold will function in place of aluminium as cooking utensils.

Next he questions my statement that commerce could not operate by a transference of gold without half the population being engaged in gold extraction. I should have said an enormous number, not half; for I do not know exactly how much labour power is necessary to raise a ton of gold. Nevertheless, I had previously stated that the amount of gold held by the banks only fractionally covered the paper in circulation, and when you come to consider that currency is but the small change of commerce, just imagine what would transpire if every business transaction meant that the purchaser handed over to the vendor a gold equivalent; why, we should have gold going about on drays, else the price of gold would get so far away from its value that an ounce would buy a battleship and the Gold Interests would buy a few planets with the surplus value.

Really, my dear Jacomb, you do try one’s patience when you ask such a ridiculous question, “What, then, is the golden equivalent of a hundred loaves of bread after they have passed into consumption?” and I feel that I am justified in saying that the golden equivalent of a hundred loaves of bread to-day must have considerably depreciated since the introduction of fixed nitrogen as a fertiliser. It would be difficult to get at the back of Rimington’s mind if one accepted Jacomb’s imputation of what I said in my criticism. Then he arrives at his greatest triumph, my slip in the inversion of the exchange rate of the Dollar to the £1, and after his ignorant guffaw, he impudently says that I said that their exchange rate had nothing to do with what they would buy in their respective countries. It is an assumption that these Governments will buy gold, but goods they are always ready to exchange for goods, provided that there is a margin and they keep a day to day tab on the exchange rate, i.e., how much goods the money will buy in each country. Some German firms actually quote to English buyers in American dollars; they have not faith in a constant purchasing power of the currency of either coantries, which is rather strange in view of the recent drop of the dollar to 4.88½. That is why I prefer to say that the value of currency is determined by whatever other commodities it will buy in its own country than gold. Its use value as currency has departed, and it appears to be an economic fifth wheel. Jacomb not only misquotes my criticism, but claims my arguments as his own, and then brazenly fastens his absurdities on me. He asks who is right; surely there are some S.P.G.B’ers. capable of putting him out of his misery, but do not let him dodge away. Is he correct in his economic interpretation in his article, “Should we produce more?”? (October, 27th, “S.S.”) I contend he is utterly wrong.

Yours fraternally,

F. L. Rimington.

Our Reply.

Mr. Rimington makes no attempt whatever to answer my questions : “What is the monetary expression of money?” and “How is the fall in the price of gold to which my critic refers expressed ?” The nearest he gets to answering the first is to say that it “depends upon what the money is made of,” and to follow with a rigmarole about silver and copper coins, which is quite beside the point, because, in this country, silver and copper coins are not money. Since this coinage does not contain value (past labour) corresponding to its face value, it cannot be the measure of value of other commodities, and, as Marx says (“Critique of Political Economy,” p. 164), “a commodity thus becomes money only in its combined capacity of a measure of value and medium of circulation.” In this country, then, money is gold ; and now I will show the ridiculousness of my critic’s position by quoting his own words. He said (“S.S.,” December, 1927, p. 54) : “price” is “merely an indication of the relative value of each commodity to the amount of gold contained in the £1 sterling.” On this showing, then, the “price” Mr. Rimington quotes for an ounce of gold (£4 4s. 11½d.) “is merely an indication of the relative value of ‘that’ commodity to the amount, of gold contained in the” ounce of gold which is coined into £3 17s. 10½ d. ! The two ounces of gold, then, are different. One has more value in it than the other. Well, sovereigns are not particularly hard to get, and it is quite legal to melt them down. Mr. Rimington can make his fortune by melting them. When he has stripped his sovereigns of their uniforms, and converted them into plain ounces of gold, he can take those ounces of gold to the Bank of England, where he will get £3 17s. 9d. for them—a loss of 1½d. Or he can recover in full at the Mint, who pay £3 17s. 10½d., but in that case he will have to wait for his money. Mr. Rimington is still challenged to show how the fall in the price of gold which he claims has taken place can be expressed, and before he takes up the challenge, let him square his answer with his statement that price “is merely an indication of the relative value of each commodity to the amount of gold contained in the £1 sterling.”

Mr. Rimington’s errors were so numerous and palpable in his first letter that I am afraid I missed the central idea of his attack, which was contained in the words, “goods exchange for goods . . . price was merely an indication of the relative value of each commodity to the amount of gold contained in the £1 sterling.” “Goods exchange for goods ” — ye Gods ! Mr. Rimington is himself so mixed that I offer no apology for not being able to disentangle his meaning from his inconsistencies at the first attempt. He is mystified by the market quotation, £4 4s. 11½d. per ounce, of gold and the mint “price,” £3 17s. 10½d., and can only think that the latter figures are mere reckoning figures, which have lost all touch with the actual value of gold. Only in this way can he arrive at the result that the writer was wrong when he stated that, if all producers doubled their output, prices would remain the same. Mr. Rimington sees in gold bullion something different to that which is represented by the £1 sterling. He loses sight of his own definition of price, quoted above, and imagines that gold produced at half the expenditure of labour-power is going to fall to half the “price” of gold sterling. In other words, the figures representing gold sterling are no longer what they pretend to be, and gold finds itself in fluctuating relations therewith. “Goods exchange for goods” ! Gold is no longer in the picture ! At one time it was £3 17s. 10½d. per ounce, but at present it is £4 4s. 11½d., and some day it may be, say, £1 10s. per ounce ! How does this agree with my critic’s definition of price as “an indication of the relative value of each commodity to the amount of gold contained in the £1 sterling”? Mr. Rimington is in a terrible muddle, and all because he cannot realise that the ounce of gold, whatever its value, that is, whatever labour-time is necessary to its production, is still an ounce of gold, and exactly the weight of £3 17s. 10½d. in gold coin.

Surely I could not myself have found an illustration more shattering to Mr. Rimington’s view than that supplied by himself when he says: “Look at Germany during the inflation period ; prices equated to a printing press.” As a matter of fact, “prices equated” to the infinitesimal amount of gold behind the “printing press.” This in itself shows what becomes of prices when there is not a solid backing of gold behind its tokens.

I am sorry my critic is angry because I poked fun at his bloomer—though it was only six words. But doesn’t his mistake show that he doesn’t carefully read what he has written? And now I am accused of misquoting my opponent. Referring to myself, he writes, “He impudently says that I said that their exchange rate had nothing to do with what they would buy in their respective countries.” The statement Mr. Rimington says I attributed to him was my own statement, not his, and was clearly enough written for anyone to understand who has had the education my critic shows evidence of. But if he falsely says I misquoted him, I can show that he misquoted me, for he says that I try his patience when I ask “such a ridiculous question, ‘What, then, is the golden equivalent of a hundred loaves of bread when they have passed into consumption?'” My words were, “… what would become, will my critic tell us, of the golden equivalent of a hundred loaves of bread when the latter were consumed?” Quite a different question. These examples show that my critic not only is careless with regard to what he himself writes, but does not carefully read the replies of his opponents. To carry on a debate in such a manner is an abuse of the hospitality of these columns little short of disgusting. He need not fear that I wish to escape. If any of my statements are wrong, I know my duty to the Cause of Socialism too well to delay their retraction.

A. E. Jacomb

Answers to Correspondents. (1928)

From the January 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

F. R. Rimington (Leicester).—Your further reply to article by Jacomb will be dealt with in next issue.

F. S. Harvey (Wandsworth).—Your letter re “The Slave of the Farm” does not deal with the conditions in Canada, and is therefore hardly a criticism of the pamphlet. We note your reference to the hard conditions under which the “Australian serf” works for the farmer there, which is, however, in its main features, inevitable under private and class ownership.

Letter: Money and price. (1927)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard 

A Criticism and a Reply.

Sir,

I am of the opinion that A. E. Jacomb, writing under the heading of “Should we Produce More” (S.S., Oct. 1927) makes serious blunders in his economics. He says :

“Let us take the employed workmen in a community as one thousand, let us reduce their varied products to a common form, which we call ‘wares,’ and finally let us suppose that the price of each of those wares is £l, and it is the product of one man’s labour for a day. We have the following condition of affairs as the result of the day’s effort :—

Workers 1,000; Wares, 1,000; Price, £1,000. Now suppose that from some cause each worker doubles his day’s output, the figures then would be :—

Workers, 1,000; Wares, 2,000; Price £2,000.”


Now I have always understood since I became acquainted with Marxian political economy that
 price is the monetary expression of exchange value. That goods exchange for goods and that
 price was merely an indication of the relative value of each commodity to the amount of gold 
contained in the £1 sterling. Gold does not determine the price any more than a ruler determines the length of the object measured. Like other commodities, gold has value also price, and is subject to the same laws that apply to them. In fact one might as logically say that wheat determines the price of other goods. The reason why gold is adopted as a standard is its portability, the fact that it does not deteriorate in storage, and that on the average it is less subject to market fluctuations. The Labour Power necessary to produce a given quantity of gold is pretty constant from one year to another; Certainly the discovery of fresh deposits and the introduction of the cyanide process and modern crushing plant has reduced the value of gold which coupled with the fact that it no longer functions as coinage brings supply in excess of demand and a consequent fall in price. But to take A. E. Jacomb’s analogy we must accept the notion that inflation of the currency was responsible for the rise in prices during the war period and since.

I will now take Value and Price (Marx). Value is determined by the amount of socially necessary Labour Power embodied. Price equals Exchange Value, i.e., the relative amount of socially necessary labour power embodied plus the factor of supply and demand. Therefore it follows that if I have 2,000 wares the value of which, assuming that fixed capital is halved as well as variable capital in their production, is just that of 1,000 produced under the old conditions. Of a necessity they must ultimately saturate the market and price will fall below value and will actually exchange at an adverse price. Assuming that the process of production is extended to every other commodity the exchange, i.e., Price remains at par.

Foreign exchange will show how A. E. Jacomb falls. For instance, say, the £1 is quoted at 4.86 to the dollar, it has nothing to do with the amount of gold in either, but the amount of goods that each will buy in their own country. Gold is a mere detail compared to other values created. The amount held by the Banks only fractionally covers the paper in circulation, i.e., Treasury and Bank Notes. Commerce operates by Cheque, Bill or Draft—a mere book transaction. It could not be done by a transference of gold, without half of the population being engaged in gold extraction. Bullion transactions are but adjustments. In the short compass of a letter I cannot deal with every detail of A. E. Jacomb’s article, but may do so later, if allowed.—Yours fraternally,

F. L. Rimington.

Reply to Rimington.

I showed that the result of all wares, including gold, being produced at half the labour cost would be that prices remain the same. My critic says I am wrong. Yet he himself states : “Assuming that the process of production is extended to every other commodity, the exchange, i.e., price, remains at par.” Notwithstanding, then, that I am wrong and my critic right, we both say the same thing, and are in entire agreement so far.

However, Mr. Rimington did not know when to stop. He was safe enough while he was repeating the present scribe, but when he let go of his hand he was soon floundering in the mud. “Gold,” he says, “has value, also price,” and later tells us that gold supply is in excess of demand, and there is a “consequent fall in price.”

Gold has price, has it ! Then how is it expressed? “Price,” my friend correctly states, “is the monetary expression of value.” What, then, is the monetary expression of money? To say that the price of 1,000 bricks is £3 is an intelligent statement ; but to say that the price of the gold in £3 is £3 is idiocy. It adds nothing to our knowledge. An ounce of gold is coined into money expressed by the figures £3 17s. 10½d. It does not matter how the value of gold fluctuates, the amount of gold expressed by those figures is always the same—one ounce. If, then, £3 17s. 10½ d. is the price of one ounce of gold, how is the fall in price to which my critic refers expressed? If the figures are not the price, what is?

Price is an endeavour to equate one kind of commodity to a different commodity (gold), not one to its like; and since all prices are in terms of gold, gold is the only commodity which has no price, and can have none. If silver was the standard of price, then gold could have a price.

Mr. Rimington’s statement that commerce could not operate “by a transference of gold, without half of the population being engaged in gold extraction,” is another ridiculous assertion. The idea is, of course, that for every commodity which is not gold the golden equivalent must exist in order to enable it to exchange. If every piece of gold that was exchanged for a commodity dropped out of circulation when the commodity did he might be correct. But what would become, will my critic tell us, of the golden equivalent of a hundred loaves of bread when the latter were consumed? Would the gold be consumed also? Or would it be free to serve as the medium of further exchanges?

It is difficult to get to the back of Mr. Rimington’s mind, but he appears to imply that high general prices since the war are the result of the supply of gold being in excess of demand. Strangely enough, however, when prices were highest, gold was scarcest.

What Mr. Rimington has to tell us regarding foreign exchange is laughable. When “the £1 is quoted, say, at 4.86 to the $” (Gosh! nearly £5 to the dollar! what a come down for the British Lion !) it has nothing to do with the amount of goods each will buy in its own country. It simply means that the balance of payments is against the country whose money is at a premium. International debts (in commerce) are paid by a process of cancellation. The medium is Bills of Exchange. A in England owes B in America £100; C in America owes D in England £100. If A in England pays D in England £100 and C in America pays A in America £100, they are all square. B draws a bill on A for £100; this he sells to C, who, owing D £100, sends him the bill, and the latter presents it to A for payment upon the date of its maturity. All this is done actually through recognised agents, who buy and sell bills of exchange for a small commission. Now when payments due from England to America largely exceed those due from America to England there will not be sufficient bills on America offered to satisfy the requirements of all those requiring them to pay their debts to Americans. Clearly, then, gold will have to be sent to balance. As the cost of transporting gold has to be faced, the price of the bills advance to cover this. Should gold be very scarce in the country where the demand for bills exceeds the supply, then anticipation of difficulty in obtaining gold will send the price of bills up higher still. That, friend Rimington, is what “foreign exchange” amounts to.

Now let’s see where we stand. After the war prices were much higher than they are now. Also the rate of exchange as between England and America was much more unfavourable to England than it is now. According to Mr. Rimington this means that gold was in greater excess then than now; but according to what I have written above the reverse is indicated. Who is right? It is pretty clear that if gold had been so much in excess of demand in this country as to give us such high prices as prevailed after the war, the master class, instead of putting restrictions on its movement, would have been glad to send some of it to America, thus restoring the balance of exchange on the one hand, and lowering prices to their wage slaves on the other. The first would have meant that they could pay their debts more cheaply, and the second that they could have knocked down wages wholesale.

I have not space to deal with the other dud eggs in my critic’s mare’s nest, but if he is going to have another shot, he should try to be a little more careful.

A. E. Jacomb

Letter: The Franchise. (1927)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Rimington writes again criticising the reply to an earlier letter printed in our July issue.

To the Ed. Com.

It is not that I have any fresh evidence to bear upon the subject above, as your wilful misinterpretation of that already submitted, that I write again.

You quote a string of figures from official sources, and because I do not enter into numerals, you imagine that I have discovered a “mare’s nest.”

Whatever may be said of the Capitalist Class as a Class, they are pretty astute, otherwise they would cease to be Capitalists, and I think that your assumption that they are a lot of “duds,” sheer self-complacency.

It may appear to be clever to say, as you do, “If those anomalies were abolished to-morrow, the great mass of the working class would still vote Capitalist candidates into Parliament.” Fortunately, you limit your prognostication to the next twelve hours; but it is a nasty get-out. By abusing the working class you shirk your responsibilities to safeguard and extend their powers of political expression. Because I do not give the name and address, etc., of my informant re the flaw in the Act, you refer to it as nebulous stuff. Why not investigate for yourselves and prove your statement?

You say that “the reference to the Proxy vote and the dead you do not understand,” and I would refer you to your reply, May, 1927, where you state that only those persons may vote by proxy who (a) are already on the absent voters’ list. Now persons who are already on the absent voters’ list are not exactly imperishable, and it follows that, unless they are replaced by others, ultimately there ceases to be anyone on the absent voters’ list. You may say that this is a quibble; nevertheless, without this explanation, it is obvious that absent voters must be a diminishing quantity. Of course, if the desire to strengthen the arm of working class political representation is opposed to your ideas of Socialist propaganda, it would be a pity to suspend it. Taking your own figures, which do not include the wives and families of the men registered for business qualification, I submit that, as a whole, they constitute sufficient in many cases to turn the scale at an election, for many candidates are returned by a few hundred or less. I wish particularly to draw your attention to the working of the Redistribution Act of 1918, taking Leicester as an example. Prior to this Act, Leicester was one Parliamentary area returning two members. It was then divided into three separate divisions, returning one member each. In most cases the owners of business premises live in another part of the town, so automatically they qualified for extra votes. That the issue is not so negligible as you imagine is, I contend, worthy of searching investigation, and in these days when the democratic principle is being attacked so frequently in the Press and on the platform, it is up to us to contest every plutocratic privilege. I enclose cutting from to-day’s Observer, which shews that the Divines are at it too, but these are quite mild to articles I have read by Gilbert Frankau and others.

In the words of Joseph Dietzgen, “Take care of the principles and the details will take care of themselves.”

Yours fraternally,

F. L. Rimington.

Reply.

Mr. Rimington admits that he has no “fresh evidence.” I propose, therefore, not to follow him again into numerous side-issues, but would refer him to the reply to his first letter. He still does not attempt to disprove the figures which showed that the plural voting anomaly is of negligible extent. While there is a single person with a plural vote an anomaly can be said to exist, but we decline to interest ourselves in anomalies which are unimportant and do not debar the working class from achieving Socialism. Let us repeat the main point, in 1925 there were in England and Wales 19,167,275 persons registered as voters (Statistical Review, 1925, p. 81. H.M.S.O.). Of these 51,357 had University votes and 217,509 had business premises votes. Thus out of every 200 voters three persons had two votes which they could use at a general election. Of the 200 voters 170 (85 per cent.) were members of the working class (see May ”S.S.”). Thus the distribution of votes as between workers and Capitalists in about 170 to 43. Mr. Rimington asks us to get into a sweat about those three votes, and we reply that it is much more important to convert the 170 workers to Socialism. Incidentally, if Mr. Rimington is so anxious to break a lance, why not advocate the disfranchisement of all Capitalists? It would not be very much more difficult to achieve, and when it was done he would still have the great majority of the 170 working class voters supporting capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Donations to New Publications Fund. (1927)

Party News from the October 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Letter: Is the franchise a fraud? (1927)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Below we print a letter from a correspondent. The points contained in it are dealt with in our reply which follows. For convenience we have numbered the different sections of the letter.

To the Editorial Committee :

(1) While as yet my investigations are incomplete, I have established the fact that a person can exercise two Parliamentary votes provided that he or she possesses property in two divisions or holds a University degree or rank in the army or navy.

(2) Evidence points in the direction that the privilege goes beyond two votes, taking into consideration the multiplicity of the headings which qualify the capitalist class to exercise the vote and the many disqualifications that attend that of the working class, it is exceedingly doubtful if a candidate could be returned in any division to whom the Capitalist Class seriously objected. The object of this letter is to make the above public knowledge, as I have found that the common impression is that we have a franchise based upon one man one vote. The issue at stake vitally affects working class representation, and I am raising the question for discussion.

(3) I forgot to add that a person may vote by proxy, another revelation. These things make our Electoral system smell. Just imagine to yourself a large concern with multiple shops, etc., and the chance to put in votes for each one by proxy, provided that they are in separate divisions. A handful of Directors with their dependents, could exercise thousands of votes under such circumstances.

4) I know one local instance of a family in Leicester who qualify in the three Leicester divisions for twelve votes. Now I see the reason for the Redistribution Act of 1918.

F. L. Rimington

—————–

Our correspondent has raised again a matter which has been dealt with in these columns before. It is important, not because of any so-called “democratic principle” it involves, but because of its bearing on the question of the use of the vote in order to obtain working class political control. There are anomalies in the existing franchise, but we are not concerned with them as such. We are not busybodies nobly searching for “injustices” to put right. We want Socialism and are interested in the franchise as a means to that end. If the anomalies prevent or materially hinder the workers in gaining power, then it is necessary to expose them and work for their removal. If, on the other hand, the anomalies have no practical importance, it is contrary to working class interests to waste time on them and divert valuable energy which might more profitably be given to Socialist propaganda.

(1) Taking Mr. Rimington’s first paragraph, we find that his information is not quite correct. The position is that a man, 21 years of age, may be registered as a voter on three grounds (a) 6 months’ residence in a constituency whether as householder or lodger ; (b) 6 months’ occupation of business premises or land of which the annual value is not less than £10; (c) possession of a university degree.

A woman of 30 may be registered (a) by virtue of her husband’s qualification; or (b) by 6 months’ residence as a householder; or (c) by 6 months’ occupation of a shop or workroom or other business premises of not less than £5 annual value ; or (d) by possession of a university qualification.

In a general election a man may vote in two, but not more than two constituencies. If he is registered in more than two constituencies he may vote in all of them in bye-elections. A woman can only have two votes in a general election, if one of them is a university vote. In bye-elections she can vote wherever registered. Rank in the army or navy does not give two votes. It enables the voter, however, to vote once only by post as an “absent voter.”

(2) Mr. Rimington says that “evidence points in the direction that the privilege goes beyond two votes …” This is true only of bye-elections, as shown above. He speaks of the “many disqualifications that attend . . . the working class,” but does not specify these many disqualifications, or show their importance. As will be illustrated below, the overwhelming majority of the workers are, in fact, not disqualified from voting. His further surmise that a candidate could be prevented from being returned as a result of these “disqualifications” is incompatible with the facts. This also is dealt with below.

(3) Mr. Rimington evidently misunderstands the proxy vote. Only those persons may vote by proxy who (a) are already on the absent voters’ list and (b) make a statement in the prescribed form that they will be at sea or out of the United Kingdom at the time of the election. The proxy must be named in the statement. The provisions for the absent voter and for proxy voting enable seamen and other persons whose work compels them to be away from home, to register their votes. Mr. Rimington’s hypothesis of “the handful of directors and their dependents” is nonsense. The proxy would enable a director, if he had two votes, to use both of them in a general election, but, as he could vote twice in any event, the position is not changed by that special provision for absent voters.

(4) Mr. Rimington instances a family who qualify for 12 votes in the three Leicester divisions. Unfortunately he does not say how many members there are in the family, but, as I have already pointed out, each could only vote at most twice in a general election, and at most three times in the unlikely event of three successive bye-elections in the three divisions.

Let us now examine the actual figures and see what these anomalies amount to.

In 1921 the number of males of 21 and over in England and Wales was approximately 10,500,000, and the number of females of 30 and over was 9,500,000. (See statistical abstract of Board of Trade, 69th number, 1926. Page 244). This gives a total of roughly 20,000,000 persons entitled to qualify in respect of age. To obtain a similar figure for 1925 it is necessary to add l/40th, which represents the approximate estimated increase in population during the interval. (See Registrar General’s Statistical Review, 1925. Page 80.) The total for 1925 is then 20,500,000.

In 1925, the total number of voters registered in England and Wales, excluding university voters and voters with the business premises qualification, was 18,898,409. Thus we find that including inmates of prisons, lunatic asylums, workhouses, etc., and those persons omitted from the voters’ list, and those who fail to qualify for any other reason, only a little over 1,500,000 persons out of the 20,500,000 of qualifying age are not registered as voters. The bulk are women who fail to qualify as householders. This disposes of the greater part of Mr. Rimington’s case.

We next come to the question of university votes and business premises votes. The total of men registered for business premises qualification in 1925 was only 217,509 for the whole of England and Wales (Registrar General Statistical Review, Page 81), and the number of university voters, men and women, only 51,357.

Our correspondent mentioned the three Leicester Divisions. Out of a total for the three of 120,596 voters, there are only 1,995 men registered on the business premises qualification (Page 86).

We have thus shown that the anomalies are of quite negligible effect. Only in a handful of exceptional areas like the City of London, is the business premises vote considerable. (22,769 out of 43,891).

We now come to the much more important question of the distribution of votes between members of the capitalist class and the working class respectively.

The population of voting age amounts to 20,500,000. How many of these are members of the capitalist class? It is impossible to obtain any very precise estimate, but an approximate idea can be obtained in a slightly roundabout way.

In “Fabian Tract,” number 5 (13th Edition, 1926. Page 18), it is estimated that the proportion of the population with incomes over £250 per annum, together with their dependents, amounts to about 13 ⅓ per cent. of the whole population. (This estimate is adapted and brought up to date from that made by Chiozza Money in “Riches and Poverty.”)

It is true that below the £250 line are many shopkeepers and small property owners, but against these may be set many persons in the better paid technical and managerial positions, who earn more than £250, but are none the less members of the working class, in that they must sell their services to an employer and are wholly or mainly dependent on their earnings.

Let us further assume, in order to be on the safe side, that all members of the capitalist class of voting age are actually registered, and that all of the persons of voting age without votes are workers.

13⅓ per cent. of 20,500,000 gives us 2,730,000, add to 2,730,000 capitalist voters, 270,000 business premises and university votes. This gives us approximately 3,000,000 capitalist votes in England and Wales, out of the total of 19,167,275 on the voters’ list in 1925. We find then that there are more than 16,000,000 working class votes to 3,000,000 capitalist votes in England and Wales. We can afford to make ample allowance for any possible margin of error in the assumptions on which we have worked, and yet be certain that the working class have an overwhelming majority of the votes in this country. They are not prevented from registering their wishes by electoral anomalies. When they want Socialism they can vote for it. If at present defenders of capitalism are returned it is due only to the fact that the mass of the workers want capitalism and either vote for capitalist candidates or do not use their votes at all.

In these circumstances, there is no need to waste time on red-herrings like the demand for proportional representation, or the abolition of electoral anomalies. The work of getting Socialism is impeded only by the lack of Socialists, not by the existence of a handful of double votes.

It is interesting to notice in passing that the present Government has pledged itself to give the vote to women of 21 and to remove the chief barriers which at present debar many women over 30 from possessing votes. It is estimated that the proposed measure will add 5,000,000 women voters to the electoral register of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (Note that the calculations given earlier in this article refer to England and Wales only.) Of these 5,000,000 it is stated that about 2,000,000 will be women of 30 and over at present unable to qualify. The great majority of the 5,000,000 will be members of the working class, although, of course, they may be expected, like their brothers and husbands, to vote for some form of capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Plechanoff . . . and others (1927)

Notices from the March 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Note.

Plechanoff’s articles on "The Monistic Conception of History” are temporarily discontinued due to non-receipt of translation. A further statement will be made in next issue.

Notes to Correspondents.

F. Baldwin.—Reply next month.

W. Nichoils.—Too late for this issue. Questions will be answered in next issue.

F. L. Rimington (Leicester).—The point about local government has been already dealt with in previous answers to you in S.S., and unless you have any fresh questions on the subject it would serve no purpose to repeat our replies.

Received for Review.

R. Owen.—A New View of Society. Everyman Library. Dent. 2/- 

Barbusse.—Under Fire. Everyman Library. Dent. 2/-

Modern Communism. By_Rev. L. Watt, S. J. Catholic Truth Society. (No price stated).

New Publications Fund. (1927)

Party News from the March 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism and Local Government. (1925)

From the December 1925 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Reply to a Correspondent. 

Mr. Rimington, of Leicester, in writing to us on various matters, takes exception to the passage in the sixth clause of our Declaration of Principles, that states the working class must organise for “the conquest of the powers of Government, National and Local,” etc

He argues that while this passage is quite correct when applied to the Legislature, it is inconsistent and illogical where it refers to the local bodies, as he cannot understand ”a Socialist administering a Capitalist institution.”

Although this clause was drawn up thirteen years before-the upheaval in Russia in 1917, the latter event furnished a useful illustration of the necessity for a new party taking power being in control of “Local” as well as ”National” Governments. The confusion, delays, and. in many cases, acute sufferings caused to the workers by the deliberate wrecking and sabotage policy of those in charge of local administration, showed how important—if secondary—such control is to the new rulers.

Moreover, so far from leading to “Reformism,” as Mr. Rimington contends, the contesting of local elections, on the policy of the S.P.G.B., allows us to show up the absurdity of the claims of the Reformers. Our literature and speakers point out clearly the limitations of the local bodies, and when our candidates are returned they will use the wider platform of the Council to carry on the propaganda of Socialism and take the various instances as they arise to demonstrate the restrictions imposed by the Government. This propaganda will help to show more clearly the essential need of capturing the Governmental powers. Such “administrative” work as may be carried out would no more be illogical than is the acceptance and obeying of the regulations under which we carry on public meetings and sales of literature.

In brief, the capture of the Local bodies is necessary to render as smooth as possible the passage of the revolution, and in the meantime it is useful as a wider means of propaganda.​

Ed. Com.

Correspondence. (1924)

Letters to the Editors from the December 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialist Policy.

Answer to F. L. Remington. 

(1) Your remarks on municipal action have already been dealt with in the answer given in the October issue of the Socialist Socialist. Until you can bring some arguments against our reply your unsupported assertions are worthless expressions of opinions.

(2) To say “the Socialist Party of Great Britain accepts the structure of the working classes (sic) existent industrial machinery in the shape of Trades Unions” (a very verbose phrase which simply means “the S.P.G.B. accepts Trades Unions”) shows a considerable confusion of thought. Practically all who work for a wage have to “accept” Trades Unions where they exist in any strength, whether a member of the S.L.P. or any other Party. It is significant to note that almost every S.L.P.-er that became prominent in the eyes of the public did so by their activities in the Trades Union not by any action in industrial unionism or politics. This confusion of thought is further emphasised by your two statements (a) “the S.L.P. endorses industrial unionism” ; (b ) “the S.L.P. is a political party just as much as is the S.P.G.B.”

As industrial unionism denies political action for the working class your remark proves the S.L.P. to be an anti-political party. The whole question of “industrial unionism versus Socialism” has been debated and dealt with in various back numbers of the “S.S.” which we recommend to your notice.

Another error in your letter is in passing over lightly the matter of “imposing personalities.” Had you read our exposure of the S.L.P. in our manifesto and in various articles in the “S.S.” from August, 1906 onwards, you would have seen that “leaders” with a sheep-like following existed in the S.L.P. since its inception. This was one of the factors that prevented those in England who were fighting the old S.D.F. policy from taking part in the formation of the S.L.P.

(3) It can only be supposed that if you have read the answer to your query on the oath, you have not paid the slightest attention to its contents. You make no attempt to show how the working class can gain control of political power if they baulk at an oath. In fact all your present assertions were met in that reply.—Ed. Com.

* * *

Reply to G. T. Foster.

It is significant that while questioning the definition of Mind given in the article entitled “A Brief Sketch of the Materialist Conception of History,” you fail to give any alternative explanation.

Your statement that “the brain itself is ONLY an idea,” given without the slightest attempt to supply any evidence or reason to support it, is sheer nonsense.

Another unsupported assertion, namely, “We know ONLY modes of our own consciousness” is self-contradictory. Who or what are the “we” that know?

When you can give any evidence for your entirely baseless assertions, it may be worth while to examine such evidence.—Ed. Com.

* * *

Reply to J. Jacobs (Edmonton, Alberta).

Your references to the political antics of the Communists in Canada are noted. Their posing as Labour candidates with a long reform programme of a capitalist nature is very similar to the gymnastics of Communists here. Communists in Canada, once so strenuous for the One Big Union and now shouting back to the American Federation of Labour simply show that they are out to capture the jobs in unions as well as in Labour Parties.

When the working class understands the class struggle it will realise the futility of Communist “Moscow” tactics and the anti-revolutionary character of these so-called Communist opportunists.—Ed. Com.

Correspondence. (1924)

From the November 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Thompson (Hull). The evidence for our statement of the decline of Communist membership is contained in the organ of the Communist International—“The International Press Correspondence” (August 12th, 1924). The report of C.P. of G B. membership is given as 5,116 at date of 4th International Congress, and 3,000 at date of 5th Congress (1924).

John Jacob (Alberta), F. Goulding (Manor Park), F. L. Remington (Leicester), G. F. Foster (North London)—replies will appear next issue.

Letter: Some questions on Socialist policy. (1924)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (F. L. Rimington, of Leicester) in sending us his views on current politics, asks some questions relative to Socialist policy. These matters have been dealt with in the Socialist Standard before, but as they may be of interest at the present time we are replying to the questions here.

(1) Does the S.P.G.B. take part in Municipal Politics?

The answer to this question is contained in our Declaration of Principles, which declares for the conquest of the powers of government, local and national.

The master class spend huge sums to control local bodies, as these are a sub-division of the government of capitalism. It is important for the masters to control these councils, etc., and therefore it is equally important to dislodge the capitalists from power wherever they control.

The waging of the class struggle involves the conquest by the workers of the institutions of control, and hence Socialists must fight for conquest of local and national machinery of government. We do not take part in municipal elections to administer capitalism, but to advance the, interests of Socialism. The Socialist Party municipal election address tells the workers how little could be gained in improvements while capitalism lasts, and therefore in local as well as national elections we ask for votes from those alone who realise that the abolition of the present system and replacement by Socialism is the only hope of the working class. Socialists if elected to municipal bodies would use them as vantage points in the class struggle and to sound the message of Socialism to the unconverted workers.

(2) What is our opposition to the S.L.P.? 

The answer is contained in our Party Manifesto, and in many articles in the Socialist Standard during the years when the S.L.P. was an active body. Our opposition to the S.L.P. may be summarised thus : (1) Their lack of understanding of the class struggle shown by their reliance on industrial action as the workers’ remedy. (2) Their muddle-headed and continually changing views on fundamental points of policy, such as war, soviets, unity stunts, etc. (3) Lacking sound views on Socialist policy, they have simply followed the ups and downs of the American S.L.P., and are not evidently able to take up a consistent and firmly grounded Socialist position.

(3) What about taking the oath of allegiance in the House of Commons?

The answer to that question is implied in the Socialist need for getting political control. If we are to refuse to take oaths, then there is no chance for controlling parliament. The questioner does not fully realise the implications of the class struggle. Socialists are not simply waging war against detail grievances in the system. They are fighting against the system as a whole. As political action is necessary to workers’ triumph, Socialists cannot stop at taking oaths imposed upon them by the ruling class. There is nothing revolutionary in fighting against oaths, and by concentrating the electorates’ attention on the oath, Socialism is left aside as the issue. Republicans and Atheists like Bradlaugh can refuse* to take oaths, although they are bitter anti-Socialists.

The taking of oaths imposed by ruling classes has never prevented them being ignored when interest dictated it. The English Revolution of the 17th century was carried through in Parliament by men who took oaths to Kings they beheaded or drove from the throne.

Constitutionalists in Russia took oaths to the Czar and his Government in several Dumas, but that did not prevent them from breaking their oaths when opportunity presented itself, and so abolishing the Czar’s rule. In times of revolution in every country oaths have been broken by those who have been compelled to swear allegiance to the ruling power of the time. If Socialists are to keep out of Parliament because of formal matters of procedure, then the ruling class can keep on imposing conditions which they think you will refuse.

Our correspondent’s idea is that the propaganda value of refusing to take the Oath would be great. Possibly he is correct in this. But it would not be propaganda for Socialism or for the working class. It would be propaganda against the oath, and would not rouse or involve a class issue.

It would appeal to reformers, anti-monarchists, anarchists, and atheists, etc., people generally who are busy fighting effects or dealing with one aspect of capitalism.

The Editorial Committee

* Bradlaugh refused to take the oath at first but was willing afterwards. Then, however, the Government refused to let him take the oath.

Letter: We are charged with contradiction (1951)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the following letter from a critic.

Leicester

Dear Sirs,

Will you please explain the apparent contradiction in May issue Socialist Standard. On page 71 there is a report of the death of Harry Martin in which it is stated “In the early years of the Party he came into conflict with the majority on the question of the attitude to be adopted by a delegate if elected to Parliament. He held the view that such a member should be so unswerving in his hostility that he must vote against every measure, from whatever source, that came before Parliament—except of course the measure to introduce Socialism. He held that whatever the nature of such a measure voting for it or even abstaining from voting would constitute pandering to reformism, thus, according to his view, a Party Delegate would be committed, without examination, to voting against any measures to improve educational facilities, safety facilities in mines and factories, the removal of disabilities on trade unionism and even a proposal, however fatuous it might Be, to abandon the prosecution of a war.” Then on pages 75-76 it says in an article headed Wage Labour and Capital. “No! Socialism does not exist in these countries! But is it being built up there? How can it? Wage-labour and capital form the basis of the system which exists in these countries. It is capitalist. What reform can alter this basic relationship? All the political and economic adjustments that have taken place since Marx’s day, all the points that have, been on the programmes of Labour parties and Communist parties since the foundation of these parties have been realised with the nationalisation of basic industries and the development of the social services, yet the position of the working class remains the same etc.” Seemingly you endorse certain principles in Wage Labour and Capital but condemn Harry Martin for similar expressions.

Yours faithfully.

F. L. Rimington

Reply:

Our critic has discovered a purely imaginary contradiction, He takes first the question whether socialist delegates in Parliament should automatically vote against every measure (except the measure to introduce Socialism). Then he quotes a passage which showed that all the measures to reform capitalism have left the working class in the same subject position as before.

His argument is that those who hold that reforms do not basically alter capitalism should logically oppose in Parliament all measures introduced by non-Socialists because only the measure to introduce socialism can achieve what is aimed at. That was the position held by the late Harry Martin and was his ground for disagreeing with the S.P.G.B.

Harry Martin agreed with the S.P.G.B. that reforms do not basically alter capitalism and agreed with the S.P.G.B. that Socialist delegates must contest elections solely on the programme of abolishing capitalism and establishing Socialism, thereby seeking the votes only of Socialists and not of reformists.

The sole issue was whether Socialist delegates elected on Socialist votes would vote for measures which, whatever their origin and motive, would incidentally be of benefit to the working class and the Socialist movement. Mention was made in the article in question of measures to improve educational facilities, safety facilities in mines and factories, the removal of disabilities on trade unions, etc. Another example is a measure to end conscription. Without supposing for a moment that the ending of conscription means the ending of capitalism (and Harry Martin never charged the S.P.G.B. with that absurdity) the S.P.G.B. takes the line that Socialists outside Parliament would require their delegates in Parliament to vote for such measures on their merits. The vote would be given not in order to meet the views of reformists but under instruction of Socialists.

Harry Martin’s “all or nothing" position while attractive in its simplicity is less logical than he imagined. It would logically lead Socialists to take no action at all except in support of the establishment of Socialism. It would for example require them not to support trade union efforts on the ground that a wage increase or resistance to a wage reduction is not Socialism.

Incidentally Marx, who also held that reforms do not end capitalism, consistently supported legislative measures to restrict the working day.

Editorial Committee

Letter: The Value of the Franchise. (1927)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

 The correspondent whose letter was dealt with in our May issue writes again. His letter and our comment are given below:—

To the Editor.

Thanks for the consideration of my letter under above heading in S. S. May. We want the facts certainly, not so much that they prove our case, but because they are facts. It is absurd to draw the inference that I am a busy body nobly searching for “injustices” to put right, but I am not half so enthusiastic as your good selves in your endeavour to prove the “injustice” but a little one. The extracts you give from the Acts of 1918 are quite correct, but I am by no means impressed by your figures when I know that almost every brick that stands on top of another, and almost every piece of enclosed land, carries a vote, and I am convinced that such is by no means a negligible factor in determining the result of an election. On the authority of an official connected with the compilation of the voting register, I am enabled to state that, while the act says that a person may not vote in more than two divisions at a general election, the lawyers have found a flaw in the Act which enables a person to exercise the vote under business premises or occupational clauses in as many pieces of property above a certain value in separate divisions as they may possess. As this applies, not only to the actual owner, but the members of his or her family, and in the case of a limited company, to the directors and their dependents, the plural vote assumes enormous dimensions. I am not able to state definitely the nature of the “flaw” in the Act, but should imagine that it has something to do with the Acts round about the time of the Charles.

“No taxation without representation.”

You ask me how many persons there are in the family cited who qualify for twelve votes in the three Leicester divisions. Four—father, mother and two sons. You also ask me to state the disqualifications which militate against working-class representation, and I will name a few: for instance, soldiers and sailors (R.N.), lodgers and boarders of the artisan class, who form the bulk of the floating population, inmates of workhouses and other Poor Law institutions, the Mercantile Marine in most cases, as they never know where they will be at the time of an election. As to the proxy vote, you speak as if, when those on the absent voters’ list die off, there will be no more. Then, of course, we come to the final argument. If the plural vote is of such infinitesimal importance as you would lead your readers to believe, why do the Capitalist Class retain it? They are not such fools as to cling to a thing which carries with it a certain amount of odium, unless it is of use to them. Perhaps you can find an excuse.

F. L. Rimington.

Reply.

I did not suggest that Mr. Rimington is interested in searching for “injustices” to put right. What I said was that we are not interested in doing so.

Mr. Rimington “is not impressed” by the figures given in my article but does not show where they are in error. He cannot, in the circumstances, expect me to be impressed by his repetition of his criticisms: He says he "knows” that “almost every brick . . . carries a vote.” If it did, the plural vote would not be a negligible factor. But it. does not, as I showed, and I repeat, therefore, that it is a negligible factor. Against my figures from official sources of the negligible number of business premises votes, Mr. Rimington refers to an unnamed “official connected with the voting register,” in proof of the existence of a ”flaw in the Act,” the nature of which he is ”not able to state definitely,” but which he “imagines” has "something to do with the Act round about the time” of the Stuart kings. Really, Mr. Rimington, how can you expect such nebulous stuff to be answered ?

Mr. Rimington lists a number of obstacles which may make it difficult for some workers to use their votes, but he does not answer the main point of my reply, which was that, in fact, the workers have so overwhelming a majority of votes that, allowing for these disabilities and all the plural votes of the employers, the working class are in a position to swamp the master class at the polls. If this is true in fact, then the anomalies are negligible. If it is not true, it is for Mr. Rimington to show that it is not true.

The reference to the proxy vote and the dead I do not understand.

Mr. Rimington’s final point is that the capitalists would not keep the plural vote unless it were worth something to them. In the first place, I did not deny that it is useful. I expressly pointed out that it gives them the control of a certain few constituences like the City of London, and this is valuable to them. But the loss of the City of London is not of so great importance to the workers that it is worth while suspending Socialist propaganda in order to secure further amendments in the franchise law. It may, however, be pointed out in passing that the Capitalists are, contrary to Mr. Rimington’s belief, “such fools" as to cling to useless forms. The long resistance of influential capitalist circles to any extension of the franchise in the 19th century shows that they were “such fools” as not to realise that the workers, when given votes, would use those votes for the retention of the capitalist system.

In conclusion, I would repeat that the only major obstacle to socialism is the non-socialist outlook of the workers, not anomalies in the franchise law. If those anomalies were abolished to-morrow, the great mass of the workers would still vote capitalist candidates into Parliament.

Edgar Hardcastle

Jerome K. Jerome (1947)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

       (We publish the following letter from a reader for the interesting and instructive story about the late J. K. Jerome, but we confess our mystification about the point of the last sentence.—Editor Comm.)

Leicester.

Dear Comrades,

Although our ultimate success is assured I doubt if any of us are satisfied with the crop of Socialists that arise from our efforts. Some are inclined to sit back and wait for the blind forces of economic development to affect the social revolution, rather than seek to promote that change by cultivating the minds of their fellows to achieve this purpose. They do not realise that these so called blind forces may grope about for a thousand years without producing any marked change. On the other hand we have the over optimistic who in consequence of being in the forward line imagined that they could score a goal in North Paddington. Maybe such “Royal Stand-backs” as myself can see more of the game than they can. I read your admirable publication, the “Socialist Standard,” and although I have not had the pleasure of attending any of your propaganda meetings, I am aware of the fact that your immensity consists in your minority. Of course the number of people you are able to speak to is very limited and the “Standard,” even if the paper restrictions were removed, has only a small circulation. You cannot afford to print more. Everyone knows that it is the adverts that pay for the capitalist papers. Naturally they determine the policy. We all remember the old "Clarion” and its cycle trade adverts. But the classical instance is poor old Jerome K. Jerome. He ran a weekly called “To-Day.” It had a good run. It was then I think that Jerome discovered H. G. Wells, as he published probably Wells’ first story, “The Lady in Grey.” Then Jerome slipped. He printed Marx’s “Value, Price and Profit” as a serial. His advertisers dropped him like a hot potato and Jerome went bankrupt. In face of all this is it to be wondered that some of us cast envious eyes upon that powerful weapon of propaganda, the Radio, and desire to harness it to our cause? We know all the obstacles that stand in our way to achieve our purpose, believe me the financial side is the least But we must not be dismayed, our need is great and I would draw attention to a recent remark by some member of the Jewish community who claimed that it was not illegal for Jews to enter Palestine, but that it was illegal to prevent them doing so.

                                                                                                                            Yours fraternally,

F. L. Rimington.