Why Not Socialism? (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Government asks to be judged by what it has done in its five years of office. “Compare our record,” they say, “with what the Tories did before the war and with what they are likely to do if they win the election.” It is a cleverly-chosen electioneering platform, for most of those who voted “Labour” in 1945, however disappointed they may be, will find nothing in the Tory record or programme to make them want to change over to a Churchill-Big Business Government.

But is that a good enough test to apply to the Labour Government? They say they have done their best “in the circumstances”—they have made as good a job of running Capitalism as anyone could make— but it is “the circumstances,” the capitalist system of society, that has got to be abolished, and the Labour Government will never do it.

What Is and What Might Be

Mr. Bevan claims that while he has been Minister of Health hundreds of thousands of houses have been built; but you know the housing problem has not been solved. It never will be under Capitalism.

The Labour Party leaders told you for years that Labour Government would mean rising wages and falling prices. What they have given you is higher prices and wage-freezing.

They promised to destroy the profit system. Now they see that Capitalism cannot be run without profits, so they tell you it is not possible to raise wages by reducing profits. Capitalism does need profit-making— but Socialism will not.

They promised peace, international friendship and disarmament, yet you find yourselves facing 1950 with conscription for your sons, bigger armed forces than in 1938, a “cold war” with Russia, and the fear that before another election comes round. Great Britain, this potential “anchored aircraft carrier” in another world war may be threatened with devastation from atom bombs.

Capitalism cannot let the people of the world prosper in peace, but Socialism will ensure it. Capitalism, whether administered by Tory, Labour or so-called “Communist” Governments, breeds economic rivalry, hatred and destruction. Only Socialism is based on the international community of interests of the working class of all lands.

What Have They To Be Proud Of?

In their well-known 1945 Election Declaration the Labour Party boldly declared, “The Labour Party is a Socialist Party, and proud of it.” That sounds like the sincere statement that might be made by genuine socialists, but it was nothing of the kind. They were more anxious about catching votes than in furthering Socialism, so they put another statement in their Declaration, to let non-socialist voters know that they never meant business. “But Socialism,” they wrote, “cannot come overnight, as the product of a week-end revolution. The members of the Labour Party, like the British people, are practical-minded men and women.”

Just ask yourselves to whom those timid, half-sneering words were addressed. Is that the speech of socialists to socialists? Was it not really the cynical double-talk of politicians wanting to get the votes of people who had a vague idea that Socialism is something humane and progressive, but wanting at the same time to assure the non-socialist electorate that nothing would be done to endanger British Capitalism?

Their talk of being “practical-minded” is laughable. Is bigger armaments and fewer houses being practical? Is higher prices and no wage increases? Are atom bombs and germ warfare? The history of politics should warn us against those who boast of preferring “practicability” to principle. They are always the men who tinker with social evils instead of removing their cause.

We have had five years of Labour Government with a full Parliamentary programme of legislation; but what has it produced? Capitalism is with us still: festooned with bureaucratic controls and ornamented with social reforms; but as strong, as vicious and as destructive of human happiness as before, The Labour Government claims that it has done a great work in the National Insurance Scheme, but the increase of prices has already whittled away the value of the benefits so that unemployment and sick benefit are not worth any more than were the lower rates paid before the war.

You Work Harder, But For What?

If you read the pre-election speeches of the Labour Ministers you will notice a curious thing. It is that many of the things for which they claim credit are things performed by you and from which you get no advantage.

It is the workers who have worked harder and undergone austerities to make good the destruction of the war. It is the workers, not the politicians, who have raised production to 30 percent higher than in 1938 and who have gone without in order to increase exports so that they are half as much again as in pre-war years. It is the workers who have made easier the payment of larger profits to the propertied class while doing without wage increases to compensate for higher prices. It is on the strength of these feats of production that the Government claims that it has been successful; but what will the working class get at the end of it? Capitalism is already warning us that shipbuilding is slowing up for lack of orders, oil is being over-produced, and there will soon be too much wheat, too much sugar, too much steel and too much of everything for capitalist markets to absorb. Then the workers will reap the harvest of more crises, more unemployment, more insecurity and the threat of further wars.

It is the workers who keep Capitalism going, for the benefit of the capitalists. It is time the workers determined, by international socialist action, to refashion human society on a socialist foundation. Neither avowedly capitalist governments nor Labour governments can save the world. It is a supreme task for the world working class and unless it is achieved the whole world faces chaos, misery and destruction. The productive power and the administrative ability are present for the making of a new world. Do not delay the decision to use them. The Socialist Party of Great Britain and its companion parties abroad show you the way to working class emancipation and the happiness and well-being of humanity.

Edgar Hardcastle

Can the Workers Understand Socialism? (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, in contradistinction to so-called “Socialist” organisations, maintain that the workers can and must understand what Socialism means. These other parties, the Labour Party, the I.L.P., and the Communist Party, frequently pay lip service to the need for the majority of the working class to have socialist knowledge, but the pages of their dailies and periodicals seldom contain any propaganda which will enlighten the worker as to his position in society and the solution to his problems. Their propaganda is of the vote-catching variety. They centre attention on topical reformist measures, “immediate demands,” as they call them, by which means they hope to attract the majority of the workers—and once in power they claim they will set about establishing Socialism.

Socialism is a system of society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community. Therefore by its very nature the establishment of Socialism requires the conscious participation of the majority of the population. The workers, making up the majority of the population, must understand what Socialism is and want it. Socialism can’t be set up behind their backs. When this is realised it will be understood that parties basing their propaganda on the belief that the workers are incapable of assimilating socialist ideas cannot have Socialism as an object, whatever they may think their object is. They cannot be called socialist.

And what about those individual members of the working class who claim that the workers can’t understand Socialism and yet consider themselves socialist? How do they reconcile the belief that they have gained “socialist” consciousness with the belief that members of their class can’t understand Socialism?

The support the so-called “socialist” parties receive is for the mitigation of certain effects of Capitalism, not for the abolition of Capitalism and the establishment of a new society. The supporters who have some idea of an alternative form of society and think they can establish this alternative without receiving a mandate to do so, why haven’t they done it? There are numerous occasions when so-called socialist parties have been in power. The reason put forward is that the leaders betrayed the rank and file. But leaders only express ideas of the majority of their supporters; if they didn’t they wouldn’t receive support.

There is plenty of experience from the history of Capitalism of the inability of governments to pass and operate legal enactments in the face of the opposition of the majority of the people. A fairly recent example was the capitulation of the Labour Cabinet on the abolition of the death penalty. Dictatorship doesn’t alter the fact that governments require the support of the majority of the population. This is shown by the expenditure on propaganda by the dictatorial powers to keep the support of the majority.

Societies change. The only alternative to the present system of society, which is based on the private ownership of the means of living, and the consequent enslavement of the working class—is Socialism, where all will have free access to the means of living. Throughout his long history man has solved many difficult problems, the discovery of fire, agriculture, and the smelting of ores. Through his knowledge of the laws of nature he can produce materials more suitable for his use than those that exist under natural conditions. There is no reason to suppose that man can’t solve the problem confronting him to-day. The capitalist class, that privileged minority in whose interests present society functions, are not likely to give their support or their sympathy to a movement which will abolish the system of society that allows them such a privileged, exalted position. The working class are the overwhelming majority of the population, to them the present order means poverty and destitution, and their living conditions drive them on to struggle for a better life within Capitalism and ultimately to question the capitalist system.

Those who claim that the working class are unable to grasp Socialist ideas maintain that the evidence brought forward by intelligence tests support their contention. We have yet to hear of any intelligence tests constructed which test the capacity of workers to assimilate Socialist knowledge. The only thing along these lines is the test of applicants for membership of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and these tests have proved conclusively that members of the working class can understand Socialism. Academic intelligence tests are constructed to find the suitability of certain individuals for certain occupations. As for ascertaining if they show up any capacity of intelligence, the experts are not at all clear on what these tests show. In fact they can’t reach any agreement on what they mean by intelligence. Even if intelligence tests do show something they only test one person in relation to others. The Socialists maintain that the workers have sufficient capacity to understand Socialism. In modern capitalist society the working class manage affairs from top to bottom.  If the working class run society in the interests-of a privileged few they are certainly capable of running society in the interests of all.

J.T.

Socialism? (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

The S.P.G.B. have always maintained that the Labour Party has nothing in common with Socialism, in spite of many claims and statements by other political parties to the contrary.

It would seem we have a champion in Sir Stafford Cripps judging by the following extracts from his speech (reported in The Star 11th January):—

“. . . profits were not immoral provided they were not excessive. They were a necessary and essential factor in capitalist industry and must be made and suitably taxed."

It should be noted that Sir Stafford omits to state what are considered "excessive profits.”

Sir Stafford also praises the great efforts made by the workers in this country, saying that voluntarily exercised restraint in respect of personal incomes was still necessary. The same old story. Surely the workers have experienced sufficient of Labour Government to realise that their position remains the same.

It is evident that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find markets for our exports and inevitably will come the time when these markets become glutted and full employment programmes will sadly fail. The Labour Government can no more save the situation than any other party advocating the continuance of Capitalism.

The General Election is once more upon us are; you again going to support one or other of the capitalist parties and consequently your own exploitation, or are you going to examine the position and come to the conclusion, as we have, that the only hope for the working class is Socialism?

Only when the majority realise the need for Socialism will it be established. When this stage is reached there will be no need for personal incomes with or without restraint.

Phyllis Rogers.

War Propaganda, Past and Present (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

At a time when “bigger and better" reasons are being found every day for waging a third world war, this time against Russia, it is instructive to remember some of the main reasons given by ruling classes in the past for their wars. The truth, of course, is excluded from the start: for no capitalist will admit that wars are fought in order to protect his profits. So other reasons have to be invented.

Nationalism has always been one of the mainstays of war propaganda. In the sixteenth century, the great enemy of this country was Spain; the merchants of Spain had a monopoly of the trade of the great Spanish American Empire, and the British merchants naturally wanted this trade for themselves. So it was soon discovered that the rascally Spaniards were the unalterable enemies of the English people. Sentiments were spread abroad in Devon—from which county came a large number of the sailors who were expected to risk their lives fighting Spanish seamen—that one West-country man could fight three Easterners, and that one East Anglian could take on five Spaniards. This line of talk was a great success, and thousands of stout Devonian seadogs left our shores eager to win great glory for themselves, and even greater profits for their masters.

In the next century, the position changed. Spain, in decline, was no longer a powerful enemy, and the chief danger to English profits came from Holland. The Dutch had built up a large fleet, and while the energies of their English competitors were being diverted to civil wars, they captured a large part of the trade with the East and with the American colonies. But the natural resources of the Netherlands were not sufficient to support a long struggle with England on the sea, and the Dutch challenge was repulsed.

In the eighteenth century the place of enemy No. 1 was taken by France. In India, in the East and West Indies, in Canada, and in what is now the United States of America, the French were trying to build an empire for themselves at the same time as British merchants and manufacturers were also expanding their overseas trade. Collisions were inevitable. In the long series of wars between 1688 and 1815, Britain and France were always on opposite sides. It did not take our propertied classes long to find out that the French were ineradicably the enemies of all true Englishmen, and from this time dates the picture of honest beef-eating John Bull on one side of the Channel, and the sly frog-eating Frenchman on the other. Nelson was not going much further than thousands of his countrymen when he developed his inveterate hatred of the whole French people.

There were no prolonged wars for many years after Waterloo, largely because Britain had undergone its Industrial Revolution well in advance of the rest of the world; which gave it an economy much more productive than those of other nations, and made it economically almost unassailable. True, there were always fears about Russia's designs on India, and Russophobia was a fashionable disease. But the Russian economy was, in comparison with the British, almost completely undeveloped, and the only open struggle between the two countries—the Crimean War—ended in a victory for the British capitalists; Again, there were a few colonial wars, and trading wars on the outskirts of the Empire; but these were mostly local affairs, and a little propaganda about the inherent superiority of white men over those with skins of a different colour was sufficient to keep up the necessary martial spirit.

But with the end of the nineteenth century came the end of Britain's economic supremacy. Other European countries had been undergoing industrial revolutions, notably Germany. During the opening decade of the twentieth century it became obvious that the British capitalists would shortly have to defend their profits against the rising German capitalist class. Once again nationalism was summoned to the aid of the propertied classes of both sides. In Germany—especially between the two wars—it was proclaimed that Rhinelanders, Bavarians, people from Prussia and people from the Sudetenland, were (as H. G. Wells puts it) one pure and perfect "Nordic” race, all blue-eyed and blond. Correspondingly, in Britain, the discovery was made that the entire German race was unchangeably evil and aggressive. With incredible ease the old stories about the wickedness of our former enemies were dropped in favour of stories about the wickedness of the Germans. The lines in the song—”Frenchmen and Dutchmen, and Spaniards and such men, as foemen they fear them, the yeoman of England,” were changed to "Austro-Hungarians, and suchlike barbarians, as foemen they fear them,” and so on. There are Vansittarts in every generation, ready to preach about the essential evil of some race or other: and the Vansittarts of the last two generations have given their energies almost exclusively to attacking the German nation. To do this it was necessary to forget that the English people are in origin only an offshoot of this hated German people; but this was not too hard, since capitalist apologists have a lot of practice in forgetting inconvenient facts.

The leaders of the U.S.S.R. realise as well as the leaders of any other capitalist country the usefulness of racial propaganda in wartime. Russian writers during the last war—notably Alexei Tolstoy and Ilya Ehrenburg—wrote about the immutable enmity of the Teuton and Slav races with as much fervour as any pre-Revolutionary Russian. And this is the country which claims to subscribe to international Socialism!

Religion has been used almost as much as nationalism in creating warlike feelings. It was found especially effective in wars against countries professing a different brand of Christianity to our own. Wars with France and Spain were turned into crusades for the defence of the Protestant religion against the Papists, and the Pope was freely called the “anti-Christ.” Both contestants always assumed that God was on their side, and the more foreigners were slaughtered, the higher rose the hymns of thanksgiving. “Ten thousand Frenchmen sent below, praise God from whom all blessings flow ” sums up the attitude of many Christians to war.

After the Industrial Revolution, the machinery of production become more complicated, and a system of elementary education for the working-class had to be introduced. But this had its drawbacks, since the more education the workers received, the more questions they asked. Still better reasons had therefore to be thought up to explain away the periodic wars which the capitalist system inevitably breeds. Attention was drawn to the vile systems of government under which the unfortunate foreigners suffered, and it was clearly demonstrated that our own hard-won democracy, and indeed all the inalienable rights and liberties of freeborn Englishmen were in grave danger of being overthrown. The usefulness of this argument was little, if at all, impaired by the fact that in both the 1914 and 1939 wars just as many countries with non-parliamentary systems of government (e.g., the British colonies and Russia) fought on the Allied side as fought against it. Another line of thought, which was put out after the actual fighting had begun, went something like this: granted that wars are bad, and that we must put a stop to them as soon as possible, let us finish off this war we have on our hands now, and then we can get down to the job of building a “lasting peace." This idea was not as prominent as it might have been in 1939, owing to its having been rather overdone in the 1914 holocaust, which was, par excellence (as you may remember) the war to end all wars.

British capitalism has now been on the down-grade for half a century, and the main world conflict at present is between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., each striving to build an economic empire for itself. When these two countries, and their allies, resort to open war, what will be the ostensible reasons for it? So far, little has been done in the racial field. It still remains for the Russians to prove the inextinguishable villainy, and natural aggressive passions, of the “Anglo-Saxons,” and for the British and Americans to prove the same things about the “Slav race.” But on the religious front the first shots have already been fired. Listen to Admiral of the Fleet the Earl of Cork and Orrery speaking from the pulpit at Steeple Ashton, Wiltshire, some months ago (Jersey Evening Post, 11/7/49): “The next war will be a religious war, fought with material weapons, but for a spiritual object.” The Russians are not behindhand. They realised in the last war how useful a Church can be to prop up the State, and now, their patriarchs and archbishops follow the Stalinist line as faithfully as the Anglo-American bishops follow the Anglo-American line. The propaganda about “fighting for peace” seems to be surpassing in volume even the 1914 agitation on that theme. It must be noticed that the Russians stole a march on the Americans by the speed with which they took advantage of the world-wide pacifist feelings which naturally follow every great war, and organized peace-conferences. But the Americans can be relied on to make it quite clear, either before or immediately after the outbreak of hostilities, that they too are engaging in war merely to preserve the peace. As for the attitude of the contestants to democracy, that goes without saying. Everyone is in favour of democracy, since now it means simply the kind of government of which you approve. The term Socialism is nowadays applied almost equally freely. Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, Attlee and Chiffley, Franco and Peron all claim that their systems are “Socialism" although they usually add a qualifying adjective, whether Soviet, or National, or Democratic. Even in one of the few countries in the world which will still admit being capitalist—the U.S.A.—Republican Senators regularly warn the electorate that Truman is steadily leading America to “Socialism.” So at least some of the countries on both sides in the third world war will be fighting for what they call Socialism. In fact, they will both, in their propaganda, take the same line about every point at issue. The Russians and their allies will be killing the Americans, and the Americans and their allies will be killing the Russians, with all the weapons at their disposal: and they will both claim to be doing it in defence of (1) peace, (2) God, (3) democracy, (4) “Socialism,” and (5) the mother-country, against the aggressive foreigner.

The only way the workers can put an end to this criminal farce, and prevent a third world war being fought, is to understand that society as at present constituted cannot avoid war, and that peace can only be permanently established by the overthrow of Capitalism and the setting up of a Socialist system of society.

Alwyn Edgar

"Nor Prison Bars a Cage?" (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since Russia became the main rival to Western Capitalism, the capitalists of the West have seen fit to acknowledge, indeed to publicise, the vicious acts of their counterparts in that country. Their purpose, as we shall see, is not in the noble cause of truth, for they could have told that at least fifteen years ago, but the far more practical reason of getting the workers “at it.” And. many of the workers who four and five years back were wearing hammer and sickle badges in their lapels and cheering the mention of Stalin, are now prepared or even eager to fight their ex-allies. Not so the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Just as we took the line in both 1914 and 1939, that the workers of this country had nothing to gain by slaying fellow workers in Germany, so do we point out that a future war with Russia will benefit neither British nor Russian workers, but will be no more than a further dispute between the capitalists of these countries. But in the meantime it is our bounden duty to lay these distortions of the truth and show up this propaganda for what it is really worth.

A few months ago the Daily Express carried the headline, “Britain publishes Russia’s forced labour laws," the Evening Standard, "Soviet slave laws revealed," and the Daily Herald, so different from the days of not so very long ago had the biggest headline of the lot saying, “Soviet slave camp code shown to world." Many workers, who previously sympathised with the system of administration in capitalist Russia, rapidly changed their ideas. Those who looked just a little farther than the news put right on their plates by their masters, were not surprised. As long ago as 1935, a translation of the “Corrective Code ” was obtainable in Britain. It has taken the capitalist class a long while to find it!

Anyway up to this time, far from deploring this penal code, various spokesmen and apologists of Capitalism, both British and Russian, were quite vehement in applauding it. Sir Montague Burton said, “A better opportunity for prisoners to become useful members of society" (Yorkshire Evening News, 25710/35). Canon F. J. Shirley, in a sermon in Canterbury Cathedral, preached "Russia is reclaiming the criminals; the system is redemptive and men are restored to good moral life, assets once more to the community” (Kentish Gazette and Canterbury Press, 7/9/35). In March, 1937, the A.E.U. delegation published a report applauding the system, as did the Quakers in 1933. So we see that there has been a great deal of change in their ideas; there has been none in the Russian penal system.

But in slating the propagandists of Western Capitalism, we must not allow those of the East to escape scot free. Equal trickery comes from such Moscow henchmen as the Communist Party and its subsidiary Anglo-Soviet Society. While one group attacks the Russian system, the other attempts to defend it.

In its pamphlet "The Forced Labour Swindle” the British Soviet Society try to smooth over these revelations and get into such deep water that if their words were true the Russian worker would be better off in prison than out of it.

They begin by trying to establish a wealth of difference between the words "corrective” as used in the Russian text and “forced" in the newspapers. Surely this treatment is not voluntary?

Prisoners have much more freedom, we are told. When they are not performing their tasks, they are free to indulge in “political” education. In a country which recognises the need for only one political party, we can well imagine what form that education takes. Incidentally political prisoners are treated exactly the same as criminals.

Apart from these points it seems, in theory at least, that the conditions in Russian prisons are similar to those in the rest of the capitalist world so far as material conditions are concerned. In accordance with modern ideas they may attempt to rehabilitate the recalcitrant worker as an honest and servile wage-slave, but as a recent report by several psychologists pointed out, such systems are doomed to failure, for no matter how ideal the conditions in one of these centres may be, the subject must eventually return to the environment which was the cause of his misdemeanours.

The right of exile is excused by the author of this pamphlet and made to sound as if it doesn’t really matter. The exile is allowed to take his family with him and pays "only” five to fifteen per cent, of his income as cost. They are allowed twelve free days per year. They fail to emphasise the vast climatic and geographic difference between, say, Moscow or Kiev and the frozen wilds of Siberia.

It is, by the way, possible to imprison without a trial in Russia, and the writer compares this law with Defence Regulation 18B. Countering the argument that this Regulation is only enforced during a war, he says that Russia has been in peril for the whole thirty years of the Communist Party’s regime. But if the conditions in that country are as rosy as he would have us believe, who on earth would want to sabotage them?

As a conclusion the pamphlet points out that forced labour exists in many parts of the world, and cites the forced porterage in Tanganyika, Papua, Indonesia and Malaya. Attack, they say, is the best form of defence. But we know all this, and expose it wherever it exists, whether in Russia or Timbuctoo. And furthermore we know that wherever slaves exist there must be a class of masters, in other words, Socialism does not exist.

In 1917, the Russian revolution and what followed, transformed a semi-feudal society into an effective capitalist state. The fact that the particular organisation of Russia is worded with a hotch-potch of "left- wing” jargon counts for nothing. In Russia wage-labour exists as the counterpart of capital: there are armies, navies, airforces, police and prisons. All are hall-marks of Capitalism. That being so, the task which faces the Russian worker is similar to that which faces the workers throughout the modern world—the casting off of the yoke of exploitation and the establishment of Socialism.

Ronald.

Editorial: How will you use your vote? (1950)

Editorial from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the General Election in 1945 the S.P.G.B. had a candidate at North Paddington, and contested the same constituency again in November, 1946, when the Labour Member elected in 1945 resigned on grounds of ill-health. This time we are again contesting North Paddington and also putting up a candidate at East Ham South. Southend Branch is carrying on electoral activity and if sufficient support is forthcoming the candidate will be nominated. Our candidates, according to present information, will be opposed by Labour, Tory, Liberal and Communist candidates. All four parties will be calling on the workers not to vote for the only candidates who represent the Socialist challenge to capitalism. It is right that all four parties should do this and we welcome the opportunity of putting the election in its proper setting. It is our task and ours alone to press home the truth that for the working-class here and in all countries there can be no escape from the poverty, insecurity, hatreds and wars of the world as it is except through the abolition of capitalism and establishment of Socialism.

It is a hard lesson and one the working class are slow to grasp. The bitterness with which the other parties conduct the struggle for power lends colour to the belief that there are fundamental working-class interests at stake in the choice between them. In truth none of the four will touch the fundamental issue of Capitalism—Tory, Liberal, Labour or Communist administration will all leave the working class in the wage-slave position from which only Socialism can emancipate them. Whatever the detailed way in which the capitalist system is administered there will still be luxury and privilege for the rich, poverty and arduous toil for the working class. This is a basic feature and one that is common to all the superficially different forms of Capitalism, whether it be private enterprise America, Labour administered Britain or Russia under Communist dictatorship. A Minister in the Labour Government, Mr. Glenvil Hall, M.P., Financial Secretary to the Treasury, admitted in the House of Commons on 18th May, 1949, that: —

"Of the 550.000 people who die each year only 10 per cent. own more than £2,000 but these ten per cent. between them own 90 per cent, of the total property."

Inequality is inseparable from Capitalism, and while all the non-Socialist political parties profess to deplore “extreme inequality,” all of them, including the Communists, advance specious arguments in defence of inequality itself. They are all concerned to defend and perpetuate the system that gives wealth and privilege to a minority.

During the election campaign, the S.P.G.B. will put in its election literature and from its platforms the same Socialist message that our propagandists address to the working class at all times. There will be no vote-catching programme and appeals specially designed for election purposes.

The inauguration of Socialism demands the understanding of the working class. Votes and support given for anything less than Socialism would be only a source of weakness and confusion. We will do all we can to ensure that the Socialist candidates receive only the votes of those who understand and want Socialism; no other votes are sought.

What of the result? The number of votes given for Socialism will serve as a measure of the growth of Socialist understanding. Knowing how far the great majority of the working class are from accepting the Socialist case we know that the Socialist vote must be small. We are not discouraged by that. We have on our side forces that constantly add recruits to the army of Socialism as the other parties repeatedly betray their mental bankruptcy in their vain attempts to bring order, well-being and peace out of the chaos that is Capitalism.

Notes by the Way: Cock-eyed Trade Unionism (1950)

The Notes by the Way Column from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Cock-eyed Trade Unionism

Before the Labour Party became the Government, when Labour propaganda was more exuberant and unrestrained, trade unionists were always told that a Labour Government would push up wages at the expense of profits.

But Labour in power is very different from Labour in opposition, and now the Government devotes its principal efforts to persuading the workers not to make wage claims. This turnabout reached the peak of the fantastic late in December, 1949, when the Government held parallel meetings, with the T.U.C. on the one side and with the British Employers’ Confederation on the other.

The purpose was first to persuade the T.U.C. to accept wage-freezing and recommend it to its constituent unions. The T.U.C. agreed. The Government then appealed to the employers and we are told that they also pledged their support to Government policy on wages, production and profits. Here are some Press reports of the pledge given by the employers' spokesman to Mr. Bevin:—

“The Foreign Secretary gave a review of the present national situation, and asked for the co-operation of employers in the necessary efforts to secure stabilisation and increased production.

“Sir Greville Maginess (president), on behalf of the Confederation, gave the assurance that the employers would co-operate fully in the national interest.” (Daily Herald 22/12/49).

The Herald went on to explain:—

“The mention of “stabilisation” is believed to refer to the continued need for restraint on personal incomes, including wage rates, profits and dividends.”

The Times (22/12/49) added a few points, under the charming heading

"Employers promise support for wage stabilisation.”

Lastly, Mr. Ernest Bevin appealed to representatives of 50 employers' federations for their help in securing stabilisation and increased production. The last meeting was remarkable in that it found Mr. Bevin, the old trade union leader, appealing, among other things, to employers for their co-operation in stabilizing wages. . . . Sir Greville Maginess, on behalf of the confederation assured him of the employers* support.” (Times 22/12/49).

So we have reached the ironical position that the Labour Government (which promised higher wages) asks for and receives the backing of the T.U.C. (which exists to press for higher wages) for a policy of wage-freezing; and as if that isn't funny enough, the Government then appeals to the employers (whose interest it is to resist wage claims anyway) to promise in effect that they will go on resisting them.

The supporters of Labour Government, of course, defend themselves by saying that circumstances compel the Government to act in this way.

We agree up to the hilt; with, however, the slight amplification that the “circumstances" referred to are that the Labour Government has taken on the job of keeping Capitalism going.

Mr. Horner and the “Daily Worker”

In its issue for 30th December. 1949, the Communist Daily Worker reported that the miners’ national delegate conference had voted in favour of “wage-freezing” by passing a resolution endorsing the policy of the Trades Union Congress General Council. The resolution read: —

“Having regard to the serious economic situation of the country, we approve the terms of the report of the General Council in relation to T.U.C. wages policy.”

The Daily Worker condemned the resolution and urged the miners to reject it; and described the “wage-freezing” policy as one "foisted on the Trades Union Congress by the Government.” The Daily Worker reporter, Mr. George Sinfield, stated that "several leaders” of the miners told him that if the policy of withdrawal of wage-claims is pursued there will be serious repercussions in the pits.

It will be noticed that Mr. Sinfield talked about the matter with several miners’ leaders, but one of them he does not mention. That one is Mr. Arthur Horner who is General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, and is a year-long member of the Communist Party. The Daily Worker said nothing at all about their esteemed Communist Party colleague, but the omission is made good by the Manchester Guardian. The latter, on the same day, reported that the resolution which the Daily Worker found so obnoxious and which was presented to the delegate meeting by the Union's Executive, was “moved by Mr. Arthur Homer," secretary of the Union.

Ask the Basutos to come and help us

The following are recent news items: —

“Professor G. I. Jones, lecturer in anthropology at Cambridge University, has been sent to South Africa by the Colonial Office in an attempt to trace to its psychological source the wave of ritual murders which is sweeping Basutoland” (E. Standard 26/11/49).

The other items refer not to Basutoland, but to crime in Britain:—

”Except for the year 1946 there has been an annual increase since 1938 in the number of indictable offences. The 1938 figure of 283,220 rose to 522,634 in 10 years.

The 1948 figure of 40 murders was the highest in the 10-year period. The lowest was 20 in 1944.” (D. Telegraph 6/1/1950).

“Number in gaol, highest for 38 years.” (D. Telegraph 29/9/49).

The Professor seems to be travelling in the wrong direction.

The Catch in the "Welfare State"

The Labour Government claims credit for having introduced or extended various social services, and tries to give the impression that they represent a clear gain for the workers. This is only half the story. In the first place part of the expenditure on unemployment pay, sickness benefits, etc., is met from the workers’ own national insurance contributions.

Secondly, as was pointed out by the S.P.G.B. when the Labour Party campaign for social reforms was in its infancy, when the workers are relieved of the need to pay for certain necessities, they have to struggle against pressure by the employers to reduce wages correspondingly.

Bodies responsible for arbitrating on wage claims, even when they do not put it down in black and white, take these factors into account in their awards.

And to put the matter beyond any possibility of dispute we have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, stating the position in set terms in Parliament.

He was explaining the Government’s insistence that there should be no departures from the wage-freezing policy except in the case of very low wages, and he made it clear that when you are considering whether a wage comes under this heading it is necessary not only to consider the wage itself but also the benefits provided under the social service schemes.

“The White Paper must, therefore, be observed strictly, and it is only in the exceptional and genuine cases where some wage survives which, together with all the subsidies and social services, is insufficient to provide a family with a minimum reasonable standard of living, that there can be any possible excuse for going forward with a claim for an increase.” (Cripps, Hansard, 27/9/49. Col. 26).

Old Age Pensions in the U.S.A.

The same issue is arising in U.S.A. in a slightly different form. There is an old-age pension scheme covering 35 million workers, the fund being financed by equal contributions from employers and workers, supplemented by additional income raised by taxation. The old-age pension is 26 dollars a month for a single man and 41 dollars for a married couple.

But in recent months workers in some big industries have, by strikes, forced the employers to agree to pay a non-contributory old-age pension in addition to the Government old-age pension. According to the Manchester Guardian, from which the above details are taken, the steel employers and the Ford Motor Co. have agreed to pay whatever amount is required to make up the old-age pension to 100 dollars a month. Workers in other industries are threatening strikes for similar agreements, and “it is likely that this system of industrial pensions, to which the employees do not contribute, will spread widely through American industry.” (Manchester Guardian, 5/1/50.)

Just at this moment the Truman Government, with its eye on forthcoming elections, is proposing to extend the Government old-age pension scheme both by bringing in millions of workers now outside and by increasing the amount of the pension, which at present is small by American standards.

The cost of the scheme will of course go up but the interesting point is that the American employers have an obvious financial motive for supporting the increase in the amount of Government old age pensions because the larger the Government pension the smaller will be the amount the steel and other employers will need to bring the total up to 100 dollars a month.

“Industrialists have therefore a strong motive for supporting, or at least accepting, a liberalisation of the Federal scheme. It will put some additional weight on their shoulders, both in taxes and in levies on wages; but it will relieve them of the threat of a much greater weight" (M. Guardian 5/1/1950).

It will be seen that capitalism works in much the same way whether it be called a Labour “Welfare State” or a Truman “New Deal ”.

No Wage-freeze here

The Government's attempts to get the workers voluntarily to refrain from demanding wage increases to compensate for the rising cost of living are meeting with more resistance and there is no doubt that one of the reasons is that trade unionists note and resent the way in which lucky individuals vastly improve their own position by being appointed to highly paid jobs on the Boards of nationalised industries.

In the issue of the House of Commons Hansard for 8 December, 1949, the Prime Minister gave a complete list of all the members of the Boards and all their salaries and allowances. The full-time posts range up to £8,500 (plus allowances), which is the amount paid to Viscount Hyndley, Chairman of the Coal Board, to Lord Citrine, Chairman of British Electricity Authority, and to Sir Cyril Hurcomb, Chairman of the British Transport Commission.

Other full-time members mostly receive £3,100 or £5,000, and part-time members £500, £750 or £1,000.

Many are former trade union officials and the large difference between what they were paid for that job and what they get on the Boards sufficiently explains the competition for appointments. The Labour Correspondent of The Times (31/12/49) points out that about a quarter of the members of the T.U.C. General Council in 1945-6 are now on State Boards. He writes:— 

“In addition to Lord Citrine, then T.U.C. general secretary, the list includes seven general secretaries of important unions—Mr. Ebby Edwards, of the miners; Mr. Jack Benstead, of the railwaymen; Sir Joseph Hallsworth, of the distributive workers; Mr. E. W. Bussey, of the electrical workers; Mr. W. P. Allen, of the locomotive engineers and firemen; Mr. George Gibson, of the mental hospital workers (who later resigned), and Mr. C. N. Gallie, of the railway clerks, who has a part-time appointment."

Apart from these ex-members of the T.U.C. General Council many other T.U. officials have been appointed to National and Regional Boards.

The Times Labour Correspondent also, for comparison, summarises the position in the trade union world:—

“One striking feature is the difference in the salary levels of members of boards and of trade union officials, who have often increased their earnings by four or five times by the change. Salaries of trade union officials probably average less than £800 a year. They vary from £400 or £500 a year up to about £1,500, or in one or two cases may be as high as £2,000. There are still chief officers who earn less than £1,000, though actual salaries are often augmented by such things as a free house and expenses arrangements." (Times 31/12/49).

Wisdom from Nigeria

To protect themselves and their dependants against destitution in old age people who can afford it take out life assurance policies and do so voluntarily. The Labour Government boasts that its national insurance and old age pension schemes are a very good thing, yet so little do the workers want to be compelled to contribute that the Government has to threaten them with legal penalties if they fail to do so. The purpose behind it is to even out the poverty of the working-class by taking contributions from the young to be returned when they are old; and from the more healthy to be paid out to the less healthy; and from those who are working to those who are unemployed. Some individuals can say that they gain out of this and welcome it, but in the final analysis the capitalist class anticipate that it is cheaper for them than was the old arrangement when the sick, unemployed and aged had to be given State relief and charity.

It appears from evidence given to the official inquiry into the troubles at the Nigerian mines that the miners have seen that there is a catch in the social reform argument. The following is from a report in The Times (19/1/50):—

"Mr. L. P. Ojukwu, one of the three I.B.O. members of the colliery board . . . told the Commission that steps had been taken to induce the workers to resume normal work when information of the go-slow strike had been received. On each occasion that he spoke to the men the reply was always that they wanted money. When he explained proposals for the extension of housing schemes, hospitals, and maternity homes and for the provision of other amenities he had been met with the argument: ‘Give us more money and we will provide these things ourselves.' "

They have something there and it is a pity we do not know what kind of answer they were given. It is an aspect on which our Labour Party defenders of reformed capitalism are always silent or obscure. 

Edgar Hardcastle

SPGB General Election Meetings (1950)

Party News from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Party News Briefs (1950)

Party News from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hackney Branch has received short notice to vacate its present meeting place at the Co-op Hall in Mare Street, Hackney, owing to a scheme for re-building. Future branch meetings will be held at the Bethnal Green Town Hall on Friday evenings until further notice. The Mile End Baths have been booked for a debate with the Conservative Party candidate for the Mile End (Stepney) Division, on Monday, February 13th, at 8 p.m. Application has also been made for a further booking of the same hall to hold a Social and Dance sometime early in March.

The Manifesto of the S.P. of Ireland is at the printers. We are expecting copies to be available before the next issue of this paper.

The W.S.P. of U.S. has moved its National Headquarters from Boston to Detroit. The address is now World Socialist Party of the United States, 3000 Grand River, Detroit 1, Michigan, U.S.A. The previous headquarters at 27 Dock Square, Boston, Mass., will remain the centre for publication of The Western Socialist, and all matters concerning that journal should be addressed there. All matters for the National Executive Council should be sent to Room 307 at the first-mentioned address.

The Report of the 45th Executive Committee to the 46th Annual Conference (1950) is now in the hands of the branches. The Conference will be held at the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, W.C.l, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, 7th, 8th and 9th of April. The report is a very detailed one covering 22 foolscap pages. From it we learn that membership figures are still slowly increasing. At 31st December, 1949, we had 1,071 members. The Executive Committee, acting on a 1949 Conference resolution, agreed on a procedure for enabling members of our Central Branch (comprising those members who reside in an area where no branch of our Party is established) to vote at Annual Conferences. The procedure is being implemented. The Central Organiser reports on a series of meetings held in the provinces at Derby, Nottingham, Edinburgh and Bristol, and says: —

“ At the. moment it is difficult to assess the value of these meetings, but they must contribute to the ultimate formation of branches in the areas mentioned. In 1950 attempts will be made to hold meetings in other parts of the Provinces and it is hoped that our increased speaking strength will make this a practical possibility."

Since the increase in the size of the Socialist Standard from its war-time 12 pages to its present 16 pages, our Head Office has suffered a loss with the publication. Figures are given in the report which show that the normal monthly deficit is approximately £18 10s. 0d. and this does not take into account the expenditure connected with posting and packing of library copies, free issues, etc. Objection is raised to any increase in the price of our paper to offset this deficit. It is suggested that increased sales are the remedy. A 1949 Delegate Meeting resolution recommended that the cover design of the Socialist Standard be changed. This matter, together with proposals for a new lay-out, is receiving attention.

Detailed statistics of the year’s propaganda meetings are included in the report. The total number of outdoor meetings reported to Head Office during 1949 was 950. Other figures are as follows: Indoor meetings, 108; Debates, 14; Addresses to other organisations, 21. Total for all meetings, 1,093. Not included in the report, but for readers who are interested, we give comparative figures for the past few years. These are for meetings that have been reported to Head Office. It has been estimated that approximately 33 per cent, are not reported.

Under the heading “Education” the Executive Committee makes a statement in reference to a 1949 Conference resolution calling for the setting up of machinery “ . . . to more effectively utilise the energies of those members who have passed through the tutorial classes at Head Office.”

“The view of the Executive Committee is that it should be borne in mind that the production of speakers, writers and tutors is not simply a matter of attendance at classes. These kinds of Party work, like others, produce themselves, as always, by doing work and keeping on with it and this would happen, better or worse, if there were no classes. What the classes do provide (in addition to a general survey of Party theory) is a more systematic training and encouragement They also help to sort out Party members leanings, and provide refresher experience for older hands, and their existence as a permanent part of organisation helps to maintain the general level of Party work in various fields.”

The report then reviews the work of the Introductory Class, the Speakers' Class, the Writers’ Class and Special Classes together with the arrangements for an Advanced Economics Class.

The difficulties experienced by the Committee that was to inaugurate the Research Bureau are reported. It had been hoped to publish a regular publication composed of the material produced by the Research Committee, at least once a quarter and possibly once a month. Unfortunately plans did not materialise, not because the response by branches was lacking or that the matter was insufficient, but mainly because the members of the Committee, for reasons of employment and pressure of other work, could not continue the job. Under “Electoral Activity” we are informed of the nomination of G. McClatchie as prospective Parliamentary candidate for North Paddington by the Paddington Branch and of H. Young for East Ham South by the West Ham Branch. Following a Delegate Meeting resolution calling for a new procedure in the manner of appointing Parliamentary candidates, the Executive rescinded the two previous candidate appointments. The new nominations from the two branches concerned were approved (C. Groves being unable to stand for health reasons and W. Waters expressing a desire to withdraw).

It is not possible to deal with all the matters covered by the report. It must be sufficient to say that it is a clear statement of the condition of our organisation, containing no false encouragement, but a plain explanation of what has been done, what has been left undone, what it has not been possible to do and what it is intended to do in the future. Altogether it is good reading and gives one a feeling of satisfaction with the progress made.

The Publicity Committee reports that the Star has declined to accept an advertisement for the Socialist Standard. No reason given.

W. Waters

Election Forecast (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Extract from letter in The Times (17/1/50) from Sir Geoffrey Bracken, Joint Editor of the "Economic Digest":

"Whatever the result, no spectacular change in policy is to be expected: the man in the street will find things going on very much as they have been going."

Labour Honours for Capitalists (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

We wait with interest a reply from any Labourite willing to offer us an explanation for the following selection [only a selection] of awards made in the recent New Year Honours List, issued under the authority, and with the blessing of a Labour Government “in power as well as in office.”

AWARDED A BARONETCY

Sir Alexander Steven Biisland. Member of the Dollar Export Board. Chairman of Glasgow Industrial Finance (Development), Ltd. Chairman of the Union Bank of Scotland, Ltd. Chairman, Glasgow Stockholders Trust, Ltd. Chairman, Hillington Industrial Estates, Ltd. Director, Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Director, Colvilles, Ltd. Director, Burmah Oil Co., and other companies.

AWARDED KNIGHTHOODS

Mr. Colin Skelton Anderson. President, U.K. Chamber of Shipping. Director, Union Bank of Australia. Director, Orient Underwriting Co., Ltd. Director, Vancouver Investment Co., Ltd. Director, Not- grove Trust, Ltd.

Col. Robert Chapman. Chairman, North-Eastern Trading Estate, Ltd. Chairman, North-Eastern Investment Trust, Ltd. Director, Manchester Dry Docks Co., Ltd., and other companies.

Mr. Henry Laurence Urling Clark. Late Chairman of the Council of the Stock Exchange.

Mr. Cuthbert Barwick Clegg. Chairman, Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers' Association. Vice-Chairman, British Cotton Industry Research Association. Vice-President, British Employers’ Confederation. Director, London and Lancashire Insurance Co., Ltd. Director, Martins Bank, Ltd., and other companies.

Mr. William McGilvray. Director, National Benzole Co.

Mr. John Coldbrook Hanbury-Williams. Director, Bank of England. Chairman, Courtaulds, Ltd. Chairman, British Nylon Spinners, Ltd Chairman. British Cellophane, Ltd. Director of other companies. 

AWARDED C.B.

Col. Douglas Stephenson Branson. Director, Park Gate Iron and Steel Co.. Ltd. Director. British Law Insurance Co., Ltd.

AWARDED C.B.E.

Sir Hugh Trevor Dawson. Director, British Drug Houses, Ltd. Director, Decca Navigator Co., Ltd. Director, British Tyre and Rubber Co., Ltd. Director, Northern Commercial Vehicles, Ltd., and other companies.

Whatever may have been the feelings of Labourites, the Financial Times was very pleased to find that “Many ‘City names’ appear in the New Year Honours List . . . .” (2nd January, 1950).

Stan Hampson

Science under capitalism (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

The annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science held its last session in January. After being considerably shaken early in the proceedings by Professor Einstein’s announcement of his new theory in the realm of physics, it proceeded to review the reports of new advances and discoveries made in other fields.

It heard details, for example, of the new evidence brought to light that cancer may be allied with certain type of fungi; that another substance. Compound F, has been isolated from the adrenal gland and appears to be as effective as Compound E in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis; and of the discovery of a new drug, neomycin, capable of killing the bacilli causing tuberculosis. The meeting also heard the confirmation of a simple blood test for the early diagnosis of cancer, and the invention of a device whereby people who are stone-deaf are enabled to hear through their finger-tips. Numerous reports of discoveries and inventions in other fields of science were also discussed, ranging from the discovery of a planet between Mercury and the sun one mile in diameter to the discovery of a glue-like substance in the teeth that prevents bacterial decay.

But just in case anybody has relaxed back in his chair marvelling at what science is capable of doing for the human race, even under the handicap of Capitalism, we should also state that there was much speculation during the meeting as to whether the American Government will decide, in the words of Alistair Cooke in the Manchester Guardian (3rd January, 1950),

“ To go ahead and make the monster atomic bomb that its Atomic Energy Committion now knows to be

practicable—namely, one achieved by the nuclear explosion of hydrogen. The Alsop brothers report this morning the debate on this grisly weapon—a thousand times as destructive as the Hiroshima squib—which is now disturbing the high policy men in Washington.”

“But inside the conference rooms,” he adds, “ most of the papers presented testified to the life-giving knowledge that is abundantly at hand,” following it with the cynical comment, “ if we can manage to stay alive to use it.”

It is a fitting comment on the relationship of Science and Capitalism that whilst one set of scientists is busy at work trying to prolong the life of mankind, another group is working like hell to shorten it.

Stan Hampson

What! Another Mistake? (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

1. Old.

In the October, 1936, Socialist Standard there appeared an article “The Russian ‘ Terrorist ’ Trial,” dealing with the infamous “Moscow Trials.” It contained extracts from a special number of “International Press Correspondence,” Vol. 16, No. 41, September 9th, 1936—a journal of the late, unlamented “Third International” (“Comintern,” Moscow). The article is contained in the pamphlet "Russia Since 1917” (Socialist Party of Great Britain, 1948, 1s.) from which the following is quoted (pages 59, 60):—

(Vishinsky, prosecutor, cross-examining Holzman):

" 'We drove in a taxi—Holzman continued his deposition—but I do not remember the street. Sedov took me into a flat. It was on the fourth floor. Here I gave him the report and code. ... I met him like this six to eight times in the course of four months. 'In November,' Holzman continued, 'I again 'phoned Sedov, and we met again. Sedov said to me: 'As you are getting ready to go to the U.S.S.R., 1 would advise you to go with me to Copenhagen, where my father is.' "

“Vishinsky: ‘That is?'

“ Holzman: 'That is, Trotsky?'

“Vishinsky: 'You went? ’

“Holzman: "I agreed and told Sedov that in two or three days I would go to him in Copenhagen and stay at the Hotel Bristol, where we could meet. I went straight from the station to the hotel, and met Sedov in the lounge.' (Page 1120)."

The writer of the “ S.S.” article commented:

“ Let us consider this statement.

“ The second paragraph states that Holzman went to a flat with Sedov, but Holzman could not remember the street, although he visited the flat ’six to eight times in the course of four months.' How very curious!

“This paragraph states that they met in 1932 at the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen. Unfortunately for this statement the diplomatic correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (September 17th, 1936) points out that the Hotel Bristol was pulled down in 1917! Possibly one of those who took part in preparing the case had been in Copenhagen during the war but did not know the dirty trick someone had played in 1917! ”

There is much more in the article quoted from, which throws grave doubts, to say the least, on the reliability of these confessions and the evidence on which conviction is obtained.

2. New.

“. . . Two and a half years ago, ... the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party passed a resolution of congratulation on the occasion of ... (the) birthday ... of the party’s general secretary.” (Vernon Bartlett, News Chronicle, December 19th, 1949.) 

He continues: —

“ One sentence in it is worthy of repetition: ‘ Your deep Marxist-Leninist knowledge, your great culture, your well-known industry and steadfastness, your modesty, your iron will, your unquestionable loyalty towards the Party and [! ] the working class, are those Bolshevist characteristics which beautify your whole life.’ ” 

This was for Traicho Kostov!

Later, when his Bulgarian Nationalism appeared to be superceding his Russian Nationalism, “Kostovism” became “Titoism on Bulgarian soil,” according to a report from Sofia. (“Titoism” appears to mean Yugoslav Nationalism superceding Russian Nationalism “ on Yugoslav soil.")

The following is quoted from the Evening News December 13th, 1949. If a correct report of proceedings it would indicate an incident similar to the “Hotel Bristol 'mistake'. "

"The Foreign Office said to-day that Mr. 'Billy' Watson, whose name has been mentioned in the treason trial in Sofia of Traicho Kostov and others, was a business man who lived in Sofia. It was alleged that Mr. Watson had contacted Kostav in February, 1948; in fact, he died in January of that year . . ."

Perhaps this is a case where we should add : "Psychic News: please copy ”!

Alec Hart

SPGB Meetings (1950)

Party News from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Here Today and Gone Tomorrow (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 14th December,1949, Traicho Kostov, the former Vice-Premier of Bulgaria, was sentenced to death for treason by the Bulgarian Supreme Court. Two days later he was executed—so quickly do the wheels of Bulgarian law turn they did not allow even an appeal. Ten other "Communists” were tried with him, of whom five received life sentences, three got 15 years, one 12, and the other 8 years' imprisonment. All his companions, following the tradition of the Russian trials, pleaded guilty. Kostov, though pleading guilty to "anti-Soviet activities," was unexpectedly awkward and insisted that he was not guilty of the major charges levied against him, of spying for Britain and plotting on behalf of Yugoslavia.

The trial followed the usual lines. All of Kostov's companions were abject in their confessions of guilt, admitting unreservedly that the charges made against them were true. At the same time, some of them tried to make things better for themselves by making things worse for Kostov, accusing him of all manner of things, in particular of blackmailing them into doing what they had done.

The prosecution, of course, did even better. Chervenkov, the secretary of the Central Committee and the present "big-boss" of Bulgaria, coined a new word specially for the occasion—"Kostovism." "Kostovism," he said, "is Titoism on Bulgarian soil, and like Titoism is grows on treason and espionage." Further, said Chervenkov, Kostov had managed to assume the leadership of the Bulgarian Communist Party, thanks to his "devilish duplicity, fantastic hypocrisy, and subtle diabolical methods." (Times, 2nd December, 1949.)

Whether the charges are true or false, we hold no brief for Kostov. What has happened to him he would no doubt have had happen to others if the circumstances had demanded it. But what strikes us as worthy of record is this further fantastic example of the way in which "Communist heroes" are turned into "imperialist blackguards" almost overnight. Turning back the pages of history only a little way, this is what the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party said about Kostov just over two years ago:

    “Great are your achievements, Comrade Traicho Kostov, as the builder of the party, as teacher and instructor of the party members. Under your leadership and your heroic example thousands of party members were educated into absolute loyalty to the party. In the underground, in prisons, tens of thousands of party members studied, and are at present studying at liberty, your lectures and your books; they are learning from the example of your life and career, from your utmost loyalty to the party and the people.
    “Today, as Deputy Prime Minister in the Government headed by the wise leader of the party and the people, Comrade George Dimitrov, you are his right hand; you the direct executor of the economic reconstruction in the country, of the economic plan, of the great construction work in our republic.
   “Your deep Marxist-Leninist theoretical knowledge, your great culture, your famous industry and steadfastness, your modesty, your iron will, your unquestionable loyalty towards the party and the working class are those Bolshevik characteristics which beautify your whole lighting life, forever united with the struggle of the party.
    “A loyal colleague of George Dimitrov, and his first assistant, you are to-day one of the most loved and respected leaders of our party, a great statesman and builder of new Bulgaria.
   “Comrade Traicho Kostov! The Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist party is wishing you good health and strength so that you may go on working just as loyally, unceasingly, and whole-heartedly for the party and the people, for the triumph of the economic plan, and the great historical achievements of the working class.” (Manchester Guardian 15/12/49.)

This effusion, incidentally, is signed by Chervenkov, later Kostov’s bitterest accuser.

As with many other Communist twists and turns, this one has its amusing side. Kostov the "traitor" was, it appears, the author of the Bulgarian Communist Constitution passed in 1947 with great acclamation, and presumably still in force. At the fifth party congress held only a year ago it was he who put forward the party's future political programme, which again was most enthusiastically received. Further, according to the Times correspondent (2nd December, 1949), "All party pamphlets on policy, strategy, and tactics have now to be re-edited as they were almost all written by Kostov."

Finally, to add insult to injury, a Bulgarian newspaper, says the Times correspondent, has recently protested that the official film of the fifth party congress is still going the rounds of the country. In one shot stands Kostov. On one side is Dimitrov; on the other is Suslov, the Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party!

Communists the world over must be kept pretty busy one way and the other. Half their time they spend working out the implications of the new Party-line, the other half scrubbing out the evidence and the effects of the old one.

Stan Hampson

Interpreting Shakespeare (1950)

Book Review from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

New books on the life, works and ideas of Shakespeare are continually added to the enormous literature on the subject. Recent additions have included Ivor Brown's "Shakespeare," Duff-Cooper's “Sergeant Shakespeare" (in which it is suggested that be must have served in the army to have gained his familiarity with military matters), and a reprint of Hesketh Pearson's lively and entertaining "Shakespeare" that Ivor Brown catalogues under the heading "Imaginative.” Pearson seeks to interpret Shakespeare’s writings in the light of political and other happenings at the time, and of Shakespeare's likely reactions to them. Writing during the recent war when, as Pearson puts it, the world had before its eyes in the persons of Hitler, Mussolini, etc., a large number of modem Julius Caesars. Pearson claims that Shakespeare, with a similar example to study at first hand in Queen Elizabeth, had a much better understanding of Caesar and of all dictators than is shown by G. B. Shaw in his idealised version of the ancient Roman dictator.

But for Socialists a much more profitable study is "Shakespeare—A Marxist Interpretation,” a short work by A. A. Smirnov, translated from the Russian and published in 1937 by the “Critics Group” (96, Fifth Avenue. New York).

Smirnov set out to relate Shakespeare's views to the basic economic and political changes and class struggles taking place in the 16th century.

He argues alike against those who see Shakespeare as "the ideologist of the feudal aristocracy” as against those who see him as "the ideologist of that section of the nobility which was acquiring bourgeois trappings.” To Smirnov, “Shakespeare was the humanist ideologist of the bourgeoisie, the exponent of the program advanced by them, when, in the name of humanity. they first challenged the feudal order, but which they later disavowed ” (Pages 92 and 93). According to this interpretation, which Smirnov supports with many quotations from the plays, Shakespeare in the early years portrayed in a favourable light the absolutist monarchy needed by rising Capitalism as a protection against the warring feudal barons. Later, that need became less urgent, the Monarchy and Court degenerated and leaned towards feudal reaction, and at the same time the narrow Puritan group emerged as a representation of capitalist interests and outlook.

Then Shakespeare, who was particularly antagonised by the Puritan hostility to the theatre, found himself, like other "humanists,” faced with the dilemma of the contrast between early bourgeois ideals and the sordid money-grubbing of the bourgeois way of life. To some extent he then "surrendered his former position and yielded to the taste of the reactionary aristocracy which held such triumphant sway over the London stage in 1610.” (P. 85.)

The evidence adduced by Smirnov is necessarily partly speculative and may or may not convince the reader; but those who follow his argument will at any rate appreciate that here is a serious study worth many of the more usual superficial interpretations.

It is not made clear whether Smirnov is, or was. a supporter of the Stalin regime in Russia and he wrote very guardedly when expressing dissent from views on Shakespeare held by some Soviet writers. But one of his tributes to Shakespeare would certainly now give offence to Stalin worshippers. He praises Shakespeare for having had the insight to realise "three centuries before the appearance of scientific history,” that the battle of Agincourt was not won by “a little group of well-born heroes, but by the English soldiers.” If Shakespeare lived in Russia now and wrote plays dealing with the war he would have to reshape his ideas and become a groveller. He would have to pay slavish tribute to "the great leader and supreme commander of genius. Generalissimo of the Soviet Union. Stalin." “the greatest man of our planet." "creator of Soviet military science.” etc., etc.

Edgar Hardcastle

Fifty Years Mark-Time (1950)

Book Review from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Francis Williams, one-time Editor of the Daily Herald, has written a history of the Labour Party. "Fifty Years' March, The Rise of the Labour Party", published by Odhams Press, Ltd. We suspect that Mr. Williams wrote with a distemper brush. He has certainly given the Labour Party an unblemished white-washing. The main theme of this history is summed up by Mr. Attlee in the foreword to the book. He says:-

"It is a story very characteristic of Britain, showing the triumph of reasonableness and practicability over doctrinaire impossibilism."

Mr. Williams insists that the Labour Party is a Socialist Party, claiming that after years of endeavour by the Independent Labour Party, the Fabian Society and the Clarion Scouts, it finally became a Socialist Party when it was re-organised by Arthur Henderson following the war of 1914-18. He says that the programme contained in "Labour and the New Social Order" put the seal on its Socialist character. But Mr. Williams does not give us even an attempt at a definition of Socialism. He writes on various pages of Christian Socialists, Marxist Socialists, Guild Socialists, reformists who were Socialists, industrial actionists who were Socialists, in fact, all sorts of different Socialists until we are forced to wonder if the word Socialism has any meaning at all for Mr. Williams.

Here, according to Mr. Williams, is Keir Hardie's brand of Socialism : —

"Only if men were moved, he believed, by the warm hearted, idealistic gospel of Socialism could there be created a new social order . . . " (page 13.)

The author quotes Bruce Glasier : —

. . . "It is from the prophets, apostles and saints, the religious mystics and heretics, rather than from statesmen, economists and political reformers, that the socialist movement derives its examples and ideals . . . Socialism means not only the Socialisation of wealth, not only the Socialisation of the means of production and distribution, but of our lives, our hearts—ourselves . . . " (page 105.)

That Mr. Williams tells us, "was the spirit that made the early I.L.P.". That spirit, he continues, "when harnessed to the intellectual integrity of the Fabians and the practical idealism and economic experience of the trade unions" made the Labour Party. Well, we knew that there was something wrong with the Labour Party, but we did not know that it was that.

Of Ramsay MacDonald, a man who, we are told on page 169, was suspected by trade unionists of being too Socialist, we learn that "he was a Socialist of a peculiarly philosophical and inactive—indeed one might say non-political—kind. His Socialism was not based on an understanding of the economic forces at work in society. He had little knowledge of economics . . . What made him a Socialist was a romanticized conception of natural history, acquired during his early biological studies and transformed without amendment to the political struggle" (pages 198-199).

Later in the book, the author quotes with approval from Robert Blatchford: "We can't have Socialism without Socialists" and, Mr. Williams says: " . . . that was the true answer . . . " Having read in his book of the different brands of "Socialism" expounded by Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, Robert Blatchford, Victor Grayson, Tom Mann, J. H. Thomas, Philip Snowden and a shoal of others including the Communism of John Wyclif, we are left astounded that the author can quote that short passage from Blatchford and continue to call the Labour Party a Socialist Party.

One thing the author does make clear, although possibly without intending to do so. That is, that the founders of the Labour Party wanted to build a political Party with a substantial numerical strength and they were quite prepared to sacrifice their respective "Socialist" principles at the altar of a large membership. He tells that most of the prominent early workers in the Labour Party were far-seeing enough to build an organisation with numerical and financial strength and a firm foundation of mass support. He proceeds to show us throughout the pages of the book, how the so called Socialists of the Labour Party have had to compromise, twist, wriggle, turn, betray and mis-lead the non-Socialist mass support in order to hold it together. And after studying that sort of thing for years, seeing the struggle between the mass support and the leadership, the desertions, the betrayals, the collapses, and the failure to prevent the evils of capitalism, Mr. Williams still thinks that the Labour Party is a Socialist Party. He still has not learned that the strength of a working-class Party lies not just in its numbers but in its understanding of its objective and its determination to achieve it.

The first few chapters of the book present an interesting story of the early struggles of the workers in this country and of the efforts leading up to the foundation of the Labour Party, although the author betrays his prejudice when he writes of men like Hyndman and Karl Marx. Altogether the book is very readable providing the reader does not get as confused as the author as to what Socialism really is. If this book can be read in conjunction with the SOCIALIST STANDARD for the years that are covered it makes instructive and interesting reading.

W. Waters