Our Practical Policy (1938)

From the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Readers of the Socialist Standard are far greater in numbers than the membership of the “Socialist Party.” At this time of the year especially, when more meetings are held and more of our literature is sold, the official organ of our Party reaches a still wider circle. The result of this activity reflects itself in wider discussions at our meetings and in the letters we receive from critics.

Now there is one very curious thing about certain of our critics, whether well or ill-acquainted with the Socialist Party’s case. They show as keen a desire to agree with the Party position as they do to disagree with the Party’s exposition of it. A few words in explanation will illustrate the apparently unconscious mental contradiction. Every issue of the “S.S,” includes a statement of our Object and of our Declaration of Principles. The latter, to all but very simple minds, is bound up with , the Object — Socialism. These are a lucid and logical statement of the essential facts about capitalist society, and describe the basic action necessary for its removal and for the establishing of Socialism.

The type of critic referred to often shows some acquaintance with the doctrines and teachings of Socialism to the extent that they will not quarrel with our definition of Socialism nor our Declaration of principles. They will even compliment us on their clarity and will express approval of them —“but” and it is the qualifying ‘‘but” which exposes our critics. In fact, they show that what they agree with is a form of words. They completely fail to interpret the Declaration of Principles in the light of the realities of the modern political world.

What is Policy ?

Consider some of the familiar arguments of our opponents, remembering, too, that they are also the arguments of some professing friends. “The Socialist Party has been in existence for thirty-four years and has done nothing . . .” “After thirty-four years the S.P. has only one candidate for. Parliament . . . ." “The Socialist Party has no policy—has never had a policy.” Like the proverbial Irishman who is “agin the Government,” the obstinate negator offers the same difficulty as trying to get to grips with a shadow. But never let it be said that we evaded the job. We will try to be simple, to avoid phrases, to avoid giving offence by appearing to be clever when really we are merely stating an accurately tested truth. Now: The Socialist Party is organised for Socialism. It has defined Socialism. The definition of our Object, “. . . the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth . . . " appears in every Party publication. The attaining of that Object is the task of the Socialist Party. Logically there could be no other. To achieve this object the Socialist Party must first concentrate upon the making of Socialists. There can be no other policy at this stage, because, simply, there can be no Socialism without first there are Socialists. Nor do our critics who profess to agree with us, "but”— tell us what they consider the policy of a Socialist Party should be. They do not because they cannot or dare not. They cannot because to deny the obvious necessity for the making of Socialists before Socialism can be established would stamp them as being incapable of interpreting the political world with the .weapons of Socialist understanding. They dare not because any alternative policy would reveal its reformist and capitalist character and expose the ignorance of its supporters. Let us not be misunderstood. The making of Socialists is not the end all in Socialist policy. But it is the only policy for the moment. There will come a time when the detailed working out of the necessary steps for the dispossessing of the capitalist class will have to be made. But this will only be practical policy when there are sufficient Socialists for the task. The need for it will, in fact, quite obviously, arise out of the conditions of the time. Just as now the first essentials of Socialist policy, the making of Socialists, arises out of the conditions of the present. Doubtless the working out of a detailed policy for the future, aimed at and showing the step-by-step process by which a Socialist working class would effect the dispossession of the capitalists and the overthrow of their system, would be an interesting task. It would, however, in view of the smallness of the Socialist movement and the fact that the structural administration of capitalism is subject to change, be almost purely academic, and most certainly useless. Even the working out of a tactical policy for pursuing the fight with our opponents in the political field is not even an immediate practicable question because: (1) there can be little struggle with opponents who mostly choose to ignore us and (2) because we have little effective backing from the workers. With regret, but without pessimism, it must be admitted that the immediate task of Socialists is chiefly propagandist, that is to say, explaining and interpreting the events of the capitalist world with Socialist knowledge and understanding. This burden we carry out with all the difficulties of voluntary organisation. We have, therefore, no time for unreal grandiose planning. We are busy working-men who, with Engels, would say: "The man who has something serious to say cannot compete with those who have all day to gossip in.” It is, however, the absence of detailed plans which confuse would-be critics (many who style themselves Socialists) of the Socialist Party.

No plan appears to them to mean no policy.' They are wrong and misled by interested leaders whose positions depend upon producing plausible plans purporting to aim at a short cut to social salvations What is not recognised is the irrefutable fact that the subject social position of the worker is bound up with' the Capitalist social system and will only disappear with capitalism, and that any policy which is not directed to bringing capitalism to an end is useless from the Socialist point of view.

The Day-to-Day Struggle

Almost a term of abuse now is the charge that the Socialist Party does not take part in the “day-to-day struggle.” The charge is, of course, untrue. In relation to our numbers our members are engaged in trade union activity comparable to those in any other political organisation. Some of our members hold official positions in their trade unions. Heavy demands are made on the time of our speakers in visiting trade union branches in order to state the case for the Party. Trade union activity is encouraged to its fullest extent. At all times Socialists enter the struggle on the economic field conscious of its limitations. But more often our critics have in mind the struggle on the political field when they charge us with ignoring “the day-to-day struggle.” In that field the struggle is represented to centre around the struggle for peace, democracy, and so forth. We are represented as having no interest in these things because we refuse to line up with the conglomeration of parties in the Labour Movement which is organising to demand them. It is not understood that the amount of democracy possessed by any section of the workers is the result of its struggles with its own capitalist class and independent of the struggles between sections of the capitalists; that when workers are able to impose peace upon the capitalist world they will have achieved such a degree of understanding that they will be in a position to impose far more than that. There is never peace in the capitalist world, only Socialism can guarantee peace. But let us look at the so-called working-class parties with whom it is assumed we should have some common interests and a common policy.

The Communist Party: It is committed to the policy of advocating the military alliance of Great Britain, France and Russia. This has been interpreted by one British Communist writer (T. A. Jackson) as willingness to defend the British Empire. In France the same policy found its expression in Communist advocacy of a Popular Front, which in reality is a premature anticipation of the war-time need of a coalition of all parties in order to defend French capitalism. Though Maurice Thorez has gone further and has said: 

“ Our policy of the People’s Front was not a transitory or temporary tactic, or an electoral pact, but an application of the fundamental principles of Marxism and Leninism, an alliance that will last between the working class and the middle classes'' (Discussion [Communist monthly], July, 1937).

Imagine a parallel picture applied to England. The Communist Party, the Liberals (including Mr. Lloyd George), and “progressive” Conservatives, like the Communist Party’s new sweetheart, the Duchess of Atholl, all included in a Popular Front which is represented to be an alliance between the working class and the middle classes that will last, and as an application of Marxism!

So far as the Labour Party is concerned its difference with the Communists seems to be that it will not have anything to do with them. But, like the Communist Party, it is committed to "Collective Security.” What that means can be measured by the statement of the Minister of War in the British Government that “Britain would only fight in ? future war with allies, that is to say, within a system of Collective Security.” All that need be said about the I.L.P. is that they are at present attempting to negotiate electoral arrangements with the Labour Party. These “working-class” parties are certainly engaged in the day-to-day struggle— but for the benefit of the capitalist class, not for the working class.

It is sheer self-delusion and a misrepresentation of Socialist principles to suggest that because these parties have their origin in the working-class struggle and screen their reform activities with high-sounding working-class sentiment and what appear to be Socialist phrases and slogans, that Socialists can make common cause with them.

The Socialist attitude on war, as on other major questions, is so fundamentally different from that of these parties that it would be a betrayal of Socialist principles and working-class interests to pretend that there could be any point of contact between them and us which could provide a basis for common policy, and no Socialist has any illusions about it. This position, we know, results in our isolation and prevents us engaging in activity which to masses of workers appears to be in their interests. The plaudits provoked by demagogic appeals to political ignorance and popular sentiment are attractive to the weak and the unstable. For us, for the moment, lies apparent isolation and unpopularity—but independence. The ability to endure it in the face of the attractions of demagogy is a test for real virility.

The Making of Socialists

Spontaneous discontent with capitalism rarely in itself makes a Socialist. Something else is necessary. That something is the assimilation of ideas—Socialist ideas. The extent to which the workers are able to do this depends on many factors, but the chief one is propaganda. In a clear field, without the strains and stresses of capitalist propaganda pulling in the opposite direction, Socialist propaganda would easily win a rapid and decisive victory. Whilst all prophecy is speculative, the facts of history are pertinent. In the earlier days of capitalism capitalist propaganda was brutally anti-Socialist. When the Labour movement came into existence (after two hundred years of capitalism) a gradual change took place. Capitalist propaganda is now more subtle and has learned how to use pseudo-Socialist phraseology to serve capitalist interests. Hitler and Mussolini are excellent examples of the use of this trick. The British capitalist class are able to use the British Labour Party and its doctrines for the same purpose. How far the working class will have to acquire Socialist knowledge to nullify the influence of capitalist propaganda will depend upon how far that propaganda exposes itself. Enough to say that at the moment a worker has to be well grounded to escape that influence. But the capitalist has to be everlastingly on the look-out for new ways of preventing the worker from seeing his social relationship as it really is.

Each new effort on the part of the capitalist class expresses a weakening of its influence. As this goes on it will be easier for the worker to interpret the world in the light of his interests. The stresses and strains of capitalist propaganda will lessen their pull. At a given point the acceptance of Socialist ideas must become more general and consequently develop more rapidly. No one with a knowledge of historical movement would deny the possibility of reaching that historical stage within our lifetime. Those who are Socialists will work for it as tenaciously as the Socialist Party has worked for it for 30 years. We have worked for it, never once betraying Socialist principles nor obscuring the immensity of the task. We have maintained our existence on a voluntary basis and have outlived organisations which had far greater resources in finance and membership. We have never been guilty of fostering disillusionment, like the Communists in 1919, when they prophesied the end of capitalism in Europe in a few months and in America in a few years.

In short, the Socialist Party’s policy is based upon a sound understanding and application of Socialist principles, which expresses itself in the immediate and urgent task of making Socialists.

Harry Waite

Here and There: The King and the Slums (1936)

The Here and There column from the December 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

The King and the Slums

The publicity given to the decline in unemployment and to increasing prosperity (measured in the capitalist mind chiefly by Stock Exchange prices) is somewhat offset by the conditions in the depressed areas, at the moment in the spot-light.

Dudley Barker, in the Evening Standard (November 16th, 1936), quotes an instance of a typical town in the coal-mining and steel area in South Wales which has 60.6 per cent. of its industrial insurable population unemployed. He instances a case, again typical, of a miner who, when employed, is 6s. a week better off than when unemployed. Similar examples could be given of towns in the coal and steel districts in Durham, Northumberland and Scotland. They have been referred to and described by nearly all the capitalist newspapers. The results of the chronic depression in these industries are appalling. Wide areas are derelict, bearing all the aspects of intense poverty, drabness and malnutrition. The Daily Herald (November 6th, 1936) reported a case of a shipbuilding worker who had not worked at his trade for 16 years. Innumerable cases have been reported of men in their twenties and some nearing their thirties who have never worked. Edward VIII, after his recent visit to the depressed areas in South Wales, said, “ Something will be done.” The extent to which ”something will be done,” we prophesy, will not touch the fringe of the problem. Can anything the King suggests bring obsolete industries back to life? If so, what will happen to those industries which have grown up and have rendered the older industries obsolete? Can he alter capitalism and the conditions of the world market to prevent certain industries being kept out of it by competition? Would he, for example, close down Indian cotton mills in order to put Lancashire back into the Indian market? If anything could be done to revive capitalist industry in the depressed areas and bring back employment to the workers there, the capitalists, who are able, and have more knowledge about the needs and requirements of their system than Edward VIII, would do it. To them it would mean profit.

There is one aspect of the question to which misguided reformers might devote some attention. Reynolds's (November 8th, 1936) says coal royalties in 1935 amounted to £4,806,139. The share of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Durham alone amounted to £313,580. There is now a suggestion that the Government buy-out royalty owners at a sum mentioned in the region of £100,000,000. There are 4,000 royalty owners of whom a minority own the major share of royalties. “ Something will be done.” Will the King show his detachment of class interest and recommend as generous treatment for the unwanted scrap of the depressed areas ? He won’t—he can’t! We live in a capitalist world and not in the pages of the fairy tales about good princes and kings who can work miracles. The sooner that workers in the depressed areas realise it the nearer they will be to the real solution of their damnable and unnecessary poverty.

* * *

Damaged Goods

The Observer (November 8th, 1936) comments on a speech by Sir Kingsley Wood, in which he dealt with the Government’s policy on malnutrition and the depressed areas in relation to physical fitness and recruiting. The Observer says:—

Physical fitness is being kept studiously in the foreground of policy, but it could not be gathered from Sir Kingsley Wood’s speech on Friday that the Government are yet beyond the consultation stage. He did, however, allude to the need of “moral leadership"—which is but too obvious. Young men living on the dole who will not even accept an invitation to keep themselves fit at the public expense have need of being recalled to their better selves by means which it should be for a National Government to discover and define.

Pity the capitalist! Faced with the problem even in “prosperous” times, of millions of workers unemployed, he is compelled to provide a meagre dole. Faced with the problem of needing soldiers, fit and strong, to kill or to be killed, in a future war which many capitalists regard as inevitable, the capitalist finds the main source from which soldiers are drawn (the unemployed) to be composed of men rendered unfit by chronic poverty. The Daily Telegraph's military correspondent on the 30th October, gave the figures of men rejected for the army in 1935 as 31,000 out of 68,000, or 47 per cent. The correspondent also pointed out that experiments are being made on some of the “rejects” at Aldershot. These are given a special diet under the supervision of a medical officer. “It is believed,” says the correspondent, ‘‘that eventually they will pass the required standard. This, however, is an expensive way of getting recruits.” The probability is that men whose health has been ruined by years of under-nourishment will defy all attempts to make them fit—despite the special diet. But what obviously concerns the Government more deeply is the fact that fewer workers are presenting themselves for recruitment. Hence the Observer's pointer that the Government should “discover and define ” means of recalling “young men living on the dole” to ‘‘their better selves.” They may have some difficulty in persuading workers who face a mean, drab and poverty-stricken existence every day of their lives that they possess anything worth fighting for. We hope so.

* * *

A Hornet s Nest for the Labour Party

The Daily Telegraph (November 17th, 1936) deals with a speech made by Sir Stafford Cripps, in which he made the statement (amazing for a Labour leader) that he

did not believe it would be a bad thing for the British working class if Germany defeated us. It would be a disaster to the profit-makers and the capitalists, but not necessarily for the working class. (Italics ours.)

Sir Stafford Cripps’ statement is the direct opposite of Labour Party policy, and within a few days of his making it Labour leaders were busy repudiating him: Dr. Hugh Dalton did so with “indignation and astonishment,” which he said be shared with the '‘leading personalities” in the Labour Party (Daily Telegraph, November 11th, 1936). From the point of view of Labour Party opportunism Sir Stafford Cripps is often indiscreet and not always sound. In this case, by accident, or perhaps because he has been reading our literature, he came very near stating an aspect of the Socialist case on war. If such a view were the official policy of the Labour Party (leadership being what it is,, and followers what they are), there is no doubt that the British capitalist class would be seriously impeded—if not actually prevented—from conducting a war. No Government dare go to war if the organised workers were opposed to it. Such are the responsibilities of leadership. Naturally, then, Sir Stafford’s speech got under the skin of the Labour Party opportunists and the capitalist journalists alike. The Daily Telegraph referred to it in a venomous editorial, in which Sir Stafford Cripps was misrepresented as being pro-Nazi. Mr. Thomas Johnston, M.P., in Forward (November 21st, 1936), was almost as bad. He showed how fortunate it is for the Labour Party that Germany happens to be ruled by a dictatorship, giving them the excuse, if war breaks out between England and Germany, of supporting it in the interest of “democracy.” Mr. Johnston, in the event of an English defeat by Germany, saw England as one vast concentration camp under the domination of the Nazis.

“Sir Stafford Cripps is an able man : selfless and sincere, but this kind of talk is a joy to his capitalist enemies . . ." he said.

Is it? Let Mr. Johnston persuade Labour leaders to make similar speeches. Rather than joy, we would hazard that there would be “weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth " among the capitalists.

As Labour leaders go, Sir Stafford is almost unique in.his attitude to war. It will be interesting to see for how long he can maintain his independence of official policy before being brought to heel or dropped entirely from the Labour Party. The Labour Party has meagre scope for people whose “selfless and sincere" independence of thought causes embarrassment to its bureaucratic leadership and spoils its vote-catching.

* * *

Why Socialists Reject Leadership

In a letter to the Daily Herald (November 4th, 1936) a reader says: —

Mr. Shinwell, Mr. Richardson and “Organiser” should come with me into the workshop and hear the adjectives used whenever the Labour Party or Trade Union leaders provide the subject of conversation.

They would learn that we in the workshop are sick and tired of the maudlin sentimentality and rhetoric of our leaders, and that we should like to hear a little less about Germans, Italians. Abyssinians, Spaniards, Russians and others, and would like to hear a lot more about what must be done for the English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Indians and others in the Empire whom it is likely we can assist.

Making a fuss about a day’s holiday with pay to celebrate the Coronation is not leadership.

Leadership is a difficult business, full of trials and pitfalls. Workers who believe in it and want to be led, expect results, and promises to be fulfilled. When results do not materialise they forsake the leaders. That they cannot do otherwise is the outcome of the belief in leadership. Perhaps there is some connection in workers being "sick and tired of the maudlin sentimentality and rhetoric" of Labour leaders and the Labour Party's net loss of 57 seats in the recent Borough elections in England and Wales.

* * *

The State, a Bishop, and Jesus

Addressing his Diocesan Conference on the question of the Christian attitude towards the use of armed force, the Archbishop of Canterbury said : "The use of force by the State was the ministry of God for the protection of the people" (Manchester Guardian, October 13th, 1936). The intention of the speech was to give the Church's approval to war. It was made in direct response to a speech by Mr. Duff Cooper, the Minister of War, demanding that the leaders of the Church repudiate the pacifist doctrines of certain prominent partisans. The modern State controls such fiendish methods of armaments that their use by large Powers, according to much reputable opinion, would mean wholesale destruction and perhaps a “ reversion to barbarism." However, according to the good bishop, the use of armed force by the State is the “ministry of God " and, forsooth, "for the protection of the people." It is curious how, when the Christian religion fulfils its traditional task of adjusting its teaching to the needs of the ruling class, the modern conception of the abstract Christian God becomes more like the personal and intimate God of primitive tribal times. In this case the bishop's God is identified with the State, and the armed forces are his ministry. The bishop should now enlighten the poor sceptics, who, unlike him, have not seen “the light." If the “use of force by the State is the ministry of God," what grounds had he for reproaching the Italian State for grabbing Abyssinia by armed force—or the German State for its repressive measures against the German Protestant Church—or the Russian State for its "anti-God" campaign? Surely, “God moves in a mysterious way " ?

The bishop's attitude is just typical Christian cant. The chief function of the State is the maintenance of class society. The function of the Church is to adapt Christian teaching to the needs of the ruling class. This it does loyally. And why not? Quite recently the Government's Tithe Act compensated the Church for its loss of tithe ownership to the extent of approximately £52,000,000. In return for tithe the Church now holds Government stock bearing 3 per cent. interest. Quite an inducement, surely, to trim the teachings of the out-of-work carpenter, Jesus, to the needs of capitalist millionaires.

The bishop's quotation of the Church's thirty-seventh article in support of his interpretation, brings to mind Marx's scathing reference: “ The English Established Church will more readily pardon an attack on 38 of its 39 articles than on l/39th of its income."

* * *

Violence and the Agent Provocateur

A letter from a "George Barker, Stepney," published in the New Leader (November 6th, 1936) illustrates the danger of violent tactics in political agitation. Mr. Barker complained that during the recent demonstration against Fascism in East London, ". . . a man in the crowd yelled that the police were coming and urged everyone to throw stones, bottles and anything handy to them . . . and the most striking thing to me was the sudden disappearance of the person invoking the crowd to start the rough stuff." The person in question was, in the opinion of Mr. Barker, an agent, there only to provoke the demonstrators to use violence against the police. He also stated that he had seen it happen at other demonstrations.

The writer of the letter sees the danger of the agent provocateur. What he does not see is that agents provocateurs can only provoke the workers to fight the police who have been nurtured by the Communists and I.L.P.ers into the belief that they can achieve their ends by violent methods.

* * *

A Fabian in Russia

Mr. Sidney Webb (Lord Passfield) lecturing to Fabians at Friends House, made some interesting comments about Russia. As Mr. Webb has almost the authority of a Russian Government representative on matters concerning the internal affairs of Russia, what he has to say is of some interest. He pointed but that

More than half the adult population of Russia were working for themselves, fifty or sixty millions of them in partnership. There were probably fifty to sixty thousand managements, all of a public character, from village councils upwards, and including newspapers and theatres employing workers with wages. It was therefore ridiculous to say that the State was the only employer.—(Manchester Guardian.,October 30th, 1936.)

In view of the enormous statistics emanating from Russian sources, which are likely to give the impression that Russia is one vast factory, Mr. Webb’s statement is interesting.

* * *

Popular Front Progress

The following is taken from the Daily Telegraph (November 6th, 1936), and is from its Paris correspondent: —

M. Daladier, the Defence Minister, is determined to check Communist and Socialist propaganda among French troops. 

M. Gitton, a Communist Deputy, complained that, while certain “Fascist” newspapers were permitted in the barracks, the Communist 'Humanité' was banned.

In reply, M. Daladier said: “The Communist Party has formed 'cells' in the Army, which are sometimes known as such and at other times called 'committees of Republican defence.' I have decided to dissolve all these cells."

“I consider very dangerous," he said, “the section in which the 'Humanité' publishes letters from soldiers insulting their officers. The repercussions on the morale of the troops can be deplorable. I note that the 'Populaire’ has for some time been imitating the ‘Humanité'. "

The “Populaire” is M. Blum’s organ.

M. Daladier and M. Blum are both in the Popular Front. M. Blum is Premier. 

Harry Waite

Notes by the Way: “Forward’s” Views on War and Socialism (1938)

The Notes by the Way Column from the September 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Forward’s” Views on War and Socialism

In its issue of August 6th, the Scottish Labour weekly, Forward, reproduced from the July issue of The Socialist Standard our reply to a correspondent who wanted to know what the workers should do if Hitler and Mussolini attacked Great Britain. Nothing to complain of in that, and we are only too pleased to help any of our foggy-minded contemporaries with a little clear thinking. But though the point of view put in our statement is very nearly the same as that held on this question by some of the people responsible for Forward, the Editor of the latter thought fit to accompany the statement with some irrelevant comment of his own, intended to discredit the S.P.G.B.; the usual jibes about our small membership—as if that has anything to do with the soundness of our position. The most charitable explanation is that one person decided to reproduce our statement because he agreed with it, and some other person could not resist the temptation to add a little spiteful paragraph in the good cause of inducing the readers not to examine the statement on it merits. Then person number one appears to have had his turn again at the end of the column, where the bouquet was handed out to us that some of the passages in the statement showed that serious thought had been given to them, and that they might have been written by Mr. George Bernard Shaw. It may seem ungenerous to refuse a bouquet, but since when has that clever but often very muddle-headed gentleman been an authority on Socialism? That is the trouble with the writers for Forward. They know how to produce an attractive and well-informed journal, but they ought to give up sitting at the feet of Mr. Shaw and others of his kind and do some solid thinking for themselves, about Socialism.

Mr. Shaw and Mr. MacDonald

Mr. G. B. Shaw has recently been accused of favouring dictatorship. He replied in Reynolds Illustrated News that he had been misunderstood. His object, he says, is to make democracy effective. As evidence of the inadequacy of British democratic institutions he pointed out that it was democracy which made possible the career of the late J. R. MacDonald.

Quite a telling point if it were not for the fact that, throughout MacDonald’s career, one of the very clever gentlemen who told the workers to go on putting their trust in MacDonald was Mr. G. B. Shaw. Now if Mr. Shaw had listened to the S.P.G.B. from its formation, 34 years ago, and had used his powers to give publicity to our warnings against MacDonald (and against the whole idea of leadership), the workers would have had a better chance of escaping the disasters that fell on them through following the MacDonald policy. So before Mr. Shaw sets up as a teacher of others he should explain how he came to be so consistently wrong on this issue.

The Basis of International Politics. Profit Not Sentiment

While prejudice and patriotic feeling will sometimes blind the capitalists to their own interests, such factors will not, in the long run, stand up against the pull of profit. In this the capitalist sets an example that the workers would do well to follow. Instead, we find many of the workers still ready to believe their rulers when the latter pretend to be guided by noble sentiments of religion or patriotism. Just now the German, Italian and Japanese rulers are supposed to be sworn to common action against what they call “ Bolshevism," a claim that will not stand a moment’s examination. It was Mussolini who, from the first, entered into the closest and most friendly relations with the Russian Government.

A pact of friendship is still nominally in force, and until quite recently, if not at the present moment, Russia supplied oil to Italy (used to bomb the the Abyssinians) and had warships built in Italian naval yards. In the ten years from 1918 onwards, Germany and Russia were for most of the time in the closest possible relationships in their joint resistance to pressure from France and Britain, and there is not the least doubt that Russia secretly assisted in German re-armament. After Hitler come to power the German-Russian treaty was renewed “in order to further the collaboration between the two countries in the interests of peace." (These are the words used in the “ U.S.S.R. Handbook," page 94, published by Victor Gollancz, Ltd., 1936.) During Hitler’s five years of power he has done nothing to interfere with trade relationships with the home of the Bolshevism he pretends to hate so much.

The Japanese Government claims to be saving China from Bolshevism by getting rid of Chiang Kai-Shek's Government, ignoring the fact that the latter for years campaigned to destroy the same alleged Bolshevist elements.

One recent example of the relative importance to the capitalist of sentiment and profit is given by Mexico. The Mexican Government, hard-pressed for money, decided to expropriate the foreign oil companies, and offered what they regard as very inadequate compensation. Here, surely, was one of those wicked Bolshevist actions which would horrify Hitler! But Germany needs oil, and the Government saw the opportunity of getting it cheaply. So while Britain, the U.S.A. and Holland denounce the Mexican Government as robbers, Field-Marshall Goering, for the German Government, pats the Mexican robbers on the back. The following report is taken from the Daily Telegraph (July 23rd, 1938):

An article in the “Four-Year Plan,” the official organ of Field-Marshal Goering, Commissioner for the Plan, defends the Mexican Government’s action in seizing British and United States oil concessions.

The article explains that the Mexican Government, although popular in character, cannot be termed “Bolshevik,” and represents “a peasant and middle-class policy.” Foreign capital in Mexico, it adds, had clearly abused its powerful position.

These opinions are of interest in view of recent purchases of Mexican oil made by the German Government through the medium of an American agent. 

When the Spanish Popular Front Government, broadly similar to that in Mexico, tried to enforce its social reform programme. Hitler and Mussolini, being interested in controlling Spanish mineral wealth and in using Spain to strengthen their naval and military position, found that they were “Bolshevists,” and used that as screen for waging war against them, yet only a few years ago Italy was backing the same “Bolshevists” in Catalonia in their opposition to the Madrid Government.

There is only one safe rule to be followed by the working-class in their effort to understand capitalist politics, whether at home or on the international field. If capitalist governments proclaim their adherence to some noble-sounding ideal or principal, disbelieve them. Seek, instead, for the real motive, one related directly or indirectly to capitalist wealth and capitalist power.

There are Birds at the Bottom of Adolf's Garden

The ways of advertisement are manifold, but there is no essential difference between the publisher who sells literary tripe by the appeal of the highly coloured “blurb” on the cover, the patent medicine vendor who shows pictures of the imaginary patient “ before ” and “after,” and the politician who kisses the babies of potential voters. In each case the advertisement has little or nothing to do with the merits of the article. The extreme case is the military adventurer who covers up his bloodthirsty actions with press puffs and pictures of his passionate love for the little children, or the birds, the beasts and the flowers. Hitler's speciality is birds. The aged military man, Sir Ian Hamilton, recently visited Hitler in his home (and was given a tooth-brush! isn’t that wonderful!). This is what he told the Sunday Express (August 7th, 1938): —

He has a bird sanctuary there.' There are eight thousand nests in it, and they are not nests, as some might think, for eagles, vultures and owls. They are for nightingales and other nice birds that do not prey on their kind.

Perhaps Hitler does not keep vultures because they might give him prickings of conscience. But why didn’t he have some bats for Hamilton’s belfry ?

Senegalese Troops Used Against French Strikers

The old principle of “Divide and Rule” is used as much by the democratic governments as by the dictatorships. While the French Popular Front Government protests against Hitler’s policy of setting the non-Jewish workers against the Jewish, it has no objection to using Senegalese troops against white workers. At Marseilles, on August 21st, Senegalese troops and French navy men were used to unload ships and thus help the employers against the dockers who were on strike (Daily Herald, August 22nd, 1938). Not that the use of black troops is any worse than the use of white naval ratings, but governments know that it is appreciably more difficult to get locally recruited soldiers and sailors to act against their fellow-workers. Men brought from a distant province or another continent — unless they fully appreciate the common interest of the workers against the capitalist class — are more easily induced to act against the workers.

The Prime Minister, M. Daladier, who was responsible for this, also, according to the Daily Herald (August 22nd), gave a broadcast address the same night, in which he made “an amazing attack on the 40-hour week, leading achievement of the French Popular Front to which he belongs."

“The 40-hour week," he said, "must be made more elastic. As long as the international situation remains as delicate as it is, it must be possible to work more than 40 hours and up to 48 hours a week in concerns working for national defence." 

He admitted that the 40-hour law already permits longer hours to be worked, but he “wants the extra hours to be worked not at prohibitive overtime rates, as they must to-day, but with increases which should not go beyond 10 per cent." 

How long the international situation will remain “as delicate as it is" he did not say, nor did he round-off his speech by announcing that Cabinet Ministers had decided to reduce their own pay to the level of a workman’s wages. In war and peace, Cabinet Ministers habitually prefer to preach sacrifice to others rather than set an example themselves.

Why Some Workers Like Prison

A retired judge, Sir Holman Gregory, is writing articles on crime for the Sunday Dispatch. In the issue dated August 21st, 1938, he admits that some workers commit crimes because their lives when at “liberty ” are worse than in prison: —

Their lives when free are so drab and cheerless that a few months’ imprisonment with regular food, under the care of a medical officer, is a relief.

Mussolini Grabs the Money of the Jews

There was a time when Mussolini used to scoff at Hitler’s anti-Semitism, and he scored a neat hit at his young German imitator by pointing out that the Nazi gospel of the superiority of the Nordics was an idea invented by the Jews in the form of the “Chosen Race.” Why, then, has Mussolini suddenly decided to go in for a milder form of Jew-baiting himself? The reason is to be found in the financial difficulties of the Italian Government. Seeing how Hitler plundered the wealthy Jews in Germany arid Austria, Mussolini is doing likewise. The Rome correspondent of the Daily Telegraph (August 6th, 1938) writes as follows: —

Most of the Jews in the country are well-to-do. A small minority is extremely rich. Their influence in banking, insurance, public works contracts, the law. medicine, and retail trades is avowedly out of all proportion to their numbers.

Those with most to lose fear that some form of capital tax may be levied on their possessions. There is no question of exporting capital, because this has been prohibited to all Italians for several years.

It has also been pointed out that the attack on the Jews in Italy will help Mussolini in his propaganda campaign as protector of the Arabs and the Mohammedans generally.

A correspondent in The Times (August 2nd, 1938) recalls that as recently as 1932 Mussolini was telling Emil Ludwig that "there are no pure races left; not even the Jews have kept their blood unmingled. . . . Race! It is a feeling, not a reality. . . ."

National pride has no need of the delirium of race. Anti-Semitism does not exist in Italy.

Are the Jews a Race

It is useful to have Professor Griffith Taylor at the British Association confirming the absurdity of Nazi race theories. He is Professor of Geography in the University of Toronto and spoke on the way the social sciences are being challenged by “the forces of reaction."

About the Nazis and the Jews he said (The Times, August 19th, 1938):—

We are surely all agreed that the term Aryan can only be applied to speech; and that Nordic indicates a “breed ” and can only be applied to race. But few folk realise that the term “Jew” should only be used in connection with religion. We need a new term to express a group linked by purely cultural characters such as language or religion. For such groups I have been extending the use of the word “cult." For instance, in Canada we have in reality no French race, since Frenchmen may belong to one of three distinct races, but only a French cult, linked by common language and religion. So also we should learn to speak of a Jewish cult, since this large group is linked closely by religion and to a lesser degree by language. The Jews, like the Germans, are of two different races. If they come from Poland they belong to the Alpine race; if from Spain they are of Mediterranean race, like all the original Jews of Palestine:

The logical linguistic divisions in Europe, Professor Taylor showed with the aid of diagrams, were undoubtedly Aryan and Altaic. The race divisions were Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean. The German nation, he said, was half Nordic and half Alpine. The Jew belonged to a “cult,” but the dominant Jews in Europe, including about three-quarters of the whole body, were broad-headed Alpines like the rest of the mid-European peoples.

The most logical explanation was that the Polish Jews were the result of the widespread conversions carried on by the Jews in Eastern Europe. A year or two ago the German authorities were specifically excluding the German Jews as of “non-Aryan” race. Racially, of course, they were Alpines like the South Germans, and their language was best called Judeo-German. (The Times, August 19th, 1988.)

Edgar Hardcastle

50 Years Ago: French Workers Learn by Experiences (1987)

The 50 Years Ago column from the October 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard 

In the meantime the French Labourites have tried a similar experiment, marked by the same infantile hopefulness in the impossible. In Great Britain in 1929 the Labour Government depended on Liberal votes in the House of Commons. In France the Labourites formed a coalition government with the Liberals, under the premiership, of Leon Blum. After running for a year Blum was forced to quit and hand over the premiership to a Liberal, still maintaining the "Popular Front,” though already the workers are sadly disappointed. It is to be hoped that they will learn how little can be done until capitalism has been got rid of.

The Daily Herald (June 22nd, 1937), in an editorial, says that Blum fell because “he did not possess the confidence of the big men of property, of the financiers, and the bankers"; which provokes the thought that if Blum went into office prepared to govern "within the present social regime” (his own words, The Times, May 2nd, 1936), yet supposed he could do so without having the confidence of those who own the present social regime, it is time he began to wake up to realities.

The Times Paris correspondent has shown a remarkably clear appreciation of the role of Labour Government and of the narrow limits within which they can diverge from traditional Liberal and Tory policy. On August 23rd, 1937, The Times published an article from him in which he wrote that Blum’s “Socialist” Minister of Finance

Does not seem to have realised that within the framework of the capitalist system social reform can be paid for only out of the profits of industry, and that if the entrepreneur is frightened out of his wits profits disappear. . . .

Two weeks later (The Times, September 7th, 1937), in another article, he wrote: —

M. Blum now supports the Radicals because he has realised that, short of provoking a dangerous upheaval, the problems of a capitalist system must, if they are to be resolved with capitalist support, be met by capitalist methods. . . .

[From an article in the Socialist Standard October 1937.]

Notes by the Way: Premier Blum Faces Crises (1937)

The Notes by the Way Column from the April 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Premier Blum Faces Crises

The Popular Front Government in France is in difficulties. But at least it can be said for Blum and his Labour and Radical colleagues in the Cabinet that they have done their best to justify themselves in their short period of office. Elected on a definite programme of social reforms, they ably and energetically set about applying them. In quick succession they legislated for a 40-hour week and annual fortnightly holiday with pay, for nationalisation of the armament concerns, control of the Bank of France, and of prices. Large sums of money were allocated to public works to reduce unemployment, and civil servants had pay cuts restored. In short, Blum’s Government behaved as if it believed in its programme and was determined to apply it. In this their behaviour is in marked contrast with that of the two British Labour Governments. Nevertheless, though they tried to make the most of the possibilities of the situation, they are faced with increasing difficulties, all due to the fact that they have got to work within the framework of capitalism. They cannot abolish capitalism, because the population of France is not prepared for such a step. They must, therefore, choose between two evils, either to enforce measures opposed by the French capitalists—in which case the Government loses the votes of its capitalist supporters in Parliament, and has to resign—or to frame its programme so that capitalists will accept it—in which case it comes into conflict with working-class interests and wishes. Faced with that dilemma in the matter of further expenditure, the Blum Government has reluctantly had to retreat.

It needs to borrow in order to finance Government expenditure. It can only borrow from those who have property, i e„ the capitalists. If it does not please them with its policy and secure their confidence they refuse to lend and, indeed, had transferred much of their money abroad. The Blum Government, unless it were prepared to take over the property of capitalists generally for the community—which would be suicidal, since the majority of the population are opposed to it—had to come to terms with the capitalists.

As the City Editor of the News Chronicle put it: —

  One sympathises with the natural reluctance of a Socialist Government to pour profits into the laps of capitalists, but such feelings must give way before the pressure of circumstances.—(News Chronicle, March 6th.)

So now M. Blum has had to ask civil servants to forego expected wage increases. He is curtailing Government expenditure and deferring expected further reforms, and is allowing those who shipped their gold abroad to profit by the devaluation of the franc on bringing it back to France.

Naturally, this forced retreat is being criticised by the Communists and Trade Unionists, who should, however, have been aware from the outset that the difficulties are those which arise inevitably from the existence of a Government which thinks it can combine a working-class programme with the administration of capitalism.

The Daily Herald, organ of the British Labour Party, supports Blum’s Government, but it has to admit that the continued existence of the Government depends on the gamble that capitalism in France quickly experiences one of its periodical phases of boom. The Daily Herald editorial, on March 13th, 1937, admits that Blum’s Government “could hardly for long endure if there were to be a trade setback and a rise in unemployment.” Yet every Socialist, and even many Labourites, know that sooner or later there is bound to be that trade setback and rise in unemployment.

There is fundamentally only one way in which capitalism can be administered—the capitalist way. While social reforms can alleviate particular evils arising from capitalism for a time, it is unquestionably better that the responsibility for running the capitalist system should be left to the avowed supporters of capitalism. The workers should struggle to raise or defend their standard of living, but not attempt the impossible task of administering capitalism, or put their trust in the Parties which do this.

Putting Labour or Popular Front Governments into office merely makes them the prisoners of the capitalist class.

#    #    #    #

The Communists Road to Peace

There was a time when Communists were permitted to tell the truth about capitalism, but that was long enough ago. Now they talk flapdoodle like the statement which follows, delivered at a luncheon given by the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce at the British Industries Fair. The speaker, Mr. Maisky, Ambassador in this country of Soviet Russia: —

  He hoped that the outcome of the Fair would be strengthened commercial relations between Great Britain and other countries, for peace defended, to a very great extent on healthy and vigorous trade relations.—(Times, February 20th, 1937. Italics ours.)

The Daily Worker should let its readers have an article on this Cobdenite view of “friendly capitalist trade,” plus some extracts from Lenin’s writings in answer to it.

#    #    #    #

London Labour Party's Victory

In 1934 the London Labour Party, for the first time, obtained a majority on the London County Council. At the elections in March the Labour group increased its seats from 69 to 75, and the Municipal Reformers' seats fell from 55 to 49. The votes polled at the last three elections have been as follows: —

1931 Labour, 214,000.
         Municipal Reformers, 288,000.
1934 Labour, 340,000.
         Municipal Reformers, 300,000.
1937 Labour, 444,000.
         Municipal Reformers, 403,000.

It will be seen that this year, after three years of Labour Party rule, about 200,000 additional voters took the trouble to vote and divided themselves nearly equally between the two parties. Even so, only 43 per cent. of the electors troubled to vote, so little difference does the choice between Labour and Municipal Reform on the L.C.C. represent.

The truth is that some of the more wide-awake propertied interests in London realise that there are many problems of administration, traffic control, health services, housing, and so on, which stand a better chance of being dealt with energetically by Mr. Herbert Morrison and his party than by the Municipal Reformers. They are, therefore, prepared to support the Labour candidates, at least for the time being. The question of Socialism was never brought into the election fight, except as a red herring, by some Municipal Reformers. This dodging of real issues led to an amusing attitude on the part of the Municipal Reformers. Their leader, Mr. W. H. Webbe, quoted a recent remark made by Mr. Morrison to the effect that the Tories are to-day more a party of social reform than ever before, and that “the real issue of politics is no longer social reform versus reaction: it is more like Socialism versus social reform" (Daily Telegraph, February 8th, 1937). Having said this, one might suppose that Mr. Morrison intended to fight for Socialism against his social reform opponents. Not a bit of it. His programme was all social reform and no Socialism. As the Solicitor-General, Sir Terence O’Connor, pointed out: “It was a most remarkable document, coming from a Socialist, and they might think, as he did, that it was nothing more than a smoke-screen to gull a few more pink Liberals." (Times, February 12th, 1937)

All that can be said is that Mr. Morrison, on his social reform programme, completely outmanoeuvred the rival social reformers. For those who attach importance to such things as the triumph of one social reform group over another, it was a great and glorious victory: but it leaves capitalism fat and flourishing.

#    #    #    #

A New Stage in India

The inauguration of the new constitution in India opens up promising developments in politics and social questions. In the provincial Parliaments the Congress Party, the Party which seeks Indian independence, will be strongly represented, and will in some cases have a majority, and be able to form the Government. From a tactical point of view they will be foolish to refuse the opportunity of doing so. Whatever they may decide at the moment, they will sooner or later have to take office or see their own supporters drift away. De Valera learned this in Ireland, when his party tried the policy of staying away from Parliament.

The new constitution is an advance on the old, if only because it brings a much larger number of people into politics by giving them votes. Political interest, elections, propaganda, discussion, these are all part of the experience needed before the Indian workers will become Socialist. It is true that many of them believe that they are Socialists already. They have adopted the name, and the leader of the Congress Party, Pandit Nehru, calls himself a Socialist. He and his followers are, however, of the “not here and not now" type, of whom we have many in Europe. That is to say they claim that Socialism is the paramount issue, but they subordinate it to other issues, capitalist ones. Nehru’s contention is that Socialism must be dropped for the present, while Indian workers and peasants join hands with their own exploiters—the Indian capitalists and landlords—to win independence. The Indian Labour Journal, supporting this view, says:—

  What India needs now is soldiers of anti-imperialism and Socialists later.—(Indian Labour Journal, November 29th, 1936.)

How often have we heard this before, always as a prelude to working-class betrayal and disillusionment. It was the cunning slogan of the capitalist hacks in Germany and England during the War, and of the Nationalists in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ireland, and in every country where local propertied interests have used nationalism as a weapon in their fight against foreign rivals. Indian independence is not at present a practical policy. If the British Empire were broken up India would only fall to some other Empire. But even if it were a practical policy, the Indian workers would find their native capitalists every whit as powerful and brutal as the foreign ones.

Actually, events will themselves force the Indian workers to read the signs of the times, despite the lead given by their Nehrus and other so-called Labour and Socialist guides. One of the principal purposes of the concession of partial Home Rule by the British ruling class to Ireland, Egypt, India, etc., is that it forces the local capitalists and their politicians to accept responsibility for maintaining capitalist law and order against the workers, and thus expose their fraternity with the British capitalists.

The British Government does this because it strengthens the basis of imperial capitalism; but it happens also to be good for the working class movement. In time it compels the Irish, Indian and Egyptian workers to recognise that their class interests make them opponents of the native capitalist class and allies of the workers of other lands.

The first salutary lesson of this kind happened in India, when the elections were barely over. The Congress Party in Bihar, supported by the local landlords, won a majority. One of the vote-catching promises in the Congress programme was reform of the system of land tenure for the benefit of the smaller peasantry. Promptly, the villagers celebrated. "their” victory by forcibly taking possession of the crops on their landlords’ fields. (Times, March 10th, 1937.) What did the landlords do? They “asked the authorities for military protection.” Thus do hard facts of the class-struggle break through the flimsy talk of Nehru about the bonds of Indian nationality.

India is on the march, and the Indian workers will ultimately triumph through Socialism and against the unsound advice of the self-styled Socialists.

Edgar Hardcastle

The United Front in France (1936)

From the June 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the General Elections which took place in France late in April and early in May there was a considerable gain of seats by the parties grouped together in a “United Front.” As a consequence a new Government has been formed, under the premiership of Mr. Leon Blum, the leader of the French Labour Party (“Socialist Party of France”). In the Cabinet with members of his party are also representatives of the French Radical Federation. The Communists (who promoted the United Front) while unwilling to enter the Cabinet, promise to give loyal support in Parliament and in the constituencies. The supporters of the Labour and Communist Parties are overjoyed at what they regard as a victory of outstanding importance. They foresee the early destruction of the power of the French ruling class and the abolition of poverty and unemployment and, naturally, the British Communists urge that this example of unity be copied here without delay. Let us see how this policy was applied and the results it has brought and is likely to bring. We shall then be in a position to answer the question whether such a policy should have the backing of the workers and the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

How it was done

The chief parties to the pact were three in number, the Radicals, the Labour Party (“Socialist Party of France”), and the Communists. The last two are indistinguishable in aim and outlook from the British Labour Party and Communist Party. The Radicals are quite correctly described by the British Communists (see Daily Worker, April 30th) as “The French Liberals.” They are a capitalist party, but favour moderate social reforms. They were formerly the largest single party in the French Parliament, but had not a majority of the seats.

The method by which the United Front agreement operated has long been practised in French elections – indeed, it was practised by the same three groups down to the 1924 General Election. The electoral system is based on a double ballot. At the first ballot only those candidates are declared elected who get a clear majority of votes over all the remaining candidates. At the second ballot, a week later, a further vote takes place in those constituencies that are not filled at the first vote. At this second vote the successful candidate is the one who tops the poll, whether he gets a clear majority over the rest of the candidates or not. In the great majority of constituencies there has to be this second ballot, as very few candidates get a clear majority over all other candidates.

The United Front parties agreed to support each other at the second ballot by withdrawing the two candidates who were least successful at the first ballot. Thus, if a Radical failed to get a clear majority at the first ballot, but nevertheless polled more votes than his Labour and Communist opponents, the two latter withdrew at the second ballot and all three parties backed the Radical. Similar withdrawals of Radicals took place in favour of Labour and Communist, and of Labour candidates in favour of Communists, and Communists in favour of Labour.

The result was as anticipated. The United Front group increased their total vote a little (about 270,000 votes), but gained a considerable number of seats. Owing to the uncertain allegiance of various individuals and sectional groups the position is somewhat uncertain, but is roughly as follows: The United Front group gained about 67 seats, and now numbers 381, out of a total of 618. The two other groups of parties, the Centre Group and the Conservative Group, have about 94 and 143 seats respectively. The United Front consists of 145 Labour, 72 Communists, 115 Radicals and 49 others, and, therefore, has a majority over the rest so long as all members of all its parties stand together. For various reasons, however, this is not likely to be the case for long. Some of the Radicals are certain to break away rather than continue association with the Labour and Communist groups.

The programme on which the United Front candidates fought shows clearly what is the outlook of the electorate.

The United Front Programme

The programme was a vague one, containing a series of reform proposals. They included a guaranteed minimum wage, a 40-hour week, pensions at 60 or before, public control of public services, including the Bank of France and the railways, suppression of the Fascist Leagues, abolition of private manufacture of armaments, etc., etc. The programme included also support of the League of Nations, the necessity of the maintenance of armaments for national defence, and efforts to secure disarmament, in which Hitler would be asked to join.

Within the joint agreed programme the separate parties put forward their own specific demands and slogans. The Communist slogans were “Long Live the Popular Front,”  “Bread – Peace – Freedom,” “For a Strong, Happy France – vote Communist,” “The Rich must Pay,” “Long Live the Union of the French nation – against the 200 families who plunder France” (Daily Worker, April 27th). The Labourites complained that through maintaining what there was of internationalism in their propaganda they were less effective in appealing to the growing nationalism of the electorate than were the Communists with their appeals to patriotism. According to a correspondent of the Daily Express (May 4th) the Communist election posters were decorated with the national colours, blue, white and red! “They have stolen the patriotic thunder of the Right. They have waved the Tricolour, not the Red flag.”!

In short, as the Liberal-Labour-Communist alliance wanted to win a majority at all costs, they had to put forward a capitalist reform programme – spiced with appeals to fear of Nazi Germany – which would gain a majority of votes. As a newspaper correspondent said, their programme had “to be vague enough to enable Radicals and Communists, friends and enemies of private capitalism, to enter the same fold.” (Times, April 25th). The correspondent of the Conservative Daily Telegraph (May 13th) found “nothing alarming” in the programmes of a Labour and a Communist candidate: “They were at great pains to dispel the conception that any revolution would follow in the trail of their parties’ success at the elections”!

The Price of Compromise

Those who advocate the policy of a United Front with capitalist parties do not always realise that they have to pay a heavy price for the capitalist support they buy. The French Communists were, however, under no illusion. They were willing to pay the price and have admitted it frankly, and they have certainly been more successful than their equally compromising, but less astute, British colleagues. Their seats increased from 10 to 72. It must, however, be borne in mind that this was not mainly due to increased votes (although their vote nearly doubled since 1932), but to the operation of the pact. If the Communists had joined the Radical-Labour pact in 1932 (as they did at earlier elections) they would probably have had 50 seats instead of only 10.

These are some of the items in the price they paid for joining hands with the Radicals. Labour and Communists stood as United Front candidates and in consequence had to sacrifice much of what was distinctive in their own programme. They had to deny to the workers that “Socialism is the only hope” and independence the only method. On the contrary, they had to say that capitalism is not so bad after all, provided that its representatives are Liberals, not Conservatives, and that it is administered by a Lib.-Lab. Government. They had to help save the Radical party from being reduced heavily in size. Here are some statements from Communist sources about how they helped the Labourites and Radicals. The Daily Worker (April 29th) denied the suggestion that the pact only helped the Communist Party: “This is not true. The Socialist vote has also increased compared with the last election in 1932.”

The following day the Daily Worker quoted from the Russian Communist paper, Izvestia, the statement that the Radicals “have preserved their influence among the main mass of their voters. This was the direct result of the fact that they had joined the Anti-Fascist People’s Front . . .”

This, it will be seen, proves that the Communists made and kept a bargain which was fair to the Radicals, but saving a capitalist Liberal Party from extinction is queer work for an alleged working-class party to be doing. In the same issue of the Daily Worker is an admission as to the way this party may be expected to act now the Communists have helped to save them. They “are rather apt to be in the United Front during elections, but out of it, and in the camp of the reactionaries after the election.”

The passage quoted below is taken from At the Parting of the Ways, by P. Braun, and has bearing on this policy of entering into pacts with capitalist parties in order to fight “reaction” It relates to France.

 It is hardly necessary to point out that such a system of sometimes tacit, and occasionally open, agreements played chiefly into the hands of the social-reformists of various tints, who represent themselves as fighters for ‘democracy’ against reaction.

This book was published by the Communist Party of Great Britain, and consists of an explanation of resolutions passed by the Communist International. The book goes on to give the “new” and correct policy decided on by the French Communist Party, a policy of “unswerving opposition” to Radicals and Labourites – “the voting of Communists for Radicals against the ‘rights’ should not be permitted.”

The book was an official Communist publication, but was published in 1928. What was demonstrably correct in 1928 is not – in Communist circles – of any interest in 1936, for in the meantime the foreign policy of the Russian Government has taken a new turn, and all sub-organisations have to come into line.

Capitalism Continues

The next question to consider is the outcome of the United Front victory.

The Communists and Labourites are making extravagant claims about the new Government. The Communist Daily Worker (May 4th) promised that victory would mean the abolition of slums in Paris; and the Communist leader, Maurice Thorez, says, “We have at our disposal a majority amply sufficient to carry out our programme, and the members of our party can face the future with joy.” (Daily Worker, May 5th).

These hopes are, of course, doomed to early disappointment. Where there is capitalism there will always be poverty, class-conflict, and discontent, and capitalism will remain in France. Just as Mr. J. H. Thomas declared on behalf of the Labour Government in 1929, that it proposed to work within capitalism, so Mr. Leon Blum, leader of the French Labourites, makes a similar declaration now. At first the election results frightened the capitalist investors, but Mr. Blum soon made a “reassuring statement,” and this “relieved the tension” on the stock exchange (Daily Telegraph, May 12th). Mr. Blum’s assurance was that he would govern “within the present social regime.” (Times, May 12th).  He also said :

  The aim of the Front Populaire would be to maintain buying power by preventing the diminution of wages and by the stimulation of all forms of economic activity – the possibilities being, of course, limited by the fact that they were working inside a capitalist system which they could not at present abolish. (Manchester Guardian, 11th May. Italics ours.)

The French Labour and Communist parties are thus caught in the trap into which the advocates of compromise always fall. They promise to solve certain urgent problems by entering into pacts with capitalist parties, hoping perhaps to gain strength later on to press forward. They forget that in taking on the administration of capitalism they do not gain strength, but lose it. They at once begin to earn the unpopularity and contempt which always centres on the Government which carries on capitalism. The effort to solve problems inside capitalism creates uncertainty, mistrust, apathy and despair among the workers who have cherished false hopes, and it correspondingly helps the Conservatives and Fascists later on.

A United Front for Great Britain

What, then, of a United Front in Great Britain, as advocated by the Communists? If modelled on that in France it would include the Labour Party and some of the Liberal Party groups, but in practice there is not much likelihood that either Liberals or Labour Party would consent to enter a pact with a party so unpopular and insignificant in size as the Communist Party of Great Britain.

Let us assume, however, that the Communist Party grows sufficiently in size and influence to be able to compel the Labour Party to come to terms, what would happen then? In the first place, if a United Front were formed, both Labour Party and Liberals would lose the votes of timid electors who would fear association with Communists, however innocuous the reform programme the latter agreed to support. On the other hand, in the unlikely event of an agreement being reached to withdraw opposition candidates in the constituencies, a United Front might, as the Daily Worker claims, have won a majority at the last election and then “there would have been no Baldwin Government.” (Daily Worker, April 29th). Instead – on the French example – there would have been a Labour-Liberal cabinet instead of the present Conservative-Liberal-National Labour cabinet. What difference would it have made? Doubtless it would have granted some more reforms, perhaps the raising of the school-leaving age to 15 without exemptions, and shorter hours, increased old-age pensions, etc. But it would have carried on the administration of capitalism, which means that it would perpetuate the private ownership of the means of wealth production and the consequent poverty and subjection of the workers. It would have helped employers against strikes. Nothing essential would have been changed. Capitalism and the forces making for war would be with us as now. Why need we wonder what might happen? We know by past experience. The present premier, Mr. Baldwin, is a Conservative. From 1906 to 1923 the premiers were Liberals. Did they keep peace and bring prosperity? No, Poverty, war and crisis. One of them, Mr. Lloyd George, formerly hated and denounced just as Mr. Baldwin is now, would certainly be one of the Liberal ministers in any such United Front Government. Moreover, have we not had two Labour Governments depending on Liberal support? What did they do to help overthrow capitalism? All they overthrew was themselves, hopelessly discredited. In Australia, Labour Governments with big majorities ruled for years and ended in similar abject failure.

The advocates of forming a United Front with non-Socialists and anti-Socialists cannot quote a single instance anywhere of the working-class being materially helped, or of the Socialist cause being aided, by their policy.

As against all this political wire-pulling, the Socialist Party stands for the policy of independence. Before Socialism can be achieved, control of the political machinery has to pass from the capitalists to the organised Socialist majority. It is the plain duty of Socialists, therefore, to work to remove the capitalists from Parliament and to avoid like the plague all pacts or propaganda which can only perpetuate in the workers’ minds the idea that capitalist rule is not so bad, provided that the capitalists are Liberals or Radicals or Labourites, not Tories or Fascists.

Unity is absolutely indispensable before Socialism can be achieved, but it must be unity of Socialists: on a Socialist programme and in a Socialist Party.

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: Collapse of the Popular Front in France (1938)

Editorial from the February 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

The French Popular Front Government has gone the way of all attempts to operate capitalism according to non-capitalist rules. It came in with a great blare of trumpets and goes out silent and discredited, each faction blaming the others for the miserable finale. Yet, paradoxical as it may sound to those who do not understand the true function of Labour Governments and Popular Front Governments, it was quite a success. That function is to get capitalism out of those political storms which arise when the working class, driven too far, revolt and threaten to upset the mechanism of exploitation. The French capitalists faced such a revolt two years ago, when the fever of sit-down strikes swept France. In came a Popular Front Government led by Blum, a “Socialist," and backed by the Communist Party. It passed some reform legislation, told the workers to be good boys and wait for better conditions when the “Socialist" Government got to work, and so the trick was done—or, at least, the French ruling class think it has been done. The workers are now confused and disappointed, the employers have recovered their nerve, and the old gang of capitalism think they can safely take the reins again. Altogether, the Popular Front has been a good investment for French capitalism.

The way the Government came to an end contains a lesson for those who hold the theory that a Labour or Popular Front Government can be neutral in the class struggle and keep the ring fairly for both employers and workers. A fortnight before it collapsed the Government invoked special powers to smash the Paris transport strike. “But," the apologist will say, “it is the duty of a Labour Government to keep the public services going and not allow the public to be intimidated by either workers or employers.”

We won’t waste time examining the fallacy of that argument but turn to the way the same Government acted to the employers a fortnight later. The Government called a conference of employers' and workers' organisations to discuss economic peace. The French equivalent of the Trades Union Congress readily consented, but big business treated it with disdain, and refused to attend except on unreasonable conditions, which they knew would not be acceptable.

Did the Government then call out the armed forces, clap some big business leaders in jail, and threaten the rest with martial law? Nothing of the kind.

What the Prime Minister actually did was to make a bitter speech in which, in addition to attacking speculators, he attacked the workers for striking. (Daily Herald, January 14th, 1938.) So ended the Popular Front Government.

“But,” the apologist will again say, “if the Government were to take action against the capitalists the existing organisation of society would be endangered and public opinion would be against them.”

All very true, but what then is left of the Labour Party’s case for reforming capitalism? And what is there left to say against the Socialist argument that working class problems can only be solved by abolishing capitalism, and capitalism can only be abolished after a majority of the population have been won over to want it abolished ?

One step forward can be recorded in France. Having had experience of this sort of thing, the French workers will not be so easily roused to enthusiasm next time capitalism lets a Popular Front Government extricate it from a crisis. Capitalism masquerading as Socialism is a fruit which the French workers will find less enticing in future. It has, if we may say so, lost its bloom.

Before the new Government was finally formed, Blum tried to get a Cabinet together.

Although he long ago declared that he would in no circumstances desert his Party, as did the late J. R. MacDonald in Great Britain, Blum attempted to form a coalition of seven parties, including' parties not in the Popular Front. His statement was as follows: —

  I am attempting to form a national coalition round the Popular Front.
 This becomes in practice an attempt to associate the representatives of all the parties of the Popular Front with men who have until now belonged to the Opposition, but who are known for their attachment to democratic liberties. (Daily Telegraph, 17th January, 1938.)

The attempt failed because M. Reynaud, who was expressly invited by Blum to join the new Government as Finance Minister, and "who has held this post in the Right Wing Governments of M. Laval and M. Tardieu . . . stipulated . . . that M. Marin's Right Wing group should be included." (Daily Telegraph, January 17th, 1938.) This condition M. Blum would not accept.

It will be noticed that the idea of a National Front, including Conservatives, was being canvassed about a year ago by Thorez, leader of the French Communists, and that when the new Government asked for a vote of confidence on first presenting itself to Parliament on January 21st, the Communists (and the Conservatives) were among the 500 who placed on record their confidence in this frankly capitalist Government.

Why the French Popular Front Failed (1939)

From the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Now that the discredited French Popular Front is out of office and in dissolution, the people who originated it are busy holding inquests and explaining why it failed. The Communists take a simple line. The Daily Worker (June 1st, 1939) says that the Front “suffered a setback because the whole force of British reaction was launched against it and there was no British Popular Front to rally to its defence.” This is a half-truth that is both untimely and unconvincing. Among the fairly consistent defenders of the French Popular Front Government was the London Times; and if the success of the Popular Front in France depended wholly on events in Great Britain, the proper time to say so was in 1936 before the Popular Front took office. At that date, however, the French Communists were in the Popular Front themselves and were making the most extravagant forecasts of its success. Their leader, Maurice Thorez, was saying in May, 1936, that “we have at our disposal a majority amply sufficient to carry out our programme, and the members of our party can face the future with joy.” The British Daily Worker (May 4th, 1936) was promising among other trifles that the victory of the Popular Front would mean the abolition of slums in Paris!

The Labour organ, the Daily Herald, was equally joyful, “it is,” said the Herald, “a beginning more hopeful than anything which France has known for many a long day.” (Herald, June 8th, 1936.)

We Told You So

Socialists dismissed these optimistic forecasts without the least hesitation. We said that the outcome was not in doubt. Blum and the Communists had, as they explicitly stated, taken on the job of running the capitalist system without the mandate or the intention to try to abolish it. THE SOCIALIST STANDARD (June, 1936) made the following comment: –

  “The French Labour and Communist Parties are thus caught in the trap into which the advocates of compromise always fall. They promise to solve certain urgent problems by entering into pacts with capitalist parties, hoping, perhaps, to gain strength later on to press forward. They forget that in taking on the administration of capitalism they do not gain strength but lose it. They at once begin to earn the unpopularity and contempt which always centres on the Government which carries on capitalism. The effort to solve problems inside capitalism creates uncertainty, mistrust, apathy and despair among the workers who have cherished false hopes. . . .”

Now everything that Socialists knew would happen has come to pass. The 40-hour week and other reforms passed by the Popular Front Government have been largely abandoned already. French workers who came out on strike against the Popular Front Government were met with martial law and bitter attacks by the Popular Front leaders. Enthusiasm based on false hopes has turned to apathy, and the French Labour movement is now at sixes and sevens within itself.

The Paris correspondent of the Economist (June 3rd, 1939) says that “M. Jouhaux, leader of the trade unions, admits that membership has fallen by 20 per cent, from the high levels of 1936.” Of the French Labourites (the Socialist Party of France) he writes: –

 “The Socialists have a strong position in the Chamber, but their credit is not high, and they are deeply divided. In three years their greatest political victory has been transformed into political defeat.”

The Paris correspondent of the Manchester Guardian (June 3rd, 1939) puts the loss of trade union membership higher than is admitted by M. Jouhaux. He estimates that it has fallen from 3,500,000 to under 2,000,000 while the membership of the reactionary Christian trade unions “has been growing and is now believed to stand near half a million.”

“All this,” he says, “has tended to eliminate all the old revolutionary agitation among the working class – an agitation which nearly broke M. Blum’s heart.”

Keeping the Workers Content with Capitalism

That last remark, about M. Blum’s view of his followers, may sound strange to the unthinking who suppose that a Labour Government should welcome an aggressive attitude among those it leads. What they forget is that anyone who takes on the administration of capitalism has to “govern or get out” – in other words, he has to use every means of safeguarding capitalism against any demands by the workers which endanger capitalism’s smooth working.

There is no question here of libelling M. Blum. He has himself been even more candid.

Just prior to the conference of his party at the end of May, M. Blum made a speech on the failure of the Popular Front. The Paris correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, after noting that the membership of the Party had fallen from 270,000 to 180,000, reported the speech as follows: –

  “Many French Socialists have also been disillusioned by the failure of the Front Populaire experiment – a policy which in a speech at St. Nazaire yesterday M. Blum attributed not only to a conspiracy of the vested interests, still less to the Senate which defeated both his Governments, but above all to the ‘unreasonable’ attitude of a certain part of the working-class itself. He explained that while he had always considered the Front Populaire experiment as a ‘reformist’ experiment to be carried out within the framework of the capitalist system, the workers treated it as something revolutionary.” – (Manchester Guardian, May 29th, 1939.)

The correspondent then reproduces a very illuminating passage in M. Blum’s own words : –

  “The Senate would never have overthrown us had it not had the impression that the working-class were no longer following our advice.”

The Guardian in its editorial (May 31st) put the matter a little more crudely when it said that the Blum Government fell rather because of its “inability to keep the working classes disciplined.”

This is the true function of Popular Front and Labour Governments no matter what the original good intentions of the individuals may be, that of “disciplining” the working class, of making them content with reforming capitalism instead of abolishing it.

That is why Socialists are opposed to the Labour and Popular Front policy of administering the capitalist system.

Edgar Hardcastle