Notes of the Month: Why Austrian Workers Support the Nazis (1938)

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

Why Austrian Workers Support the Nazis

H. N. Brailsford, writing in Reynolds, in August 7th, 1938, on the campaign of anti-Semitism in Austria, shows how the expropriation of wealthy Jews of £96,000,000, by the Nazi Government, has given the anti-Semite campaign the appearance of being anti-capitalist in the eyes of the workers. He says: “A big section of the Austrian working-class, watching this attack on the middle-class of Vienna, has come to believe that National Socialism really is a fort of Socialism.” The S.P.G.B. has consistently opposed the stupid notion that State ownership of the means of production is Socialism or in any way even remotely connected with it. But the Labour parties in this and other countries have just as consistently upheld the idea. How then can the workers be blamed for believing that the so-called National Socialism of the Nazis is a “form of Socialism” when they see the possessions of wealthy capitalists, who happen to be Jews, taken over by the State. The taking over of capitalist undertakings appears to be in accordance with what the workers have been taught to believe is Socialism. Believing that, it is not surprising that workers are not very distressed when the capitalists are Jewish. Not only are they not distressed, but, according to Brailsford, “all down the Danube the news of these doings has run, and in the great excitement the Nazi movement grows in Hungary, while the Slovak-Autonomist Party turns openly Fascist.”

He goes on: “Brutal stupidity wins its way because a part of the Austrian workers had not begun to grasp what Socialism means. Yet for education that able party did more than any other in Europe.”

Mr. Brailsford and the Labour Party might do well to ponder the significance of the events in Germany and Austria.

Wherefore Anti-Semitism

“They tell me, by the way, that Musso’s threat to the Jews in Italy—they number between 50,000 and 60,000—is an artful way of getting round his pledge to Neville that he will stop his propaganda in the Near East.

“This anti-Semitism would please the rebel Arabs even better.” (Hannen Swaffer, Daily Herald).

The British Government’s interests are served by Palestine being a home for the Jews. If the Italian Government acquired it they would be in a similar position. Meanwhile the conflict between British and Italian interests expresses itself in Italian anti-Semitism, supporting the Socialist contention that material interests are the basis of sentiment and ideas.

Popular Frontism

George Padmore, author of ”Africa and the Next War,” has some very pointed comments on the “Popular Front” idea in an article in Forward, August 13th, 1938. He shows that Popular Front governments administer capitalism in just the same way as other governments. In Pondicherry, for example, the agents of the Popular Front Government in France shot 150 workers who attempted to stage a stay-in strike when they heard that the Paris workers had taken possession of the factories.

George Padmore shows how far Popular Front governments serve the interests of Democracy: —

“The Spanish Popular Front, looking for aid from France, and clinging to its Moroccan territory, refused the request to grant certain democratic and civil rights to the Moorish delegations which visited Caballero long before the Civil War broke out. Senor Vicens, the noted Spanish educator and adviser to the Republican Government on colonial problems, revealed the impotence of the Popular Front to assist the colonial peoples' progress towards self-determination.

Interviewed in March, 1938, by a representative of the American Negro Journal, Opportunity, he stated: 'The Republic would have granted autonomy to Morocco readily, long ago, except that France would not permit it. France was fearful of the effect on her adjoining African colonies. As soon as Morocco had become an independent state, the French colonies would have demanded their liberation and independence France was not ready to grant them this, and we were bound to France by a spirit of co-operation."

French capitalist interests dare not grant democratic rights to the Moorish colonies, and could not approve of the Spanish Government doing so. Popular Front governments would break up when any element in them tried to use them to grant concessions which undermined capitalist interests. It's a hard world for idealists, but the class conflicts in capitalist society cannot be abolished by Popular Fronts; they must serve capitalist interests or go.

Casualties in The War that is Always With Us

Arising out of a statement on conditions in the mining industry by the Secretary of State for Mines in the House of Commons (July 25th), the following facts came to light: —

In 1937, 869 persons engaged on underground work were killed as compared with 790 in 1936; and the figures for the first six months of 1938 were still increasing. While 471 fatal accidents had occurred up till July 16th, in 1937, the figure for the same period in 1938 was no less than 635.

In one pit it was found that: —

The men, who work naked, lose, on an average, 11 lbs. every time they go down.

In the Pendleton Pits, where conditions were even more severe, as much as 18½ lbs. in weight were lost per day.

And the not less pointed fact was revealed that “more lives were lost from explosions in Britain than in any other country.”

Harry Waite

Prophecies on the Outcome of the War (1942)

From the January 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

To call forth a display of dialectical acrobatics among certain sections of the “Left” it is only necessary to ask the question: “Is this an Imperialist war?” The replies would arouse memories of youthful hours of immature speculation spent pondering such propositions as : “No straight line is so straight that in certain circumstances it could not be considered crooked. . . . No circle—in certain circumstances, an oval,” and etc. Supporters of the war, particularly those apologists whose political activities have been “anti-Imperialist,” would qualify their answers with something like this: “Well, it is not merely … or only … or solely an Imperialist war.” Aside from the Communist Party, which has long since ceased to deny that it stands for the interests of the Russian Government, there are few among the “Leftists” who would deny categorically that this IS an Imperialist war—whatever else might be involved, whether they support or oppose it.

The facts are inescapable. What does “an Imperialist war” mean if not that the outcome determines which group of powers will possess the world’s most fruitful imperial possessions? The chief concern of the British and American capitalists in the Far East is the defence of Imperial interests. The loss of strategic positions and the loss of political influence and control of key trading centres would destroy or considerably restrict the freedom to trade in the markets of the teeming millions in China, Asia and India. The chief concern of the British, American and Dutch capitalist class is to maintain and defend its existing privileges: the chief concern of the German, Italian and Japanese capitalist class is to wrest these privileges from them for themselves. Upon the outcome rests the power to derive profit and exploit the workers to the advantage of one group or to the disadvantage of the other. That is the simple position. This war basically is an Imperialist war. That much would be agreed, though not without qualifications, by many political opposites who support the war. But that does not dispose of the difficulties of those who seek logical grounds for their support. Indeed if support or opposition to the war were governed merely by the fact of its being demonstrably capitalist or Imperialist then there would be considerably less intellectual dyspepsia and acrimonious dispute in “Left” political circles.

F. A. Ridley and C. A. Smith in a Huddle

Take, for example, the controversy in the October issue of Left, between F. A. Ridley and C. A. Smith, both members of the I.L.P., which claims (1) that it is opposed to the war, and (2) that it is Imperialist. The controversy is narrowed to the question, “Is this solely an Imperialist war?” which Ridley affirms and Smith opposes. Ridley outlines the half century struggle between German and British capitalism and argues effectively that the present war is a culmination of that struggle. He allows for no other interpretation of his case than that there is no ground for support for war. To this point the issue is clear. From this point he becomes somewhat bogged by the Russian issue; “Socialists are justified,” says Ridley, “in advocating the (qualified) support of the Soviet Union.” Ridley defends this line because of “the undoubted possibilities of revolution and revolutionary war which the fall of Hitler . . . discloses.” Ridley’s approval of “(qualified) defence of the Soviet Union” logically should lead him to support the war. Russia is not fighting an independent war but as an ally of Imperialist Powers. On this point Smith has an easy task and scathingly replies to it. Perhaps Ridley’s attitude here is a concession to the I.L.P., whose policy, as far as it can be understood, is “opposition to the war,” and “defence of the Soviet Union.” But that is no excuse for Ridley.

C. A. Smith, in taking the negative on the question, “Is this solely an Imperialist war?” excels Ridley in the opposite direction. He argues that when “one side is engaged in a purely defensive struggle for freedom—such a struggle, other things being equal, has always been regarded by Socialists as progressive.” He quotes, and endorses, George Padmore’s statement in September Left that “China is fighting a progressive war of national liberation.” Further, he says: “. . . But what matters in politics is not motives but consequences [Smith’s italics], and while the attempt to clamp Nazism on the whole of Europe is reactionary, the endeavour to prevent the extension of Nazism to areas enjoying any [our italics] measure of political democracy, civil liberty, cultural freedom and national independence is politically progressive—even when waged by Imperialist powers.” “If there is nothing progressive about any phase of this war, then there is nothing in it for Socialists to support.”

It would not be unfair to Smith to say that he supports the war on the ground that it is “progressive.” The difficulty is to imagine any war in which Smith could not support one side or the other.

The Issue for Socialists

It is necessary to discount Smith’s statement that Socialists regard war as progressive when “one side is engaged in a purely defensive struggle for freedom.” It cannot be doubted that Mr. Smith so regards this war as do others in the Party of which he is a member and outside of it.

The first and fundamental fact about this war which has to be recognised is that it arises against the background of private ownership in the means of living and the world capitalist competitive struggle which flows from it. Without private ownership (and the only alternative is Socialism) it would not have arisen. It is, therefore, first, a capitalist war; not because of the “motives” of the ruling groups engaged in it, but because the objective world in which we live is a capitalist and competitive world. It is also an imperialist war because the object of the capitalist groups engaged in it is the defence of politically protected foreign capital investments (Imperial interests). Capitalism and Imperialism go together, and though conceivably wars could arise in the modern world which were not Imperialist the likelihood is small. The Spanish Civil War is an example where the struggle would not have arisen at all, or if it had, would have been of short duration, but for the Imperialist ambitions of the powers outside Spain who intervened.

This war is both capitalist and Imperialist.

It is certain that the British and American capitalists would not have engaged in it had it merely meant a threat of the extension of Nazism without the threat to their Imperialist interests. Whilst for Ridley the outcome of the “(qualified) defence of the Soviet Union” holds the possibility of the downfall of both Hitler and Stalin, and for Smith support for the war holds the (only?) possibility of the retention of political democracy and freedom and culture against the spread of Nazism, events might prove both to be wrong, and from their point of view the horrible sacrifice in life and devastation would have been in vain. A really terrifying prospect. Is it not possible that the reaction against Hitler in Germany and against Stalin in Russia might not hold the possibilities of the kind of “revolution” that Ridley anticipates? And even if the things Smith wants to see retained are retained, is it so certain that this alone will guarantee the world against years of bitter and exaggerated nationalisms among the world’s workers which are likely to arise out of years of fighting. Hitler, after all, managed to persuade German workers twenty years after the last war that their problems were due to the defeat of Germany in the first world war. Would anyone have anticipated that twenty years ago? Would Smith? Whatever the outcome of this war it cannot be guaranteed that the “consequences” will be “progressive” for the world working-class movement. Incidentally it was Smith who supported the Abyssinians against Italy. Whilst Socialists supported neither, there were many who, accepting “progressive” standards for judging the issue, argued, like Bernard Shaw, that the defeat, even by Fascist Italy, of those who composed the slave-owning ruling class of Abyssinia was “progressive.” To the Socialist the issue, of course, did not affect working class interests.

In the world to-day, neither Socialists nor even those who masquerade under the title, control events. They are remote from the time when they can. The fact has to be faced that events might produce setbacks, real or apparent, despite their will or desire. Whilst the workers are in the main not ready for Socialism this is unavoidable. It is in line with the logic of things. There is, however, no proof to be adduced that Socialism is necessarily delayed by such setbacks, or that the reactions to them would not be followed by such neutralising factors as circumstances which would favour’a corresponding acceleration in the spread of Socialist ideas.

The time has not yet come when Socialists can consciously plan to overcome events. In the meantime, however, we reject any evils which the world offers as choice. The Socialist does not have to choose which is the less of the evils. In a world where the majority are dispossessed of the means of living and where the minority who own quarrel between themselves over possessions which should belong to society, working-class independence should remain among the first and fundamental of Socialist principles.

Harry Waite

More Blessings of British Imperialism (1939)

From the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the February issue of the Socialist Standard we gave evidence of the plight of the coloured workers in the West Indies. In the April issue we drew attention to the way natives were being suppressed in the British colonies of Cyprus and Kenya.

News of brutal suppression comes now from Sierra Leone. Mr. George Padmore, General Secretary of the International African Service Bureau, tells of the state of affairs in Sierra Leone in a letter to the Manchester Guardian Weekly (June 16th, 1939).

A few extracts from his letter seem to indicate that the freedom so often boasted of in connection with the British Empire is unknown in Sierra Leone. Here are a few points from his letter : —

“During the past months a number of strikes have occurred in the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone, British colonies in West Africa. In Sierra Leone the workers’ leaders were arrested and kept in prison for one month and eight days without trial, in order to demoralise the strikers and force them back to work. All these efforts at official intimidation have, however, been without success. In order to arrest the development of free trade unionism and to curb political activities of the workers, an attempt to impose upon the natives the most repressive legislation is now being made.”

Laws are about to be passed by the Legislative Council (“a body on which the workers have no representation on account of the property qualifications, which exclude them”). The results of these laws, says Padmore, will be : —

“1. Where natives of Sierra Leone are sentenced to deportation they will be segregated in special areas in concentration camps, and if they or their family are in possession of any kind of means compelled to contribute to their maintenance there.”

“2. Any British subject (Englishman, Scot, Australian, West Indian, etc.) who renders any assistance to native workers and peasants in Sierra Leone in forming trade unions or co-operative societies can be arrested and deported from the colony.”

“3. The Undesirable Literature Ordinance will empower the Governor to prohibit the publication, importation, circulation and reading in the colony of any book, pamphlet, newspaper, magazine or any other kind of literature which in his opinion is undesirable. The possession of such proscribed literature will constitute a criminal offence punishable by two years’ imprisonment.”

“4. The ordinance outlining penalties for incitement to disaffection is aimed at subduing agitation among the armed forces. In Sierra Leone unrest is widespread, not only among the industrial workers, but throughout the Civil Services and armed forces. The new ordinance will prevent any soldier from purchasing and reading of his own will any book even so remotely revolutionary as George Bernard Shaw’s ‘Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism.’ . . . All persons and premises may be searched upon suspicion of harbouring such literature or being connected with agitation, by force if necessary.”

It will be noticed that the authorities in Sierra Leone, in order to keep their coloured wage-slaves in subjection, are using methods which, we are told, are foreign to “the democratic spirit of Britain,” but peculiar to the Fascist states.

Mr. George Padmore ends his letter by asking those “British people who value their own liberties and respect those of other nationals” to send letters of protest to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

We sympathise with the natives of Sierra Leone, but we are afraid that little can be achieved on their behalf by sending letters of protest.

The British are in Sierra Leone to exploit the natives, to make profits for a parasite capitalist class, and make profits they will, even if this means untold suffering for thousands.

If the workers of Britain wish to end the suffering now forced upon natives within the Empire, they will have to end their own sufferings also. They will have to take matters into their own hands. They will have to gain control of the machinery of government with the express purpose of abolishing capitalism, for, as long as capitalism lasts, brutality in many forms will be found. This is only to be expected when to-day there is a class in society which lives on the backs of the workers, which lives by exploiting them. Profits must be produced to enable our exploiters to live in idleness and luxury—that is a law of capitalism. What the consequences are for the millions of toilers is of little importance to the capitalists. As long as the profits are forthcoming, the workers can live in poverty, dwell in slums, be blown to bits in war. If the workers acquiesce in capitalism, they must expect brutalities, every day and everywhere.

Incidentally, what hope one can place in “protests” to help the natives of Sierra Leone can be seen from a letter to the Manchester Guardian Weekly, published in the very same issue as Mr. Padmore’s. It is from “A British Resident” in Cyprus and deals with affairs there. The writer complains that the intervention attempted by the Manchester Guardian on behalf of the natives some months ago has been fruitless. He writes: —

“In December last you called, in a leading article, for action by Parliament. Some questions were asked, which were more or less unsatisfactorily answered; but since then nothing has been done, though things have tended to become more and more repressive, especially in regard to attempts to form trade unions.”

In Cyprus, he says, “newspapers have been suppressed, partially and entirely, or placed under censorship, without the offence being specified, and without the offender being given a chance to argue his case before a responsible tribunal.”

It is clear that the British capitalist class is being hypocritical when it directs the attention of their workers to the brutalities performed in Germany, China and other states.

To those workers who are growing tired of their own exploitation and would like to bring a speedy end to the brutal suppression which capitalism causes everywhere, we extend an invitation. We invite them to join with us in our struggle for Socialism—a system of society which will bring to an end their own exploitation and “will involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex.”

Clifford Allen.

Since the above was written there comes news of still further strife within this glorious Empire of “ours.” The Evening Standard (June 17th, 1939) reports that: “Renewed strike troubles in Jamaica led to a pitched fight in one of Kingston’s main thoroughfares. The fighting lasted an hour, and I was ended when police fired warning shots over the heads of the crowd.”

And it is this “one big, happy family” (the British Empire) you are asked to lose your life in defending. Remember that, Fellow Worker !

National Hatred: A Capitalist Weapon (1939)

From the August 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the earliest days of working-class history, racial hatreds and national antagonisms have repeatedly been an obstacle to working-class solidarity and organisation.

Capitalists and their agents know the value of keeping alive these antagonisms. They know quite well that, whilst the workers remain divided racially and nationally, their own privileged position in society will remain secure.

It is largely to divert the attention of the German workers from a critical examination of the true cause of their poverty, from an examination of the capitalist system, that the Nazi set them against the Jews. However, it would be a very serious mistake to think that Hitler has the monopoly of this technique of hindering working-class organisation. On the contrary, it would be difficult to find a capitalist class of any country which has not at some time or other stirred up its workers against those of another nation or race. 

The British capitalist class has done its share of this sort of thing. For example, a few years ago the Press of this country used to regale us week after week with atrocity tales about Russians. This was partly due to the fact that the true significance of the Russian upheaval was not understood by the capitalists. So long as they mistakenly thought that socialism was being established in Russia, they did their best to make the workers of Britain think that Russians were the arch-enemies of civilisation. When it was discovered that Russia was developing along capitalist lines, these stories became less frequent. In recent years, the Japanese, Italians and the Germans have taken the place of the Russians in the British Press. This is because the capitalists of Japan, Italy and Germany threaten the interests of the British capitalists.

We are not suggesting that there is no truth in these atrocity stories; very likely, most of them are true. The point we wish to make is that they would not be given so much publicity unless the British capitalist class wished to rally its workers to the defence of British capitalism against the attacks of likely aggressors.

Little publicity is given to the French method of railway construction in Equatorial Africa. And yet for sheer brutality it is equal to anything perpetrated by the Germans, Japs or Italians. What fine stories the British Press could give us about French Imperialism—and would give us—if British and French imperialist interests were in conflict.

Londres, the French journalist, in his book “The Land of the Black,” describes the construction of railways in the French equatorial colonies as follows: —

   “Here the Negro is used instead of machinery, instead of everything else, in fact. He takes the place of the machine, the motor-lorry, the crane. And were it only possible, he would be used instead of explosives, too !
   "The Negroes died like flies. Of the 8,000 that came to Batignaloes only 5,000 were soon left, and then 4,000, and later 1,700. New recruits had to take their places. . . .
   “We started to hunt the Negroes. Our men caught them as best they could with the help of lassoes, etc. We put 'collars' on them, as they are called here. . . . The death rate increased. . . .  'We must reckon with a loss of six or eight thousand people,' said Governor General Antonette, ‘or give up the railway.' But the number of victims was greater. To-day it already exceeds 17,000, and there is still about 200 miles to go! . . . We are woodcutters in the human forest." (Quoted in George Padmore's "Life and Struggles of Negro Toilers.")

Again we venture to say that if French capitalist schemes of aggression were threatening British capitalist interests to-day, such stories as the above about the French (and many others like them) would be plastered on the front pages of the dailies, with the juiciest of headlines.

Racial hatreds have been of great service to the capitalist classes of America. Both in Latin America (Brazil, Cuba and Colombia) and in the United States, the idea is carefully nurtured among “white" workers that the “black" is his enemy. Here we have the capitalists importing negroes to work in their concerns because they can force them to accept low wages, and then doing all in their power to rouse white against black so as to prevent them from joining forces.

Incidentally, the same thing happened here last century. Irishmen were brought to England to work at cheap rates and then the capitalist played off the Irish and English Workers, one against the other. About this, Marx wrote in 1869: —

   "The English bourgeoisie has not only exploited Irish poverty in order to worsen the condition of the working class in England, by the forced transplantation of poor Irish peasants, but it has, moreover, divided the proletariat into hostile camps. . . . The average English worker hates the Irish as a competitor who lowers his wages and level of living. He feels national and religious antagonism towards him. . . . This antagonism between the proletarians of England is artificially cultivated and maintained by the bourgeoisie. It knows that in this antagonism lies the real secret of maintaining its power" (Italics are Marx's.)

George Padmore, in his "Life and Struggles of Negro Toilers," has much to say about the methods used by the capitalist class of the United States to cause black and white workers to hate each other. He says (p. 62) that “some of the most active agents of the Oppressors are the preachers, who go round the countryside stirring up racial hatred and mob law against the Negroes." He tells, too, how after the lynching of two Negroes, Shipp and Smith, at Marion, Indiana, pictures of their charred bodies were sold in the shops of the city of Terre Haute. "Over 3,256 Negro farmers and workers have met their death at the hands of white lynching mobs between 1885 and 1930" (p. 50).

With regard to Latin America, Padmore has noticed happening there what Marx observed in England. He writes: "The national bourgeoisie and the Yankee imperialists . . . consciously foster the feeling of national chauvinism and race prejudice among the native Negro and white workers against the Negroes from Haiti and Jamaica. Cases are not rare when these foreign black slaves become the victims of most brutal chauvinistic persecution on the part of the native workers themselves, who are made to believe that by doing so they are defending their own economic interests.

   "With respect to wages, both the native and foreign Negroes always receive less wages for the same amount of work as the white workers, while the imported blacks get even less than the native Negroes. Through this method of wage discrimination the imperialists and the native capitalists are able to split up the class interest of the workers into different parts and play one off against the other."

The fact that the agents of capitalism are able to stir up workers of one country against another is proof of the immaturity of the working class. It is a proof that up to now the workers are without a true understanding of their position in capitalist society. They are still ready to consider their own interests identical with those of their master class.

C. A. Allen