Editorial: Where They Stand on Conscription: Labour Party, Liberals and Communists (1939)

Editorial from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

The attitude of the Labour Party towards Conscription as shown by the votes at the special Conference in May was exactly what Socialists expected. The Executive’s resolution condemning conscription because the voluntary system has not failed, and at the same time approving the “participation in all steps necessary to secure the proper protection of the civilian population in time of war” was carried by 1,967,000 to 574,000 (Daily Herald, June 1st.) An amendment which deplored the action of the E.C. in according support to the Government’s National Service scheme and National Register, and called for a cessation of all further support of National Service schemes (with the exception of A.R.P.), was defeated by 1,767,000 to 729,000.

At the Liberal Party Conference, according to the Manchester Guardian’s report (May 13th, 1939), “after a long debate the Liberal Party Conference at Scarborough yesterday adopted a resolution ‘reluctantly’ accepting conscription.”

An amendment favouring uncompromising opposition to conscription “was overwhelmingly defeated.”

The Communist Party, as was also to be expected, came out in favour of conscription but not under a Chamberlain Government. Their official statement, published in the Daily Worker (May 24th, 1939), contains the following: —

“The Communist Party has fought Chamberlain’s Conscription Bill on the grounds that Chamberlain’s introduction of Conscription is designed, not for the purposes of strengthening the military forces of a Peace Front against aggression, but in pursuance of his reactionary policy of collaboration with Fascism abroad and attack on the working-class and democratic movement at home.

The question of Conscription cannot be treated as a question of abstract principle, irrespective of the Government which operates it.

. . . under a different Government which genuinely stood for peace and resistance to Fascism, the question of compulsory military training would take on a different complexion. The voluntary principle is no absolute democratic principle. . . .

In all the great struggles of the people—in the English Civil War, in the French Revolutionary Wars, in the Russian Revolution, in the War of Spanish Democracy—the principle of compulsory military service has been applied.”

The statement also calls on the workers to “decisively reject the pacifist propaganda which proposes the futile path of individual resistance to conscription.”

A few days later, June 3rd, the Daily Worker was quoting Lenin and Liebknecht in condemnation of Conscientious Objectors.

One quotation from Lenin has a special interest. Lenin wrote : —

“An oppressed class which does not learn the use of arms, to possess them, and to become practised in them, is only fit to be oppressed, ill-treated and handled like slaves.”

The interesting point is the demand that workers should “possess” arms. There used to be a Communist slogan “Arms for the Workers,” but when the Bolshevik Government had got firmly in the saddle it took the Russian workers’ arms away from them. Are we to understand that if and when the Communists persuade the Labour Party, the Liberals, and Mr. Winston Churchill, etc., to form a Popular Front Government, the Government will let the workers keep their arms ?

Notes by the Way: From Mosley to Cripps (1939)

The Notes by the Way Column from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

From Mosley to Cripps

Capitalism’s crises, and the efforts of reformist politicians to grapple with them, produce curious feats of political tight-rope walking, coat-turning, and somersaulting. In 1931 Sir Oswald Mosley and his associates, including Mr. W. J. Brown, rebelled against the Labour Party leadership, and announced the formation of a New Party, with a new policy. Their argument was that critical times demanded drastic remedies. Socialism must be put into cold storage—”questions of the ultimate goal of society are excluded by the very urgency of the problem which confronts us” (“A National Policy,” published by the Mosley Group). It will be observed that the argument used by Mosley and Brown then is identical with that being used by Sir Stafford Cripps. But why aren’t Mosley and Brown backing Cripps? Sir Oswald Mosley is now a Fascist, and finds himself quite out of step with his old associates. He says that compulsory military training in this country is not necessary, and that “it was being imposed because those who had capital—about £300,000,000—invested in Eastern European countries feared for its safety.” (From a speech at Dalston, May 7th, reported in Times, May 8th, 1939.)

Mr. W. J. Brown, on the other hand, is all for conscription, and is not deterred by the argument that war for Britain means war for capitalist Britain. Speaking in support of conscription at the Conference of the Civil Service Clerical Association, Mr. Brown said: “I hold that the survival in the world even of Chamberlain’s Britain is worth a war, to ensure that it does not go under.” (Daily Telegraph, May 12th, 1939.)

Sir Stafford Cripps finds himself using the Mosley-Brown argument of 1931, but is at daggers-drawn with both of them. He wants foreign alliances against Fascism, but he thinks that the urgent task of the moment is to get rid of the Chamberlain National Government — hence the Popular Front campaign. Speaking at the Labour Party Conference in May last, where he was voted down heavily, he declared that “a Great Britain without a National Government is the Mecca of everyone in this Conference.” (Daily Telegraph, May 30th, 1939.) He thinks that the National Government under Chamberlain represents something nearly as bad as Fascism; but he did not always think that way. In November, 1935, he said of the Baldwin National Government, that it had “done quite well for a capitalist Covernment. . . . There is really very little case at all for an alternative Government within the capitalist system. . . .” (Quoted in “Unity, True or Sham,” Labour Party, 1d.)

That is how they stand at the moment. Where will they be in a few years’ time? Sir Stafford’s brother, Colonel the Hon. F. H. Cripps, in an article in the Evening Standard (May 30th), says that Lord Baldwin in 1930 tipped Sir Stafford as “a future Conservative Prime Minister.” Who knows? Or will it be Brown or Mosley ?

Wages Under Fascism

The Labour Party and Trade Unions and, latterly, the Conservative Press, use the argument that under Fascism wages are heavily and continuously reduced. The Communists, before their new-found enthusiasm for democratic capitalism, used to say the same about wages here. In both cases they never explain how it is possible for an originally low standard of living to be continuously reduced by large amounts year after year. Either the original level must have been very high, or alternatively, the present generation must be rapidly dying of starvation. The truth is that the changes have been smaller in amount than the over-zealous propagandists would have us believe, and it is not, in the long run, useful to employ fallacious arguments against Fascism. The case founded on fact is quite strong enough, anyway. Capitalists, whether under Fascism or democracy, are interested in making profits, and to do so they seek to force wages to the lowest possible level, but even the greed for profits does not permanently blind them to the fact that the worker cannot work efficiently if grossly underfed. Moreover, the forces which from time to time enable the workers to secure upward adjustments of wages, operate under Fascist capitalism as well as in the democracies. One of these is the shortage of labour, which has recently become very much evident, particularly in Germany. Under the influence of that shortage German workers have been able to get wage increases, even in spite of the efforts of the Government to keep wages down and the destruction of Trade Unionism. A similar situation of labour shortage existed in Great Britain during the war, and the method of evasion is exactly the same. Dr. Mansfield, an official of the Ministry of Labour in Germany, an article by whom is summarised in the Manchester Guardian (June 1st, 1939), “reveals that in many industries the official restrictions on wages have been dodged by employers competing for labour. Bonuses, expenses, holiday contribu¬tions, etc., are being offered to entice workers from other firms.”

The Manchester Guardian says that this has become so prevalent that, in the words of Dr. Mansfield, “the State has temporarily lost control of wages and incomes.”

The German authorities have tried to fix maximum wages, but haphazard attempts to enforce them have “caused much tension.” It is safe to say that, so long as the labour shortage continues, the efforts of the Government will continue to be ineffectual since the employers themselves, or many of them, will have an interest in evading the law. Dr. Mansfield also mentions the fact that the increase in the hours of work has not been a success from the employers’ point of view. Output did not increase proportionately, and there was a rapid increase in illness. As a result of this and the accompanying unrest, the authorities have reduced overtime in many factories, and the official organ of the Nazi Labour Front “has proclaimed the eight-hour day as the most likely measure to keep up a steady output in most industries.”

The above relates to a fairly recent tendency.

It is much more difficult to say what has been the total result of Fascism, so far as wages are concerned. Most reports say unhesitatingly that wage levels as a whole are lower, but one competent observer, Mr. C. W. Guillebaud, in his detailed inquiry, “The Economic Recovery of Germany,” thinks that the standard of living of the German workers has been rising in recent years, and is above the level of 1929. All such estimates must be received with caution, because the subject itself is a difficult one, which does not lend itself to simple sweeping generalisations, but, at least, we can reject as false the view that democratic capitalism, compared with Fascism, is working class prosperity compared with destitution.

Another interesting news item relates to Italy. Early in March the Government ordered wage increases ranging from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent., and The Times correspondent in Rome reported that “this general rise in wages, coming so suddenly, is a bitter pill for employers.” (Times, March 9th.)

Doubtless, the wage increase was given largely, if not entirely, to meet past increases in the cost of living—which shows once more how capitalist economic laws operate, Fascism or no Fascism.

Loud Cheers in the House of Commons

In the official declarations of the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Conservatives over a period of years will be found definite promises to abolish unemployment within the capitalist system, or at least to reduce it to small proportions. Each party in opposition has savagely and indignantly denounced the other parties when in power for failing to fulfil their pledges regarding unemployment. On June 5th occurred a little incident which shows just how little the M.P.s themselves believe in the possibility of abolishing unemployment under capitalism. The following is from a report of Parliamentary proceedings, published in the News Chronicle (June 6th, 1939).

“With his customary cheerfulness Mr. Ernest Brown, who has now performed the feat of being Minister of Labour for four years, announced the fall of 152,112 in the number of unemployed in the House of Commons last night.

Members cheered and cheered again when he added that the total figure was now below a million and a half—1,492,281.”

Just think of it. They actually cheered because the number of unemployed is ONLY 1 millions—representing, with their families, from 3 to 4 million men, women and children of prosperous Britain!

Why the League of Nations Failed. A Laughable Capitalist Explanation

Three-quarters of a century ago Marx poked fun at the sentimentally-minded capitalist reformers who wanted to keep capitalism intact, but purify it by abolishing its inevitable effects. We have them with us still, Sir Arthur Salter, in “Security: Can we Retrieve It?” sets out to explain, among other things, that the League of Nations was not foredoomed to failure, “its failures were largely due to accident.” The phrase here quoted is from a long review of Salter’s book, written by Mr. J. L. Hammond (Manchester Guardian, May 16th, 1939). What were these “accidents”? The “first bad accident” was the “fall of the franc,” which “brought Poincaré back to power in France.”

The second bad accident was “the economic depression of 1929 and the financial crisis of 1931.” This crisis destroyed the hopes that had been based on the “new spirit of co-operation.” It produced the National Government in Great Britain, and also the Nazi regime in Germany, which owes its success “to a combination of political resentment and economic distress. Sir Arthur Salter thinks that neither would have sufficed without the other.”

In short, if only capitalism had not produced a series of economic crises and international tensions resulting from commercial rivalries, then the League would not have been hit by these “accidents,” and would have succeeded. And if, of course, capitalism in future could be pruned of its capacity for causing never-ending economic poverty and class-conflict at home and fierce international conflicts of interests abroad, then the League would succeed. What could be clearer than that? Pigs could fly if they had wings, only then they wouldn’t be pigs. Capitalism would be fine if only it weren’t capitalism, but then there wouldn’t be any need for a League of Nations.

From Marx to “Financial Times”

In its editorial of May 9th, 1939, the Financial Times expresses the concern felt by the capitalists at the threatened scarcity of workers—”in many skilled trades connected directly and indirectly with rearmament the demand for labour has already out¬run supply.”

In view of the fact that the registered unem¬ployed still number nearly If millions, or 11.4 per cent., it might be thought that there can, so far, be no question of a shortage.

The Financial Times says, however, that: —

“The normal turnover of labour in the various industries accounts for a short-term unemployment of about 6 to 8 per cent. of the working population, whereas about 4 per cent. has in the recent past been attributable to those affected by structural changes in industry, mostly in the depressed areas. Unless the latter can be found alternative occupation—and this may be by no means easy—the limits of full employment are fairly closely reached when the numbers of unemployed are within 10 to 12 per cent. of the total employable population.”

The conclusion drawn is that we are “getting within close limits of the pool of reserves normally required for the adequate functioning of labour movement inwards and outwards.”

What is, however, more interesting is the following : —

“ . . the unemployed who have presented a harassing social problem to every Government in the post-war period now appear in the guise of an invaluable reserve of labour supply.”

Note that phrase, “invaluable reserve of labour supply.” It exactly sums up what Marx said about three-quarters of a century ago concerning the attitude of the capitalist to the unemployed.

After explaining why capitalism necessarily produces unemployment, Marx continued: —

“But if a surplus working-class population is a necessary product of accumulation, or of the development of wealth upon a capitalist basis, on the other hand this over-population becomes a lever promoting capitalists accumulation and is indeed a necessary condition of the existence of the capitalist method of production. It forms an available industrial reserve army, which belongs to capital no less absolutely than if the capitalists had bred the members of this army at their own cost. For its own varying needs in the way of self-expansion, capital creates an ever-ready supply of human material fit for exploitation, and does so independently of the actual increase in population.”—(“Capital,” Vol. 1, page 698. Allen & Unwin Edition.)

What King George Told the Americans

A correspondent of the News Chronicle in U.S.A. reports the following conversation between King George VI and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Hopkins: —

“There is another Washington story about what the King said to Secretary of Commerce Hopkins when the subject of social reform was being discussed. After Hopkins had explained what was being done here, the King amiably told him, ‘We did many of these things in England much earlier than you have. The capitalists have retained control in America longer than they did in my country.’”— (News-Chronicle, June 16th, 1939.)

King George is hopelessly wrong about his facts, but are we to conclude from his remark that he thinks it would be a good thing if the capitalists had been ousted ?

Catholic Bishop Condemns Rebellion in Ireland, Not in Spain

Those who recall the support given by the bulk of the Catholic dignitaries to the Franco rebellion against the constitutionally-elected Government of Spain will read with surprise a speech made by the Bishop of Ross, Monsignor Casey, at Rosscarberry, County Cork, on May 7th, 1939.

“Saint Paul lays down very clearly the duties of the citizen towards the Government of the country. He tells us that all power comes from God, and that unlawful resistance to the lawfully appointed Government cannot be done without incurring a great crime. You have the privilege of appointing those who are to rule over you. You did so, and any person who resists the Government you have elected, resists it by murder, burning and looting of property, by assault and other violent means.

All such persons, and all who aid or support them, are guilty of great sin before God.”—(Dublin Evening Mail, May 8th, 1939.)

Far from denouncing Franco as criminal and sinner, we find the Pope,, on June 11th, receiving 200 Franco soldiers and thanking them for defending “the faith and civilisation” of Spain. (Manchester Guardian, June 12th).

The “Daily Mail” Tells all About the Russian Parliament

The Daily Mail, which used to be so hostile to everything Bolshevik has changed its tune now that it badly wants the Anglo-Russian pact to go through. One change is the publication of articles on Russia, friendly in tone. One such article (June 1st, 1939) is called “Yes, there is a Parliament in Russia.” It tells of the electoral system and the work of the Russian Parliament; all about the universal, equal, direct suffrage, secret ballot, etc., etc. Well, not quite all, for it omits entirely to mention that the elections are run on totalitarian lines, only the Communist Party being allowed to exist and no opposition candidates permitted.

The omission must have been accidental: or would it perhaps be tactically unwise to spoil the “democratic” alliance by mentioning such things?

Who Benefits from Empire? 

The following is from an article on French Morocco, in the Manchester Guardian (May 15th, 1939). “Not that Morocco has ‘paid’ France as a nation; on the contrary, the cost to the French State has been very great. But occupation has obviously paid the French banks to judge by a comparison of their offices with those of their British competitors; it has paid the French steel companies, who supply the Moroccan railways, and despite the lack of mining concessions it has paid the French mining companies who provided the machinery and direction for the State mines. In a word, Morocco—like other colonies—has provided out-relief for the investing classes. It has, perhaps, profited the 300,000 French people who have settled in Morocco since the war. It has not profited the Frenchman who stayed at home, but it has given him a great achievement—and presumably, that is worth paying for.”

The National Income in Russia and India

The issue of the Economist for June 10th, 1939, reviews two books, one by Mr. Colin Clark, on the Russian national income (“A Critique of Russian Statistics,” Macmillan, 6s.), and the other by Mr. V. K. R. V. Rao ("India’s National Income,” Allen & Unwin, 6s.).

The estimated national income in Russia in 1937 was £4,637,000,000—almost identical with the estimated national income of Great Britain in the same year. The population of Russia is, however, nearly four times as great, so that the average per head of the population is about £28 in Russia and £100 in Great Britain.

As regards the upward movement of the aggregrate national income in Russia, the Economist, after making certain adjustments for armament expenditure and revised population figures, concludes that in 1928 the amount available per head of the population was rather smaller than in Czarist days.

“Between 1928 and 1934 the aggregate national income rose by 16 per cent. whilst the population only increased by 8 per cent. But this increase was entirely due to the expansion of industry. The supply of meat, milk and eggs was halved; that of other foods was barely keeping pace with the increase in population.”

Between 1934 and 1937 the aggregate income has increased more rapidly, although much of the increase has been swallowed up in armaments.

“If defence expenditure is assumed to have trebled in the three years, living conditions might have improved to the extent of 5 or 10 per cent. “

The book on India discloses an appalling condition after long years of British rule. The national income

“works out to a little more than a rupee (1s. 6d.) a day for a family of five, and the figure includes the incomes of both the millionaire and the manual labourer.”

The mass of the Indian population

“live in hovels, have only a few clothes, know no furniture, rarely drink milk, hardly ever eat meat or fruit or other expensive, though nutritious, items of diet.”

The Indian national income is estimated to be increasing very slowly, by about 1 per cent, per annum.

With regard to all estimates of the amount and increase of national income, it is hardly necessary to remark that the mass of the population are not benefited by an increase in the total production of wealth if the additional amount goes to benefit the privileged minority or is wasted in armaments.

Labour M.P. Does Not Like German Trading Methods

During a debate on the Government’s foreign trade policy, in the House of Commons, on June 9th, one Labour M.P., Mr. W. G. Cove (Aberavon) accused another Labour M.P., Mr. E. Shinwell (Seaham, Durham) of wanting “economic war with Germany,” “sheer, naked war.” (Hansard, June 9th, Col. 812.)

Hard words, but certainly justified, as can be seen from the following, which are typical passages in Mr. Shinwell’s speech: —

“. . . Clearly the Government must make up their minds what is their objective in relation to foreign trade. Is it to recapture, our lost markets, no matter where they are …. or are we to allow Germany, by the employment of questionable devices, to prevent this country from re-establishing herself in foreign markets?”

The Government spokesman had said that this country must get its share of the Rumanian and other Balkan markets. Mr. Shinwell said: —

“. . . the right hon. gentleman must do more than that. He must obtain from those markets the greatest possible share, irrespective of the claims of other countries; otherwise our export trade cannot prosper. There is no half-way house. We must go forward.”

And again : —

“If Germany will persist in using devices which adversely affect our foreign trade, we must, for our own protection, employ discriminating devices, whether they are regarded as economic war or not. On the other hand, if Germany will refrain fromemploying questionable devices of that kind, and if Germany will play the game …. it is obviously all to the good that we should assist Germany to maintain her economic position and even to improve it.”

There is only one thing more dangerous than a reformist movement which is passive and quiescent all round, that is, one which develops aggressive tendencies and wants to be more assertive about capitalist foreign interests than the capitalists themselves.

News is still awaited as to the way Goebbels, Goering and Hitler received Mr. Shinwell’s appeal to them “to play the game.” Play the game, you cads!

Edgar Hardcastle

Whither Britain? (1939)

From the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Before the War, the Labour movement of this and other countries had come to regard the progress of democracy as something inevitable. In spite of the lean time democracy has gone through since the suspension of hostilities, both Labour leaders and ruling-class politicians still successfully manage to create the myth that, in England, at any rate, democracy is still the order of the day. Democracy here is said to provide a striking contrast to the totalitarianism of Hitler and Mussolini; indeed, the chief task of our politicians to-day is to maintain that illusion above all others in the minds of people. But the view of the Socialist has always been that, although the growth of capitalism necessitates certain democratic features, anti-democratic elements are also bound up with its continuation. In spite of feverish appeals to defend democracy, signs are not wanting that, behind this façade, the ruling class are getting ready to march along a path similar to that of Hitler’s Germany. There is no doubt that the development of capitalism in recent years has modified much of the normal workings of the system and has thrown up, as a result, new and more complex problems to be solved. The attempts to solve these problems, as always, endanger working-class interests. It is true, of course, that the basis of capitalism is the two-class nature of society, with its contrasts of riches and poverty, and the contradictions which arise from the ownership by a small section of society of the means of wealth production. Nevertheless, the working class should become aware of these changes and what they entail in democratic England as well as Fascist Germany. It is childish to assume that what is happening in Germany is independent of the remainder of the capitalist world. The problems confronting the ruling class in Germany are in the last analysis the problems that confront the capitalist class of the rest of the world. What are these problems? They are the furtherance of the interests of the national sections of the capitalist class in order to maintain or secure what is euphemistically called “a place in the sun,” or, more brutally, to satisfy the insatiable quest for profits. The task before the German ruling class is to secure for itself a privileged position, but it can only do so at the expense of its brother, the English capitalist class.

Thus Fascism is not only bound up with world capitalism but is itself a product of it. The defeated ruling class in Germany, stripped of its former colonies, its territory in Europe annexed, and weighted down by reparations, was forced into a desperate position. The Social Democracy, along with the other political parties, though trying to rebuild German capitalism, had been unable to continue doing so, because they lost working-class support and therefore ceased to be a fitting instrument. The conditions of the working class had not improved, as the Social Democrats promised they would. The task of Fascism became then one of restoring German capitalism to its pre-war strength and at the same time gaining the confidence of large sections of the working class, peasants and middle layers of the population, by promising to free capitalism from the anomalies that ordinarily affect it. The demagogue Hitler promised to provide work for all, to establish economic and national security and to balance out the periodic fluctuations and crises associated with capitalism. Thus, the first task of Hitler on attaining political power was to provide work of some kind for the six million unemployed. It was useless to produce consumption goods depending for their sale upon an increased purchasing power of the people. What was needed was a type that would not be thrown upon an already saturated market. New roads, land improvement schemes, military equipment, such as barracks, guns and aeroplanes, can be produced independently of the income of the masses. It is even possible under those conditions to produce a growing volume of these goods while wages are being steadily reduced. A gigantic programme of rearmament allowed Hitler to revive German industry, to put Germany back on the political map, and further, to fulfil his promises to the masses, through the grim formula of “guns instead of butter.”

So, to-day it can be said that unemployment in Germany is practically non-existent, and the “work for all” slogan has been realised. For gradually the rearmament industries have expanded and unemployment has fallen; indeed, many workers from other branches of industry have had to be drafted into this field of production. To finance this huge programme, methods have been adopted which have horrified our orthodox capitalist and Labour leader alike. They view with dismay the stringent Governmental control and regulation of profits and prices, and of wage rates and supplies of labour. A picture of the state of present-day Germany, from a capitalist standpoint, can be obtained from the following quotation from Lloyds Bank Monthly Review (July and August, 1937): —

“In the National Socialist State all economic activity must serve the interests of the community. Business interests in Germany must, therefore, regard themselves as subordinate to the general policy pursued by the State. Early in 1937 the German people were told that all activities will be governed by the law that the nation does not live for the benefit of the economic system, nor the economic system exist for the benefit of capital, but capital serves the economic system and the economic system the Nation. . . . With regard to the individual, the National Socialists claim that they must put an end to class differences in order to secure national harmony. Individual and class differences are subordinate to those of the national community. Under a Government with full and supreme power of enforcing its will, even to the point of overriding established law, one of the practical results of this theory has been the suppression of strikes, lock-outs and wage disputes generally.”

Thus the Fascists have created a machine which in time may have repercussions throughout world capitalism. Already it would appear that the threat of a rearmed and highly organised German capitalism is compelling British capitalism to adopt similar drastic measures. An article in The Banker (April, 1939) raises certain issues, largely, it is true, from the point of view of the capitalist class, but issues which vitally affect the working class. The writer commences by pointing out that the Government will be a borrower in the capital market of between £350 and £400 million, and the effects of a single borrower, such as the Government, taking such a large amount from the capital market and distributing it amongst a relatively small section of industry, namely, the rearmament industry, will be grave. The demand for workers in these industries will greatly increase; in fact, the writer of the article thinks that the whole of the unemployed may be re-absorbed into industry. This may well be so, when we remember that, even at the present time, there is a shortage of this type of skilled labour, and that, in addition, an increased number of men are required in the armed forces and other defence preparations. As a result of the large sums paid out in the form of wages following on the increased employment and the substitution of full-time for short-time workers, a greatly increased demand for consumers’ goods may be expected. The Government, if it is to keep at the head of the armaments race, will be forced to increase its expenditure, the money being raised either by borrowing or by taxation. In either case, it will be forced to exert a greater control over the capital market. Manufacturers of consumers’ goods will be faced with an increased demand for their products, and at the same time a shortage of the necessary capital and labour to effectively expand production. Prices will tend to rise and the standard of living of the workers fall unless they are successful in securing higher wages, a demand which will be strenuously opposed by the manufacturers and Government alike, for higher wages mean an increased cost of rearmament. The City Editor of the Manchester Guardian says (April 6th, 1939): —

“Unless the Government then assumes the direct control of industrial production and investment the arms output will be curtailed and a general rise of prices will ensue.”

This rise in prices can be offset in three ways, all at the expense of the working class. The social services may be reduced on the plea of economy, the working day can be lengthened without raising wages, as in France, or the standard of living of the workers can be reduced by allowing prices to rise more rapidly than wages. This attack upon working-class standards has begun. The Press reports to-day the strike at an aircraft factory caused by the employment of unskilled girl labour. Workers’ memories may be short but they still remember the dilution that took place during the last War. As is commonplace nowadays, the men have gone on strike without Union recognition, thus losing strike pay, but they already have the support of the workers in another of the company’s factories, from whom they have received a big collection and a weekly levy on their wages until the dispute is over. All workers should realise that this is only a prelude to a general attack upon working-class conditions and democratic rights. There are not wanting signs that British capitalism will require the working class here to follow in the footsteps of the German working class. By specious pleas of patriotism and emphasis on the horrors of Fascism, an attempt will be made to render the trade unions innocuous and to persuade the working class to be drilled and dragooned. And, needless to say, the trade union bureaucracy and Labour leaders will perform the same service for capitalism now as in 1914—note already the discussions between trade union leaders and the Government on the steps to be taken in an emergency war situation.

Although trade union leaders are paying lip service to voluntary effort as opposed to conscription, they are prepared once again to place the movement at the disposal of the State. Mr. Bevin himself agrees that prices must be controlled and profiteering cease, thus fitting in easily with capitalism organised on a war-time basis.

Now, more than at any other time, is it necessary for the workers to think and act along the lines of their own class interests. Safeguarding working-class interests is the best and only way of safeguarding working-class existence. And the action of the working class here may yet, by its example, have a stimulating and regenerating effect upon the working class of all other countries.

Sound working-class action will still prove to be the greatest impediment to the threat of war. Without this action, we must agree with the Manchester Guardian (April 11th, 1939):—

“War apart, it would be idle to predict either the form or the degree of that Governmental control of finance, employment, prices and profits that may be found necessary as borrowing and spending are increased.”

Already three Conservative M.P.s, Mr. L. S. Amery, Sir Edward Grigg and Lord Wolmer, have placed a resolution on the order paper of the House of Commons (Manchester Guardian, April 17th, 1939): —

“That this House is in favour of the immediate acceptance of the principle of the compulsory mobilisation of the man, munition and money power of the nation.”

In a circular to M.P.s, the sponsors state: —

“We feel it opportune that as many members of the House of Commons as possible should assure them (the Government) that we are ready to proceed to all lengths in pursuance of their policy. The time for half measures is past. We believe that all the resources of the nation should be mobilised now against every eventuality. ( ! !)”

So it can be seen that the State, instead of being capitalism’s sleeping partner, is becoming, as in Germany, the active and directing agent for mobilising industry and dragooning and drilling the population along lines suitable for its purpose. In addition, we have our defence dictators, and A.R.P. closely linked with the police, veiled threats of powers extraordinary in times of emergency, e.g., the right to enter individual houses, etc. So it can be seen that Hitler and our ruling class speak the same language when their interests are at stake.

Surely at such a time the voice of the Socialist should be heeded by all thoughtful members of the working class. History has placed the solution in your hands and given you the opportunity to rid yourselves, once and for all, of the poverty and misery and grey anxiety which capitalism entails. You, the working class, are the overwhelming majority of the population. It is you who make everything possible under capitalism, including war. When this is realised in sufficient numbers, you can take appropriate action, not only to dispense with capitalism, but to build a system of society fitted to the needs of a decent existence. By becoming Socialists you will help to swell our ranks, so that, when sufficient numbers are gained, there can begin that last and greatest march of the working class out of the grey menacing shadows of capitalism into the light of a system of society based, not on the dictates of a minority, but on the needs of humanity.

Ted Wilmott

Answers to Correspondents: Is Stalin a Dictator? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent asks: “Is Stalin a dictator, or a democratic leader?”

The Communists would, no doubt, answer that Stalin, particularly since the 1936 Constitution came into operation, is a “democratic leader,” i.e., that he holds a position more or less similar to that of the Presidents of the U.S.A. and France, or the Prime Minister of Great Britain. They certainly would not admit that he should properly be compared with Mussolini or Hitler. 

It is worth while looking at the text of the Russian Constitution for the light it throws on Stalin’s position. In theory the Russian Government (“The Council of People’s Commissars”) is appointed by the two-chamber “Parliament” (“Supreme Council of the U.S.S.R.”). and the Parliament is democratically elected by the Russian population. In practice, as only one political party is allowed to exist in Russia, the elections are no more democratic than Hitler’s or Mussolini’s elections or the periodical plebiscites at which the population are “allowed” to vote for or against those dictators’ decisions.

But although the “Council of People’s Commissars” is supposed to be the Government of Russia, and is described as the “supreme executive and administrative organ of State power” (Constitution, Article 64), it is restricted and overshadowed by another body, the “Presidium of the Supreme Council.” This Presidium is elected at a joint session of the two chambers of Parliament and between sessions of the Parliament (which, in practice, means nearly all the year round), it has all the real power. It interprets laws, conducts referendums, rescinds decisions and orders of the Government (“Council of People’s Commissars”) “in the event that they are not in accordance with the law,” controls the armed forces, convenes sessions of Parliament, etc.

The Presidium consists of 37 members, of whom Stalin is one. (He is not a member of the so-called “Government,” the Council of People’s Commissars.) Stalin’s authority really rests, however, not on the pseudo-democratic forms of the Constitution, but on the fact that he is General Secretary of the Communist Party, the only Party permitted to exist. The Communist Party is the real controlling organisation in Russia, and the elaborate Parliamentary organisation set up under the Constitution is, so far, merely the shadow.

Editorial Committee.

Answers to Correspondents: Can the Workers be Won Over by Socialism? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

J. J. T. R. (Carlisle) doubts “the possibility of converting the masses to Socialism . . . when we consider the barrage of capitalist propaganda in its many forms.”

The case for Socialism rests upon the fact that the evils which the working class has to endure cannot be ended within capitalist society.

Therefore, capitalism itself, by its very helplessness, forces the working class to turn to Socialism. So far the number of Socialists is small. However, these few Socialists are not necessarily more intelligent than other workers. To-day, workers run capitalist industry from top to bottom. A class which is intelligent enough to do that, is intelligent enough to understand Socialism.

As time goes on, the working class will grow tired of supporting capitalist parties, of demanding reforms which still leave them in poverty; they will give more serious” attention to studying the solution of their problems.

At first the movement for Socialism grows slowly. Still, it DOES grow, and it will gradually gather more and more momentum.

Capitalist propaganda will not permanently stand in the way, for it cannot change the exploiting nature of capitalism, it cannot end poverty, it cannot prevent the class struggle breaking out into full view again and again.

C. A.

Answers to correspondents: Should the S.P.G.B. Join the Labour Party ? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (J. T. R., Carlisle) asks why the S.P.G.B. does not join the Labour Party, and carry on its work for Socialism within that Party’s ranks. The answer, in brief, is that the Labour Party’s aim is not the same as ours. We are working for Socialism, a system of society in which the means of production and distribution will be commonly owned and democratically controlled. The Labour Party seeks to reform the capitalist system, replacing private capitalist concerns by State capitalist concerns, and public utility corporations, like the London Passenger Transport Board. The S.P.G.B. is not in favour of State capitalism, but opposed to it. Therefore, in order to carry on our work we have to condemn outright the objects of the Labour Party. Even if the Labour Party would permit an affiliated body to do so (which, obviously, they would not) it would be of no advantage to Socialist propaganda. On the contrary, such an exhibition of political dishonesty would cause doubt and confusion in the minds of the workers, and would hamper us in our work of preaching Socialism.

For fuller treatment of this question readers are referred to articles in the following issues of Socialist Standard, which are obtainable on application to the Literature Secretary at 2d. per copy: April, 1931; May, 1934; April, 1936, and July, 1936.

Editorial Committee.

Answers to correspondents: Abolition of Capital ? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. D’Arcy Denny (Biggin Hill)

We have your letter asking us to explain what we mean by the phrase, “Abolition of Capital,” which, you say, appeared on page 35 of the Socialist Standard, dated November, 1933. On referring to the page in question we find that what we said was, “Abolition of Capitalism.” Under Socialism goods will be produced only for use. There will be no monetary system, and no capital.

Editorial Committee.

The death penalty in Soviet Russia (1939)

From the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our March issue (p. 41) appeared a quotation from Yvon’s “L’U.R.S.S. telle qu’elle est,” a statement taken from Russian official sources, to the effect that “from the age of 12 children guilty of theft, wounding, assassination or attempts thereto, are subject to all penalties provided by the common law.”

A correspondent from Exmouth, who describes this statement as a “wicked attack upon the Russian people and their rulers,” refers us to “The Soviet Comes of Age” (p. 163), which states that “the death sentence cannot be pronounced on a person under 18 years of age.”

We publish the correction, pending further information which may explain how the discrepancy between the two statements arises.

For the benefit of our correspondent we may add that we would regard as a “wicked attack” on Socialism any implication that in a Socialist country boys and girls of 18 could be liable to the death penalty for theft.

Editorial Committee.

SPGB Meetings, Lectures, etc. (1939)

Party News from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

This Month's Quotation: Joseph Dietzgen (1939)

The Front Page quote from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

   “Science is not limited to the so-called scientific world. It reaches beyond all classes, it belongs the full depth and width of life. Science belongs to thinking humanity in its entirety.” 

Joseph Dietzgen (“The Positive Outcome of Philosophy" p. 130)

Editorial: The Armament Illusion (1939)

Editorial from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the ironical aspects of a world given over to war preparations is the undying illusion of the Militarist that the country to which he belongs can secure immunity from attack by building armaments which will be so overwhelming as to frighten the enemy. Not only does each country enter the competition, thus upsetting the calculation, but nobody can possibly foretell with accuracy who “the enemy” is finally going to be, for it is no exaggeration to say that the eternal friends of international politics mistrust each other as much as they mistrust the nations in rival groups. Japan, bound to the Axis, nevertheless hopes to do a deal with Britain over China, but fears lest Russia may drift again into association with Germany. Italy, as in 1914, may at any moment desert one gang for the other, and Chamberlain’s Government is likely to come to terms with Germany should opportunity arise. France is the eternal ally now, but things were different ten years ago before the German revival. It has been said that British air strength was then based not on the possibility of air attack from Germany but from France.

In the armaments race itself the story is one of constant change in relative strength. No country for long holds a predominant position without provoking competitive building abroad or the formation of rival groupings. Not long ago it was the French Air Force which was the threatening “shadow over Europe,” now it is the German and Italian, but Britain and Russia are fast catching up—unless the Germans are equally rapidly expanding to keep their lead.

An air correspondent of the Daily Telegraph remarks that Germany’s present strength ”is more than double the number that Britain and France aspire to possess next year. What Germany will have then can only be conjectured.” (Daily Telegraph, June 12th, 1939.) So he says “we have . . . to consider whether the programme itself is sufficient in face of what is taking place abroad.”

The British Navy is being added to at the rate of more than one warship a week. In the matter of battleships Britain and France together are building nine new vessels. This ought to frighten the Axis? But no! according to the naval correspondent of the Daily Telegraph (May 11th, 1939) the Axis Powers are also in the game, with eight new battleships under construction.

As regards cruisers Germany is building five new 10,000-ton armoured vessels, with another five planned.’ (Daily Telegraph, May 30th, 1939.) The naval correspondent says that "on paper these ships correspond to our 13 County cruisers . . . but in fact the German ships are much more formidable. . . . It would seem, therefore, common prudence that we should lay down armoured cruisers at once of a type at least equal in all-round fighting power to the new German ship.”

By that time, of course, the Germans, Italians, Japs or some other Power will have produced something bigger and better, and "common prudence” will still be asking for more.

Letter: Is Socialism Only a Dream? (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

To The Editorial Committee. 

Dear Friends,

I claim to understand your principles and policy, but I am not convinced that Socialism can be brought into being, although it is a very desirable dream. If you have the time, patience and opportunity, you may observe in nearly every factory and garage that a small percentage of the workers are more efficient at their jobs than the majority, and are able to complete their job of REPAIRING or assembling parts of a machine much quicker than the other workers. This does not mean that they use up more energy, but that they pick up the correct tools, and, because of their superior intelligence, they are able to detect where the faults or damages are and the best and quickest methods of making good the damage. The same applies to the manufacture of new goods, such as clothes, ladies’ and gentlemen’s fur coats, etc., boot repairs, sign writing, etc. Let us try and deal with one industry at a time. (1) The fur trade. Now in this trade you will observe, if you have the opportunity of watching men and women as they work, that some of the workers, who have been in the trade ten, fifteen or twenty years, do not do their work as NEATLY or QUICKLY as other workers who have worked in the trade only four to seven years. Some workers in this trade, such as fur cutters, have better sight; therefore, when they are MATCHING the different shades of coloured fur pelts to make up a coat or wrap they are able to match much more quickly and efficiently than those workers with indifferent sight and less interest in their work. A nimble-fingered workman can cut out the damaged parts of the pelts much more neatly and replace the damaged parts more neatly and quickly than the inefficient worker with indifferent sight. This is not a question of age, for some of the older workers are quicker and neater at their work than the younger workers. The most efficient fur machinists are those who are able to sew together the cut pelts and hold and guide the pelts so through the machine in such a way that they are able to make very thin and neat seams; this depends upon the nimbleness of their fingers and very good sight, but you must remember that there are excellent, good, indifferent and bad machinists. . . .  (2) A good cabinet maker makes his doors and drawers fit perfectly, and does his work as quick, or quicker, than a bad cabinet maker, who does not make his doors and drawers fit properly. These very big differences between workmen, (3) between bankers and small moneylenders, (4) clever business men and foolish business men, are differences that are inherited at birth from grandparents, and can only be bridged in dreams of idealists, and not in the world of realities. A business man who has more nerve and daring than his competitor, plus knowledge of all the risks of success and failure, is sure to be more successful than one with less knowledge and courage, etc. I will now close this brief letter, but I will be very glad to receive a personal reply from you, as well as an answer in the Socialist Standard. If you are able to prove to my satisfaction that I am wrong, I will be pleased to become an active member of the Socialist Party and subscribe £50 to your funds.

                                                                                                  I am,

                                                                                                       Yours faithfully,

James Hardy.

Clapton, E.5. 

Reply.

Our correspondent draws attention to the fact that many persons are working at jobs for which they have no natural aptitude—square pegs in round holes. What he states may be correct, but what has that to do with Socialism? He has read our pamphlets but has evidently only a hazy grasp of economics. He is one of many.

The capitalist class owns what is essential to all; the working class, owning nothing, sell their lives in the form of human energy, mental and physical, to the owning section. They receive in return wages—food, clothing and shelter—barely sufficient to generate in their bodies the quantity and quality of labour-power they are called upon to deliver. All over and above what is required to keep the working class in fair working condition, after the wear of the machinery of production has been made good, goes to the owning class in the shape of rent, interest and profit. All the capitalist class does is to speculate on a good thing. When a worker has sold his labour power to the owning class it is no longer his, the use of a thing belongs to the buyer.

 

The capitalist class has the use of the furrier, the carpenter, the tailor, etc., and they make more profit out of some individuals than others.

It is true that some workers are more skilful than others, but in all trades and in all jobs there is a general average that the worker is expected to keep. The capitalist will see that the labour power they purchase is exploited to the best advantage. Those who are lucky enough to fall into a job they can do more easily than the average endure less agony during the period their labour power is being extracted. It does not follow that, because a worker is efficient, he is of higher intelligence. Any circus proprietor will tell you that the most intelligent animals are the most difficult to train.

Many wage slaves realise they are exploited; they loathe the whole slave exploiting mechanism; they hate the job and do as little work as possible, and get away with as much as they can.

The fur trade is referred to. It has its own nomenclature—it can change the species of animals. A rabbit may become a seal and so also may a rat. A skunk has been known to be converted into a sable, and the wage slave takes the tricks of the trade for granted. This should not increase his respect for the morals of his capitalist exploiters.

Bankers, small money-lenders and clever business men live on the proceeds of exploitation. Some are very ingenious. We read from time to time of the exploits of clever cat-burglars. These display finesse in their operations. Are they entitled to the plunder they obtain because of their superior ingenuity?

What is there in what our correspondent states that should retard a desire on the part of the working class for the common ownership of the means of life? The skilled and the unskilled will benefit from Socialism, for most of them now live on the edge of grinding poverty. They will eventually perceive that they can, as a class, move into a position of economic security.

The general condition will not improve until the change Socialism calls for is effected. The working class must transform capitalist property in the means of life into common property.

The thinking section of our class already realise this. When Socialism comes the worker will be able to individually enjoy what he helps to socially create. He will have more personal property than he could dream of possessing as a wage slave.

He will be free to choose what he would be and to be what he would choose.

All that tempts to goodness, greatness and nobleness of life will be at the disposal of all. We do not see anything in your letter that stands in the way of the workers, whatever the nature of their job, lining up for SOCIALISM.

Charles Lestor

Manchester Workers Crowd to Party Meetings (1939)

From the July 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Those already acquainted with the Socialist Standard and the Socialist Party will know that until now all the editorial, propaganda and organisational work of the Party has been carried out on a purely voluntary basis. We have never concealed the fact that, as far as we are concerned, it was a case of making a virtue of necessity. For, although we have recognised for a long time the desirability, not say the necessity, of comrades devoting their full time to working for Socialism, we have never been in a position to make this possible.

For the first time in the history of the Party the energy and self-sacrifice of Party members and sympathisers has made possible the appointment, for an experimental period, of a full-time organiser-propagandist for the Provinces. During the last two weeks Comrade A. Turner has been in Manchester, and has been devoting his energies to propagating the case for Socialism, and in assisting the Manchester branch in its organisational work. In spite of the difficulties which are bound to arise in connection with what is for the Party a new venture, the results so far more than justify the most sanguine anticipations. If members and sympathisers of the Party could have witnessed, as the writer of these notes did, the keen and intelligent interest with which almost a 1,000 workers from the Fairey Aviation Works listened to the Socialist case; if they could have seen the smaller, but no less keenly interested audience at lunch-hour meetings outside the Manchester Tramways Dept. and finally, could have seen the large and attentive audiences that attended our Sunday afternoon and evening meetings in Platt Fields and Stevenson Square, their hearts would have leaped with joy!

But the results so far obtained have not been confined to well attended propaganda meetings. From quite reliable sources we know that the series of dinner-hour meetings held outside the works mentioned above has resulted in keen discussions of the Party's case within the works. Many workers who, until now, were ignorant even of the existence of the Party are debating with their workmates the policy of the Party in relation to war and the other social problems with which the workers of Manchester, as elsewhere, are faced.

At the last weekly meeting of the Manchester branch more visitors were in attendance than ever before in the history of the branch. As a result of special appeals and announcements we hope that this week's attendance will cause serious concern — to find the necessary accommodation! A series of lectures has been started, and will be given every Monday at 8.30 at the party rooms, 15a, Shudehill, Manchester. All readers of the Socialist Standard in Manchester and district are heartily invited to attend and bring along their friends.

Last, but by no means least, and in spite of the relatively unfavourable weather conditions, we have to report record sales of literature. During the fortnight Comrade Turner has been in Manchester, the branch, with his assistance, has managed to dispose of £5 2s. 6d. of literature.

This, then, is a brief, and we fear, inadequate report of the beginnings of an effort which it is hoped may become a permanent feature of our Party life. Here is something which is worth while, and which deserves and demands the whole-hearted support of every member and sympathiser of the Party. With the active, and above all, the financial support of all concerned, it will be possible to gave not only one full-time worker for Socialism, but many. What is now being done in Manchester can then also be done in every important industrial centre of Great Britain, and we shall the be an appreciable step forward in what is at the moment our most pressing task in the struggle for Socialism—the building of a strong Socialist Party.

Arthur Mertons