Left-Wing Illusions (1943)

Book Review from the June 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reading Fenner Brockway’s "Inside the Left" (Allen A Unwin, 15s.), we recall that the word "Left" acquired its political significance during the time of the great French Revolution. Those sitting to the left of the Chairman of the Convention were distinguished by their radicalism—the more to the left, the more extreme the views; whereas those delegates sitting to the right were marked by their more moderate outlook, the extreme right being composed of the out-and-out reactionaries. If it be further remembered that the French Revolution serves as the classical example of revolutions of the bourgeois, or capitalist, type, then it must be agreed that the title selected by the author is not inappropriate. His political outlook was, and remains, that of a utopian-radical representing the "left" of capitalist politics.

Since it is the habit of such widely differing personalities as Herr Hitler and M. Stalin to profess themselves socialists, it is, of course, not at all surprising that Fenner Brockway should also stake his claim. It is perhaps unfortunate that nowhere in the book under review does the author explicitly state what he means by Socialism; consequently our criticism must, in the main, be inferential. The final chapter of the book, which in some ways is the most important, seeks to summarise the political evolution of the author. And with the best will in the world, it is difficult to discover any result more important than that, whereas at one time the author hoped that his political objective (he calls it Socialism; in reality, he means State Capitalism) could be achieved by peaceful methods, he now considers the employment of violence to be necessary. Already, in an earlier chapter, Brockway indicates "his developing revolutionary view." On page 240 he writes: "It was Nazi challenge to the democratic institutions of Germany, and the retreat of the powerful Social Democratic and Communist Parties before it, which compelled my reconsideration. During 1931 I had been in Germany and I was profoundly impressed by what I saw and heard ” (Did he, we wonder, happen to notice how, in August, 1931, the "powerful Communist Party" united with the Nazis and the Stahlhelm in support of a referendum, the object of which was to remove the "powerful Social Democratic Party" from its dominant position in the Prussian State Diet? And did he notice how the "powerful Social Democratic Party" gave its support to the most undemocratic emergency legislation by Dr. Bruening, the then Chancellor of the Reich?) To continue, the author goes on to say: "I realised that the Parliamentary Revolutionism of Clifford Allen was not enough, because in a decisive crisis Reaction would suppress Parliament. I began to see that in the last resort the workers would have to depend on their strength in a direct struggle with the capitalist class." Further on, he observes that: "Socialists were living in a fool's paradise if they thought that a majority in Parliament would be enough. Socialist legislation would meet with resistance from the aristocratic, plutocratic, financial and capitalist classes generally." This is given as an example of the author's "developing revolutionary views" which, significantly, "reflected a turning point in I.L.P. thought." Now, in spite of all that has been written and said to the contrary, Parliament, especially in a developed country, mirrors with a fair degree of accuracy the hopes, wishes and desires of the electorate. And if Parliament—or any genuinely representative institution—acting in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate, could be promptly suppressed by a ruling class whose displeasure it may have incurred, then let us state quite frankly that the prospect for Socialism would be black indeed. Fortunately for the working class, the matter is not quite so simple as that. In developed capitalist society, where at least the passive support of the working people has to be assured if society is to function at all, the ruling class is absolutely precluded from arbitrarily imposing its will on an unwilling populace. Germany is no exception to this, and whatever illusions Fenner Brockway, or for that matter anyone else, may have on this matter, we may be quite certain that they are not shared by those political realists who at the moment lord it over the German people. Goebbels' propaganda agency is not an expensive toy to amuse Goebbels; its function is to ceaselessly present the political and economic aspirations of the German ruling class in a form acceptable to the mass of the German people. In spite of all popular ideas to the contrary, the master minds in Germany, no less than master minds elsewhere, know perfectly well that they cannot sit on bayonets alone. And the most cursory acquaintance with German propaganda is enough to convince anyone that no pains are spared in attempting to persuade the German people that the policy of the German Government is in their (the people's) interest. That the Nazis are where they are, that they have been able to do what they have done, is primarily due to the indifference to democracy and the political incapacity of significant numbers of German workers, not to sinister designs of the ruling class. If Fenner Brockway really believes in the power of the ruling section of society to behave, when it so suits them, in an entirely arbitrary fashion and without reference to the wishes of the majority of the people, it would appear to us that he is wasting his time in addressing his propaganda to the working class. Clearly, it is the ruling class whose conversion he should seek. We know that it is only in relation to Parliament that the ruling class receives omnipotence at Brockway's hands. Outside Parliament the workers are endowed with mysterious and unspecified powers which they cannot exercise inside Parliament. In reality the position is this: if it were impossible for a Socialist working class to gain power and use it through Parliament, there is nothing more certain than that it cannot and never will gain it without.

What does Brockway mean when ho says “that in the last resort the workers would have to depend on their strength in a direct struggle with the capitalist class"? Surely it is not unfair to conclude that he envisages reliance on armed struggle instead of parliamentary methods—our late Communist friend, the “heavy civil war." But in reality, of course, Brockway, in common with all those who talk in this strain, means something entirely different. It is not "direct struggle with the capitalist class" he has in mind, but struggle with other members of the working class who are content to remain the dupes of a ruling class already in existence, rather than become the catspaws of a rival group aspiring to power. When a majority of the working class understand, and therefore want Socialism, we shall get it—not before. It may be improbable that all members of the working class will comprehend socialist ideas in a uniform manner; nevertheless, given a majority of the working class as socialist, it is extremely difficult to imagine a situation where any significant minority of the workers would remain so unaffected by socialist ideas that it would be willing to spill its blood for reaction. Is it not far more reasonable to suggest that even the mere existence of a significant minority, never mind a majority, of the population, acting and organised in support of a real socialist movement would exercise an influence throughout the whole of society that would compel any ruling class to think twice before it acted in a manner grossly inimical to working class interests ?

It is not the question of violence that divides the revolutionary from the reformist. Reformism, that is attempts to modify the exploitative relations characteristic of capitalism, still remains reformism no matter how violent the means embraced to that end; and revolutionary activity, that is, activity directed to the termination of capitalist exploitation once and for all, still remains revolutionary even though conducted by the methods allowed by the capitalist state. The immediate task with which socialists are faced is to popularise socialist ideas and understanding with the aim of developing a political party strong enough to effect working class emancipation. As long as conditions permit, we shall pursue this course undeviatingly, but should subsequent developments unhappily render socialist propaganda illegal, we shall certainly do what we can, but let no one imagine for a moment that theatrical and heroic declarations before the event are in any sense a guarantee of effective action after it. The unpalatable, but nevertheless inescapable fact is that in modern society the suppression of those democratic facilities to which all politically conscious workers quite rightly attribute enormous importance, can only occur because of the approval or indifference of the masses. A working class which allows its political life generally to be determined for it by an absolutist government—no matter what that government may call itself nor what its alleged motives may be—is certainly not the kind of working class to provide a background favourable to socialist propaganda. Socialism will not be the work of a working class prepared to accept tutelage from any quarter; it can only be the work of one that is self-reliant, critical, and politically informed. From this it should be obvious that if freedom of speech, of the press and of association is suppressed, there is precious little that socialists can do about it until developments—notably the corruption which is an inevitable by-product of dictatorship—produce the desire and the determination in the working class to regain the right to openly discuss and consider political affairs. To think otherwise is not only to fool oneself, but to fool others as well.

"The establishment of a revolutionary socialist party can be attempted, in two ways. A few theoreticians can lay down a water-tight programme and invite those who agree with it to join . . . Or a party which has its roots in the working class movement can evolve, grow, to the revolutionary position by thought applied to experience, by learning its lessons from mistakes, by discussions, by the study of the history of the movement in other countries, and by a sincere and constant effort to find the right way. The second has been the way of the I.L.P. Since 1932 the Party has been the crucible of the change from reformism to revolutionism. Into that crucible every idea, every tactic, has been thrown and worked itself out; it has been a microcosm of all the conflicts of theory and practice which have stirred so deeply the world movement." Fenner Brockway is, of course, quite wrong. There are not two ways to establish a socialist party (a socialist party, is by definition a revolutionary party; Brockway, who, of course, believes in the existence of a kind of "socialism" which is either "reformist" or “revolutionary" or a mixture of both, simply displays his confusion on this matter), but one way and one way only. And that is for members of the working class who understand what capitalism is, and therefore what to do about it, to define in unambiguous terms the object for which they strive and the principles for which they solicit support. The object and principles of such a party will not be the free invention of very clever people, but they will be socialist in character and therefore based primarily on critical and realist analysis of capitalist society, and consequently intimately related to reality. Finally—and this is a point which, in spite of its almost overwhelming simplicity, Brockway and his kind will never appreciate—since Socialism is the aim of a socialist party, only those who understand and want Socialism will be asked for their support.

We can, however, agree that the I.L.P. is a crucible into which every tactic, etc., has been thrown. Unkind critics might prefer to call it a political rag-bag rather than a crucible; but this much can be said of the I.L.P.: there is hardly a single nostrum, palliative or form of political quackery that the I.L.P. has not advocated at some time or the other. Even now, its members speak with a medley of voices (revolutionary flexibility!), and of some of them it can be quite seriously said, that so blinded are they by loyalties of a personal character, that if to-morrow the I.L.P. advocated Yogi as a remedy for social problems, they would do their best to conform. In the '20's the I.L.P. advocated a "Living Wage" policy; in the '30's it had got as far as demanding “Socialism in our Time." But so much progress has been made by this truly remarkable Party that to-day, in the '40's, it imperiously demands “Socialism Now!" Just like that! The mere fact that there happen to be a few odd million people who so far have shown no obvious enthusiasm for even the peculiar kind of “socialism” peddled by the I.L.P., but whose wishes nevertheless have to be taken into account, does not unduly perturb the “revolutionary strategists" in charge of this wonder-working outfit. After all, there always remains the “revolutionary situation" of which all good Bolsheviks dream!

It would be unfair to conclude without paying tribute to the author's undoubted sincerity of feeling. From the socialist standpoint, it is not his intentions that are in doubt, but his understandings. In the struggle for Socialism, however, the same can be said as of other aspects of life: “the way to hell, etc."

Arthur Mertons

Blogger's Note:

"Inside the Left" was actually reviewed twice in the Socialist Standard. Edgar Hardcastle had previously reviewed it in the May 1943 issue of the Standard.

What happened to Brockway and his revolutionary rhetoric? Well, he rejoined the Labour Party after the war, gaining a seat in Parliament at the 1950 General Election. Despite Labour winning the 1964 General Election, like Patrick Gordon-Walker in Smethwick, Brockway lost his Eton & Slough because he was seen as soft on immigration. (As an aside, Labour won back Eton & Slough at the 1966 General Election with ex-SPGBer, Joan Lestor, as their candidate.) Brockway got his seat in the House of Lords and lived to the ripe old age of 99. If you're in London, you can see his statue in Red Lion Square outside Conway Hall.

Editorial: Inglorious End of the Comintern (1943)

Editorial from the June 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Twenty years ago the working class of a war-weary world were presented with what claimed to be a quick way out of their submerged position. A new International had been formed in Russia under the guidance of the Bolshevik leaders which was to cut adrift from the old bad reformist Second International. Its birth was heralded by vituperation of the persons and parties forming the Second International, and one of the central charges against the latter was that they had entered willingly into the war. All wars were stigmatised as attempts to further the imperialist ambitions of capitalists of different democratic nations. The new group, the Third International, was to be genuinely representative of working-class aspirations and opposed to all capitalist interests.

But time has had its little joke, and the Third International has been disbanded so that the interests of capitalist democracies may not be hindered in another great war.

The Comintern has succumbed to the needs of Russian foreign policy in World War No. 2. The ideas on which it was based—chief among them being the illusion that the workers of the world in 1919 were ready for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism—have long since been abandoned. Why then did the organisation outlive the ideas which once inspired its adherents? The answer in brief is that it was an instrument of foreign policy of the Russian State. Whatever policy the Russian Government pursued from time to time was blindly and enthusiastically supported in each country by the Communist Party there. If this instrument once had its uses to the Russian Government, there came a time, with the rise of German military power, when new conditions demanded a new instrument. In 1935 the Russian Government sought safety by entering the League of Nations (formerly denounced as a thieves' kitchen) by aiming at an alliance with Powers that might have the strength and the interest to oppose re-armed Germany. To aid this policy of contact with the democracies the Russian Government also, in 1930, introduced a new “democratic" constitution. The continued existence of the Comintern was however an obstacle to the policy of alliances. Powerful groups in Britain, France and America continued, even after the outbreak of war in 1939, to fear the “subversive" activities of the Moscow-directed Communist parties. This last act of formally burying the Comintern is designed to remove this obstacle. As the Manchester Guardian (May 24th) remarks, “it is plain that the dissolution has been ordered to improve relations between Russia and the other Allies, the United States in particular."

During recent years, and particularly since the German invasion in 1941, Nationalist feeling has been officially encouraged in Russia by every possible means, and internationalism has been less and less featured in Russian Government and Comintern propaganda. The dissolution of the Comintern, which marks the delayed burial of Lenin's theories of international working-class action, therefore comes fittingly just after a May Day manifesto issued in Moscow which directed its appeal to the “patriots" of the European countries, urging them to unite against the Fascist enemy. Marx's famous appeal. "Workers of all Lands, Unite.” this gives place to an appeal to the workers of one group of countries to unite in the name of patriotism against workers in other lands.

We do not assume that this will be the end of the British Communist Party. If, helped by this new departure, they can increase their membership and influence inside the trade unions, and possibly the Labour Party, they will be able, more effectively than before, to give support to policies in line with those of the Russian State. Freed from the incubus of being openly directed from Moscow, the British Communist Party may well be able for a time to gain members and influence by a reformist programme, and thus rival the I.L.P. in its heyday.

The dissolution came like a bolt from the blue to the Communist parties of the world, who were not consulted beforehand. It was endorsed by the leaders of the English Communist Party without consulting the membership. The sheepish membership, both high and low, accepted the verdict of virtual death. Thus the Third International died, as it was born and lived, a dictatorial organisation incapable, for this very reason, of solving any of the basic problems of the working class.

The tragic side of the final phase is the fact that the aspirations of myriads of genuine adherents to the working-class movement for freedom are buried in this grave of hopes and illusions.

Capitalism Cramps The Clipper (1943)

From the June 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The war is forcing great changes in the lives of people all over the earth . . ."

  "The greatest permanent change will result from the increasing use of air as a realm of transportation. Therefore unnumbered millions of persons are restudying geography. . . . Aeroplanes cancel the surface barriers and change the proximity of the places. Inevitably, as all peoples continue to become closer neighbours, they will have a more direct influence on each other. No phase of our lives will be immune to this new propinquity. . . . Air is one unit, boundless and universal . . . and is available alike to all inland and coastal places everywhere. Therefore we believe air is the dominant realm for transportation. We know that there will always be need for ships, trains and motor vehicles, but we believe that the relative value and effectiveness of all surface methods will be determined according to how well we use what only air transportation makes possible. . . . United States has the world’s greatest system of air lines. . . . Immediate development and expansion of America’s aviation is necessary also
   " . . . at the Peace Conference. Then either we will be dominant in the air or we will be dominated in the post-war air-world.”

The above is culled, not from a new preface to a 1943 edition of the Communist Manifesto, but from an advertisement of American Air Lines Incorporated, in the American magazine, United States News (January 8th, 1943), forwarded to us by the courtesy of our colleagues of the Workers' Socialist Party of America.

Meantime, the U.S. Government has organised Air Transport Command, which has already driven a new route across Africa, to the Near East, and the press has announced that the first licence has been granted to a civil U.S. Air Line to operate a new route from Boston to Moscow. It has been stated that the cost of a ticket will be slightly under one-third of the third-class steamship fare.

Perhaps this has some connection with the concern displayed by Mr. Walter Runciman and Lord Cowdray, who, with other shipowners, have recently resigned the directorship of British Airways Corporation.

The British Air Ministry has organised a British imitation of Air Transport Command on the American model, which put the fat in the fire in British Airways Corporation. Mr. Runciman said on March 9th in Bristol (Daily Telegraph, March 10th):

  On the one hand, the Americans are pushing on air transport to quite extraordinary lengths. We are told that they flew rather more than a ton of frozen strawberries to Africa so that their troops might have the minimum of discomfort on Thanksgiving Bay.
  On the other hand, the rather more austere British effort is confined to meeting, as far it can, the almost unlimited demand for space for wartime purposes.
  After the war, if care is not exercised, there will be air line competition between governments. If that happens, the Americans will have all the advantages, because they have the planes and the money. . . . Those who are going to put the world right, after the war, must see that there is an area in Europe, as free as the U.S., without rival aircraft factories; you have got to do it, if you are not going to have the Americana overrunning the whole of the European routes.

Thus the cynical millionaire-shipowner gives Churchill & Company ("those who are going to set the world right”) (sic) their orders to establish a British Air Transport Monopoly on the European Continent after the war. "You have got to do it,” etc., etc.

The House of Lords is most perturbed. Lord Londonderry declared in the House (Daily Telegraph, March 12th):

  What they desired most was to link the empire by air . . . this matter must be considered now. There is danger in delay. It is highly important that countries like America should be fully aware of our plans, so that there should be no misunderstanding.

While Earl Stanhope pertinently asked:

  How were we going to prevent Germany from building aircraft, nominally for civilian purposes, but actually as heavy bombers, or so-called sports engines as fighters?

In fairness to Lord Londonderry and colleagues, we must admit that the Americans are making no bones about it.

Congresswoman Clare Booth Luce, the playwright wife of the editor of the most popular U.S. magazine, Time, declared in Congress:

   We ought not to risk competition from the British, but rather get everything we can grab during the war, and then hang on to it fiercely.
   The Wall Street Journal Correspondent says:
  One leading plan is to convert Lend-Lease into a gigantic lever to make bargains in America’s favour. She would be the only nation in the world permitted to manufacture civil and military aircraft.
   Senator Brewster, of Maine, said:
   The British used sea power to become the most powerful nation in the world. America will take world leadership with air power. . . . The past belonged to ships and the past belonged to Britain. But the future lies in the air, and that is America’s future. . . . We have got the whip hand and we are going to keep it. (Tribune, April 2nd, 1943).

The American correspondent of the News Chronicle reports that Clare Luce’s speech “produced an obviously approving reaction among a large proportion of her fellow-congressmen” (News Chronicle, February 15th). A technical committee has been set up here to enquire into the types of planes needed after the war.

As far as can be judged, it seems that the scales are weighted heavily in America’s favour, though startling new technical developments will probably appear. In any case, if America has the planes, Britain still has control of the territory of potential air-fields.

In addition to removing boards of directors. Sir Stafford Cripps, on behalf of the Government, has stepped in and taken over Short Bros., lock, stock and barrel, causing consternation among more backward sections of the Capitalist class. Over one hundred M.P.s tabled a "prayer" as to the probity of this action in the House of Commons.

Sir Hugh Dowding, ex-Air Marshal, one time chief of design at the Air Ministry, is alarmed. He has burst into print in the Evening Standard with an article entitled "The Red Light.” This sort of article has been regularly churned out by retired generals and admirals for centuries. They spend most of their enforced idleness seeing "Red Lights.” One thing must be said for the bluff old Marshal. He quite clearly appreciates the pious stupidity of the demands of the Tribune group for "International Aviation, Ltd.” The Tribune says:

  Complete international control is . . . the only practical . . . solution. . . . But not until vested interests have been ousted shall we be in a position to make International Airways a going concern. (Tribune, April 2nd, 1943.)

They evidently mean the nationalisation of Air Traffic. They need not worry; it is practically inevitable. But control by existing capitalist governments—equally inevitable so long as private property persists—can lead to only one thing, WAR.

Says Sir Hugh ;

  Our visionaries may argue that after the war there will be universal disarmament, and that no military aircraft will exist, except, those in the hands of the international police, so it won’t matter how inefficient they are . . .
  Well, I’m all in favour of beautiful dreams myself, but let us see whether the dream is coining true. (Evening Standard, April 8th.)

Very true, universal disarmament under Capitalism is "a beautiful dream.”

The one thing farthest from the thoughts of the Runcimans and Clare Luces—in the heat of their squabbles about air-domination, is a third alternative.

  The greatest permanent change (in the lives of the people) will result from an increasing use of air transport. (American Air Lines, Inc.)

National frontiers will be superseded, workers of different states will realise their identical economic interests as producers and operators of the mighty ships of the skies, while the quarrels of their masters will dwindle, in their estimation, to vanishing-point, in the same manner as human beings appear like ants from the air.

You cannot have “freedom of the air,” said Clare Luce, it's "globaloney", meaning that the U.S. capitalists must dominate the air. The workers will be enabled to see more clearly the paradoxical stupidity of a property-owning minority class, utilising ownership of the wonderful modern air liner to conserve privilege and obstruct progress.

Almost one hundred years ago Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, in the "Communist Manifesto,” described the historic process of the organisation, education, and centralisation of the modern wage-working class by the development of capitalist large scale methods of production and transport —especially the railways. In a few masterly strokes the whole course of development was revealed—how a national working-class evolved.

  The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. (Communist Manifesto, Reeves' Edition, p. 10.)
  But with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. (p. 13.)
  And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Agee, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways,' achieve in a few years, (p. 14.)
  The revolution in the method of production in industry and agriculture, likewise necessitated a revolution in the general conditions of the social process of production, that is to say, in the means of communication and transport. (Capital, Marx. Allen & Unwin Edition. Vol I., p. 406.)

To-day, in 1943; we are indebted to the directors of American Air Lines, Inc., for the reminder that Marx's indefatigable engine of history is being driven at top speed by 4,000 h.p. motors across whole continents to establish a single homogeneous world's working class. Millions of workers are being transported all over the globe to fight and work, perforce acquiring a world outlook. William Liebknecht, in his well-known account of his long comradeship with Marx (re-published in “Karl Marx, 1818-1883,” Lawrence and Wishart; London, pp. 15), recounts how “Marx related to me, full of enthusiasm, that for the last few days there had been exhibited in Regent Street the model of an electrical machine which pulled a railway train.” “Now the problem has been solved, the consequences are unpredictable. The economic revolution must be followed by n political one, for the latter is only an expression of the former,” said Marx.

The third alternative to Miss Luce’s American domination of the uncontrollable air is common ownership of the means of wealth production—Socialism. The revolution in air transport will accelerate the growth of the Socialist mentality which, upon attaining social maturity, is a political revolution. It will hasten the dawn of Socialism.

Horatio.

After the above was written an article appeared in the Sunday Express (16 May) which indicates how some of the technical requirements of air transport may be met in the coming struggle between British and American interests. The following extracts deal with a plan for "floating islands” to serve as air bases.

  America, as part of the fight for the post-war control of world civil aviation, is rushing ahead with plans to build a chain of seadromes, or floating islands, across the Atlantic when peace comes.
  A powerful group of air lines has applied to the Civil Aviation Board or the necessary permission. It is backed by some of the biggest steel and icon companies in the States, including the U.S. Steel Corporation, the Sun Ship Building Company, Wirth Steel Company, and the Belmont Iron Works.
  But Britain need not leave such an important development as floating islands in the Atlantic to American enterprise. There is in existence a British invention, the pioneer of the kind which is available to us now. It is the invention of Mr. F. G. Creed, of Croydon, who is no mere visionary but the man who by his invention of the Creed telegraphic system revolutionised the speed of telegraphy. It was indeed that invention which gave birth to his floating island plan.
  “And still,” said Mr. Creed to the Sunday Express yesterday, "with this invention available to us we are apparently to sit and watch American air interests grab the control of the Atlantic from us when peace comes.”

Is Russia Socialist? (1943)

Book Review from the June 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Most of the misconceptions regarding Socialism and Russia that have been propagated during the past twenty odd years by the Bolsheviks and the Communist Parties are to be found rehashed in "The Socialist Sixth of the World.” This book was written by Hewlett Johnson, the Dean of Canterbury, just prior to the outbreak of the war. An abridged edition of it, with the title "Soviet Power,” has sold widely in America.

“The Socialist Sixth of the World” is worth notice, as it gives us an opportunity of explaining some of the fundamental principles of Socialism and of dealing with the economic base of Russian society. Let us say at the outset that the Dean of Canterbury makes out a good case against capitalism, and exposes many of its contradictions. His book, however, is intended to point to a solution of these contradictions, and the solution he offers is not Socialism. Moreover, his "programme” is full of weaknesses.

Where the Dean Fails
Though the Dean of Canterbury can see the contradictions of Capitalism, he is unable to explain how they arise, and the weakness of his whole case hinges on this point. He does not carry his analysis of Capitalism far enough. He can see that it is a society run for profit, and that the worker is exploited. What he does not understand is how this exploitation of the worker is effected; he does not understand what are the essentials of Capitalism—those features which distinguish present-day society from preceding systems of society: in brief, those features that are the hall mark of capitalism.

This brings us to the very important question: "What is Capitalism?" "What are the essentials of Capitalism?”

Every society has a very definite basis, and every class society a very definite method of exploiting its subject class. This exploitation was not veiled in slave society; one man owned another and made him work. The master gave the slave the necessities of life and retained for himself what was produced over and above the slave's maintenance. The exploitation and slavery of present-day society are to some extent veiled. They are there all right, none the less. The capitalist does not own the worker, but still the worker is dependent on the capitalist class for his livelihood. And how is the worker exploited? Before production takes place today we have capital. This is money invested, for the purpose of profit, in the purchase of machinery, raw materials, factories, etc. But these things are useless without workmen, so capital engages too the energies of the worker. The energies of the worker are used up in producing articles for sale, commodities, but the worker is not paid for the produce of his work for the whole duration of the day. In a working day of eight hours a worker may receive wages equivalent to, say, four hours' produce of his work. The other four hours are given free to the capitalist. It is thus that the worker is exploited under capitalism. Were he paid for the full produce of his eight hours' work there would be no profits for the capitalist class. Whatever minor modifications present-day society may undergo, this is, simply and briefly put, an explanation of the productive process. It is plain to see that wage-labour and capital are the roots of the whole system. Machinery, in simple or complex form, may be employed in any social system—but WAGE-LABOUR AND CAPITAL ARE PECULIAR TO CAPITALISM, and it is by their presence or absence that we can decide whether a society is capitalist or not.

In his "Wage-Labour and Capital" Marx rightly points out that the two are complementary. The one does not exist without the other. He writes: "Capital and wage-labour are two sides of one and the same relation. The one conditions the other in the same way that the usurer and the borrower condition each other. As long as the wage-labourer remains a wage-labourer, his lot is dependent upon capital" (P. 33. Lawrence and Wishart edition.) And again: "Capital therefore pre-supposes wage-labour; wage-labour pre-supposes capital. They condition each other; each brings the other into existence." (P. 32. Emphasis by Marx.)

It is true that with the development of capitalism and in different countries the form of ownership and control of capital may differ. But the form of ownership of capital is not the vital question. It may be owned by the small private trader, the large owner, the trust or by the state—"the executive committee of the capitalist class." But in all cases its presence proves the existence of capitalist society.

The Dean's Proposals

Dean Hewlett Johnson does not see that the roots of capitalism are wage-labour and capital, that these are the features distinguishing capitalism from all earlier forms of society.

It is not surprising, therefore, that he fails to understand the need for their abolition if we would be rid of capitalism. So it happens that in the "new order" proposed by the Dean we still have wage-labour and capital—which, as we have seen, spell exploitation and poverty for the working- class.

For the Dean, the term "modern capitalism" means unbridled competition, and his solution to the whole problem is the scientific planning of capitalism, so as to cut out competition and make the most efficient use of wage-labour and capital. His "new order," then, is still capitalism, even if he wants wages to be paid according to ability and according to the work done. He relegates to the very distant future Socialism, wherein each will give of his best to society and partake of society's products according to his needs. It is the old story. He is like other reformists, in that not accepting the Socialist case, he is bound to put forward proposals to remodel capitalism—proposals which would still leave the worker a wave-slave and in poverty.

It is from Russia that the Dean has obtained his inspiration and ideas. He would like to see "the Russian experiment" attempted here and in other countries.

We must now examine what he tells us about Russia and see if the title of his book is justifiable. Has Socialism been established over a sixth of the earth's surface?

Some Fundamentals of Scientific Socialism

Hewlett Johnson claims to have studied Scientific Socialism. More important, he claims that since 1917 Russia has been attempting to put Socialist principles into practice.

The book under review proves two things; first, that the main teachings of Socialism have completely escaped the Dean: and secondly, that Russia is not, and never has been, Socialist.

The principles of Socialism are to be found defined and elaborated in the works of Marx and Engels, who gave a scientific basis to Socialist thought.

Scientific Socialism explains how and why society evolves, how one social system is replaced by another. It is one of the main conclusions of Socialist thought that Socialism cannot arise BEFORE the economic basis is ripe for it. And this is sound common sense. Each economic system is a growth—out of the previous system. Capitalism grew out of Feudalism, and could not, as a system, precede it. A new society cannot come into being until the need for it and the practicability of it, arises. Hence Socialism could not precede capitalism, for Socialism requires a very high level of production, giant machines, and an educated and trained population to work them. It is capitalism which provides these, and it is because capitalism cannot use the means of production for the benefit of society that the need for Socialism arises.

The Dean ignores this very important teaching of Socialism. He admits that in 1917 Russia was backward economically, much more so than Britain, Germany, the U.S.A., France, etc. With a semi-feudal economy, the Russian population too was naturally backward. Illiteracy and superstition were both rife. Stalin is quoted as follows: "We inherited from the old regime a technically backward and ruined country reduced to semi-starvation. Ruined by four years of imperialist war, and again by three of civil war, a country with a semi-illiterate population, primitive means of production and small oases of industry scattered in the desert of petty peasant farmsteads " (p. 167). The mass of the people being peasants, they neither needed nor desired Socialism. This the Dean admits (p. 101) when he writes: "Not only was Russia handicapped with a mediaeval agriculture, but possessed . . . a peasantry the most ignorant, superstitious and backward that Europe could show; a peasantry not only using the wooden plough, but wishing for no better; a peasantry capable of fighting burning thatch in a cottage conflagration with gallons of milk, through superstitious dread of using water for the purpose."

And yet he proclaims that of all countries Russia was the one most suited for the first Socialist revolution. "Providence," he says (p. 87), "surely planned Russia as the stage for the first Socialist civilisation."

Providence indeed! Scientific Socialism which the Dean is supposed to have studied proves that evolution and revolutions are not haphazard affairs, dependent upon miracles. Before leaving this point, let us quote one more passage from Marx. The sound common-sense it contains becomes all the more evident when placed alongside the confused writings of the Dean:—

  "No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have been matured in the womb of the old society. Therefore, mankind always takes up only such problems as it can solve; since looking at the matter more closely, we will always find that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation." (Preface to " Critique of Political Economy.")

Clifford Allen.

[To be continued]

The Rewards of Abstinence (1943)

From the June 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

  ". . . There are so many snags that most of the smart-money boys worry themselves to death—like the first Sir John Ellerman, the smartest of the lot in his day: he successfully exploited three wars, bought low and sold high in every market, from newspapers and ships to weekly periodicals, breweries, and real estate, and died of a stroke at 71 owning property worth maybe ten millions in a slump, fifty millions in a boom, and thirty millions as the tax-gatherer finally assessed his estate for death duties."

Strand Magazine, April, 1943.

Unity: A Misdirected Fable (1943)

From the June 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Labour,” published by the T.U.C., contained in its April issue a Russian fable on unity. It tells how a fish, a swan and a crab harnessed themselves together to pull a load. The load never moved because the swan tried to fly up, the crab stepped backwards, and the fish headed for a pond. "The moral is: Unity," says "Labour."

The Daily Worker noticed the fable and retorted that the moral obviously is that the Labour Party should accept Communist affiliation.

They are both wrong. The moral is that harnessing together incompatible Socialist and non-Sucialist elements, which move by different means towards different objectives, is not unity. It produces paralysis, not progress.

The Happiest Man In The World (1943)

Film Review from the June 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

The news cinemas are now showing a 15-minute “short" with the above title, based on a short story by the American prince of short story writers, O. Henry.

The dramatisation of a tiny commonplace incident in the everyday life of capitalist society, acted by two characters only, dwarfs into insignificance all the “colossal,“ "stupendous,' etc., etc., epics of the Hollywood dope works. Briefly, the story consists in the application by a desperately anxious unemployed man from Kansas, to his brother-in-law, the transport manager of an oil company in Texas, for a job. The job is vacant, because it is deadly dangerous; driving a truck-load of nitro-glycerine. "If a wheel hits a rock, there's no truck, no load, no driver any more." The pay is high, six dollars a run. The whole action of the film consists in the dialogue between the two men in the office of Tom, the foreman. Jesse (the unemployed man) begs, pleads and entreats. Tom is adamant. "Think of your wife and kids," says he, "go back home. I'll send you something." "Tom," says Jesse, "I am thinking of 'em. I've been on relief six years. My kids' bones are soft, they've got rickets because they've been fed on relief for six years." "But you won't last a month," rejoins Tom. "Even then," says Jesse, "I'll have made 600 dollars. I can get my wife and kids some clothes and shoes, maybe even some for myself." At last Tom gives in. "All right! report to-night for your first run." Jesse is overjoyed, thanks Tom with tears in his eyes, as he steps out into the sun, and remarks, "I guess I'm the happiest man in the world."

This is the sort of thing that takes places often in capitalist society, especially in the prosperous United States of America.

How farcical the chatter about "freedom from want" in a society based on a tiny minority giving the vast majority "jobs"—which the majority must have or starve. And how trifling the uneasy qualms of humanitarian pacifists about human life—in war time only. Working men are slaughtered every day in peace time for capitalist profits.

This short film, which exposes the misery created by capitalism like a lightning flash in a dark sky, is the prototype of what might be possible when the Socialist Party has sufficient resources to apply modern technical developments, like the cinema, to the task of Socialist propaganda.

Horatio.

Blogger's Note:

Sadly, I couldn't find the short film on YouTube, but I did find the text of the original short story on a Russian website. The bare bones of the story - as described by 'Horatio' in his review - suggests the short story might have been the inspiration for Clouzot's 'The Wages of Fear'.

It turns out that the original story was not by O. Henry but by Albert Maltz, an American Communist writer of that period. The story first appeared in the June 1938 issue of Harper's Magazine. It was an honest mistake by 'Horatio' (Harry Young) because the short story was in fact the recipient of the O. Henry Award for 1938. An award given out annually for outstanding short stories.

Who Rules Britain? (1943)

From the June 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Who are the Real Rulers of Britain?

This question was set and replied to by Professor H. J. Laski and Captain L. D. Gammans, Conservative M.P. for Hornsey, in the New York Times, and reprinted in the Evening Standard (March 29th and 30th, 1943).

That such a question should be debated at all in the pages of the capitalist press may surprise some of our readers. However, this issue is common topic among the workers here, whilst the dollar kings of the United States find it useful occasionally to deride the feudal moss with which British capitalism is still bedecked.

Professor Laski’s contribution is useful—so far as it goes. But it only goes half-way. For reasons best known to himself, the Professor shrinks at the implications of some of his own conclusions. Where he does not shrink, he clothes the living facts his article does contain with the cap and gown of academic jargon.

Here is how Professor Laski begins.

“The law which constitutes the form of government," wrote Saint-Simon nearly a century and a half ago, “is less important as it touches the happiness of a people—far less—than the law which constitutes property. It is the law of property which determines the real character of the people."

This is merely a half-truth. It draws a distinction between ownership of property and the mode of government. This distinction does not exist. The political constitution of a country corresponds to the needs of its property-owners, the people who own and control the means of life. In Britain the government depends on adult suffrage, and minorities are allowed to express contrary opinions. But to appreciate this fact does not mean that we must endow the British ruling-class with virtues they do not possess.

Professor Laski evidently feels under an obligation to the British ruling- class for their “permission" of political democracy. Such “permission," however, is not the prerogative of rulers. It is a historical product, based upon the needs of capitalism at a particular stage of its development. The decisive fact is this: That this particular form of governmental laws alone enables the owning class of Britain to secure the support of a majority of the population.

Having conceded to the mass of the people the right to elect their rulers, the question stands: Who does, in fact, control political power in this country?

Professor Laski answers, and rightly answers, that it is “the propertied class or their representatives . . . in whose hands all the vital controls of State power remains."

He goes on to specify the ruling-class elements in detail.

"Politically, the ruling class expresses its purpose through the Conservative Party. Anyone who analyses the composition of this Party in the House of Commons cannot avoid the conclusion that its essential purpose is the protection of the interests of private property in the means of production. Forty-four per cent, of them are directors of public companies; between them they hold nearly 1.800 directorships. All important economic interests are represented there—banks, insurance, railways, shipping, iron, steel, engineering, textiles, electricity supply, coal, oil, tobacco, foodstuffs, newspapers, and so forth."

On the role of our land-owning aristocracy he is equally enlightening:

“The great aristocrat of to-day is not merely a landowner. Like the Duke of Montrose, he may be a banker; like Lord Burghley . . .  he may be a director of a railroad, a bank and an insurance company. And if to persons in the Conservative Party connected with the peerage we add members who hold either a baronetcy or a knighthood, we find that nearly 250 members of the House of Commons out of 815 fall into this category."

So far, so good. Since the demise of the Liberal Party after the last war, it is undeniably the Conservative Party which embodies the will and the interests of the propertied class in Britain. But then comes a gap in the argument. Professor Laski is completely silent on the two periods during which a Labour Government was in office. True, on both occasions it was a minority in the House of Commons (though in the second period—1929-1931—they constituted the largest single party in the House). The Professor’s silence is easily understood when it is born in mind that he himself is a prominent member of the Labour Party. For flowing logically from his own arguments is the inescapable conclusion that on both occasions the Labour Government willingly acted as caretakers for the property of the British capitalists.

Here is revealed the fundamental flaw in Professor Laski’s contribution. For there is no recognition of the fact that no matter which party assumes the responsibilities of government, whether it be Conservative, Labour or any other movement which may arise in the future, real power will remain secure with the owning class, so long as the avowed programmes of these parties—their labels notwithstanding—do not solely aim at the expropriation of the present owners of the means of production, etc., and their transference to ownership by the whole of society.

This is Socialism and, of course. Professor Laski's Labour Party does not aim at Socialism. Perhaps that is why he ends his article by asking tamely “whether Britain's ruling-class will adapt itself to post-war conditions by maintaining and extending its well-known capacity for compromise." As if the abolition of capitalism could ever be a matter for compromise!

Nevertheless, the substance of his article merited a better rejoinder than the naive platform-foolery which serves Captain Gammans as "argument."

"The majority of the British people," he says, “will have none of Professor Laski's Marxian theories of class struggles."

And again: "He has revived the theory of the ruling-class conception of government which the British electorate time and time again has refused to accept, and which to-day is as dead as the dodo in British political life."

But the issue of this debate is not which view a majority of the electorate appear to hold at the present time. The allegation which Professor Laski makes and which, as quoted above, is backed up by facts and figures, is that the propertied class impose their political rule  through the Conservative Party. This allegation Captain Gammans does not attempt to refute. The mass of the people, including the workers, seem to have all kinds of ideas floating in their heads, from Churchill-worship to astrology. To what extent these ideas correspond to the realities of the world to-day is quite a different matter. Captain Gammans certainly appears to hold a very low opinion of the intelligence of people when he makes the following claim:

"With two short intervals, the Conservative Party was in power during the twenty years between the two wars. There is no reason for it to be very much ashamed of its record at home."

This is the kind of statement calculated to bring even the deadest of dodos back to life. Mass unemployment, slums, the wholesale reduction of the workers' standard of living (enforced, as in the case of the miners in 1926, by a lockout), all this pitiful record of poverty and downright starvation imposed consciously and deliberately on a people by the wealthiest ruling-class that ever existed—culminating in a world war! It is obviously not in the nature of a ruling-class to have any sense of shame.

Captain Gammans attempts to bolster up his boast by a reference to the social services which he claims "have effected an almost unbelievable improvement in the health and general well-being of the community."

The emphasis here must certainly be placed on the word "unbelievable." Enquiries conducted previous to the war by nutrition experts, such as Sir John Boyd-Orr, revealed that at least a third of the nation did not receive a sufficient income per head to provide themselves with the minimum food required to maintain a reasonable standard of health. And has Captain Gammans asked the Army Medical authorities to give him the percentage figures of working-class recruits found in good health?

What seems to have escaped the Captain's notice altogether is this question:

How is it that one section of the population is in a position to dole out social services and another, a majority, is forced to accept them in order to keep alive?

Surely the answer to that question alone can tell us who rules Britain.

Sid Rubin